« April 2006 | Main | June 2006 »
May 31, 2006
"Peace in our time"
The Bush administration is wearing out its Bad Idea Jeans, with reports circulating the White House is prepared to negotiate with the (former?) member of the Axis of Evil. Allah at Hot Air:
Condi Rice has scheduled a news conference for 11 a.m. Supposedly, one of our conditions is that Iran give up uranium enrichment. I'll be surprised if that demand lasts the week.
Read this and this while we're waiting for Rice. Tough luck for Saddam that he didn't push his nuke program harder, huh? He might have earned himself some restored diplomatic relations or, if he played his cards right, maybe even a peace treaty.
The Times will no doubt be thrilled by the news. Charles Krauthammer warned against bilateral talks with Iran on Friday, but these negotiations will be multilateral - which, he argues, could work, but only if the Europeans agree to support military strikes if the talks fail. Which, of course, they won't. His next column should be interesting. Meanwhile, the world's non-aligned states cover their eyes.
"The Times will no doubt be thrilled" makes me shudder; again, here's the rule: if the NY Times and/or Ted Kennedy agrees with the Bush administration, we know the Bush administration is screwing up. Royally. (Bad Idea: "Normally I wear protection, but then I thought, "When am I gonna make it back to Haiti?" )
Some context: Past negotiations with the Irans of the world -
- Half of Czechosolvakia went to Hitler, and then he took Poland.
- The Clinton Administration (courtesy Jimmy Cahtah) gave millions to North Korea, plus a nuclear reactor; North Korea used the money to build uranium bombs and starved millions.
Hey, Mr. President! Doesn't the notion of "negotiation" imply some minimal measure of good faith on the part of those involved?
I take it all the liberals who've been saying the US is took weak to confront Iran have been right all along?
Posted by bill at 11:04 AM | Comments (1)
Around the horn: musical chairs edition
Thoughts...disjointed...must...post...on...blog...
- Jeb Bush, special envoy to the Americas? Hey, it's not quite the White House but Michael Barone says he'd be perfect for the job.
- Speaker Pelosi? The American Prospect notes the "rather odd pincer dynamic that's emerged under her leadership, wherein various observers, activists, and members both to her left and to her right have expressed dissatisfaction with her." That and she gives us all reflux, etc.
- Henry Paulson is the new Treasury Secretary and message-bearer for a kick-ass economic picture.. Suitably Flip predicts: "1) the approval rating (for whatever its worth) of the President's handling of the economy will begin to rise steadily (as well it should), and 2) the media will quickly find themselves newly a-twitter with the word "shake-up".
- Mahmoud '08? Steven M. Warshawsky takes a look at the NY Times' canoodling Iran's president.
- Barack Obama for President? (This is a "when" question mark, not an "if" question mark.) Meanwhile, Lloyd Bentsen's is an opportunity to point out his ilk aren't lefty enough anymore for Democrats. Someone should contact Joe Lieberman.
Posted by bill at 09:42 AM | Comments (0)
May 29, 2006
Memorial Day
If you take just 4 minutes to step aside from the picnics and vacation this Memorial Day, watch this.
H/T: Gregg Jackson at Pundit Review.
Posted by bill at 07:53 PM | Comments (0)
May 25, 2006
Oh please oh please oh please oh please
Will the New York Times be indicted? James Piereson says it's a "fair inference from the strange exchanges that have gone back and forth over the past few days between the Justice Department and the editors of the paper," i.e. AG Alberto Gonzalez's appearance last Sunday on "This Week" and Times' editorial the next day, which argued the Espionage Act of 1917 cannot be applied to punish journalists.
"The editorial reads much like a pre-emptive strike designed by lawyers to ward off impending indictment," Piereson notes. But then again, it doesn't - the Times editorial, he says, also says this: "the Bush administration was in no position to invoke congressional statutes since, in the view of the editors, it had routinely violated them in authorizing wiretaps without warrants and in failing to enforce civil rights and environmental laws. If the Bush administration can ignore the laws, the editors seemed to ask, why can't we?" This sounds like it's coming from an angry editorial board, not lawyers hoping to save the paper from federal prosecution.
The issue is the Times' story last December disclosing the Bush administration's instruction to the NSA to spy on suspected terrorists using wiretaps. Piereson's commentary is worth the read.
Posted by bill at 09:30 AM | Comments (0)
May 24, 2006
Wednesday wtf
A letter you never imagined you'd read:
"I would like to interview Pat Robertson about his leg-press workout and protein shake. If possible, I would like to accompany Pat on his workout where I could help him stack on the 44 different 45-pound plates he would need to attach to leg press 2,000 pounds. By my calculations, his leg press of 2,000 pounds requires 22 forty-fives and one ten-pounder on each side.
Some context here.
Posted by bill at 04:45 PM | Comments (0)
Ugly? Career-minded? That's unfortunate.
Uglo-phobia anyone?
Via Suitably Flip, we have this career advice, courtesy of the US News' Marty Nemko:
You're overweight. Of course, it would be helpful if you lost weight, but that's often easier said than done. So for now, avoid tight clothing and, on the other extreme, the muumuu look. Busy patterns also make you look fatter. Instead, consider monochromatic outfits in dark colors.You're balding. Here, I speak from personal experience. For a while, I tried combing my sparse hair forward or to the side. Forget it. Eventually, my friends told me that I wasn't fooling anyone. I then tried a hairpiece-for a few days. It looked good in the morning, but by day's end, unless I was willing to fuss with it every hour, its artifice started to show. Even one moment of detectability ruins months of perfect appearance. I rejected transplants because, except on a commercial, I've never seen one that looks good. I also decided not to shave my head-that is just another transparent attempt to hide thinning hair. Worse, it makes you look hard and unapproachable. Painful as it may be, it may be wisest to simply wear your hair fairly short and combed back.
You're getting (or feeling) old. Get at least seven hours of sleep a night–fatigue adds years to your face.
Walk purposefully, even quickly-that conveys youth and energy.
Stand straight. Legendary Cosmopolitan editor Helen Gurley Brown once said, only half joking, "After 40, it all comes down to posture."
Age shows most in our eyes and hair color. So wear flattering glasses, and consider coloring your hair. Men, include your mustache or beard.
Your face is unattractive. Draw attention elsewhere. A great hairstyle or accessories such as jewelry, scarves, handbags, and shoes can refocus people's gaze.
If you're considering cosmetic surgery, here's one way to find a good doc: Call a cosmetic surgeon's office, then ask the receptionist to recommend a few plastic surgeons other than her boss. The names that come up multiple times are good bets.
Consider working alone or with the same people each day. If you've tried everything and still feel your appearance brings you down, you might be more successful in a job where you work alone or with the same group of people each day. That provides time for your personality and competence to override other negative impressions you're worried about.
What to say. Flip is aghast (then again, he's running for office) but acknowledges these may be "useful" tips. I feel a bit like a frosted mini-wheat - my compassionate half feels sorry for the ugly ducklings; my pragmatic, less sensitive half realizes good looks has its perks. (So does being tall, or so I hear.)
Anyway, let's look around this week and see if we spot any well-rested, fat-but-monochromatic, unabashedly bald people who haven't become house-bound agorophobes.
Posted by bill at 12:27 PM | Comments (0)
May 23, 2006
Dances with irrelevance
For it, against it...I can't keep track. The Boston Globe's Scot Lehigh's exuberant that John Kerry's "new position on Iraq" means he "has finally found his voice":
The senator, who used the weekend announcement of Iraq's new government to highlight his plan again yesterday, says he's trying to offer the country an alternative -- one he will soon present as a Senate amendment to the defense budget.
``It is not going to pass, and I understand that," Kerry said in a Friday interview. "The purpose of it is to point out to the country that there really is a different way to approach Iraq and to protect American troops and our interests."
The Bush administration, of course, is highly unlikely to adopt his blueprint. If not, "they will be morally bankrupt for creating a Vietnam II decent-interval withdrawal situation or a stay-the-course policy," Kerry said. "Either way, it is a loss for the United States of America. It is unacceptable both morally and practically."
Posted by bill at 10:59 AM | Comments (0)
May 20, 2006
Hey baseball fans!
Barry Bonds hits #714. Let's all yawn in unison!
Posted by bill at 07:22 PM | Comments (3)
May 19, 2006
When news is not news
Propaganda, masquerading as "news" - Michelle Malkin helps expose the LA Times' use of another insipid "man on the street" story, this time on the subject of immigration:
Yesterday, the Los Angeles Times ran a piece of open-borders propaganda masquerading as journalism, which featured a Riverside, Calif., landscaper named Cyndi Smallwood who claims she can't find workers to dig ditches even at $34 an hour.
The claim seems preposterous, but the Times assures us that Smallwood has no ideological ax to grind. She is "ambivalent on immigration reform," the Times reports. Just an ordinary landscaper, you know.
But it turns out there's a tiny bit more to the story that the LA Times isn't telling you. Reader Christopher L. wrote this morning to point out that a simple Google search shows that Cyndi Smallwood is president of the Orange County chapter of the California Landscape Contractors Association, and is a member of the association's "Immigration Task Force." The activist group opposes the "Punitive Immigration Reform Bill Proposed by Rep. Sensenbrenner."
Posted by bill at 11:08 AM | Comments (0)
May 18, 2006
More than $45 billion and still serving
Indicted: Big Democratic contributor and uber plaintiffs' law firm Milberg Weiss:
One of the nation's highest profile class-action law firms, two of its top partners, and two other individuals were indicted Thursday by a federal grand jury on charges alleging a scheme that paid millions of dollars in illegal kickbacks to plaintiffs and others.
In a 102-page indictment, New York-based Milberg Weiss, Bershad & Schulman, and attorneys David J. Bershad and Steven G. Schulman were charged with secretly paying about $2.4 million to co-defendant Seymour M. Lazar, a Palm Springs lawyer, and others to act as plaintiffs in class-actions since 1984 and concealing the payments. Paul L. Seltzer, another lawyer in Palm Springs, was also charged.
Milberg Weiss is a corporate ambulance chasing firm, organizing massive shareholder suits and obtaining gargantuan judgments and settlements - more than $45 billion, according the firm's website. The indictment involves Milberg's end-around regarding procedural rules for class actions - paying Seymour to serve as the "lead" plaintiff, and thereby open the dike for the firm to file suit, take the lead in accumulating plaintiffs (clients) and certifying a "class." It was a scheme to win the race with other law firms to represent class action plaintiffs, and Milberg perfected it - the firm, its practice and its apparent corruption is the creature of a corrupt system that needs reforming.
Seymour was incicted almost a year ago for taking improper payments from MW, and Milberg's goose has long since been cooked. Let's see if any of this sticks to Democrats -- who received millions from MW in the 2002 election cycle alone. Remember their opposition even to last year's procedural limitation on class actions? I'm not saying. I'm just saying.
Posted by bill at 09:37 PM | Comments (1)
Stampy, tantrumy, incoherent and very Yosemite Sam, but deservedly so.
Mary Katherine Ham reports on the topic of a debate that took place on the floor of the US Senate today:
Should ILLEGAL immigrants, once made legal by the McCain legislation, be entitled to receive the Social Security benefits they have paid into the system while ILLEGALLY using FRAUDULENT Social Security numbers STOLEN from actual, legal citizens of the United States of America.
The fact that this is even up for debate is just beyond insane. Everyone knows we will never have enough Social Security funds to serve, you know, actual citizens.
Every single one of those senators knows that, and they're debating whether we should extend such non-existent, unsustainable, budget-busting, generation-saddling benefits to millions of people who fraudulently entered the system by stealing the identities (and sometimes ruining the credit) of legal Americans?!?
Note to the metaphor-challenged. In the depiction above, Yosemite Sam represents MKH; Regrettably, Bugs Bunny represents the illegals and/or the spineless Republocrats. Also, as noted at Hot Air, the pro-illegals side won, 50-49. John McCain again joins hands with Ted Kennedy et al.
Posted by bill at 02:24 PM | Comments (0)
Shivers up the spine?
What would a Democratic House majority look like? Tom Curry indulges the fantasy. But we already know the worst of it: Speaker Pelosi. Brrrrrr! Is it cold in here?
Posted by bill at 09:41 AM | Comments (0)
May 17, 2006
Piling on
"Buck buck!" After Monday's speech I suggested the Bush presidency had jumped the shark. And as the conservative chasm widens, the media are lining up to pile on. Writes Howard Fineman: "When George W. Bush stood on the pile of rubble in New York City, many of us thought-or hoped-that we were witnessing a man growing into leadership right before our eyes. And for a while it seemed that way. After all, earlier in his life he had exhibited the ability to grow and change, jettisoning the drinking life, taking seriously the political heritage that the Bush name bestowed upon him. But the personal pattern has not become the political one, at least not so far." CBS' Dick Meyer tosses in the towel (albeit on a presidency he's rooting against): "George Bush has at his disposal none - none - of the tools presidents have used to turn bad situations around: public support, party support or skilled statecraft. He's a lame duck less than two years in to his second term. You are not being governed."
It's hard to disagree with much of it, except the part about Democrats taking advantage of the Republicans problems. Even if it's true the country craves genuine leadership, I have a hard time believing they'll look to Democrats.
Posted by bill at 10:50 PM | Comments (0)
With conservatives like President Bush
...who needs liberals? A recent White Paper by CATO is entitled, "Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush." "President Bush's constitutional vision is, in short, sharply at odds with the text, history, and structure of our Constitution, which authorizes a government of limited powers," it concludes. Bush's seems to understand federalism to mean:
- a federal government empowered to regulate core political speech -and restrict it greatly when it counts the most: in the days before a federal election;
- a president who cannot be restrained, through validly enacted statutes, from pursuing any tactic he believes to be effective in the war on terror;
- a president who has the inherent constitutional authority to designate American citizens suspected of terrorist activity as "enemy combatants," strip them of any constitutional protection, and lock them up without charges for the duration of the war on terror - in other words, perhaps forever; and
- a federal government with the power to supervise virtually every aspect of American life, from kindergarten, to marriage, to the grave.
Pick your poison.
(H/T: Gadsden Flag.)
Posted by bill at 09:40 AM | Comments (0)
"Jefferson's Crisis"
Keep this in mind the next time some fan of Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan tells you that America is hated because of our "imperialism," or overbearing foreign policy. At our founding, and still by 1801, we were a small nation that mostly wanted to keep to itself. That didn't stop the Muslim's from declaring "war" against us infidels, seizing our ships, and kidnapping and enslaving their crews.
Posted by GadsdenFlag at 09:32 AM | Comments (0)
May 16, 2006
Whacking the tin foil hats
Via Hot Air, Fox News is reporting that the USDOD will release a video today showing Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon on September 11th. This may come as some surprise to conspiracy theorists, who believe some variant of the story that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon that morning. (And from there, we can leapfrog, all Michael Moore like, from one stone to the next, down the "Bush planned 9/11" road.)
Anyway, it was about a year ago that Popular Mechanics debunked the conspiracy theories but let's face it: forensics doesn't sell. Forensics doesn't shore up conspiracy-minded doubts. But video tends to accomplish both.
If it's true we do have a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon, it'll be comparable to a Zapruder Part II, wherein Lee Harvey Oswald is seen perched in the book depository window, reloading his rifle, with a t-shirt reading, "I assasinated the President and all I got was this lousy t-shirt."
T-Minus about 25 minutes till someone claims the video is a fake (just like the picture of Oswald!).
Posted by bill at 11:55 AM | Comments (0)
The speech: Andrew Sullivan approves, or "President Bush jumps the shark"
Andrew Sullivan seems pleased: "The Bush we saw tonight was more like the Bush we thought we were getting in 2000. Which is why, perhaps, his increasingly extreme and angry party will only turn on him some more." Which is something like saying conservatives won't be pleased with the speech, because it was a cynical show and not genuine leadership.
Call me "extremist," I guess. We've known for a while that Karl Rove's 20-year plan demands GOP acquiescence in pro-Latino policy, and Bush's policy-in-absentia, before last night, was steeped in the naked vote-getting by a man who views himself as a GOP visionary. Last night's speech, try as it did to take a seemingly hard-line - Bring in the National Guard! - isn't about to fool the base. We know Clintonian leadership when we see it.
Heading into the speech last night, I'd hoped it'd sound something like his August 2001 address discussing stem cell funding and announced a sensible, principled compromise. But last night was nothing of the sort; Bush's opening remarks that border security is the "first responsibility" of a sovereign nation. Why, then, ignore the issue for over 5 years? How will we enforce the "must return home" part of the guest worker program, given Bush's position that deporation is all but impossible? And why the rhetorical end-around on what is and isn't "amnesty"?
Wikipedia defines "jumping the shark" as the "tipping point at which a TV series is deemed to have passed its peak...fans sense a noticeable decline in quality or feel the show has undergone too many changes to retain its original charm." The metaphor goes beyond television - it can be applied to anything from sports dynasties to careers to relationships, and even politicians. And folks, I think we're there.
Posted by bill at 09:13 AM | Comments (0)
May 15, 2006
Live from the Oval Office: Elaborate Dog & Pony Show
Unless you were under a rock over the weekend, you've heard about President Bush's speech tonight, in which he plans to address illegal immigration in a prime-time address. Before anyone credits the President with displaying genuine leadership here, for starters let's not forget how we got here: the White House has coddled illegals, reduced enforcement to "catch & release" charades, castigated the Minutemen, etc., only to find itself outflanked on the alarming immigration problem by opportunistic (but relatively agile) Democrats. Now (and especially if we're to believe Time mag's recent account of Josh Bolten's cynical West Wing makeover), and with his approval ratings scraping the floor, Bush is scrambling to appease his red state base.
The White House's calculations are apparent -- and the substance of tonight's address will confirm that despite the pomp and heft of a prime-time address, the President's prepared to reaffirm that his policy is (ready? are the cameras rolling?) amnesty! for illegals -- a condescending "guest worker" policy that will continue to offer little more than symbolic enforcement. In fact, the Wash Post is already reporting Bush is "reassuring" Mexico's president that any military involvement is only "temporary" -- nice to hear Mexico is still pulling the strings on US security policy -- and what, exactly does "temporary" mean? Will the President tell us?
President Bush can still win some points tonight, but the address will have to propose specific measures that will measurably enhance border security. Conservatives are bright enough to know the distinguish between a president scrambling for support and a president who deserves it. I'll keep the porch light on and hope for a surprise, but based on what I've heard to this point conservatives will feel betrayed again, and fairly.
UPDATE: More on the dog & pony show here.
Posted by bill at 08:59 AM | Comments (0)
May 12, 2006
Next stop: sedition
In an attempt to rekindle the scaremongering of the paranoid left, USA today has taken upon itself to "declassify" more classified information about programs aimed at protecting us. Obviously they decided that there wasn’t already enough damage done to national security...why is all of this news coming out about the NSA now? Well, of course it is an orchestrated effort, and it is only the beggining. It is going to get a lot uglier as Bush tries to get Gen. Hayden approved to run the CIA.
The American public isn't being fooled, reports the Wash Post - a new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.A slightly larger majority--66 percent--said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found.
Posted by bill at 12:26 PM | Comments (1)
May 10, 2006
United 93
Gene Lalor reviews United 93: "You may or may not have a tear in your eye and a lump in your throat at the end of this film. But you should be infuriated!"
Posted by bill at 05:26 PM | Comments (0)
"Media mum on new evidence of Saddam's terror ties"
Even if [Washington] Post reporters missed the section in the 230-page report on terror training camps operated by the Fedayeen Saddam, the militia of soldiers most loyal to the ruthless ruler, that issue was raised again in Congressional hearings last month. The camps, which were started in 1994, trained some 7,200 Iraqis in the art of terrorism in the first year alone. "Beginning in 1998," according to the full report, "these camps began hosting 'Arab volunteers from Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, the Gulf, and Syria.'"
So in the late 1990's and beyond, during which time conventional wisdom tells us that Saddam was "contained," Iraq was training thousands of terrorists from across the Arab world. Saddam was not slowing down. "The training activity of the groups were increasing both internal and apparently external. It was increasing over time," testified Lt. Col. Kevin Woods (retired), the report's chief author.
Posted by GadsdenFlag at 09:36 AM | Comments (0)
May 09, 2006
Time mag to US: Up Yours!
Time gives new meaning to Reuters-style moral relativism, aiding Iran's propaganda push this week by publishing a piece by Hassan Rohani, Iran's own former top nuclear negotiator with a mile-long record of ridiculing the US.
Rohani's departure from the Iranian cabinet suggests he's something less of a hard-liner than his successor, if that means anything, but he's hardly a dissident - he's an Iranian nationalist, for God's sake, and it was his rope-a-dope that paved Iran's way through international opinion and into its dawning nuclear capability.
Read the article, of course, but don't expect any surprises. Rohani's a company man, and Time's willingness to publish Iranian propaganda doesn't confer sudden credibility. And what's this about the "extremists" on both sides pushing toward war? Except for Sy Hersh, I don't recall hearing a drumbeat. Shame on Time.
Posted by bill at 09:52 PM | Comments (0)
Sadistic presidential trivia
...to make you feel dumb, dumb, dumb, by our friends at the Wall Street Journal.
Posted by bill at 02:59 PM | Comments (0)
Barry, don't go away angry -- just go away (Part III)
(H/T: Alarming News)
Posted by bill at 02:03 PM | Comments (0)
The perils of engagement; the lunacy of the left wing
Amir Taheri looks at the fine print problems with the "engage Iran" meme -- and reminds us what the fine print says about the Kennedy, Carter and Clinton approaches. Bottom line: "What the U.S. needs is an open, honest and exhaustive debate on what to do with a regime that claims a mission to drive the U.S. out of the Middle East, wipe Israel off the map, create an Islamic superpower, and conquer the world for 'The Only True Faith'...talk of "constructive engagement" is sure to encourage President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's intransigence. Why should he slow down, let alone stop, when there are no bumps on the road?"
On a related note, Richard Cohen finds out why we call it the "Angry" left; or, in smart people terms, "ignorant, false and downright idiotic vituperation." UPDATE: Over at Kos, "georgia10" responds - the "Angry Left" is a strawman, she says, a claim to which the Kos Kidz promptly gave the lie. Exhibit A: In a comment given positive ratings, "adios" screams, "I am so fucking sick...of hearing progressives referred to as "angry" "hateful", "bitter" etc. If I hear one more SOB parroting that theme, I'll take my SRT-10 Ram and drive it into their front window. These lying, vicious douchebags. I have nothing but contempt for their flabby asses. For 10 cents I'd burn down all their houses and force them to emigrate to Bangla Desh and live in a hole filled with offal. They make me want to puke my guts out. We will rescue this country from the hatred they spew if it takes a hundred years, and requires disembowelling all of them, slowly, with a hedge trimmer."
Nope, no vituperation, just level-headed, rational debate.
Posted by bill at 09:00 AM | Comments (0)
May 08, 2006
Pundit Review - Worthy of our enemies' hatred...
A new round of cyber-jihad? - Our good friends and allies over at Pundit Review have been hit by hackers "iSKORPiTX," claiming to be a Turkish website. As before, we can only assume they're doing something right. Hopefully Kevin and Gregg can dig themselves out.
Posted by bill at 09:14 PM | Comments (0)
May 07, 2006
Memo from Inmate to Asylum: "Let's get nuts!"
Sunday reading: The voice of the Angry Left says the left, and Hillary Clinton, aren't left enough.
UPDATE (5/8) Via the Realclearpolitics blog, Ryan Sager asks, Is Markos Moulitsas a mole for the Hillary Clinton primary campaign? I have to ask on account of this piece on the Washington Post op-ed page today. Because, you see, the surest way to guarantee a candidate's election is to put them on the side opposite the Kos Krowd....There is nothing Hillary Clinton worries less about in life than whether the folks over at Daily Kos think she's liberal enough."
Posted by bill at 09:00 PM | Comments (2)
May 05, 2006
Deconstructing the AP
"Dow Less Than 185 Pts. From All-Time High"
Investors saw a slowdown in April employment growth as the latest sign of a softening economy, a reason for the Fed to stop raising interest rates. That countered worries over rising wages, which followed an upswing in employers' labor costs reported by the Labor Department Thursday.
Jack Caffrey, equities strategist for JPMorgan Private Bank, said the market appeared to be focusing on recent positive data instead of considering the long-term consequences of why the Fed would stop boosting interest rates because economic growth has slowed enough to contain inflation.
This is freakin' maddening. The lead is that the market (Dow and Russell) is almost back to its all-time high, and this time it isn't fueled by the transient dot-com boom. In fact, it is surging in spite of the war, Bush's big spending, and the crazy oil prices. The market focuses on the positive data, but Big Media's focus is on the "softening economy" and a "slowdown" in employment growth, worries over rising wages, an upswing in labor costs, yada yada yada. Talk about the nattering nabobs of negativity! Clinton got raves for the economy, which was thanks to the dot-coms. Bush's Bush's economic performance, including on unemployment, is clearly better than Clinton's, but Dubya gets no credit from those doing the reporting.
(Bill adds: Suitably Flip has a post on the good news (..."Unemployment holds at show-offy low rate of 4.7%).)
Posted by GadsdenFlag at 03:36 PM | Comments (0)
Two peas in a pod: The Kennedy four-step program, or (UPDATE) "I am addicted to the chronic disease of being a Kennedy"
1. Kennedy
2. Alcohol
3. Mishap
4. Cover-up
UPDATE (3:53) - Patrick: Kennedys don't cause car accidents; Ambien causes car accidents. I'm willing to give PK (some) benefit of the doubt, but inconsistencies etc. abound -- one wonders, no? Michelle Malkin has a round-up and translates the Kennedy-speak: "I am changing the subject."
Posted by bill at 09:37 AM | Comments (2)
May 04, 2006
Blacks living way longer than non-blacks
So says the NY Times, in a story about blacks' unease "as they watch Hispanics flex their political muscle while assuming the mantle of a seminal black struggle for justice." As Eugene Robinson made clear earlier this week, the black leadership fears that the victimhood pecking order is being jostled. Now that's liberalism at work. Interestingly, too, blacks are living very long lives, according to the NYT: "black protesters in the 1960's were American citizens and had endured centuries of enslavement, rapes, lynchings and discrimination before they started marching." No kidding? And here I thought the 80-year or so life expectancy was "progress."
Posted by bill at 09:52 AM | Comments (0)
May 03, 2006
For shame!
Zacarias Moussaoui wants death, and deserves worse. Instead he'll live behind bars, a constant reminder the impotence of law enforcement and the justice system to fight this war. This savage never deserved American courts and American rights and American justice. Now his lawyers will say he needs to be separated from the general prison population, and we'll be serving him culturally sensitive meals, prayer rugs, and surrounding him with various Muslim niceties. This asshole will live for decades on the taxpayers dime, and for years our enemies will laugh and laugh...
Lest we forget...
Videos and photoessays here; here; and here. Watch them, and then think about Zacarias Moussaoui, sitting in a US jail cell, knowing justice won't be ours.
Posted by bill at 04:45 PM | Comments (5)
Blogroll updatea: Blogger solidarity
The way I see it, if your weblog is among those targeted in a "Denial of Service" hack attack by Saudi-based cyber-jihadists, then you're doing something right. I haven't read all of the blogs below, but based on their ability to piss off our lunatic enemies, and a humble show of support I've added them to the CJ blogroll:
Chuck Simmins
Small Dead Animals
Radio Blogger
IMAO
Mountaineer Musings
Say Uncle
Counterterrorism Blog
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Castle Arggh!
She Will Be Obeyed
Michael Totten
Ticklish Ears
Samizdata
Theodore's World
Patterico
Florida Cracker
Jeff Quinton
Overlawyered
Blogs4Bush
Tim Blair
Down with Absolutes
Nyominx
Aaron's CC
Sondra K
Others (Powerline, Captain Ed, Instapundit were already on the list.
I hope other bloggers will follow suit. What better way to stand up to the Islamolunatics?
Posted by bill at 11:42 AM | Comments (1)
May 02, 2006
Memo to UN: Get in, or get out of the way.
John Bolton is actually thinking, which is one reason he's not well-liked over at Turtle Bay. It might come as a surprise to some that Bolton believes a Security Council "resolution" is not the sole means of pressuring Iran. Last month, as noted here, Bolton told a NYC audience that the US needn't be hamstrung by a squeamish, impotent Security Council. Now that the "squeamish" and "impotent" parts have been established as far as the Mullahs are concerned, Bolton is being clear he meant what he said, today telling a US House Subcommittee: "If for whatever reason the council couldn't fulfill its responsibilities, then I think it would be incumbent on us, and I'm sure we would press ahead to ask other countries or other groups of countries to impose those sanctions....While it would be desirable to have a unanimous Security Council...it's not impossible that we would proceed without them."
Bolton's sure to earn the ire of his allies (?) in Russia and China. But he seems intent on beating the UN into shape - with the unambiguous policy that the Security Council should join him in pressuring Iran, or face the prospect of yet more irrelevance once the US does what the US is supposed to do: look out for its own self-interest.
We should thank our lucky stars John Bolton is our man at the UN. Otherwise we'd have no choice but to believe Iran when it says the US "cannot do a damn thing."
Posted by bill at 04:56 PM | Comments (0)
Tuesday hodge-podge
Why we love sports, via Jules from down the hall. This is a great video for any sports fan.
Hey Generation X males! Remember Nikolai Volkoff? He was the Russian WWF wrestler in the 1980's who'd sing the USSR national anthem before his matches. Back then, we were allowed to dislike our country's enemies, so he was universally reviled. He was also a fictional personality, though (his real name is Josip Peruzovic) and now he's running for state office in Maryland. Read about it here.
Speaking of communism, CJ contributor Humberto Fontova and author of Fidel; Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant, says Andy Garcia is paying the price with mainstream critics for Lost City, an unhappy look at life in Communist Cuba. Tongue-in-cheek:
The film's offenses are many and varied. Most unforgivable of all, Che Guevara is shown killing people in cold blood. Who ever heard of such nonsense? And just where does this uppity Andy Garcia get the effrontery to portray such things? The man obviously doesn't know his place.
And just where did Garcia get this preposterous notion of pre-Castro Cuba as a relatively prosperous but politically troubled place, they ask? All the Cubans he portrays seem middle class? Where in his movie is the tsunami of stooped and starving peasants that carried Fidel and Che into Havana on it's crest, they ask? Where's all those diseased and illiterate laborers and peasants my professors, Dan Rather, CNN and Oliver Stone told me about, ask the critics?
(H/T: Gadsden Flag.)
Last, with any luck we may have inter-minority squabble brewing, with Eugene Robinson putting the brakes on analogies between the present Hispanic immigration movement and the civil rights movement. (Blacks are still the victims around here, thank you very much: "There's just no way to compare a group of people whose ancestors were brought here in chains, forced to work as slaves and then systematically classified as second-class citizens for more than a century with another group of people, however hard-working or well-meaning, who came to the United States voluntarily.")
Finally, it appears I've been permanently banned over at the purportedly conservative RedState, thanks to this post.
Posted by bill at 12:12 PM | Comments (1)
May 01, 2006
Viva el blogosphero!
This is CNN's version of "breaking" editorial commentary. Suddenly, the fact that immigration demonstrations have been hijacked by leftist radicals is important to CNN, because Lou Dobbs thinks it's important. Note to CNN: That's not news.
Posted by bill at 05:40 PM | Comments (0)
