bookbanner
CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR'S BOOKS

Thursday, August 31, 2006

YARRRR VOTE FOR ME

buccaneer
There are a lot of different candidates running for various offices across America this year. Come November each state will be able to choose from many men and women that hold a variety of positions on topics, and almost all of them when elected will proceed to loot the public for various personal projects and personal gain.

But only one of them is openly campaigning as a pirate. In Iowa James Hill is running for congress in the first district, setting himself apart by taking no money from anyone, and and calling for people to chain whip him if he ever rides in a limo.
What you see is what you get. I am the only drunken Pirate seeking office in this great nation. What a sad testimonial to our political system when a degenerate like me, feels like the most honest candidate on the ballot.
James Hill is open about his failings and questionable history, he makes no bones about being a moral and trustworthy man - except with the public's trust and money.
I would have your wife right in front of you. I would smoke the last of your glaucoma medication. Then I will surely drink your liquor cabinet dry. However, know this my friend. I will never break an oath to uphold the public trust. My affidavit will be signed in my own blood. A Pirates crimson mark, with real binding effects into my after life.
At the very least he's an entertaining difference from the usual parade of stuffed shirts, lawyers, and poseurs that run for public office. He holds a variety of populist positions on things and while I doubt he has even a shred of a chance of winning, I'd be tempted to vote for him just on general principle that he can't be any worse than the bums we usually have in office.

Incidentally, the picture shown here is one of Captain Jack's Pirate Hats (the buccaneer), hand-made pirate gear.
[technorati icon]

BEST DRIVING

"California is a massive automotive proving ground."

Jeep
Forbes Magazine is fond of best of lists, they do such lists about nearly every topic. In fact, I've found a few good blogs to use here from their "best blogs" lists, although I disagree that their choices are necessarily best.

The most recent best of list that Forbes put out is part of their World's Best Driving Roads. Like all best of- lists, they please no one, even the person who compiled them. But Forbes tried to avoid mere opinion and focus on science:
But the roads we have showcased as the world's finest are not based on our opinions; they are based upon the opinions of experts, including automotive executives and chief engineers. We asked for their opinions with no qualifications, allowing them to call certain roads their favorites for any reasons they chose.
To get the list and see the roads, you can see a brief slide show, but you'll have to buy their magazine to get the real story. Autoblog, however, picked up the story and had this to say:

So who was chosen to give away their favorite drives? Some pretty big names of the motoring world. People like Danica Patrick, Chrysler's Tom LaSorda, John Walton of Aston Martin, Skip Barber and Bob Lutz, just to name a few.

No surprise to us west-coasters, but many of the roads highlighted are found in the Golden State. Some focus around the Pacific coastline, while others are further inland. Accompanying the article is a photo gallery that provides maps of the selected stretches of tarmac, all of which will bestow the consummate gearhead with the one thing that makes our lives that much more complete; speed, twists and that soothing shot of adrenalin that seems to make everything right in our world.

Then, they solicited their commenters, who eagerly replied with their selections:
I haven't visited most of these locations (only 1 of 10, I think), I can't speak to their greatness.

However, I can't recommend the Hana Highway and Maui enough. Beautiful scenery. Great towns to stop in and savor some exotic flavor. Have I mentioned the crazy, blind, 1 lane turns yet?
-by Swat Lax


Honestly, you really can't appreciate what a car has to offer until your drive it in California on the beautiful roads that wind past the coast or carve through the mountains. Everytime I visit CA, I keep pushing for the sportiest upgrade available.

Appalachia has some awesome roads too, but California is in a whole other league.

There is a pretty sweet stretch of two-lane that winds through the canyons of Kauai (Hawaii), but that is not as accessible to most drivers.

But like I was saying, and Damon you know this, California is a massive automotive proving ground.
-by Randall Halcomb


Some lameness:

LaSorda likes 17 Mile Drive because there are plenty of places to stop. Because that's what you want to do on a great driving road: stop.

Welburn likes the PA Turnpike?! Not quite a two-laner. Maybe it's got some curves. But a turnpike as best road?

Car & Driver used to have a "ten best roads" every few years. I compiled a list from that a while back. Much more informative than this article. I drove a couple that made the list multiple times, WV16 and OH26, in an RX-8 last summer. Total blast. It might not be the most cosmopolitan part of the country, but West Virginia and the neighboring part of Ohio is hard to beat for roads.

My RX-8 review based on that drive
-by Michael Karesh


Not the best nationwide, I'm sure, but if you're in the area, River Road from Morrisville, PA, through New Hope, and on until you reach near Easton, PA. Gorgeous views of the Delaware River, good little S-turns, and a serious series of side roads to venture off into. There are a few towns where you'd be a complete a-hole not to slow down to the recommended 20 mph, but more the most part, you can keep it to a nice 50 and still have some fun. At its best by far in late October. Just don't get stuck behind a slowpoke.
-by dave


I guess to be really great you have to have spectacular scenery, too, but I'll take my fun roads where I find them, so:

There's this really nice stretch east of Bloomington, IN that I know of, where there is just a yellow sign at each end with a squiggly arrow and the words "Next 15 miles"....

And there is this stretch of US27 in Kentucky and Tennessee that is pretty amazing...and there is US50 through the Wayne Natl Forest in IN...and Route 66 between Flagstaff and the Colorado River, where it winds way up to this crazy little mining town where the burros run free and around each blind corner you are liable to meet a 40'RV or a yahoo in a pickup who may or may not be in your "lane"...

Heck, there's pretty great places to drive just about everywhere...except South Texas, which is one of the many reasons I'm leaving and never looking back!
-by mike


I had the opportunity as a kid (13~ years old) to ride down the Pacific coast through Monterey and what not, VERY beautiful. To be honest I have to agree with the article that not much on the East coast could rival that. I did get to check out Deals Gap / Tail of the Dragon earlier this year though when I was making the trek home with my Lotus Elise and it was pretty damn fun. I met up with two friends (other Elise owners) in Atlanta and we headed up to Deals Gap. I had never been before but they were pretty familiar with the area so I was able to follow them and rely on their experience.

It's not the prettiest area (looks a lot like Kentucky, where I'm from) but it is easily one of the BEST roads in the US. The curves are all pretty tight, most are banked to allow for full throttle / gut dropping turns, plenty of visible (non blind) curves and not enough straight areas to put you into a turn too fast. Deals Gap is a road that truly excites when you have a car that can hold its momentum through a curve. We were there on a Friday morning before most of the visitors had showed up, I think that helped in allowing us some runs with little to no interuptions.

You can see some photos from our trip there at my Elise blog...
-by Lotus Elise


I'm with Roy, how did the blue ridge parkway, and its side roads (such as the dragon) not make this list?

Granted this is one of the ones that will go onto the list of motorcycle clogged roads: http://www.tailofthedragon.com/

there are many roads up in the northern US rockies also that warrant mention: US12 from Missoula, MT to Kooskia, ID; US16 in Wyoming as it crosses the Bighorn Range west of Buffalo, WY (crests at 10k feet... some cars run out of breath up there); US287 from Dubois into Grand Teton Nat'l Park is pretty spectacular as well, with views of 14000 foot peaks (both the Tetons and Wind River Ranges)

there are many others, too many to list out there... (though some were better before Montana reinstated speed limits)

and who can forget pikes peak??
-by Tim UF
So... where's your favorite driving road?
[technorati icon]

911, REMEMBERED

"It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done"
-Charles Dickens (Tale of Two Cities)

Galveston Flood Damage
Hurricane Katrina hit the United States about five years ago, and the devastation was incredible, especially to New Orleans, but to several states across the Gulf of Mexico. Homes were demolished, businesses lost, lives taken, and landscape forever changed. Although the hurricane was not the most deadly to hit the United States, the damage and shock was compounded by the flooding, particularly in New Orleans, much of which is actually below sea level.

When old, inadequate levees were hit by the storm surge (the rising level of water pushed by incredibly high winds over the past days), they were chewed out from underneath then crumbled under the weight and pressure. Inadequate emergency preparation in the city combined with slow response and poor organization by FEMA, and the result was very difficult, even lethal for New Orleans residents. Many have never returned. All in all, Hurricane Katrina cost at least $200,000,000,000 in damage over 900,000 square miles, displacing millions.

All of this is old news, right? You've read this a thousand times, seen the endless news coverage, watched the specials, and on TV there are year-anniversary specials on every week. So why talk about it again?

One of the reasons is a reminder of the people who suffered, the area is still struggling to rebuild. Another is a memorial of the people who died, to honor their lives taken in a storm. And yet another reason is to be a nudge so that the people in charge might do a better job next time, to remember and to respond better to the emergency. Mayor Nagin of New Orleans and Governor Blanco, not to mention their legislators, can use the reminder to do a better job in the next storm. FEMA can use a nudge to set up their emergency response better.

Yet it has been 5 years since the terrorist attacks on the eleventh of September, 2001, and how many retrospectives have there been on television? How many memorial shows, how many specials about 9/11? You can count them on one hand, whereas Katrina has had ten times as many or more. It's as if the media understands the importance of emphasizing and focusing on the latter, while the former they'd just as soon forget.

Putting aside politics and the reason why this is true, this blog is one of thousands of others that have been assigned a single victim of the tragic events on 9/11 to memorialize and remember. One person who was cruelly, brutally murdered by hate-filled, death-worshipping Islamofascists.

The name I have been given is Emilio Ortiz, a man who went by Peter, and he'll be on my sidebar for the time being. On the 11th of next month, I'll do a closer look at this victim of terrorism.

But for now I want to explain why it is important we remember 9/11. Many people even on the right scoff at the repeated reminders of these events, saying by doing so we are being terrorized, that the terrorists win. That it wasn't that huge an event in the big picture, that it was isolated, and that you are acting like a craven wimp for remembering the day.

What motivates this can be a variety of things, not the least of which is actual fear and a desire to ignore it because of the emotions and concerns it brings up that many would just rather not face. But they are right, in a sense. While this was a shocking event and it is a great, sad, and horrifying tragedy for the people and families directly involved, it was not as big a catastrophe as has hit America in the past. The Galveston flood, for instance, had two to three times as many casualties. While the events were spectacular and memorable, in terms of loss and life, they really weren't that immense.

But the reason for memory isn't about loss of life. When Pearl Harbor was struck, just over 2,000 people died - fewer than on 9/11 - and most of them were military in a military strike. But when this happened, the nation was shocked and galvanized into war, led by a strong, visionary president, and reminded by Pearl Harbor of why they were fighting and sacrificing.

World War Two lasted from December 1941 until August of 1945. During that time, the people of the United States went without many things we consider necessities, let alone luxuries. Things like nylon stockings for women, beef, gasoline enough to do more than drive to work a couple times a week, sugar, butter, cheese, even tires for your car. People were constantly reminded by posters of the fight and the reason for it, were shown in movies what was happening, what had happened, and reminded of Pearl Harbor. Hollywood was a willing and ready supporter once Hitler had invaded Russia, and pitched in with their own war effort with film after film.

What do we have today? The president, while visionary and having strength at the beginning of this war on terror, called for everyone to go about their business as if nothing had happened. To ignore the terrorist strike, to go shopping, to not be afraid. And in the process, people are forgetting what happened, why we fight, and what the importance of this is. Hollywood, driven by an agenda to eliminate the presidency and get their favorite guys back in power, is disinclined to put out movies that even show Arabs or Muslims as bad guys in any context, let alone history.

When a movie about the events on Flight 93 came out, it was controversial, too soon! Cried many, it was propaganda! Oliver Stone's World Trade Center (avoiding 9/11) is not about the terrorist strike, not about the need to fight evil, the terrorists are barely portrayed in any sense. The movie instead focuses on the lives of the firefighters, how the country came together, how we responded so well. That's great, but contrast it with this from The Lost Patriots of Hollywood Michelle Malkin:
During World War II, Tinseltown roused the country’s fighting spirit instead of trying to stifle it. In February 1941, the entertainment industry convened an extraordinary Academy Awards ceremony. The president of the Motion Picture Association, independent movie mogul and World War I pilot and intelligence officer Walter Wanger, went out of his way to use the Academy Award ceremony to support the war effort. Wanger invited President Roosevelt to address the crowd.
This was before Pearl Harbor. To date, we've seen a grand total of zero films about the heroes of the War on Terror, zero films about the terrorists and their hate of the US, zero films about the war in Iraq - unless you count the outrageous lies and distortion of Fahrenheit 911. We've seen zero films about the 38,000 Bronze Stars, 11,700 Purple Hearts and 195 Silver Stars so far in this struggle, heroes all. Where's the movie about Pat Tillman, about the evil of Saddam Hussein ala Schindler's List? Where are the movies showing the heroism, sacrifice, and efforts of the soldiers of the coalition fighting terrorism? We've seen no posters reminding us of the battle, no public service announcements, and few speeches by the president. Even Time Magazine asks Where Are the War Movies?

Why does it matter? The same reason Pearl Harbor mattered and is so much a part of our consciousness that recently Michael Bay put out a woeful reenactment of the events in a summer blockbuster. Because it's a constant reminder of why we are in this war, of why it's important to fight, of why we must keep the effort up to do the job, a memorial to the people who died, and a back-stiffener to prevent any more from dying. Because it was such a key event in our history that we should remember it and what it meant.

In WW2, people put up with rationing, family members gone at war for years at a time with few if any letters, news reports weeks old and an enemy so strong nobody was sure if we'd win for much of the war. Today, if we have to wait in line a bit longer at the airport or not bring fingernail clippers on a plane we throw a fit. The American people now aren't any weaker or more cretinous than in 1944. We just aren't being reminded of why we put up with this. We aren't part of the fight, feeling like part of the struggle when we sacrifice rather than being put upon by a government that doesn't seem to know what it's doing.

We can't make Hollywood figure out that a movie portraying Americans fighting terrorism would be a huge hit, we can't make TV news put out retrospectives on terrorism and 9/11 at least as often as Hurricane Katrina, we can't make the Bush administration or the Pentagon put out a bigger effort at reminding people of the war, of telling us what we're fighting for. What we can do is remember, each of us, and honor those heroes and the dead.

Remember 9/11. Remember the heroes.

*UPDATE: If you want to sign up to be one of the blogs commemorating the men and women murdered on 9/11 by terrorists, the 2996 project is where to turn.
[technorati icon]

Quote of the day

"The greatest concentration of wealth in America is not with big corporations or with private citizens. It is in Washington, D.C. and the people that have it take it through the force of law."
-Rush Limbaugh
[technorati icon]

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

HEAP BIG LIAR

"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters."
- Frank Lloyd Wright

Ward Churchill
Ward Churchill has been dismissed from his job, and rightly so. He was a fraud, an inventor of events, a liar about his past and heritage, and a plagiarist who repeatedly and shamelessly copied from other writers for his dissertations and professional writings. The man was an embarrassment to Colorado University, one that they reluctantly let go despite his blatant violation of not only their but academia's policies in general.

The fact that he's a screaming moonbat nutcase is his own prerogative; all it did was serve to bring to light these other facts about his woeful past and blatant lack of qualification for the job. Colorado University fought long and hard to find a way to retain this man, and finally had to let him go. But why try to keep such a poor choice in a position he does not deserve? Why did CU have such a hard time with this decision?

A petition is running around that is in support of "Courageous Ward Churchill" which seeks to get him his job back. Why? Well, firing a professor is a dangerous attack on academic freedom, that it puts professors under the sinister control of conservatives:
The actions of the University of Colorado in this case constitute a serious threat to academic freedom. They indicate that public controversy is dangerous and potentially lethal to the careers of those who engage it. They suggest that professors—tenured and untenured alike—serve at the pleasure of politicians and pundits. They call into question standards of scholarship and peer review at Colorado 's flagship institution. They endanger not only those scholars working in that area where historical inquiry, critical social commentary, and political activism intersect—an area that defines the true locus of academic freedom in an open and democratic society—but also those historically disenfranchised "others" who are struggling to have their perspectives and programs represented in, and legitimized by, the academic mainstream. Thus, for a variety of reasons that go well beyond the scholarship and politics of a particular individual, we urge the University of Colorado to reverse its decision to fire Professor Ward Churchill.
The Australian American blog Coalition of the Swilling examines this petition, fisking it carefully and pointing out what isn't said and what is a problem. Some of the things he points out is that the writers of this petition conspicuously avoid talking about the truth. They talk about academic freedom and censorship, but try to minimize the significance of a professor breaking the rules of his job and lying openly and repeatedly about himself and in his work. Some samples:
They indicate that public controversy is dangerous and potentially lethal to the careers of those who engage it.

No, they hopefully show that lying to get your job, and being promoted way over your head or qualifications (only a Masters degree from a school whose name he even misspells on his website), will someday come around and bite you and the racist fools who hired you very publically in the ass; and that can only be a good thing.

They suggest that professors—tenured and untenured alike—serve at the pleasure of politicians and pundits.

No, they suggest that these people should be -gasp- actually qualified.

This petition is signed - admitted on the website - by many of the members of David Horowitz' Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. Over 400 professors have signed it, a who's who of familiar radicals to people in academia.

Commenter Jim Paine of Pirate Ballerina has a counter petition up:
While there are a number of petitions supporting everyone's favorite professor, there's only one that calls for his firing: the PirateBallerina "Fire Ward Churchill" Statement of Support.
-by Jim Paine
And over at All Things Conservative, commenters included one of the signatories, Peter Kirstein. Said Dr Kirstein's previous kindly letter to a soldier is included in the article.
You know, I certainly respect people's right to speak--but when someone is a known fraud and says some despicable things about 9/11, we should be condemning him, not supporting him...400 signatures!!??
-by Richard


You misquoted my email to Cadet Kurpiel. I wrote "without AAA". It would be counterintuitive to criticise American bombing of nations WITH AAA. We bomb countries without AAA (anti-aircraft artillery) like the criminal Zionist entity (State of Israel)did in their genocidal war crimes in Iraq.

Also I did NOT initiate the petition to prevent Professor Churchill's dismissal but am merely a signatory.

I appreciate your correcting your errors.

Sincerely and the struggle continues.

I meant Israeli attacks in Lebanon not Iraq. I correct the mistake.
-by Peter N. Kirstein


When you're a deluded, hate-filled freak, it's easy to confuse the United States with the "criminal Zionist entity," and Lebanon with Iraq. As David Duke -- someone who shares the good professor's loathings -- might say, they all look alike.

Some struggle.
-by Nigel Tufnel


Doc, better you should correct your mistake of supporting an academic fraud, racial pretender and despicable America-hating bigot: Ward Churchill.

That you defend him on grounds of academic freedom is particularly offensive and merely contributes to the growing dissatisfaction with Ivory Tower cluelessness which will one day being REAL suppression - regrettably - on the rabidly anti-American campuses of this nation.
-by Anonymous


I'm sorry, when did I miss that Ward was being denied his right to free speech? He is hopefully being fired for being an academic fraud and a plagarist, but the fact that he was being hauled off to one of AshKKKroft's gulags in North Dakota truly is startling news.

Welcome, mind you, but startling, none-the-less.
-by Mr Bingley


It's illuminating to hold your nose and click through to Kirstein's blog. You will see his defense of the odious Churchill is based solely on violation of sacred professorial tenure; not a single response to the many substantiated serious charges against him which were the basis for Churchill's firing.

Apparently in Kirstein's opinion, once tenured a professor is inviolate, no matter what professional misconduct he indulges in.
-by anonymous
Bottom line, you have the right to make an ass of yourself... but not on my dime. You have the right to say what you want, but you can't lie and foment rebellion, plagiarize, and invent "facts" and keep your job as a professor.

*UPDATE: I was off by about 10,000 miles on where Coalition of the Swilling is from.
[technorati icon]

HUMOURLESS LEFT

"I wonder if Warren Kinsella thinks it's okay to listen to The Dead Kennedy's or is their name too slanderous."

Hezbolib logo
Granted, a sense of humor and being jolly is not exactly the first thing that comes to mind when one describes politicians. But it seems that some are even more humorless than usual. In Canada, there is a satire website called Hezboliberal that had some fun at the expense of liberal politicians in that great nation. With articles such as "MP searches Middle-East for terrorism, finds Israel" the site satirized the attitudes and approach to terrorism that the left takes all too often.

Ezra Levant over at Western Standard blog went to the site and found that their usual content was missing, in it's place an explanation why:

The grown-up answer to a satirical website like that is to laugh it off. But the Liberal party is hurting right now, so it lashed out against the pranksters -- pressuring their internet service provider (ISP) to censor the site.

If you go check Hezboliberal at the time of this writing you'll find the text of the letter sent to their ISP. The letter alleges that this website is both (?) slanderous and libelous, and that they violate copyright and trademark laws. However, the previous content is being mirrored on Western Standard's site so you can check it out if you want. Mr Levant continues:

I'm a defamation lawyer, and there's nothing defamatory about that website that isn't protected by the defence of fair comment (let alone truth, which is an absolute defence). I don't think Mr. Régimbald is a defamation lawyer, because his taxonomy -- calling the website slanderous, which is typically a term of art reserved for spoken defamation -- shows an unfamiliarity with the law. But this is all treating the letter too seriously. It is not a legitimate legal complaint: there is no defamation here. And the claims of copyright and trademark violations are ridiculous, too -- this website is clearly a parody, not an attempt to actually pass itself off as the real Liberal Party.

Ezra gives a bit of legal analysis, then goes on to the main point.

This is not a legal action by the Liberals. This is called bullying -- where the once-mighty "natural governing party", now flailing around in impotence, rage and debt, tries to lash out at some little guys and, worse, their ISP.

I happen to agree with the sentiments of the HezboLiberal pranksters -- I think the Liberal party deserves a shellacking over their pro-terrorist temporizing. But that's not what really makes me mad here, and it's not what makes our magazine come to the aid of the website. What makes me mad is that the Liberals are bullying critics on the internet, and getting away with it.

Neither he nor I are expecting the legacy media who willingly avoided printing the Mohammed cartoons that sparked (delayed, much calculated) Muslim riots last year to report on this or step up to their defense.

Commenters reacted:

Since when has the Left ever had a sense of humour? Their reaction is also very representative; use whatever means to shut down dissenting discourse.

Are they not the same people who invented every possible lie to scare voters away from "Scary Harper" with all the help of MSM? Maybe they should change the name from liberal to libility party.
-by Alain


Bravo, Ezra!

In this country, the liberals in all kinds of institutions--nearly all institutions ARE liberal these days!--talk and talk about reducing the bullying: I'm a teacher, so I should know. And, you know what? The more the lefties talk, the more the bullies bully.

The kids are told, in hushed tones, that not supporting the bullied and not standing up to the bully makes one an enabler.

Then see what the Liberals do when someone decides not to enable. But, of course, the Liberal Party IS the bully, so what else would one expect? As always, adult toddlers!

Thanks, WS, for what you're doing here: supporting the bullied and taking on the bully. A+!
-by lookout


The "Youth for Volpe" site was hilarious. The HezboLiberal folks don't quite measure up, but they have potential. I agree, Ez, that the "lawyer" who wrote that letter ain't to bright. I don't have a law degree (just a good command of the English language) and that "slanderous and libelous" comment struck me as a sure sign of someone who does not know what he is talking about.

But it would be interesting to see what they might argue in court. I mean, do they really want to be in the position of trying to explain why they think it reasonable that the Canadian public might take the site seriously? Probably not. Maybe we will find out what they have to say. Or maybe they just drop it. If they have any common sense (or one working legal mind in the party), they'll drop it.
-by Mark Logan


Thanks, Ezra, for that information. I previously wasn't sure whether or not the use of a registered trademark was legitimate grounds for concern, under the law, but now I understand better the degree to which this is a matter of intimidation, not a matter of brand protection.

You know, when I signed up for charter membership for the Western standard about 2.5 years ago, I did so because based on the roster of columnists, I thought it would be a useful read. But I never thought the place of the Western Standard would be so important in the defense of liberty.

Once again, my heartiest thanks to Mr. Levant and the staff and writers at the Western Standard.
-by Vitruvius


I thought we were told it was the conservatives who were stifling speech and taking away our rights. Maybe they need to look in a mirror. Very good column. I sent the site to my friends, they wanted to see it to believe that we were not alone in our fight in the US.
-by Sal


WHO do these Librano$ think they are? Rulers–by Divine Right? If their threats and lawyers weren’t so pathetic they would almost be funny. Ha, ha.

The “tolerant,” “open,” “diverse” lefties show their hand again, which is tyrannical, harbours no dissent, and comes down hard on anyone or any group that crosses them.

In any other situation, this would be called violence. But I guess it’s OK to be abusive towards people and groups the Libs disagree with. That’s called self-defence. If you have absolutely no sense of humour, no integrity, and no scruples about being A-one a**holes, this is just business as usual: Squash any dissension, usually using tax dollars. I guess it’s just beinning to dawn on them that they no longer have access to the bottomless tax-dollar coffers. Too bad guys. Boo hoo. Oh: THAT’s why you’re threatening to sue…you need the money.

Ezra, you've got their number, BIG-TIME!!! LOL
Thanks for standing in the gap again. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. WAY TO KICK ASS, EZRA AND WESTERN STANDARD!!!
-by 'been around the block



Well, I guess it all just demonstrates that the "great minds" of the Conservative party such as tiny Ezra are just as silly, childish and vapid as the Warren Kinsella's of this world and the old rat pack.

Gosh, what an impressively high level of debate from the chorus of like-minders who have never had an original thought of their own.

I would be surprised if it weren't the lowest of the current motley crew of nobodies and political hacks, Pierre Poilievre or Mrs. Poilievre (some call "him" John Baird) who was behind the childish and unfunny stunt. But is was sure to get Ezra's attention, as after all, that's about the only thing he was ever known for on the hill - staging silly stunts to pander to a lazy media.

As for Conservatives being able to take it as well as dish it out? Are you kidding? I can only imagine the bombast and fury that would follow any similar effort to depict current little PM Stevie "infallible" Harper.

You guys are hilarious, but not for the reasons you think.
-by Torywatcher


torywatcher,

sour grapes my man?

rembember the hitler moustaches on Harper by your CBC and the guns in the street ..

It's the Liberals who are scary, not the conservatives.

Let me complete our argument so you don't have to.

R2
R not
R2
R not

There, I guess that covers it.
-by Duke


Living in suburban Windsor (aka the Detroit area), watching Hockey Night In Canada on CBET, and drinking Molson's Golden, I feel a kinship to my southern neighbors (look at the map) - at least the ones who aren't complete lefty moonbats. One year we took some friends who had just immigrated to the US from the USSR to the big Int'l Freedom Festival fireworks show on the Detroit River. Normally, we would have gone to Windsor because Dieppe Park (would that most Canadians knew that little bit of history) is less crowded than downtown Detroit and you get a better view of the pyrotechnics. However, our friends hadn't yet gotten their Green Cards so they couldn't cross the border. When I told him about our normal viewing site, he said he didn't like Canada. "Too much so-shi-a-lism in Canada."

Anyway, in response to the Liberal's thin skin I sent the following email to Mr. Régimbald (who I noticed did not send a bilingual letter):

Dear Monsieur Régimbald,

Please be advised that the parodied use of the Liberal Party of Canada's logo is perfectly legal *north of the border here in the United States no matter what Canadian Copyright and Trademarks laws say.

Please ask your party to advocate removing any jihadis or other Muslim extremists from Canada using any appropriate methods.

I trust you will govern yourself accordingly, eh?

-by Ronnie Schreiber


ProtesterIt does seem that the left politically are less "peace and love" and more "do it my way or I'll rap your knuckles with this ruler" than they used to be. Few smiles are seen, little kindness, but there is a lot of bitterness, anger, frustration, and tooth-gritting rage that sometimes breaks into actual violence. Peace, lefties.

*NOTE: I used an extra U I had lying around in tribute to the Canadian spelling. Apparently the British have a lot of spare U's around they just throw any old where.

[technorati icon]

HIT AND RUN SUV

"Can you imagine, if someone had (God forbid!) driven a car into 14 gay people, how quickly the press would have managed to cover the story?"

Hit and run victim
CLogging is catching on (Comments-Logging, such as this site does). Michelle Malkin has a story about a driver in San Francisco who ran amuck driving around hitting people and finally ending in front of the Jewish Community Center. Whether by coincidence he ended his rampage there or not, he spent a lot of time hitting people on Bush street as well. This man was a Muslim, of middle eastern origin, and while there's no proof or testimony to the idea of this as some one-man terrorist rampage or it being connected to Jews or President Bush, the coincidences are odd, to say the least.

Another odd detail is the fixation news stories have of referring to SUVs as committing the crimes in question or being responsible for accidents. I have yet to read about a pickup being the one crashing into schoolkids or hitting people, no station wagons or sports cars. But whenever something happens while someone is driving a sports utility vehicle, they almost always refer to the SUV rather than the driver as responsible. Here's how the San Francisco Chronicle puts it:
The SUV struck two people in front of the Jewish Community Center of San Francisco on California Street, a few blocks from where the rampage ended.
...
Architect Jeremy Warms also saw police pull Popal out of the SUV and sit him down on the curb.
...
Emanule Gowan, 50, said he had been standing on his Steiner Street doorstep around 1 p.m. when an SUV roared by, driving the wrong way down Bush Street, and hit an elderly man in the crosswalk
...
Other witnesses described the SUV as jumping the sidewalk in apparent pursuit of pedestrians.
...
The SUV struck two people in front of the Jewish Community Center of San Francisco on California Street, a few blocks from where the rampage ended.
...etc
This kind of repetitive use of a type of vehicle is not accidental or coincidental. Typically writers try to avoid using the same word over and over, but apparently there's an exception for the term "SUV."

CBS Channel 5 has the same kind of theme:
An FBI agent on his lunch break was also struck by the suspect's SUV in the vicinity of the Federal Building.
...
Jennifer Sawle, 33, of San Francisco, said she was headed eastbound on California Street when she saw the SUV driving recklessly in the other direction, around 1:15 pm.
...
The SUV "went speeding in reverse on Bush (Street) heading west, weaving in and out of traffic," she said. "The whole right side of his SUV was smashed in."

Michelle Malkin covered the story, then solicited her gazillion readers for more information on the area

Bay Area readers, I have a question: What can you tell us all about the intersections and locations of the vehicular assaults? Is there a large Jewish population in Laurel Heights?

But San Francisco is not really broken up into ethnic blocks like some towns except in Chinatown. Like my home town, San Francisco can change radically block to block from poverty to great wealth.

Her readers gladly responded, with some highlights:
I lived in SF and worked very near the Jewish Community Center there, located at Presidio and California. To say the Presidio (as it's known) is a "Jewish" area is not quite accurate.
-by Kirk K.

This whole thing went down a block from my apartment and I disagree with Kirk's assessment. Three of the incidents appear to have happened on Bush street, which is a one-way street going west to east. [map of area] To me this looks like a methodical, circuitous expedition ending at the JCC.
-by Chuck

Kirk K. is corrects that Pine St. leads to an area near (though NOT directly to) the SFJCC. But I just saw a map of the incidents (pedestrians hit in SF) and clearly Popal did not take a straight path. It seems like he headed west out Pine St., double-backed on Bush St. (a one-way in the other direction) for a few blocks, then headed north tol California, where he turned westbound until he hit the SFJCC and then came to a stop about three blocks later. This is also based on a witness who saw him turn left from Pine onto Divisadero (southbound to Bush St.) and then saw him go by again westbound a few minutes later. A little confusing, I know but he clearly was driving around the neighborhood.

It is a very interesting question as to why Popal, living in Fremont (very remote from SF), chose to do most of his damage (after already killing someone in Fremont, it must be said) in this neighborhood when he had to drive through 40 miles of heavy freeway traffic and then through several more miles of dense urban traffic in SF to get there.

I was just watching KTVU 10 o’clock news and apparently one of the SF victims was black – in fact the suspect tried to run him down twice.
-by Gary R.


As you know by now, Temple Emanu-El is one of San Francisco's most distinguished synagogues, architecturally and in terms of its populous congregation. fyi, It's also somewhat left-leaning: witness the hejab-wearing woman joining her hands in Christian-like prayer in the image currently on its website. Three of its six rabbis are women, one ofwhom, Sydney Mintz, I believe is lesbian. At a service I attended there three years ago, a fellow worshipper (who otherwise was a stranger to me) let loose a gratuitous, derisive comment about President Bush. All things considered, it makes perfect sense to me that a desperate and poorly-planned jihad-derived rampage (as this one seems to be) or certainly a desperate and better-planned one would aim for Laurel Heights generally and any of these locations specifically. The JCC and Emanu-El are absolutely San Francisco's emblems of liberal, affluent and socially productive Jews.
-by Jeremiah
There's more on her site, I just grabbed some highlights from some of the writers. You'll have to go read Michelle's article to get the whole story.

Anchoress is frustrated and annoyed with the way the legacy media covers events where Arabs and Muslims are concerned:

This is becoming an appalling habit in the press and by politicians. An Islamic fundamentalist shoots Jews in a Synagogue, and it’s some sort of random incident. An Islamic fundamentalist uses his car to kill people in front of a Synagogue, and in what would appear to be a somewhat “Jewish neighborhood” and the press takes a while to cover the story (probably looking for the appropriate “frame,”) until someone in authority can be found to sing out, “ROAD RAGE”! Yeah, that’s the ticket! Road rage! Mayor Newsom sees no problem, here…a “relatively young” person, obviously confused! Yes, that’s the ticket!

A topic Tim Blair has been hitting on for a while now in the context of Australian news coverage. In No-Appearance Gang Still At Large he points out a consistent theme in the news, showing story after story where the news describes the events and a generic depiction of the people... and the police report making it clear they are Arabic and Middle Eastern in appearance. This is a deliberate attempt to avoid mentioning something.

Now, what possible motivation could news organizations have for not mentioning crimes being committed by Muslims and Arabs? Hmm, can't possibly be that this might annoy people at such a group of people and thus remind them of 9/11, terrorism, and become favorable for President Bush could it?

evil SUVThink I'm crazy? Why do you think they keep repeating the word SUV constantly in news stories, referring to the vehicle as if it is self-driven? Is it because they find the word so very attractive, or because they understand that putting a word and a type into a negative story over and over helps form a perspective on that word or type?

These people report and work with words for a living. Many major legacy media outlets deliberately avoid using the word "terrorist" by policy, not because of fear of lawsuits by said terrorists, but because they want to avoid reminding people that terrorists exist and are a problem.

That's why it's the legacy media. Because people are more and more turning to news sources that don't play these games.

*UPDATE: The driver himself in this Channel 2 San Francisco video clip says "I am a terrorist." Of course, if he said he was a turnip I wouldn't pay him a lot of heed, but given the context it seems compelling at least.
[technorati icon]

Quote of the day

"The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty."
-Abraham Lincoln
[technorati icon]

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

THE TRIAL OF HUSSEIN

"Maybe if Saddam had gassed JonBenet Ramsey instead of the Kurds, the media and the people would be interested"

Gassed Kurds
Saddam Hussein is on trial. I know, that's news, because it's not being covered much here in the United States. One almost gets the impression that it's being ignored for some reason or another, hard to guess what that might be.

But the Kurds are paying attention. This stage of the trial is going over Hussein's attempted genocide against the Kurdish people. The defense isn't even trying to say it didn't happen, they are just claiming it wasn't attempted genocide, it was just political. The Kurdistan Regional Government has a report on the trial so far.
A Kurdish woman testified Tuesday in the genocide trial of Saddam Hussein, breaking down in tears as she described how foul smoke billowed across her village in a 1987 poison gas attack and how her male relatives disappeared at a prison camp.

Najiba Khider Ahmed was one of two survivors who took the stand in the second day of Saddam's new trial over the Anfal campaign, a military sweep across northern Iraq in which tens of thousands of Kurds were killed and hundreds of villages leveled.
This isn't the first part of the trial, either. They've already tried Hussein on the killings of 148 Shiites in a 1980s crackdown on the town of Dujail. The verdict for that case will be read in October. And this isn't the last part. They are trying Hussein on several different crimes, with several different trials. Each carries the death penalty.
Ahmed and fellow Anfal survivor Ali Mostafa Hama described the April 16, 1987, bombardment of Sheik Wasan and the nearby village of Basilan, believed to be the first time Saddam's regime used chemical weapons against Iraqi citizens. After the assault, residents were rounded up into prison camps, and most of the men taken away on trucks and later executed, they said.

"I saw eight to 12 jets … There was greenish smoke from the bombs," Hama said. "It was as if there was a rotten apple or garlic smell minutes later. People were vomiting … we were blind and screaming. There was no one to rescue us. Just God."

Hama, wearing a traditional Kurdish headdress, said he saw a newborn baby die during the bombardment. "The infant was trying to smell life, but he breathed in the chemicals and died," he said, speaking in Kurdish with an Arabic translator.
Iraqi Mass GraveSaddam Hussein. You remember him, right? Here's how Tim Blair introduced this story:

Remember Saddam Hussein? Dark-haired chap, lived in a hole in the ground, killed a bunch of people? No? Had a couple of psychopathic sons, invaded Kuwait, liked firing rifles from balconies? Still nothing? Umm ... George Galloway’s friend? YES! Yes, that’s the guy. Well, seems he’s on trial for one thing or another.

Commenters at Tim Blair had this to say:
You know, you would look at a map in Iraq and it would have a village listed and then underneath it in parenthesis-destroyed.

Damn unlucky people, those Kurds.
-by 91B30


The trial must be going well, since it has been suppressed by the mainstream media. I personally wish for his execution three or four days before our election.
-by Patricia


A couple years ago I was living next door to three young Iraqi guys who had come here to the wonderful land of WOZ to start a better life. Sure enough the topic of Saddam came up sooner or later.

Much to my surprise however, they wanted him dead/out of the picture even more than Bush. As Kurds, they had somewhat of a score to settle...
-by The Wizard of WOZ

Beats me how anybody could ever have believed this man had an interest in chemical weapons.
Mystifies the Left as well.
-by stats


Here’s a good story about abandoned Kurdish villages in our AO.
-91B30


The best portal for all things Kurdish.

It is nothing short of a miracle what they are doing up there. I have so much respect for these people and their unflagging and enduring desire for cultural and religous freedom, democracy and prosperity (both indivdual and collective), I am learning the language that I might better understand this ancient folk and participate in some small way in their future.

My eternal gratitude to the United States of America and its Allies, and the doughty Peshmerga, who worked, fought and died to establish and sustain the conditions whereby this exemplary flowering of freedom and peace could flourish.

And, yes, I blame Bush.
-by MentalFloss


Maybe if Saddam had gassed JonBenet Ramsey instead of the Kurds, the media and the people would be interested...
-by Chrenkoff
I'll be updating this as I get more information. This trial won't be unnoticed here, at least.
[technorati icon]

DIPLOMACY SPACE

The Bobs from Office Space interview the UN:

BOB SLYDELL
So you say you wear blue helmets and sit in bunkers, observing as people kill each other?

UN PEACEKEEPER
That, that's right. Sometimes we give one side information about the other, if their enemy is Israel.

BOB SLYDELL
But you don't disarm anyone and don't actually have the strength to enforce any sort of peace or treaties?

UN PEACEKEEPER
We keep the peace, we're the last, best hope of mankind to stop the violence

BOB PORTER
Well, then I gotta ask, then how exactly are you keeping peace if you don't, you know, do anything?

UN PEACEKEEPER
Well, uh, uh, uh, because, uh, the flag of the UN stands for peace and our presence reminds them of the world's opinion. We stand for peace.

BOB SLYDELL
You physically stand in their way?

UN PEACEKEEPER
Well, no, the, the, US or UK does the actual fighting, if there is any to be done

BOB SLYDELL
Ah.

BOB PORTER
Then you must physically assist, with weapons, money, food, and so on?

UN PEACEKEEPER
Well...no. Yeah, I mean, sometimes.

BOB SLYDELL
Well, what would you say… you do here?

UN PEACEKEEPER
Well, look, I already told you. I deal with the #$(*&^@! terrorists so the French don't have to!! I have people skills!! I am good at dealing with people!!! Can't you understand that?!? What the hell is wrong with you people?!!!!!!!

Kofi AnnanBOB SLYDELL
Let's see. You're Kofi...Annan?

He nods.

BOB PORTER
Is that your real name?

KOFI ANNAN
Yeah.

BOB PORTER
Are you in any relation to the Kojo Annan?

KOFI ANNAN
Well, yes, he's my son.

BOB SLYDELL
(laughs) To be honest, I've never seen a scandal like that oil for food one! I just don't think it gets any better, the UN, meant to stand for world peace and opposition to tyrants, founded to prevent another Hitler, is under the table taking bribes from a horrible despot to prevent any real action taken to control him! It's like the UN is full of despots and tyrants and is working completely against it's charter and purpose!

BOB PORTER
I mean you must really love that Hussein guy.

KOFI ANNAN
Yeah. Yeah…he, he, he's pretty, he's pretty good, I guess.

BOB SLYDELL
You're @(#^@($%! right he is.

They laugh.

BOB PORTER
So tell me. What's your favorite dictator?

KOFI ANNAN
Hmm. I, I, I don't know. I mean, I guess, I sorta like 'em all.

The Bobs laugh.

BOB SLYDELL
HA HA! But it must be hard for you, I mean, they can't all bribe the UN as much as Hussein was, can they?

MICHAEL
You, you know, the French and Russians got a piece of the action too.

They stare at him.

John BoltonBOB PORTER
The next paper looks like a John Bolton.

Bolton enters.

BOB SLYDELL
Aha! All right. We were just talking about you. You must be John Bolton. Uh huh. Terrific. I'm Bob Slydell and this is my associate, Bob Porter.

JOHN BOLTON
Hi, Bob. Bob.

BOB PORTER
Why don't you grab a seat and join us for a minute?

He does so.

BOB SLYDELL
Y'see, what we're trying to do here, we're just trying to get a feel for how people spend their day. So, if you would, would you just walk us through a typical day for you?

JOHN BOLTON
Yeah.

BOB SLYDELL
Great.

JOHN BOLTON
Well, I generally come in at least fifteen minutes late. I use the side door, that way Annan can't see me. Uh, and after that, I just sorta space out for about an hour.

BOB PORTER
Space out?

JOHN BOLTON
Yeah. I just stare at my desk but it looks like I'm working. I do that for probably another hour after lunch too. I'd probably, say, in a given week, I probably do about fifteen minutes of real, actual work.

BOB SLYDELL
Uh, Mr Bolton, would you be a good sport and indulge us and tell us a little more?

JOHN BOLTON
Sure. Let me tell you about UN resolutions...

Cut to later.

JOHN BOLTON
The thing is, Bob, it's not that I'm lazy. It's just that I just don't care.

BOB PORTER
Don't, don't care?

JOHN BOLTON
It's a problem of motivation, all right? Now, if I work my ass off and the UN writes a few extra resolutions, I don't see any effect on the world. So where's the motivation? And here's another thing, Bob. The French are on the Security Council. They have veto power!

BOB SLYDELL
I beg your pardon?

JOHN BOLTON
The French

BOB SLYDELL
The French?

JOHN BOLTON
The French, bob. So that means when I try to get something done, I have the French just vetoing it simply because the US wants it done. That's my real motivation - to avoid dealing with the French. That and the Chinese, and the Russians haven't really changed all that much, Bob. The UN treats dictators and thugs the same as democracies, they put Sudan on the human rights comittee, that's just not going to get anything useful done.

BOB SLYDELL
Bear with me for a minute.

JOHN BOLTON
Ok.

BOB SLYDELL
Believe me, this is hypothetical. But what if the UN was restructured to recognize the difference between dictatorships and democracies, between an Idi Amin and a John Howard? Would that make it any more effective?

JOHN BOLTON
I don't know. I guess. Listen, I'm gonna go. It's been really nice talking to both of you guys.

He shakes their hands.

BOB SLYDELL
Absolutely. It's all on this side of the table, trust me.

*UPDATE: Changed first picture. If someone could photoshop a few shots of the Bobs and Kofi, etc, I'd be eternally grateful, I just don't have the time to GIMP one up.
**UPDATE: Fixed a reference to Peter from the original script to John Bolton and Tom to UN Peacekeepers :)
***UPDATE: Thanks to Bo for his photoshop work with Kofi Annan in the picture with the Bobs!
[technorati icon]

Songs I Like - Jack and Jill (Louis Jordan)

"Once a lion escaped from the circus train, he strayed in Jack and Jill's domain,
just then they got in a towerin' rage, the lion took one look and jumped back in his cage."

Louis Jordan
Louis Jordan is the best, most famous singer and songwriter you may have never heard of. He was a black entertainer in the early 20th century, the first major black movie star (in early black cinema), and the writer of almost 50 hit songs. His music gets covered occasionally by other people, such as Jump, Jive, and Wail recently a hit for the Cherry Poppin' Daddies. In 1949 he re-released an earlier hit Jack and Jill as Pettin' and Pokin' as part of a movie Five Guys Named Moe (also a song, his 1943 #3 hit). This time instead of just Louis Jordan it was a band singing, with a chorus and various interjections.

I prefer the original version, with Louis Jordan at his fast-talking best, ripping out lyrics with clarity and crisp perfection that was a signature style for him. Louis Jordan's songs were often hilarious and sometimes a bit risque, for the time. He is credited with popularizing the term "chick" to refer to women, and while he wrote almost everything he sang, he did not earn much on these songs. If you've never heard any Louis Jordan, get some and listen - his works are instant classics you'll be humming and smiling at immediately.

Anyone who has watched Cops or been a police officer is familiar with the situation Jordan satirizes here, a couple that seems to constantly be fighting and tearing the place up but are totally in love and alternate raging battles with loving caresses. I picked this out of a good 20 possible songs I like of his, imagine the words sung clearly at about three words a second.

I'm gonna tell you a story about Jack and Jill,
and I don't mean the couple that went up the hill,
I mean a couple of lovers that live next door,
they're always battlin'
and I'm just tryin' to keep score.

They keep a pettin' and pokin' and jabbin' and jokin'
and coolin' and crackin' and wooin' and whackin'
and neckin' and knockin' and and singin' and sockin'
squawkin' and squeezin' burnin' and freezin'.

He holds her hand for as long as he's able,
but when he let's go she bops him with the table.
A pattin' and a pinchin'
and clobberin' and clinchin'
they enjoying themselves, having a good time.

Now Rev'rend Green thought he'd call one day,
on those nice newly-weds across the way,
but just as the pastor knocked on the door,
a straight right connected him and he hit the floor.

They were pittin' and poppin'
they were bangin' and boppin' coolin' and kissin'
they were hittin' and missin'
groovin' and grievin' and lovin' and leavin'
kickin' and cracklin' and ticklin' and and tacklin'
They were havin' a time

Once a lion escaped from the circus train,
he strayed in Jack and Jill's domain,
just then they got in a towerin' rage,
the lion took one look and jumped back in his cage.

Swattin' and swingin' and plottin' and playin',
stompin' and stampin' and groovin' and grabbin',
they kept dancin' and duckin', trippin' and truckin',
plottin' and pleadin' and bangin' and bleedin'.

Well ma Momma said, I'll go right in there and fetch her,
bit lord Momma came out ridin' on a stretcher,
feintin' and foldin' hittin' and holdin',
they were in love, havin' a good time.

Ain't love grand?
[technorati icon]

Quote of the day

"Jesus' statement was that He had the truth, and I think Jesus had tremendous credibility."
-Greg Koukl
[technorati icon]

Monday, August 28, 2006

DE PLAME! DE PLAME!

"I think it's just Special Prosecutor status, becoming a Special Prosecutor is like being given the One Ring. You end up like Gollum."

I know, that title is lame, but everyone has taken every other possible twist on Valerie Plame. In the recent book Hubris by Michael Issikov and David Corn, it is revealed that the "high ranking official" who leaked the non-secret identity of Vanity Fair-posing Valerie Plame was Richard Armitage. If you're like me the name is vaguely familiar but you don't know the guy very well.

Richard Armitage was at the time Colin Powell's chief deputy at the State Department who retired the day after Colin Powell retired. He was regarded as a "moderate" at the State Department, like Colin Powell, and was a lifetime friend of Powell's. He has not returned to public life, and in May of 2006, Armitage was elected to the board of directors of the ConocoPhillips oil company.

At the Captains Quarters, Captain Ed examines the book, and excerpts a key passage. He points out that there's a problem with Fitzgerald's actions if this is true - and it seems to be - since many of the actions taken by the Special Prosecutor seem to be acting as if he didn't know this to be true, and he must have by January of the year this investigation began.

As usual, Tom MaGuire at Just One Minute Typepad has this covered better than any - he called it months ago, said it was Armitage. But it was at Ace of Spades HQ that I caught the best comments, following this by Ace:

I'm trying to find the Fitzgerald quote where he claims to be investigating an alleged "politically-motivated conspiracy" to punish Plame. Now, that is not a crime. There is no law on the books against such a "conspiracy." The relevant statutes were the Espionage act and IIPA and such.

Whether there was a "conspiracy" to out someone who'd already been outed is not the domain of a prosecutor, as it is simply not a crime. It is an interesting question, and one worth digging into-- but by a reporter, not a prosecutor with subpoena power, as it is, again simply not a crime.

And Fitzgerald knew that from the beginning.

Fitzgerald had to postulate a non-crime in order to have the pretext to continue an "investigation" into what he already knew was NOT a crime, and, furthermore, in a "case" in which he already knew the culprit committing the non-crime.

Ace quotes from the Newsweek article on this, which confirms the book's account, and I recommend reading if you're interested in this battle.

And the Commenters, well, commented:

It should be fun to watch the left walk away from this one. I am sure they will have either a rationale for how Plame isn't that important afterall or more likely the fact that Republicans draw breath is proof enough of evil and that Bush is still responsible somehow.

Either way once again 'the reality based community' will demonstrate they don't know the meaning of the word reality.

[later Drew recalled this post and said this]

Byron York at NRO quotes David Corn writing:

"Bush critics have long depicted the Plame leak as a sign of White House thuggery. I happened to be the first journalist to report that the leak in the Novak column might be evidence of a White House crime….

Whether he had purposefully mentioned this information to Novak or had slipped up, Armitage got the ball rolling—and abetted a White House campaign under way to undermine Wilson."

I guess being a liberal means never being wrong or having to say you're sorry.

Liberals really do live in their own little world where they are the defenders of all that is true and good and anyone an inch to the right of Ted Kennedy must be defeated by any means necessary.
-by Drew


This is our State Dept. at work. The real story is the CIA running an op against the elected government of the US.
The media hyped this, even though half of them knew it was Armitage all along, because they wanted Kerry to win the election. Fitz is an idiot.

Armitage is a scumbag.
-by Stormy70


Uh I don't think Fitzgerald is beyond reproach. Just before indicting former governor Ryan in Illinois, the news broke that a guy they'd been hounding for some time and had actually indicted, turned out to not be the least bit guilty. Apparently there was a lot of exculpatory evidence that Fitz and crew refused to consider.

Finally a last piece of evidence emerged and they had to drop the indictment. If the guy hadn't been rich he would already have been railroaded to prison and been someone's bitch.

Fitzgerald has a reputation of overcharging on little or no evidence. Andy McCarthy has his lips around Fitz in my opinion. Go look at the Just One Minute archives. There are JOM people who post here regularly who probably remember more about this case than I.

Here's a link to Clarice Feldman's piece entitled,
The Potemkin Prosecution (Part One), at The America Thinker where she discusses Fitz's "Pattern of Careless Prosecution" while examining his prosecution history.
-by Laddy


There can be no doubt, in the Plame case, Fitzgerald has done some rather careless prosecution. His press releases and false leaks were total BS on his part.

But he's done none of that in Chicago. Like I said he's been doing a bang-up job over here. And there were no leaks or anything in the Ryan case.

I think it's just Special Prosecutor status, becoming a Special Prosecutor is like being given the One Ring. You end up like Gollum.

Then again..'Eliot Ness with a law degree' is exactly is exactly why he was appointed here, and it's exactly what we need here.

This is Chicago. Follow the evidence, or pick any politcian at random and prosecute him, doesn't really matter which. They're all corrupt.
-by entropy


The lefty blogs are a lot of fun today. Contrast this:

"But that leaves a big question mark…still…as to who was the source for Novak of the information that Valerie Plame Wilson was covert."
Christy Hardin Smith

with this:

"Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this," Novak said on "Crossfire." "There is no great crime here."

"They asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative and not in charge of undercover operators," Novak said.
Bob Novak in CNN almost 3 years ago.

They will never admit they are wrong as long as there is one grassy knoll left in the world.
-by Jackstraw


Hardin is pathetic. She's invest so much into this and just looks like an idiot. Which begs the question? How much more embarrassment and idiocy are they willing to endure carrying lying Joe Wilson's water?

Also, Fitzgerald dismissed one of his indictments earlier this year...it was a man he HAD ARRESTED - high profile arrest, the man resigned his post of his company and was smeared and it took Fitzgerald months to find he had actually indicted and ARRESTED the actual VICTIM of the crime.

Frank Cowles, Jr., look it up
-by topsecretk9

don't think anyone's integrity is "above reproach." Self-interest is a powerful agent of self-delusion.
I think you're overlooking another explanation that Thomas Sowell came up with in his book "The Annointed" in which he details the lefts' arrogance about their belief system. When you presuppose all those who disagree with you are evil while all those who agree with you are supernaturally good, there can be nothing wrong with any tactic, no matter how under handed, that furthers your beliefs and harms/defeats your adversaries'.

Consider for instance one of your previous posts where the kidnapped Fox newsmen "had it coming" according to the left. All of the lefts politics (including Moore's propaganda movies) are of a piece. Call it the unified theory of moonbattory and credit Thomas Sowell.
-by pendelton

"When you presuppose all those who disagree with you are evil while all those who agree with you are supernaturally good, there can be nothing wrong with any tactic, no matter how under handed, that furthers your beliefs and harms/defeats your adversaries'."
Sounds like Islam to me.

Just saying...
-by Purple Avenger
Something basically wrong happens to Special Prosecutors. I wonder if it isn't frustration with dealing with politicians at the highest levels and a driving need to accomplish something given the high profile.
[technorati icon]

NAGIN AGAIN

"Frankly, New Orleans was a damp dump before Katrina and I wonder why anybody in their right mind would want to rebuild such a thing."

Hurricane KatrinaOver at Whizbang, blogger Paul took a stab at defending New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin's remarks recently about New York City's rebuilding after 9/11 (technically he claims not to be doing so, but the article is in fact a defense of his remarks):

"You guys in New York can’t get a hole in the ground fixed and it’s five years later. So let’s be fair."

Many have considered this an attack on former New York City mayor Giuliani, although he was never mentioned and is no longer the mayor of that city. To put the comment by mayor Nagin in context, here's more of the story:
On a tour of the decimated Ninth Ward, Nagin tells Pitts the city has removed most of the debris from public property and it’s mainly private land that’s still affected – areas that can’t be cleaned without the owners' permission. But when Pitts points to flood-damaged cars in the street and a house washed partially into the street, the mayor shoots back. "That’s alright. You guys in New York can’t get a hole in the ground fixed and it’s five years later. So let’s be fair."

Nagin is confident New Orleans will be whole again and will even be able to withstand another hurricane of Katrina strength, pointing out that taller and stronger levees are being built. It will take time.

"We’re into a five-to-seven-year build cycle … . At the end of the day, I see the city being totally rebuilt. I see us eliminating blight, still being culturally unique," Nagin says.
However, even the city council sees some problems with progress so far:
"Should things have happened quicker? Yes. But everyone has their own style of leadership, and right now our political leader, our political father is Ray Nagin," says Oliver Thomas, New Orleans City Council president.

"So for the next four years, we’re going to sink or swim with him," Thomas tells Pitts.
Paul compared the events of Hurricane Katrina with the events on 9/11 and the responses of each mayor to the crises, and comes to the conclusion that people are criticizing Nagin for not magically rebuilding the city in a year. Personally I've not seen or heard such comments, but perhaps Paul has met them somewhere.

Ground ZeroHe compares speeches made by Giuliani and Nagin, claiming Nagin didn't have access to a microphone, which doesn't exactly match my memories of his comments constantly complaining that President Bush didn't do his job and everyone, everywhere - especially President Bush personally - were to blame rather than him for this catastrophe.

Paul is right, the two events were too dissimilar to draw comparisons between. Then he defends Nagin for doing just that. Lorie Byrd has a decent rebuttal to the points made, pointing out the courage and leadership Giuliani provided in a critical point, although she relies too much on defending Giuliani which is odd since Nagin never mentioned the man.

Commenters responded to Paul's article:
I’m not defending Nagin in any way.
Could've fooled me.

Paul,

I think most are upset that Nagin called the site of the WTC "just a hole in the ground". I am sure he would get upset if someone called NOLA "just a swamp".

I know better then to expect NOLA to be rebuilt in 12 months. Perhaps you should tell Nagin that. He seems to expect the federal government to go in, wave a magic wand and *presto*-it is all cleaned up and totally rebuilt.

From the get-go he has lobbed race cards and excuses. He was all bent out of shape about Mexican workers coming for the reconstruction jobs and the "Hispanification of New Orleans". He has constantly stated that everything concerning the reconstruction of NOLA is race based-from his "chocolate city" remarks to his recent "blame whitey" remarks because NOLA isn't completely rebuilt by now. It is Nagin who has the unrealistic expectations, not us.

Now...

Only a fool will think that NOLA will ever be the same as it was a year ago. The harsh reality is that the New Orleans you and I knew is dead. Even if it is rebuilt it will never be the same.

It is the people (both good and bad) that make a city what it is and most of the people who evacuated are not going to go back there. Some are traumatized and coould not handle living with the memories, some have had enough of hurricanes and do not want to live within 500 miles of the coast anymore, some simply do not want to live below sea level knowing what can happen, some for finacial reasons, some because they have cut their losses and started a new life where they are now.

Sure, new people will move there for the opprotunities presented and if I were to place a wager NOLA in ten years will not be a "chocloate city", it will be a "flan city" where spanish will be heard more then french.
-by Nahanni


When you look at sheer amount of material and infrastructure destroyed, New Orleans wins hands down. On that point, nobody can disagree. Nagin just has a bad habit and good history of saying stupid/inappropriate things to make his points.

And I think the thing for everybody to think about is that things like big buildings in large cities, or even major portions of cities themselves, don't sprout up in no time. I'd say that both the WTC site and New Orleans will be rebuilt/repaired/revamped in the natural time it takes to do so for each. To the ADD-riddled Americans that may read this:these tasks won't be wrapped up in a nifty little package like you see on a TV show.
According to this site, the WTC planning by the city began in 1962, and the first tower was opened in 1970, and the other in 1972. That's 10 years from initial city engagement to final fruition. Keep that in mind everybody!!! New Orleans will be an even bigger endeavor.
-by Tony


"In New Orleans, the Corps of Engineers destroyed an entire city."

Statements like that make the entire rest of your posting, which by the way I tend to agree with, a worthless bunch of crap. The Army Corps of Engineers didn't destroy anything, Katrina did!

You can never appear rational, when you start off sounding irrational.
-by USMC Pilot
[Paul responded that the Army Corps of Engineers took the blame for the levees not being built to withstand the flood surge, but the fact is, Katrina created the flood surge, and without it no such tragedy would have occurred. Further, since the state had been warned for years these levees would not hold up to such an event and did nothing I think it's a bit disingenuous to blame men who built something you did not take the trouble to shore up in your own state]
I think you missed the point of Nagin's comments AND the people who are criticizing him for them, Paul.

Nagin was making claims about how much had been accomplished, and a reporter pointed at a visible piece of evidence that refuted the claim, whereupon Nagin attacked the NYC effort for no [explative deleted] reason whatsoever.

Nagin's criticizing the REBUILDING by dismissively and vitriolically calling Ground Zero "a hole in the ground" (which it is, but no need to be an [explative deleted] about it) and trying to use that to defend his own incompetence.

He's not talking about the cleanup of GZ. He himself compaired REBUILDING to CLEANUP. It was a false comparison from the start, and more evidence that Chocolate Cityboy doesn't know his ass from his elbow. You're compounding the false comparison and taking it further out to left field.

Nagin wasn't properly comparing cleanup to cleanup. He was incorrectly trying to use the lack of rebuilding the GZ site to defend the lack of cleanup...not rebuilding, but clearing of debris, in New Orleans.
-by JimK


As a MAYOR OF A CITY you are suppose to know every
nook and cranny of your city, further if you have 3 to 7 days to prepare your city for a disaster
and you don t get your ducks in a row until it was to late you don t deserve to throw stones at
someone else to save your hide.

Living in here in south Florida we have seen our share of storms, and when a storm approachs we make sure that the elderly, homeless people are evacuated from the keys and low lying areas.

The best example is the free shuttle service for all the keys.

Those in hospitals are flown to other parts of the state.
This was a complete break down from Mayor to Gov.
-by ama055131


The difference in scale between hurricane damage and terrorist attacks is not the point. The events were very different in nature, but they both tested two mayors of important cities. Hurricane Katrina did not attack New Orleans. It was a storm. New York was attacked. In fact, all of the US was the target. No one knew if that was it or if more waves of attacks were coming. Rudy helped New York and the rest of the country weather the attacks and recover. Who was inspired by Nagin? Who drew courage from him? Who learned leadership from him? Nagin is a corrupt, incompetant fool. What he says is not important.
-by eman


"If you placed all the cars destroyed in New Orleans end to end they would reach from the broken 17th street canal floodwall all the way to New York’s ground zero."

...the only reason there were enough destroyed cars to stretch from NO to NYC is because Nagin didn't get the people to use them to evacuate themselves from the city...now he gets a break because it is a bigger job to clean them up?
-by lurking

DoctorJ said it: There's no comparison. It's apples and oranges, squid and Pontiacs.
I gotta second this.

However, the big difference to me was, New York got hit out of the blue and Giuliani got down to business. He didn't whine and complain about the lack of fed help(though he may have behind the scenes). New Orleans had advance warning, and Nagin did. Giuliani acted more like a leader and Nagin did not. I was more inclined to help the rest of the region who DIDN'T display the woe is me and why aren't I getting more and faster help from the rest of you people attitude. But thats just me.
-by wilky


Apples and oranges.

That said, more people died on 9/11, murdered, than Katrina killed. Many of the Katrina deaths were totally preventable if Nagin and Blanco had followed their pre-existing plans.

The Corps may have flooded NOLA, but they killed no one. The personal choices made by some of the residents, and the decisions by politicians not to follow their plans did that. And, one could argue, the Corps did exactly what the politicians told it to do. It's been a source of pork and a political pawn for decades and the people of NOLA reaped the results. And until a year ago, the majority of the people of New Orleans were content with those conditions.

The disaster that struck New Orleans demonstrates one great truth. Don't count on the government.

Rudy is an icon. Whether or not he was right or wrong during the murders on 9/11, his was the calm and serious voice everyone in the United State heard. On 9/10 he was an SOB. On 9/12 he could have been elected Pope. In a narrow set of circumstances, he met a need the people had for a leader. He inspired us all at a time when we needed inspiration.

Nagin and Blanco cannot say that. Not ever.
-by Chuck Simmins


So Paul - if Katrina hadn't come along NOLA would have flooded anyway. since the Corps "caused" the flooding? Uh-huh.

And, of course, no one in NOLA has any responsibility whasoever for protecting their own city?

And another thing - Paul - you might know NOLA and Katrina, but I suspect you are as dumb as a box of rocks when it comes to enginnering, construction, demolition, or emergency response. Your comments suggest as much. Don't be mad - most people don't understand these issues any better than you do.

Look, what is pissing the rest of us off is not whether or not the city has been re-built, but this mindless whinning blame game by everyone in NOLA.

To illustrate. My neighbor (Mr. Nagin) puts a shitty cheap roof on his house. The wind blows off his shingles.

Mr. Nagin then starts in. It was the contractor. It was the goverment. It was me for being an uncaring racist and not jumping up to help him immediately. I could've/would've/ should've saved his roof for him. Waaaahhh.

Meanwhile, down the street, Mr. Guliani is busy tacking back up his shingles. I decide to go by and help. He says "thanks bud." I feel good.

Paul - you getting any of this?
-by Big D
Paul responded repeatedly to people in an abusive, unpleasant manner, then began deleting comments and calling people morons for making them. I don't know what comments were deleted. They may have been unacceptable, and the people may have been morons, but I do know what Paul said, here are some highlights:
"Sigh... Stupidity on parade."
"Nahanni, well, you're still just a clueless idiot."
"Don't try to bullsh*t me.
Go watch the video before you embarrass yourself. Again."
"Sigh... Stupid and unwilling to learn -- a dangerous combo."
"Now please.... I've not deleted anyone from this thread for being stupid. Don't be the first."
"Sometimes stupidity is just overwheming. Tongiht for example."
"No rickinstl I deleted you because you're an ***hole."
"Doc they wallow in stupidity."
"It is amazing how stupid some people can be."
There's more, that's just a sample of his responses. Now, I understand that in comments, people can become very passionate and animated, and begin to yell at each other, in a sense. I know that it is easy to be frustrated, and that sometimes people are being stupid and there's little else to say about them.

But there are two problems here. First, Paul is being incredibly patronizing and arrogant, attacking people for disagreeing with him when they were, in fact, right - such as when they pointed out what the video said, and Paul over and over, in an insulting manner, attacked them for being wrong, until he bothered to check. Second, he started out with this approach, he didn't become angry after a while, he launched in immediately with his first comment attacking the person who disagreed as a colossal idiot.

Ace from Ace of Spades HQ has a rule that he tries to follow and advises other bloggers to - and it's advice I think is very sound and I try to follow: do not argue in your comments section. I think especially if you are incapable of doing so in a calm, rational, and winsome manner you should avoid it at all costs. Paul clearly cannot. This is a good rule and I advise other bloggers to heed Ace's words.

For me, while there's information about Hurricane Katrina and the ensuing tragedy, this post is more about commenting and blogging. If you cannot restrain yourself from attacking your commenters, demeaning and abusing them, and making your point in your blog without arrogant, patronizing attacks, you are a pretty poor blogger and writer.

If especially you choose your conclusion before researching and launch into long diatribes, perhaps you ought to consider making any retirements you announce permanent.
[technorati icon]