« February 2006 | Main | April 2006 »
From the B.S. Files . . .
“Ms. McKinney is just a victim of being in Congress while black.”
- James W. Myart Jr., the lawyer for Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney [Source]
So, the wearing of a congressional identification pin is for whites only, eh, Mr Myart?
“Nearly 7,000 same-sex couples have married in Massachusetts in the past two years (and) I’m proud of the example our commonwealth is setting.”
- Sen. Edward M. Kennedy [Source]
Let's see. Now we know that all of those same-sex marriages of out-of-state people violated Massachusetts law. Plus, the only reason why same-sex marriages are permissible for Massachusetts residents is because a group of activist judges legislated from the bench. So, which example is Ted Kennedy proud of, the violation of Massachusetts law or the legislative action of Massachusetts judges?
“They're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting and they should get out of San Francisco.”
- Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, in reference to the people who participated in a Christian youth rally in San Francisco [Source]
"They're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting and they should get out of America." - Dodo David, in reference to the San Francisco politicians who are opposed to a group of Christians exercising their constitutional rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of peaceful assembly.
“In every election in my lifetime the more charismatic candidate, like Reagan and Clinton, has won. The only arguable exception was 2000, where the more charismatic candiate (Bush) assumed office, but through theft rather than honest victory. Even so, given Gore's institutional advantages as a sitting Vice-President in peace and prosperity, (and posessing a greater intellect, more impressive record, and greater desire to be president than his opponent) the charisma gap is the primary explanation for why Bush even got close enough to steal it.”
- Blogger Ben Adler, in a post dated March 21, 2006. (The spelling errors are his.) [Source]
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that the members of the Electoral College are the people who elect the President. After the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush had the majority of electoral votes. Thus, Mr. Bush didn't steal the election. The charge that Mr. Bush stole the election comes from a crybaby who didn't get what he wanted during the 2000 election.
The statements of Myart, Kennedy, Leno and Adler are literary versions of what those of us in Oklahoma use to fertilize our gardens.
Posted by Dodo David at 08:27 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
This is another blessing from the Democrats
If this does not become a national campaign ad, then Karl is off his game:
Ace of Spades found a copy of the arrest warrant:
- COUNT ONE: "Being in Congress while black" (CLASS A FELONY)
- COUNT TWO: Driving Under the Influence of Barry White (CLASS B MISDEMEANOR)
- COUNT THREE: Reckless uppitiness (CLASS A MISDEMEANOR)
- COUNT FOUR: Aggravated Sass in the second degree (CLASS A MISDEMEANOR)
- COUNT FIVE: Refusing to yield to The Man when he demands you shuck and jive for him (CLASS C FELONY)
- COUNT SIX: Carrying Soul Without a Permit (CLASS B MISDEMEANOR)
- COUNT SEVEN: Possession of TRUTH! with intent to distribute (CLASS A FELONY)
God bless Ace for writing the script for the campaign ad.
Posted by Aaron at 08:14 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Performancing! I love it!
I love my new blog editor that fits right in my browsing window! Check it out at Firefox/Performancing.
Posted by Aaron at 06:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The N.O.W. Headquarters in New Orleans
[Formerly Hancock Bank]
Posted by Aaron at 02:04 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
LA Times Faces its readers
Opinion LA's online discussion really demonstrates the mood in this country against Mexican nationalists/reconquistas and illegal immigrants. Here are some choice comments:
- If the US Selective Service law states that all males between 18 and 26 must register for the draft within 30 days of turning 18 or being in this country illegal or not,punishable by a $250,000 fine and 5 years in jail and they haven't so done, then that is another violation of the US LAW and that man should not be eligible for US Citizenship and should go home!
- Big deal, a bunch of children immigrants skip another day of school. Go home.
- Mexico is the biggest coyote. It does nothing to improve the living conditions of it's people. The US needs to stop sending aid and start billing them for the services we provide for their citizens.
- I canceled my gardener this week.I'll do it myself from now on or find a kid in the neighborhood.I will make a consious effort from now on to pay money for sevices to LEGAL residents and I suggest that eveyone does the same.I also suggest to close all accounts with banks that encourage illigal immigration such as wells fargo and B of A.WE NEED TO BE HEARD! Get off your couches and turn off the video games and let's save OUR country!
- if it was not for the mexican i bet half of you would nhot work what we work plus i don't think you would work for low wage and are people do you guys don't understand why is it only the mexican that bush want out of the united state and plus why is it on the bill its said united we stand that mean everyone that live here that even mean for our people
Notice how wrong the last person is (I give him credit for knowing some English)...Bush does NOT want to throw anyone out and that's why we are upset with Bush. Bush wants to condone illegal behavior because of business interests and because he wants the Republicans to get latino votes. But his mistake is typical; he assumes its all Bush's fault whether it is true or not.
Posted by Aaron at 10:35 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Bet They Wish They Had Capital Punishment
VIENNA, Austria (AP) - A woman who stuffed the bodies of two of her four infants in a freezer and entombed two others in plastic buckets filled with cement was convicted Friday of three counts of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Gertraud Arzberger, 33, was convicted by a court in the southern city of Graz, closing out a macabre crime that stunned Austria when the tiny bodies were recovered last summer. Her live-in companion, 39-year-old Johannes Genser, was convicted as an accessory and sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment.
Oh, and the boyfriend claimed he knew nothing about the pregnancies. Hello, McFly! Only a complete dumba** could miss his live-in girlfriend being pregnant four times.
The two were charged last June after police discovered the bodies of two newborns in a basement freezer shared by residents of an apartment complex in Graz, about 120 miles south of Vienna, and the remains of two more entombed in paint buckets filled with cement.
Autopsies performed on the remains indicated that the two infants found in the freezer were still alive when put inside, wrapped in plastic bags. Autopsies could not be performed on the two newborns whose remains were sealed in cement because they had deteriorated too much.
And, it gets weirder:
Prosecutors said Arzberger told investigators she killed the infants out of despair over her inability to pay the bills, and out of fear that having children might drive away Genser, her partner of eight years.
Genser, whose lawyer insisted the charges were "pure fiction" in closing arguments Friday, was led from the courtroom in handcuffs after asking Judge Karl Buchgraber if he first could propose marriage to Arzberger.
"Can I still offer her my hand?" Genser asked.
"No," the judge replied.
Too bad she didn't live here, where she could have gotten late third-trimester abortions. Then she wouldn't have been accused of murder, but of making a healthcare choice, and she'd be free to tend the beautiful garden she is said to have.
Posted by Pam at 09:19 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Call Me Crazy
But I don't think we invaded Iraq over aluminum tubes...however, the HuffPuff is hysterically linking to a National Journal article that says that Bush was warned by the State Department that the tubes were most likely for conventional weapons (Saddam with any weapons is dangerous).
Okay, so what do we have here? Two agencies sent Bush a one page memo that stated it disagreed with all the other government agencies over the probable use for aluminum tubes.
Hadley was particularly concerned that the public might learn of a classified one-page summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, specifically written for Bush in October 2002. The summary said that although "most agencies judge" that the aluminum tubes were "related to a uranium enrichment effort," the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Energy Department's intelligence branch "believe that the tubes more likely are intended for conventional weapons."
Man, that would make me sleep like a baby at night! So, I guess they got Bush! In his SOTU address Bush stated that we are going to war with Iraq because it has aluminum tubes. He never mentioned the human tragedy and genocide; he never mentioned Saddam's support for terrorism; he never mentioned that Saddam never accounted for all kinds of WMDs and we had no clue what happened to them.
Liberals only remember what they want. The only part of the speech they did remember was the part about uranium from Africa (which was in fact true), but now they will forget that and say that the whole reason for war was over some tubes. It was a preponderence of the evidence--not one sole thing.
And, like all of these blockbuster articles, no one is on record (which means it's probably Powell, Armitage and that they are Richard Clarke-ing their egos).
Posted by Aaron at 06:15 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
I Apologize to Everybody--Except the French!
Here's an amusing article on the current French woes. The government has proposed allowing companies to fire workers with fewer than two years of seniority. This has resulted in riots and a general strike.
THE SIGHT OF MILLIONS of Frenchmen, predominantly young, demonstrating in deep sympathy and solidarity with themselves, is one that will cause amusement and satisfaction on the English side of the Channel. Everyone enjoys the troubles of his neighbours. And at least our public service strikers just stay away from work, and spend the day peacefully performing the rites of their religion, DIY, and not making a terrible nuisance of themselves. In fact, many of them are probably less of a public nuisance if they stay at home than if they go to work.
Of course, demonstrating in huge numbers is what the French do from time to time. We should never forget that to break a shop window for the good of humanity is one of the greatest pleasures known to Man. Trying to topple governments by shouting insults is also great fun.
Of course, if companies were more easily able to fire workers, they would also be more willing to hire them as well. The writer points out that the rioters are simply protecting themselves at the expense of the Muslim youth of the country:
It is often pointed out that French unemployment under the age of 26 is the highest in Europe, running at about 25 per cent. Moreover, in the banlieues it is 50 per cent. These banlieues are homes to millions of people, disproportionately young. It follows — does it not? — that there must be a considerable section of the young population in which unemployment is less than a quarter, actually much less. One would hardly have to be de Tocqueville to guess in which section of the young population the unemployment was less: the section from which the demonstrators, or at least their leaders and agents provocateurs, are drawn.
Posted by pat at 02:50 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Noonan on Immigration: Brilliant
Every so often, her prose just soars and gives such clarity to an issue:
What this all got me thinking about, the next day, was . . . immigration. I know that seems a lurch, but there's a part of the debate that isn't sufficiently noted. There are a variety of things driving American anxiety about illegal immigration and we all know them--economic arguments, the danger of porous borders in the age of terrorism, with anyone able to come in.
But there's another thing. And it's not fear about "them." It's anxiety about us.
It's the broad public knowledge, or intuition, in America, that we are not assimilating our immigrants patriotically. And if you don't do that, you'll lose it all.
We used to do it. We loved our country with full-throated love, we had no ambivalence. We had pride and appreciation. We were a free country. We communicated our pride and delight in this in a million ways--in our schools, our movies, our popular songs, our newspapers. It was just there, in the air. Immigrants breathed it in. That's how the last great wave of immigrants, the European wave of 1880-1920, was turned into a great wave of Americans.
We are not assimilating our immigrants patriotically now. We are assimilating them culturally. Within a generation their children speak Valley Girl on cell phones. "So I'm like 'no," and he's all 'yeah,' and I'm like, 'In your dreams.' " Whether their parents are from Trinidad, Bosnia, Lebanon or Chile, their children, once Americans, know the same music, the same references, watch the same shows. And to a degree and in a way it will hold them together. But not forever and not in a crunch.
So far we are assimilating our immigrants economically, too. They come here and work. Good.
But we are not communicating love of country. We are not giving them the great legend of our country. We are losing that great legend.
What is the legend, the myth? That God made this a special place. That they're joining something special. That the streets are paved with more than gold--they're paved with the greatest thoughts man ever had, the greatest decisions he ever made, about how to live. We have free thought, free speech, freedom of worship. Look at the literature of the Republic: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist papers. Look at the great rich history, the courage and sacrifice, the house-raisings, the stubbornness. The Puritans, the Indians, the City on a Hill.
The genius cluster--Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, Madison, Franklin, all the rest--that came along at the exact same moment to lead us. And then Washington, a great man in the greatest way, not in unearned gifts well used (i.e., a high IQ followed by high attainment) but in character, in moral nature effortfully developed. How did that happen? How did we get so lucky? (I once asked a great historian if he had thoughts on this, and he nodded. He said he had come to believe it was "providential.")
We fought a war to free slaves. We sent millions of white men to battle and destroyed a portion of our nation to free millions of black men. What kind of nation does this? We went to Europe, fought, died and won, and then taxed ourselves to save our enemies with the Marshall Plan. What kind of nation does this? Soviet communism stalked the world and we were the ones who steeled ourselves and taxed ourselves to stop it. Again: What kind of nation does this?
Only a very great one. Maybe the greatest of all.
Do we teach our immigrants that this is what they're joining? That this is the tradition they will now continue, and uphold?
Do we, today, act as if this is such a special place? No, not always, not even often. American exceptionalism is so yesterday. We don't want to be impolite. We don't want to offend. We don't want to seem narrow. In the age of globalism, honest patriotism seems like a faux pas.
And yet what is true of people is probably true of nations: if you don't have a well-grounded respect for yourself, you won't long sustain a well-grounded respect for others.
Amen!
Posted by Aaron at 10:35 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
CSM Reporter Jill Caroll Freed
I LOVE waking up to news like this:
American newspaper reporter Jill Carroll has been released after several months of captivity in Iraq, an editor at her newspaper, the Christian Science Monitor, said Thursday.
Incredible.
Posted by Aaron at 06:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Kiefer is Hot!
He really is photogenic. This picture is priceless and should be hung up in every cell in Gitmo:
Posted by Aaron at 01:06 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
It's Just Sad
I really believe that she started using crack with Bobby and that's why she married him--to have someone to crack-out with:
Whitney Houston has spiralled into a world of squalor and degradation on deadly crack — as the shocking pictures in today's Sun newspaper reveal.
It shows the disgusting mess in the singer’s bathroom after a drug binge.
Drug paraphernalia including a crack-smoking pipe, rolling papers, cocaine-caked spoons and cigarette ends are strewn across the surface tops.
But Whitney, 42, no longer cares.
She needs a major intervention.
Posted by Aaron at 07:36 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Irony: Dem Meshes both Culture of Corruption and Wire Tapping
I think its too fitting that a Democrat loses his appeal for both being corrupt by illegally handing over illegally taped phone conversations to the news media:
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Rep. Jim McDermott violated federal law by turning over an illegally taped telephone call to reporters nearly a decade ago.
In a 2-1 opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a lower court ruling that McDermott violated the rights of House Majority Leader John Boehner, who was heard on the 1996 call involving former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
The lower court had ordered McDermott to pay Boehner more than $700,000 for leaking the taped conversation. The figure includes $60,000 in damages and at least $600,000 in legal costs.
McDermott, D-Wash., leaked to The New York Times and other news organizations a tape of a 1996 cell phone call The call included discussion by Gingrich, R-Ga., and other House GOP leaders about a House ethics committee investigation of Gingrich. Boehner, R-Ohio, was a Gingrich lieutenant at the time and is now House majority leader.
Posted by Aaron at 05:46 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Cold-Hearted Liberal Paul Krugman
The immigration debate is heating up and surprise, surprise, Paul Krugman finds himself siding with the nativists.
First, the net benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration, aside from the large gains to the immigrants themselves, are small. Realistic estimates suggest that immigration since 1980 has raised the total income of native-born Americans by no more than a fraction of 1 percent.
Of course, looking solely at income ignores some of the other benefits of illegal immigration: Lower costs. Is landscaping cheaper because of illegal immigration? Is food cheaper because it's harvested by low-wage migrants?
Second, while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration - especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst- paid Americans.
The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration.
That's certainly a double-sided coin. If we accept that raising the wages of high-school dropouts is a good thing, aren't we running the risk of creating more of them? Should our immigration policy be determined by its effect on the high school dropout cohort?
From the above, you might think that Krugman is an enthusiastic supporter of anti-immigration legislation proposed by immigration hawks in Congress? But of course, you'd be wrong:
Mainly that means better controls on illegal immigration. But the harsh anti-immigration legislation passed by the House, which has led to huge protests - legislation that would, among other things, make it a criminal act to provide an illegal immigrant with medical care - is simply immoral.
Ah, so he must in favor of Bush's plan? Of course not:
Meanwhile, Bush's plan for a "guest worker" program is clearly designed by and for corporate interests, who'd love to have a low-wage work force that couldn't vote. Not only is it deeply un-American; it does nothing to reduce the adverse effect of immigration on wages. And because guest workers would face the prospect of deportation after a few years, they would have no incentive to become integrated into our society.
Is there a third way finesse? Nope:
What about a guest-worker program that includes a clearer route to citizenship? I'd still be careful. Whatever the bill's intentions, it could all too easily end up having the same effect as the Bush plan in practice - that is, it could create a permanent underclass of disenfranchised workers.
We need to do something about immigration, and soon. But I'd rather see Congress fail to agree on anything this year than have it rush into ill-considered legislation that betrays our moral and democratic principles.
Translation: Krugman's about as opposed to illegal immigration as Hillary Clinton is. Which is to say, pro forma.
For a different (and personal) take on immigration, check out this terrific post by Rick Moran.
Posted by pat at 04:06 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Immigration Filibuster
Polipundit seems to think there are only two options to defeat the amnesty bill:
We have two chances to stop this bill:
1. In the full Senate
2. In the House-Senate reconciliation process.
I'd like to also point out that if we get 40 republicans together, we can filibuster this bill. I think this could also be a winner politically going into the 2006 elections if a strong republican front prevents a bill of amnesty from going to a vote.
Defeating it would be best--but the filibuster will also smoke out the democrats.
Posted by Aaron at 11:50 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
I was wrong in my assertion Clinton was convicted
I was incorrect when I said Clinton was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice.
He was impeached in the House for these crimes, but acquitted by the Senate. He also brokered a deal to end the investigation.
In 1999, Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice by the U.S. House of Representatives. He was acquitted by the Senate. The perjury charge arose from Clinton's testimony about his relationship to Monica Lewinsky during a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by former Arkansas-state employee Paula Jones. The obstruction charge was based on his actions during the subsequent investigation of that testimony. On February 12, the Senate concluded a 21-day trial with the vote on both counts falling short of the Constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority to convict and remove an office holder. The final vote was generally along party lines, with all of the votes to convict being cast by Republicans. On the perjury charge 55 senators voted to acquit, including 10 Republicans, and 45 voted to convict; on the obstruction charge the Senate voted 50-50. [18] Clinton, like the only other president to be impeached, Andrew Johnson, served the remainder of his term.
Monica LewinskyThe day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was also automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he chose to resign. [17][18] Clinton's resignation was mostly symbolic, as he had never practiced before the Supreme Court and was not expected to in the future. Clinton also was assessed a $90,000 fine by federal judge Susan Webber Wright for contempt of court. The Paula Jones lawsuit was settled out of court for $850,000.
I thought he was convicted of the three charges in the House, but the Senate voted not to remove him from office.
So now, I suppose, that means Clinton is innocent.
Posted by Aaron at 11:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A Spirited Exchange
Glad The Man found this gem. Audio Here. I will use it to illustrate how liberals like to debate:
HANNITY: Alec, I wanted to give you an official WABC welcome considering you were supposed to come on my program last week and you didn't show up. What happened?
BALDWIN: No, I wasn't supposed to come on your program, Sean Hannity.
HANNITY: No, actually you were supposed to come on the program because a deal was made with your agent that if you were going to come on with Brian, first you'd come on with me.
BALDWIN: I wouldn't dream of coming on your program, Sean Hannity. I'm here with Brian. I'm here with a really talented broadcaster.
HANNITY: [Crosstalk] that you are, you don't tell the truth.
Baldwin wants to be on the radio, makes a deal and breaks it. Hannity establishes from the beginning that Alec Baldwin is a liar (but we already knew that).
BALDWIN: Why would I want to come on the show with a no-talent, former construction worker hack like you?
Baldwin is the one who starts the juvenile name-calling.
HANNITY: Are you the guy that said of our vice president, while we're at war, while we're leading troops in harm's way - are you the reckless, third-rate Hollywood actor who said that Dick Cheney is a terrorist? Are you the guy . . .
BALDWIN: Yes I am.
HANNITY: ... who said to stone Henry Hyde to death? Are you the guy who said our president is a CIA mass murderer? I wanted you to come on the program and defend that, you gutless coward.
BALDWIN: At first I thought this was a joke. But you can hear all the acid venom spewing hatred. It is Sean Hannity.
Baldwin accuses Hannity of acid venom spewing hatred when he only repeats the hateful accusations Baldwin has made (see how this works with liberals?).
The exchange got even hotter when Mark Levin joined in.
LEVIN: We've only just begun - are you 40 or 50 pounds overweight now?
Levin is total comic relief at this point. He heard his friend being called names by Baldwin and Levin comes to his friends aid saying, "Step!"
WHITMAN: Oh, C'mon now . . . .
HANNITY: Once and for all you need to be challenged. You want to call our vice president a terrorist - fine. You want to talk about stoning people to death, say it on my program. If you want to be irresponsible and call our president a mass murderer while he's at war leading troops in harm's way ...
BALDWIN: And what are you gonna do about it, Sean Hannity?
HANNITY: You don't have the courage to answer questions.
BALDWIN: And what are you gonna do? And what are you going to do about it, Sean Hannity. If I come on your program, what are you going to do?
Baldwin is sitting safely in a studio but wants to act macho by egging on a fight with Hannity. I WISH I was there! This is totally like back in high school in the lunch room. I love it!
LEVIN: He's going to show that you have a two digit IQ - that's what he's gonna do.
BALWIN: What are you going to do?
LEVIN: I just told you - you've got a two digit IQ.
BALDWIN: And who's that - who's your little cabin boy there with you.
Again, Baldwin starts the name-calling by essentially calling Levin a fag. That's what an enlightened mind does--calls his opponents fags.
LEVIN: I'm not a cabin boy, butt-boy.
Levin fires back.
BALDWIN: What are you doing there, cabin boy? ... I now dub you Sean Hannity's cabin boy.
LEVIN: And you know what you are? You're "Brokeback" Alec. [END EXCERPT]
BALDWIN: Listen, Sean - you incredibly ignorant boob from Long Island ...
More of the Baldwin name calling...See the pattern?
HANNITY: Oh, ouch, Alec.
BALDWIN: No, no, no, you've spoken, let me talk, Sean. Cause you've been spewing your ...
HANNITY: You're a third-rate Hollywood egomaniac.
BALDWIN: You're a no-talent, ignorant fool from Long Island. You should go back to building houses in Hempstead.
Now Baldwin insults the working class. This is liberal arguing by the book.
LEVIN: Why was your [former] wife [Kim Basinger] so pissed off at you, anyway?
WHITMAN: Now, c'mon guys.
BALDWIN: OK. We're done. [Gets up and leaves the studio]
And then he runs like a little girl! Priceless!
WHITMAN: Come back. Come back. Alec? They're gone. Alec? Alec has walked out of the studio. Alec, please come back...
Posted by Aaron at 09:57 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Liberal Insanity!
More of what NEA liberalism and trial lawyerism hath wrought:
Lorain school officials this week executed an ''emergency removal'' of an 8-year-old boy who they say sexually harassed a girl in gym class.
The boy's mother, Tammy Barth, said yesterday her son was playing in gym on Tuesday when a girl student said he and two other boys may have grabbed her buttocks.
He was then questioned in an informal hearing by school officials and he admitted he had been passing love notes to the same girl.
The second-grader then asked to sign a notice of emergency removal form for sexual harassment without a parent present, Barth said. The boy printed his first name on the portion of the form asking for his signature.
School documents provided by Barth and the boy's father, Frank Johnson, did not give specifics on the incident but showed that the second-grader was removed from school on Tuesday for ''sexual harassment during gym.'' It also states the student ''admits to writing notes saying 'I love you' and giving them to a student.''
How can a someone who has not gone through puberty sexually harrass another student?
Posted by Aaron at 03:35 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Yawn. More Non News
Yet another British memo reveals that after 16 years of failed inspections and after the US sought and got resolution 1441, that Bush was ready to proceed to invade Iraq regardless of the outcome of the second resolution and if the inspectors found anything or not.
In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.
But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.
"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.
What is new here? And why does this imply something negative towards Bush?
Posted by Aaron at 12:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
MARCH MADNESS!
|
Posted by kitty at 09:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
RedState admits that Ben Domenech plagiarized
RedState co-founder Mike Krempasky has a post titled On behalf of RedState.
Krempasky begins his post with the following paragraph: "A young man took something and called it his own. He owes apologies to those writers, his editors, and especially his friends who have rushed to his defense in the past 48 hours. It is an embarrassing offense -- and one rightly criticized."
The young man that Krempasky refers to is RedState co-founder Ben Domenech. Being that he is Domenech's friend, Krempasky doesn't directly admit to what his friend Ben did. Nowhere in his post does Krempasky actually say that Domenech engaged in plagiarism and then lied about doing so.
At least Domenech does a better job of admitting to his guilt. In his post titled Contrition, Domenech states, "I want to apologize to National Review Online, my friends and colleagues here at RedState, and to any others that have been affected over the past few days. I also want to apologize to my previous editors and writers whose work I used inappropriately and without attribution. There is no excuse for this - nor is there an excuse for any obfuscation in my earlier statement."
Posted by Dodo David at 03:36 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
More Domenech
It gets even worse; NRO found more examples of plagiarism by Domenech.
To give you a feel for what our staff has found:
• In a movie review of Pay It Forward on the weekend of October 21-22, 2000, Domenech writes:
…Pay It Forward is exactly the type of film that the casual moviegoer will love, and critics will pan.
In a October 18, 2000, review of Pay It Forward on "the flick filosopher" website, writer Maryann Johanson writes:
This is a film the studio knows casual moviegoers will love and critics will not…
Here's more from the same review. Ben Domenech writes:
Most kids come up with plans to put up recycling flyers or clean up the neighborhood, but Trevor's idea astounds even his teacher…
Maryann Johanson writes:
Most kids come up with plans to post flyers about recycling and such, but Trevor's brilliantly simple idea astounds even his teacher…
Domenech:
…when the naively youthful Osment is asked whether the plan might be 'overly utopian,' relying as it does on an act of faith in 'the goodness of people,' the boy's wonderfully optimistic reply is, 'So?'
Johanson:
Eugene wonders if the plan might be 'overly utopian,' relying as it does on 'an act of faith in the goodness of people,' and Trevor's naively childlike and wonderfully optimistic reply is, 'So?'
Note particularly that bit about "a feel for". They present a fair number of examples.
I'm sympathetic to the guys over at Red State. For the last several days they've seen Ben get attacked by the idiots on the sinester side of the aisle, with ridiculous, baseless and disgusting charges. So that when suddenly it is discovered that Ben did commit plagiarism, their instinct is to rally around.
But the time is past for that.
Posted by pat at 09:57 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
More on the Domenech Plagiarism Scandal
Here are statements by others pertaining to the plagiarism of Ben Domenech.
From the blog Decision '08:I was quite vocal in welcoming the concept of Red America to the Washington Post, and that hasn’t changed. Unfortunately, Domenech was a poor standard-bearer. The left, of course, were having a field day with the plagiarism allegations, and to their credit, they were right.
Let’s have none of this half-hearted grudging acknowledgment - we were right with RatherGate, and they were right here. Furthermore, they did us a service, believe it or not, by finding these examples of ‘idea theft’ and bringing them to light. We don’t want the conservative viewpoint, in such a high-profile outlet, to be represented by a plagiarist.
From the editors of National Review Online:
A MESSAGE TO OUR READERS [The Editors]
As the previous links on the matter mention, at least one of the pieces Ben Domenech is accused of having plagiarized was a movie review for National Review Online. A side-by-side comparison to another review of the same film speaks for itself. There is no excuse for plagiarism and we apologize to our readers and to Steve Murray of the Cox News Service from whose piece the language was lifted. With some evidence of possible problems with other pieces, we're also looking into other articles he wrote for NRO.
From B. Preston of JunkYardBlog:The only serious charge against Ben is that he’s a plagiarist. That charge, unfortunately, sticks. Atrios and Kos and others have found numerous examples of his lifting whole passages from other writings and passing them off as his own. They appear to be genuine examples of plagiarism. There’s no excuse for that. . .
I understand defending a friend. I absolutely understand it. I do not understand and cannot condone, however, blaming everyone else for one man’s pattern of behavior going back several years. Ben blames his editors at the Flat Hat, then blames his editors at the Post. He hasn’t yet blamed the editors at NRO, but that may because he was himself a contributing editor—blaming them in a sense blames himself, and apparently that’s out of bounds. I’m sorry, but these excuses don’t fly and have to stop. Now.
From someone claiming to have been Domenech's editor while Domenech wrote for his college newspaper [Source]:
This all seems to have happened really fast. I hadn't really checked the news til midday today when I saw all of this happened. It might be kind of moot now, but I was Domenech's editor at The Flat Hat when he was writing the reviews. Four people, including me, would have handled his copy, the others being my assistant section editor, the managing editor and the editor.
This should seem obvious, but no one on the editorial staff was going into Salon (or wherever) and pasting whole sections into his reviews. We were more concerned about getting the paper done so we could get home at 2 in the morning instead of 5. We may have put additional words in the story, but it would never have been completely foreign content. It was just editing.
Here are a couple of responses to the alleged self-defense that Domenech posted at RedState:
Sheesh - By: etatsder
Everyone is wrong and people are just out to sabotage you ever since you were seventeen? Grow up. This reminds me of how a majority of African Americans defend O.J. Simpsons simply because he is one of them rather even though it is obvious with the blood is on his hands (figuratively and literally).
Take heart Ben. You could committ mass murder and people here would still defend you.
Sad.
Why resign then? - By: squeaky wheel
Should have let them fire you. By resigning your case is unresolved, at least in my eyes. Had you let them investigate the matter, then you would have been absolved, as the case may be, after the investigation. This would have lended to your credibility . . . I don't think you owe anyone an explanation, I can respect that. But you have left me wondering if you are indeed telling the truth in this matter.
Oh, if you don't already have an account at RedState, then you can forget about posting a response to Domenech's alleged self-defense, at least not until next Wednesday at the earliest. The website has the posted the following announcement: "NEW USERS ARE RESTRICTED FROM POSTING STORIES, DIARIES, OR COMMENTS FOR FIVE DAYS AFTER SIGNUP."
Still, you can check out the comments section and see for yourself how the RedState lemmings are following Domenech over the credibility cliff.
As I see it, a conservative lemming is just as bad as a liberal lemming, and a conservative blogger who lacks humility is just as bad as a liberal blogger who lacks humility.
Posted by Dodo David at 07:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Left 'Gannons' Red America
Yes, it should have been expected. Anytime conservatism gains an outlet in the leftist media, the left goes insane, verbally assault their target and usually threaten violence.
Such is the case of Ben Domenech at Red America. I don't even know if the blog was a week old, but the left already started the mud slinging by first accusing him of being a Klansman, then that he was a plagerist (let us see how they treat Senator Slow Joe Biden in the primaries).
I read about the first vile accusation here.
However, like in the Gannon case where there was a photo of him and other evidence of his "night job," there is a lot of evidence demonstrating that Domenech lifted material from other sources (it should be noted, however, that the left humiliated Gannon over something that had nothing to do with his work and was his own personal business). I think the most disappointing part is that his lifted work was published in a very respectable magazine: National Review; I think the lamest part is that he lifted it for a movie review of the Final Fantasy movie. This might be the only time I ever link to Daily Kos, but they deserve credit for this uncovering:
Ben Domenech wrote:
Translucent and glowing, they ooze up from the ground and float through solid walls, splaying their tentacles and snapping their jaws, dripping a discomfiting acidic ooze. They're known as the Phantoms, otherworldly beings who, for three decades, have been literally sucking the life out of the earthlings of the human. They are swollen, insectoid, the nightmare descendents of Lovecraftian grotesque - if only the filmmakers had created a plot that was as memorable.
Steve Murray, writing for the Cox News Service, wrote:
Translucent and glowing, they ooze up from the ground and float through solid walls, wriggling countless tentacles and snapping their jaws. They're known as the Phantoms, alien thingies that, for three decades, have been sucking the life out of the earthlings of "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within." Swollen nightmares from a petri dish, they're the kind of grotesque whatsits horror writer H.P. Lovecraft would have kept as pets in his basement.
There is no excuse for this and the Washington Post would have been right to fire him if he had not resigned. To be fair, he offers some sensible defenses for some items, but the evidence is too overwhelming.
As conservatives, we cannot endorse or condone such behavior. I know it means nothing, but I am going to remove RedState.org from LLP's blogroll. There are many talented writers there so please check in with them, but I don't feel right linking to them while he is still on the board. I think Michelle Malkin states precisely how most conservatives feel:
"I cheered for Ben, the editor of my last book at Regnery, when he announced his new position," Malkin wrote on her Web site today. "I criticized unhinged bloggers on the Left who leveled vicious ad hominem attacks against him. It's clear, as the good folks at Red State (which Ben co-founded) note, that his detractors were on a search-and-destroy mission from the get-go.
"But now the determined moonbat hordes have exposed multiple instances of what clearly appear to me to be blatant lifting of entire, unique passages by Ben from other writers. It is one thing to paraphrase basic facts from a wire story. But to filch the original thoughts and distinctly crafted phrases of a writer without crediting him/her--and doing so repeatedly--is unacceptable in our business. Some of the cases occurred while Ben was in college; he is blaming an editor for these transgressions. But at least one other incident involved a piece he wrote for NRO after he graduated. The side-by-side comparisons of these extensive passages is damning.
"I certainly understand the impulse on the Right to rally around Domenech. But I can't ignore the plain evidence. And the charges can't be dismissed as 'lies' or jealousy attributed to Ben's age. As someone who has worked in daily journalism for 14 years, I have a lot of experience related to this horrible situation: I've had my work plagiarized by shameless word and idea thiefs many times over the years. I've also been baselessly accused of plagiarism by some of the same leftists now attacking Ben.
"The bottom line is: I know it when I see it. And, painfully, Domenech's detractors, are right. He should own up to it and step down. Then, the Left should cease its sick gloating and leave him and his family alone."
I think we should look at this horrible incident and see how it is instructive of the difference between conservatives and liberals:
- We do not believe Domenech made a "mistake." He totally screwed up and is responsible for it.
- We did make fun of Dan Rather, but we did not threaten him with violence, nor did we make comments about his family.
- National Review did not circle the wagons.
- Bloggers did not circle the wagons.
- We are convinced by EVIDENCE--not how we FEEL.
- We are not going to protest and hold a die-in in front of the Washington Post for his resignation.
Posted by Aaron at 06:03 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Conservative blogger caught plagiarizing - Thank you, Liberals.
When Michelle Malkin anounced that Ben Domenech's blog Red America was being featured on the Washington Post's website, I applauded. Imagine it - a conservative blog featured by a left-leaning newspaper.
Liberals objected to Red America, and they searched the blogosphere for any dirt that they could find on Ben Domenech.
Well, the liberals hit paydirt. They caught Ben Domenech plagiarizing.
As soon as Domenech's plagiarism was exposed, conservative bloggers Rick Moran and Michelle Malkin called for Domenech's resignation.
Over on the website The American Thinker, Moran wrote the following:If we conservatives have any claims to promoting honesty and decency, there will be more calls on the right for Mr. Domenech to do the honorable thing and save himself and his employer the embarrassment of being fired by resigning immediately. Little can be gained from his continuing to blog at the Washington Post as I for one never plan on linking to anything he writes and would hope that other conservatives would join me in such a boycott.
Over on her blog, Malkin wrote the following:I certainly understand the impulse on the Right to rally around Domenech. But I can't ignore the plain evidence. And the charges can't be dismissed as "lies" or jealousy attributed to Ben's age.
As someone who has worked in daily journalism for 14 years, I have a lot of experience related to this horrible situation: I've had my work plagiarized by shameless word and idea thiefs many times over the years. I've also been baselessly accused of plagiarism by some of the same leftists now attacking Ben.
The bottom line is: I know it when I see it. And, painfully, Domenech's detractors, are right. He should own up to it and step down.Domenech has yielded to pressure and has resigned from his position at the Washington Post. [Click here for the WaPo announcement.]
No matter how much conservatives and liberals disagree with each other on socio-political issues, both groups agree that plagiarism is taboo, especially on the blogosphere where bloggers are trying to earn respect and trust. Plagiarism is harmful to conservatives and liberals alike. So, if it takes liberals to expose acts of plagiarism, then so be it. Such liberals should be applauded for providing a service to all bloggers.
Update: Over at his blog RedState, Ben Domenech claims that he is innocent of the charge of plagiarism. He doesn't bother to address all of the evidence against him, especially the evidence of what he did after he left college. Instead, he makes comments such as the following:
Considering that all of this happened almost eight years ago, and that there are no files or notes that I've kept from that brief stint, it is simply my word against the liberal blogosphere on these examples. It becomes a matter of who you believe.
Actually, it is his word against that of the conservative blogosphere. Michelle Malkin originally defended Domenech. She wouldn't have changed her position unless her own research revealed that the plagiarism charge was valid.
Posted by Dodo David at 03:30 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
More Agenda Journalism
This time, it's another global warming hit piece that didn't properly disclose background on the scientist interviewed:
The scientist touted by CBS News' "60 Minutes" as arguably the "world's leading researcher on global warming" and spotlighted as a victim of the Bush administration's censorship on the issue, publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president and received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by Kerry's wife.
Scientist James Hansen has also admitted that he contributed to two recent Democratic presidential campaigns. Furthermore, he acted as a consultant in February to former Vice President Al Gore's slide show presentations on "global warming," which Gore presented around the country.
But Scott Pelley, the "60 Minutes" reporter who profiled Hansen and detailed his accusations of censorship on the March 19, edition of the newsmagazine, made no mention of Hansen's links to Kerry and Gore and none to the fact that Kerry's wife -- Teresa Heinz Kerry -- had been one of Hansen's benefactors.
Using the liberals' Armstrong Williams standard of ethics--if you're paid, you're nothing but a propagandist--this scientist is nothing but a left-wing propagandist.
Meanwhile, scientists believe the earth is warming to the temperature it was 130,000 years ago:
By the end of this century, Earth would be at least 4 degrees F (2.3 degrees C) warmer than now, or about as hot as it was nearly 130,000 years ago.
Back then, significant portions of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets melted, pushing the global sea levels to about 20 feet higher than current levels.
I could be wrong, but I thought mean oil companies, capitalism, SUVs, Halliburton and the American Empire caused global warming (and racist hurricanes). Where these things around 130,000 years ago? Why was the earth hotter then that it is now?
Posted by Aaron at 05:56 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
A Tribute to Kitty
I put up a long post today celebrating our birthday girl, Kitty Myers. Stop over Kitty's place and wish her many more!
Posted by pat at 02:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
More Unbiased News Producers
There is no liberal bias in network news, remember?
Posted by Aaron at 02:08 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
More documents describing a relationship between Saddam and bin Laden
More "wishful thinking" I guess:
A newly released pre-war Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995 after approval by Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995 and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open (in the future) based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.
The report then states that "Saudi opposition figure" bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location," it states.
Posted by Aaron at 12:16 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
More of that Democratic Restraint
According to the Albany Times Union, Queens Democrat Ada Smith allegedly threw coffee in the staffers face, and pulled her hair.
New York State Police have confirmed that there is investigation into the allegations. Since it is an on-going investigation he could not comment or release any details.
A New York State Senator has been accused of allegedly harassing a staff member in her Albany office.
This wouldn't be the first time Smith faced allegations by a staffer. Last year, she was cleared of an accusation by a former chief of staff who said he was terminated because he is homosexual.
Also, in 1996 she allegedly threatened one employee with a knife. She denied this charge.
Didn't some Dems in the US Congress call some Republicans fruitcakes and storm out of a meeting or something? Anger management courses are needed.
Posted by Aaron at 10:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Greedy Republican vs. Anti-capitalist Liberal
and
Posted by Aaron at 10:43 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A Dose of Hypersensitivity
I saw the headline splashed on Drudge about some radio talk show host calling Secretary Rice a "coon."
I was outraged until I read the story. Isn't this really an honest mistake?
Lenihan was listing what assets Rice could bring to the league, including her tenure as a top academic officer at Stanford University and the fact that she is African-American.
“She’s just got a patent resume, of somebody that’s got such serious skill,” Linehan said on the air. “She loves football, she’s African-American, which would kind of be a big coon, a big coon – oh my God, I am totally, totally, totally, totally, totally sorry for that, OK? I didn’t mean that. That was just a slip of the tongue.” Lenihan later said he meant to use the word "coup."
Reached at home, Lenihan said he was still trying to figure out what happened, and was drafting a letter of apology to Rice.
"I was trying to say 'quite a coup' but it came out 'coon,"' he said. "I caught myself and apologized. It wasn't anything I was meaning to say. I never use that word.
Coup, Condi, Coon. That all could get jumbled to me. If Kennedy got a pass for calling Barack Obama, "Obama Osama" then this guy deserves a chance to apologize and keep his job.
Posted by Aaron at 08:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Ahab and the White Whale
That's the way I feel about Glenn Greenwald and his obsession with Russ Feingold's Censure Resolution. Today, using his new perch in the HuffPo, Greenwald repeats the usual memes:
1. The President broke the law and there's no need for an investigation.
Under FISA, it is a criminal offense to eavesdrop on Americans without the oversight and approval of the FISA court. Section 1809 of FISA expressly provides that "[a] person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally - (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute. . . ." And Section 2511(2)(f) provides that FISA "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . may be conducted." Thus, a person has broken the law if -- as the President admits he did -- he orders eavesdropping on Americans without complying with the warrant requirements of the statute. Period.
Of course, Greenwald completely ignores the argument that the law was not broken, or the argument that Congress cannot limit the powers of the presidency by statute. We all understand that the Congress can pass laws which apply to the president; how many realize that Congress cannot pass laws which apply to the presidency? For example, Congress could not pass a law requiring the President to submit any presidential pardons to them for review, because the powers that the President has in that regard are derived from the Constitution.
2. The censure resolution is popular with the American people. Greenwald claims:
As I have noted many times, public opinion polls have repeatedly shown that pluralities of the public believe that the President broke the law and majorities oppose eavesdropping on American citizens without warrants.
Ah, but the devil is in the details of those public opinion polls. Rasmussen polling reported a few days ago:
Thirty-eight percent (38%) of Americans believe President Bush should be censured for approving the NSA wiretapping program. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 45% are opposed to the proposal advocated by Senator Russell Feingold.
Thirty-six percent (36%) of Americans say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who believes it is important to censure or impeach the President. Forty-two percent (42%) are less likely to vote for such a candidate.
Now, maybe Greenwald doesn't believe the polling. But the fact remains that Democrats have treated Feingold's censure resolution the way most people treat somebody who passes gas in an elevator; by getting as far from him as is possible. Greenwald recognizes this, but rails that it's completely irrational:
It is critical that Democrats recognize that we are not in 2003 anymore. George Bush is a wildly unpopular President whom the public neither likes nor trusts. The public overwhelmingly believes that the President deliberately made false statements to induce the nation into war and that he cannot be trusted.
Does he really believe that Democrats have somehow missed the dip in Bush's poll numbers?
In an oddball aside, he criticizes Instapundit for recognizing that the antiwar movement has fizzled:
Polls show that the vast majority of the country oppose the war in Iraq and believe it was a mistake. The percentage of Americans who are anti-war has steadily and rapidly increased and continues to rise. But in the starkly delusional and propagandizing mind of the Bush follower, President Bush's war policies enjoy the support of an overwhelming proportion of Americans and only a few enclaves of crazed, marginalized radicals opposes him.
Support for the war has indeed slipped; that this has not translated into support for the antiwar kooks is ignored by Greenwald.
In short, Greenwald, and the other netroots buffoons who are pushing for censure apparently believe that the Democrats are going against their own interests. I'm not always impressed with the professionals in that party, but they're not a bunch of Ahabs, determined to get Moby Dick even if it destroys them in the end.
Posted by pat at 03:45 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
perceived abuses of power and corruption
New Mexico Democrats are showing what their real agenda is after the 2006 elections:
The New Mexico Democratic Party is calling for President Bush's removal from office.
Party Chairman John Wertheim said Tuesday that delegates to Saturday's state party convention supported a call for the president's impeachment largely because of "perceived abuses of power and corruption in the Bush administration."
He listed as examples of abuses of power, warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens, the misstatement of facts preceding the invasion of Iraq, and the scandal surrounding the indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide in connection with the leak of the identity of a covert CIA operative.
"Everyone understands President Bush is not going to be impeached," Wertheim said. "But these abuses of power and corruption in the administration are deeply serious matters and there should be more talk about this abuse of power."
Democrats love to confuse definitions by using vague terminology. A president is impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors." Clinton was impeached because he committed several felonies that were proven in a court of law. Liberals want to impeach Bush for "perceived abuses of power and corruption." They want to impeach Bush because of how they FEEL--how they PERCEIVE things, but not the facts and not after an investigation and trial.
Next, they want to ban evangelism to soldiers:
"We believe no member of the armed services should be coerced, forced, manipulated or evangelized to any particular religion nor to any religious beliefs at all."
I guess there is no place for free exercise of religion or religion whatsoever in the military. Who needs God?
Posted by Aaron at 11:47 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Michelle Malkin Interviews Cindy Sheehan
Michelle is awesome. Sure, some of the questions were loaded, but she did ask her why she hasn't placed a headstone on her son's grave.
Cindy was totally right when she said it was no one's business and refused to answer the question. What is disheartening is that later she went on to answer the question and it was precisely what people thought: she was just too busy travelling the world protesting to do the headstone thing.
Meanwhile, Susan Saranwrap will play Cindy Sheehan in an upcoming fantasy film.
Posted by Aaron at 05:49 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Ah, Yes. Dittoheads Know their News
There's some very interesting stats in this Pew Poll.
Tried as I might, I could not find a reference to Airhead America in the article.
Posted by Aaron at 02:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Straight from the Heart
I link fairly often to the Real Ugly American over at Brainster's. I do that because he's a great blogger. He doesn't just link to an article here or there, he does a lot of original work.
Today he links to an Iraqi blogger who shares his memories of the start of the war.
To my friend Treasure of Baghdad I can only offer hope for the future and these words of solidarity and encouragement as I know more people he cares about will suffer and die before this war is over.
We are not ignoring you any longer my friend. Please do not push away the pe