From the Wacky, Paranoid Regime Department

Comes this little missive:

North Korea is taking "concrete measures" to boost its nuclear capabilities, reiterating that it was no longer interested in holding further negotiations with the United States, a South Korean news agency reported Tuesday.

A spokesman of the communist state's Foreign Ministry also told official news agency KCNA late Monday that if the United States tries to force North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons program before providing Pyongyang with a nonaggression treaty, it would lead to "war."

So in order for them to give up their nuclear weapons, we -- the U.S -- need to provide them with a nonaggression treaty? Um.. No thanks, cutting off your nose to spite your face comes to mind.

And to the NorKs? Don't even attempt to play a game of brinkmanship with this President, your pathetic excuse for a backwater country will be gone quicker than you can say, Kim Jong Il.

I am just waiting for Bush to use the quintessential Reaganism.

"I have signed legislation that outlaws North Korea. We begin the bombing in five minutes."

C'mon Mr. President, you know you want to say it.

link via (Kallini.Com)

Racist Sub-Culture of America Strikes Again

An Arizona jury convicted Frank Roque of murder in the death of a Sikh gas station owner following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The Arizona Republic said a Maricopa County jury Tuesday rejected Roque's insanity contention and convicted him of first-degree murder in the Sept. 15, 2001, shooting of Balbir Singh Sodhi.

Roque admitted to shooting the 49-year-old Indian immigrant at his service station but blamed it on mental illness and voices he heard in his head.

Prosecutors called the shooting an act of ethnic hatred rather than mental disease.

The trial moves on next to the aggravation phase, which the Republic said would determine if Roque will be eligible for the death penalty.

Yes, America is such a racist country we are contemplating sentencing this murdering asshat to death for killing someone of a different ethnicity. We are such a racist country that we didn't buy this asshat's assertion that he was mentally ill at the time he killed this Sikh. Yes, America is an extremely racist country, so much so, we actually contemplate killing racists.

read the rest of the story here.

link via (Right-Thinking)

From the This is News Department?

Comes the following story.

Independent candidate Arianna Huffington scheduled a TV appearance Tuesday night amid reports that she was considering dropping out of the recall race and throwing her support to Gov. Gray Davis in order to stop Arnold Schwarzenegger.

In a related story, Huffington blames Bush for her candidacy being a complete and utter failure. Better luck next time Arianna.

link via (Right-Thinking)

Update

Or the 12,468,321 reason why Matt Drudge rules.

NOVAK RESPONDS: 'NOBODY IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION CALLED ME TO LEAK THIS'
Mon Sep 29 2003 16:44:51 ET

"Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction.

"Another senior official told me the same thing. As a professional journalist with 46 years experience in Washington I do not reveal confidential sources. When I called the CIA in July to confirm Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the mission for her husband -- he is a former Clinton administration official -- they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else.

"According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives."

What I suspected all along in all honesty, no one in the White House leaked Wilson's wife's name to Bob Novak.

The question now is this, was there even a crime committed? Notice the last few lines? "According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operations." To my understanding the laws that could have been broken deal with people who are not any of things that Wilson's wife was, meaning that those laws only applied to CIA agents who operate covertly in a foreign country (officially referred to as NOC, or Non-Official Cover).

Since Wilson's wife was a desk jockey at the CIA, and since her employment at the CIA was probably a fact of public record -- that anyone could have discerned for themselves -- then where is the possible "violation" of federal law? She could have possibly had her privacy invaded, but for that a civil suit is filed, not a full blown federal investigation.

Once again, those on the Left try to find something to pin on the president. Once again, they have tried and they have failed.

Eighty-Seven Billion Dollar Breakdown

1. Four-week business course for 2,000 Iraqis, $20 million ($10,000 per pupil)
2. Forty new garbage trucks, $2 million ($50,000 per truck).
3. Imported petroleum, including kerosene and diesel, $900 million.
4. Funding to bring in 100 prison-building experts for six months, $10 million ($100,000 per expert).
5. Seven planned communities to include 3,258 houses, roads, an elementary school, two high schools, a clinic, and a place of worship and market for each community, $100 million.
6. Witness protection program for 100 families averaging five persons per family, $100 million ($200,000 per person).
7. New curriculum to train the Iraqi army, $164 million.
8. Two 4,000-bed prisons, $400 million ($50,000 per bed).
9. Funding for 500 experts to investigate crimes against humanity, $100 million ($200,000 per expert).
10. Protection for 400 judges and prosecutors, $20 million ($50,000 per person).
11. Begin work on a $500 million to $700 million children's hospital, $150 million.
12. Overhaul business practices of Iraq's postal service, including start of ZIP code system, $9 million.
13. Computer study of the Iraqi postal service, $54 million.

Which proves "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was all about getting oil for Halliburton.

Of course the members of the "loyal opposition" are not the least bit happy.

"Many of us on this committee have tried to better protect the American people from future terrorist attack, but time after time the administration has actively opposed efforts to boost homeland security," says Sen. Robert Byrd (D) of West Virginia, ranking member on the Senate appropriations committee. "Eyes have been trained solely on Iraq, while we remain vulnerable here at home."

Name one terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11th, Senator Byrd. And name one thing you on the "committee" have done to make us all safer. I'll be over here, not holding my breath.

Another risk for Bush and his GOP allies in Congress is that many of the items for Iraq look bloated. For example, why would new Iraqi prisons cost $50,000 a bed? "They're spending more on prisons [in Iraq] that we do in the US," says Sen. Patrick Leahy (D) of Vermont.

Perhaps they cost $50,000 a bed because Iraq has no prisons at all, Senator Leahy. Only Saddam's torture chambers could even remotely be called "prisons", and just think of the outcry you would make if we put Iraq's criminals in there. Iraq needs to be completely rebuilt, from the top down and the bottom up. The country has never known the rule of law nor has it ever known freedom. Garbage collection did not exist, and electricity on demand? That was only for those loyal to Saddam. In short, Senator Leahy, Iraq has no infrastructure, period. The United States does, that is why it costs $50,000/bed to build prisons and jails in Iraq.

But here's the money quote.

"How do I explain to my constituents that those who helped to prop up Saddam's regime - the French, the Russians and others - could potentially be repaid, but those who financed the war to liberate the Iraqi people will not be repaid?" asks Sen. Evan Bayh (D) of Indiana.

Simple. The United States is better than them.

read the entire article here.

link via (Kallini.com)

From the Wanna Be Leader of the Free World Department

Comes this great piece of comedy.

NEW CASTLE, Sept. 27 -- Gen. Wesley Clark, told a New Hampshire audience Friday night he had only fired one person in his life. On Saturday he said he wanted to fire a second person: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

When asked at a house party on the Seacoast about what he would do in Iraq if elected president today, he was met with applause when he said, "First of all I would change the Secretary of Defense."

Someone want to explain Civics 101 to Wes? See Wes, it goes like this, a Cabinet Secretary serves at the pleasure of the president who appointed him/her. Therefore, if you win the election, you would get the chance to appoint your very own Cabinet. Including, and get ready for the big shocker, Secretary of Defense.

Wesley Clark 2004 -- I'll Fire Rumsfeld.

Idiot.

...And here's your sign.

link via (.:DANEgerus)

Latest California Poll Numbers

From CNN

Voters in the California recall election might be poised to kick Gov. Gray Davis out and vote Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger in, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Sunday.

When asked how they they would vote on recalling Davis, 63 percent of probable voters said they would vote yes, compared with 35 percent who would vote no.

In a separate vote to choose a replacement for Davis, Schwarzenegger was the choice of 40 percent of respondents.

Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante was the choice for 25 percent of voters polled, Republican state Sen. Tom McClintock received 18 percent.

As much as I like Tom McClintock, it's time for the man to take one for the team come Monday. A Poll that came out last week had Arnold pulling almost 2 to 1 of McClintock's numbers, and this poll doesn't show any demonstrable change in that data. Indeed, Arnold seems to have become the definitive front-runner to replace Davis come October 7th, with a 15 percentage point lead over Bustamante.

Sorry Tom, even if I did live in California, I couldn't vote for you come election day. Those numbers are real and it's time for you to do the honorable thing and drop out.

link via (Right Thinking)

From The Where Do We Get These Guys Department

Comes this interesting piece of news.

Whether the chaplains are Christian or Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist, the military relies on religious groups themselves to recommend and to educate their own candidates. The military says that because of the constitutional provisions that govern the division of church and state, only churches and religious organizations can ordain or appoint their own clergy.

With Muslim chaplains, however, this has proved particularly problematic, especially since Islam has no centralized hierarchy. Most other faiths and denominations have a single authority responsible for chaplains, like the Roman Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services. But in the absence of such an equivalent Islamic authority, the military has relied on grass-roots Muslim groups.

'Because of the separation of church and state, and the decentralized nature of Islam, we are dependent on loosely affiliated Islamic groups to certify the credentials of Muslim clergy in order for them to apply to be chaplains in the military,' the Pentagon said in a statement."

Yes, I do realize that muslims chaplains have to come from someplace, but c'mon! Allowing "loosely affiliated" Islamic groups to certify the credentials of their own clergy is not the best policy, especially when those same chaplains are stationed at a military base such as Gitmo. Here's an idea for the Pentagon to consider, how about you, oh I don't know, actually vet these individuals yourself? In a post-9/11 world we cannot afford to take chances anymore. The world has changed and it's high time the Pentagon woke up to reality, and stop engaging in politically correct bullcrap such as allowing only "grass roots" muslim clergy recommend and pass on military chaplains.

And this whole thing smacks of that old saying, "the fox investigating the chicken coop."

link via (Little Green Footballs)

From the "OH CRAP" Department.

Comes this disturbing piece of news.

At CIA Director George J. Tenet's request, the Justice Department is looking into an allegation that an administration official leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to a journalist, administration officials said yesterday.

The operative's identity was published in July after her husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly challenged President Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore from Africa, which can be used in nuclear weapons. Bush later backed away from the claim.

The intentional disclosure of a covert operative's identity can violate federal law.

A senior administration official said two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and revealed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. That was shortly after Wilson revealed in July that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account eventually touched off a controversy over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.

"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.

There can be no, and I repeat NO, dodging this issue, if true, by the Bush White House. To say that this could threaten the Bush presidency goes without saying. If a covert operative was burned by anyone in the Administration then those people need to found out, tried, and sentenced to the fullest extent possible. No equivocations can be made, Mr. President.

UPDATE -- After reading the WaPo article for the 4th time, I am left to really wonder at what passes for news today. I mean seriously, Tenet recommends a "possible" violation of federal law to the Department of Justice? No evidence that a crime has even been committed yet, just supposition on the part of the wife's husband on who might have "leaked" the information. And I think we all know how "impartial" the husband of the aggrieved party is. It goes without saying of course, that if these allegations are proven to be correct, then those responsible need to be brought to justice and punished to the fullest extent possible under the law.

link via (Right Thinking)

What Would Jesus Do?

I see that question posited on bumper stickers and mouthed by platitude spewing liberals (and to be fair, conservatives) all the time, and it makes me wonder at the colossal arrogance of these people.

The simple fact is this, we don't know what He would do. To say that we would, is akin to saying we know the mind of God, which is impossible for us to know. True, there is the Bible, however that is just a a book, written by men, and translated by men, and read by men. Who were/are all flawed, not only in their perceptions, but also in their beliefs. How is it possible that we live in a world were Jerry Falwell's interpretation of Scripture can be superior to my own?

To know the mind of God is, to my thinking, to commit an act approaching heresy. For to say we know God's mind is to place us on the same level as God himself, and did not God cast down Lucifier for that? Only one person who has ever lived can say He knew the mind of God, but that is because he was the Almighty Incarnate. Returned to the Earth to reconcile the faith with humanity. He died for us, so that all of us can come to know our Lord. So to ask the question, What Would Jesus Do? Is to make the attempt to substitute our judgment for His.

I have battled with my religious convictions all my life, and now, finally, I can say I have reconciled them with the actions I have taken in my life. I am a former alcoholic, and I was finally able to beat the demon of the bottle through a direct intervention of God's Grace, nothing else I ever tried worked. Simply put I was on the road to complete and utter ruin, until one night I got down on my knees and prayed, I mean really prayed. And the only explantion I can arrive at is that God gave me the strength to finally just walk away from booze. Say what you will, but it happened to me, not you, I was there, you weren't. It was something I cannot really honestly describe, perhaps someone reading this will understand the feeling, but perhaps they will not. I really honestly do not care.

In the end one must make their own decisions, it was this paradox which lead to my battle with my religious convictions over the years, when I finally realized I cannot substitute my judgment, even when it was grounded in Scripture, for the judgment of God I began to see the mess I had made of my life, and how skewed those like Falwell and Robertson views really are. To view the world simply through the prism of the Bible is, while commendable, a mistake. To close one's mind off, simply because the Bible might have a certain prohibition on something, so to deny the greatest gift God gave each and everyone of us. The ability to reason, to ask questions. Yes, even of the Almighty Himself. That is the conclusion I have reached; God wants us, His creations, to ask him questions, for He wants us learn, to grow, to realize our full potential. Which is something we cannot do when we adhere to dogma.

No, I am not talking about moral relativism, that is evil, for that is substituting man's judgment for the judgment of God. But, rather, to come to understand that God does indeed have a plan, even if that plan is hidden from us, and is a plan whose completeness we may never know, until we come to the Father himself. I am probably not explaining it correctly, as I have much to learn still, but to get the over-all idea of what I am trying to say, read this column by Dennis Prager and you will know where I am coming from.

In any objective analysis I am left to conclude that God wants us to think for ourselves, for did not God Himself give us the ability? And when we close off our minds and just engage in groupthink, are we not committing a sin by doing so?

Ouch! That has got to hurt!

I really honestly do not know how I missed this little item, but here it is anyway.

Retired General H. Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 9/11, shared his recollection of that day and his views of the war against terrorism with the Foothill College Celebrity Forum audience at Flint Center, Sept. 11 and 12.

His review of that historic event and his 38 years in the military kept the audience's rapt attention throughout. But it was his answer to a question from the audience at the end that shocked his listeners.

"What do you think of General Wesley Clark and would you support him as a presidential candidate," was the question put to him by moderator Dick Henning, assuming that all military men stood in support of each other. General Shelton took a drink of water and Henning said, "I noticed you took a drink on that one!"

"That question makes me wish it were vodka," said Shelton. "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."(emphasis added)

For one retired general officer to say that about another retired general officer, really honestly does speak to the character (or lack thereof) of Wesley Clark. That really had to sting. Someone might want to get Wes some Neosporin for that cut.

via (Right-Thinking)

Spring Time with Hitler

You know it is a really sad comment on a system of government when something like this happens.

The ceremony to open the common cemetery of Latvian legionaries - Nazi SS veterans - is taking place in Latvia today. The solemn ceremony started at midday, local time, it was broadcast on the national television and radio. Former legionaries, their relatives and followers are to take part in the ceremony together with a lot of Latvian politicians and leaders of Latvia's largest religious confessions.

It is impossible to justify the things which take place in Latvia today. In Latvia, SS veterans are referred to as the military men, who defended their fatherland from the Soviet invasion. That is why one has to honor and respect them. Such a reference is meant for people, whose minds have been fogged with chauvinism, or for silly people, who study history on Latvian text books.

Okay let me get this straight, you open a cemetery that honors mass-murdering asshats who fought against other mass-murdering asshats? That about right?

Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul.

link via (Right Thinking)

From the Colossally Stupid Idea Department.

Comes the following story.

UNITED NATIONS/ BAGHDAD, SEPTEMBER 27: Secretary of State Colin Powell said the US would like Iraqi leaders to produce a constitution in six months, paving the way for polls perhaps six months later and a return to self-rule.

Well, after reading the whole story I can only make the following conclusion, Powell is throwing a bone to our "ally, France. He doesn't say the six-months is any kind of deadline nor does he say that it isn't subject to change, but still I am left to wonder a little.

If a senior cabinet level official (in this case Powell) is saying things like this, just what is going on behind the scenes in say, the White House? Do they honestly think that six months to a constitution and then to elections is an actual workable scenario? If they do, then they are deluded.

An objective look at our own history proves just how wrong that kind of thinking is. It took thirteen years for our current system of government to come into being, before that we had numerous stops and starts, the Articles of Confederation for example. And one could even argue that our government is still evolving and growing to this very day. In other words, even after 226 years our government still has some bugs to work out. To even give thought that six months is a workable scenario to a republican form of government in Iraq is misguided.

If there is a "rush to democratic self-rule" in Iraq then the process is doomed to failure, simple as that. That the process needs to take place goes without really saying, but let's take our time and get it right. We are the only country on earth with the right form of government for the Iraqi people. The only form of government that provides maximum freedom and liberty, if it is rushed then we would have failed and liberating Iraq would have been for nothing.

From the Just Where are the WMD Department..

Comes this piece of news.

TIKRIT, Iraq - U.S. troops uncovered one of their biggest weapons caches to date Saturday at a farm near Saddam Hussein's birthplace, including anti-aircraft missiles and a huge quantity of explosives used to make the homemade bombs that have killed numerous American soldiers.

In the second raid in as many days on a farm near the village of Uja, where Saddam was born and the site of a recent bomb attack against American soldiers, U.S. troops acting on a tip dug through the soft earth near a river bank and found the cache underneath a covering of reeds and straw.(emphasis added)

It doesn't require that huge of a leap in logic that if conventional weapons are being buried, and hidden in mosques, then so would "non-conventional weapons" i.e., chemical and biological.

Also this raid shows just how good things are really going over there. More Iraqi's are willing to share intelligence with us, as they continue to do so, then more of these caches will be uncovered before they can used against our service personnel. Two for two, I call that a pretty good thing.

From the Scum Sucking Leftist Department

Comes something that really shouldn't surprise anyone.

ACLU Gives CAIR an award.

The state ACLU has really out done itself, handing its award to the main organ of Saudi Arabia's "Wahhabi lobby" in the United States. CAIR is financed by the government of Saudi Arabia and dedicated to spread of Wahhabi Islam. Saudi Arabia is notorious for its repressed society where freedoms of the press, expression and religion do not exist. And the Wahhabis are leading advocates of worldwide jihad and suicide terrorism; 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 bombers were from Saudi Arabia.

CAIR has close associations with terrorist groups. It was founded by former officials of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP). The IAP was founded in 1981 by Musa Abu Marzook, who according to Evan McCormick of FrontPageMagazine.com, is currently deputy chief of Hamas' political bureau in Syria. The former IAP officials who founded CAIR are Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad. McCormick says Nihad Awad has "open pledged his support for Hamas," which the U.S. State Department and even the European Union have designated a terrorist organization.

CAIR has consistently opposed the U.S. government in the war on terrorism, calling into question the USA-Patriot Act and homeland security measures, denouncing the federal government and whining about often-unspecified offenses against Muslims. It is totally intolerant of all forms of Islam except the Wahhabi variety, and is vicious in denouncing Jews.

The ACLU's favorite religion is Islam a religion that ferments hatred of America, against Israel, and whose adherents cheer when innocent children get detonated.

FOAD ACLU.

via (Little Green Footballs)

From the People are Stupid Department, Part II

Comes this little nugget of joy.

The maker of the Segway Human Transporter has agreed to recall the motorized scooters because riders have been injured falling off when its batteries are low.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced the recall Friday, saying that three people had been injured. One suffered a head wound and needed stitches.

"Under certain operating conditions, particularly when the batteries are near the end of charge, some Segway HTs may not deliver enough power, allowing the rider to fall," the CPSC warned. "This can happen if the rider speeds up abruptly, encounters an obstacle, or continues to ride after receiving a low-battery alert."(emphasis mine)

"Cletus, wut's that beepin sound comin frum tha HT?"

I don't know you moron, maybe you should stop and see?

Simple fact of the matter is this, the thing starts running low on juice, it gives off an alert. If you are too fricking stupid to stop and check see what might be causing it, you deserve whatever happens to you. Also it is my opinion you are too damn stupid to breed as well, but I don't really have a say in that.

Johnny Cash, Warren Zevon, and John Ritter all die, but yet idiots in that above story just keep on keeping on. There is no cosmic justice.

Lee's comments on the above article are noteworthy as well.

I can see the commercials now. "Have you been injured in a Segway accident? If so, we can get you money. Call the law offices of Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe. Our staff of 60 vampires lawyers will get on the case to maximize your payout for pain and suffering, lost work, or just plain abject stupidity. Remember, you are not liable for your own incompetence."

Fans, I have fans? When and how did this happen?

From Susan, comes the following email:

Hi Kevin,

Just wanted to drop a note and let you know that I highly enjoyed my stay
at your blog earlier this evening. Lots of good stuff on there. I will
be adding a link to your blog on my own
(In My Right Mind) later tonight.

Take care, and stay right!
Susan

You to Susan, and I will. Thanks for adding me to your blogroll as well. I'll get around to adding you, probably this weekend, been a busy week for me and all.

And this ringing endorsement comes from my pal, Drumwaster:

I also want to point out a new BlogRoll entry, who is one of the smarter guys I have personally "spoken" with (via e-mail). In just a few short weeks he has impressed me with his ability to cut right to the heart of convoluted matters, and sum it up in a way that is simultaneously funny and right. His name is Kevin Hall, and his site can be found here. Go visit him, and see what you think.

Thanks Drum, for your kind words.

It's posts and emails like this that give me hope that thinking "right" is in fact the right thing to do. (yes the pun was terrible, so shoot me)

Kevin

Young, Liberal, Ignorant, American. Seeks Same.

Come hear how the 10 Democratic candidates
will strengthen America and win The White House
as DEMOCRATIC AMERICA watches the debate
tonight, 9pm, at the McManus Democratic Club.

What will the General say?
How will the Doctor respond?
And can anyone out-cadence the Reverend?

Before and after the debate,
raise your thoughts and a pint
with fellow Lefties at Rudy's Bar,
the usual home of DEMOCRATIC AMERICA.
.
.
.
Tonight, think and drink liberally.

Yahoo! Groups : democraticamerica Messages : Message 60 of 60


Quotation from Corinthians comes to mind.

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

link via (Four Right Wing Wackos)

From the People are Stupid Department...

Comes this little jewel.

Sounds like a really bad Monty Python skit. Or, a really bad version of Letterman's Stupid Human Tricks.

Hm... Bad + Stupid = MORON!

...And here's your sign.

California Recall. Redux

Recently a student of mine, who happens to call California home and who will be voting absentee in the recall election, asked for my thoughts and opinions on the California Recall, and who would I vote for, if I was a California resident. Below is, verbatim, what I told my student.

First off, I don't agree with the California recall as a whole. I believe that once an election is held, then that's it. Even if new facts come to light after the election, if they do not include gross malfeasance, then the election should stand. In 2002, Davis was re-elected, the people of California knew what they were getting when he was re-elected, a big government guy, very left on social issues, etc.. The fact that Simon ran one of the most inept campaigns of the past half-century certainly didn't hurt the chances that Davis would be re-elected either. Having said that, let me also say this, elections capture a single moment in time, a snapshot if you will, and once that is gone it is verily impossible to re-capture it, granted I understand the frustration the people of California feel with regards to Davis, I share them when it comes to George W. Bush, but that does not mean I would support any recall attempt against the president of the United States (even if such a thing was indeed possible). Simply put, once an election is held, that should be it, there are no do overs when it comes to elections.

But, that position is negated by current California political reality. They are going to have a recall on October 7th, whether I like it or not, so, in the interests of answering the core question put to me, by my student, I shall endeavor to answer it as best I can.

Number 1 -- Voting for Arnold.

I can understand the short-term, gratification that can come from him winning, I really honestly can, however, when viewed objectively, the question is, just what can Arnold do to actually turn around the fiscal disaster that California is currently in? It is no secret that California is circling the drain when it comes to it's economy, but just what can Arnold do to stop that from happening? Answer: Nothing. The governor of California, or any state for that matter, is not a monarch, the purse-strings in California are controlled by the State legislature. And, despite Arnold's fiscal conservatism, I doubt very seriously he would be able to get much, if anything done, when it comes to turning around the economy out there. For the California State Legislature is controlled by the extremely Hard Left, and I doubt very seriously if Arnold can and would hold the line when it comes to denying them their fiscal agenda. Sure he has said he won't raise taxes, except only in a State emergency, and that's fine. However, that is not the same thing as saying he will not raise taxes, period. He does get into specifics in a recent op-ed piece he did for The Wall Street Journal, but I seriously doubt he has the political savvy to actually be able to get the job done out there. Don't get me wrong, I actually like his fiscal conservatism, and I think if he was seasoned enough politically he might be able to actually engage in a little horse-trading to get his economic policies implemented, for after all politics is the art of the deal. And who knows, if he actually does win the recall, he might just surprise all of us.

Number 2 -- Voting for McClintock. I actually like this guy, alot. He has a extremely bright future in politics no matter what he decides to do post-recall. And unlike, Arnold, I would be willing to bet he does have the political savvy to get his personal fiscal agenda implemented if he were to win. But the question remains, can he win? The Republicans of California seem to think he can't, which to me smacks of cynicism. The state Republican party made up their minds that they cannot win with a true conservative, fair enough, but that completely disregards that in the last election, McClintock got more votes statewide than any other Republican candidate, including Bob Simon. The one drawback McClintock had coming into this race was the fact no one really knew who he was, but despite that, he went from single digits to double digits, without really any kind of support from the California GOP. Also, that cynical mindset completely disregards as well that despite the utter ineptitude of the Simon campaign, he only lost by 5% of the vote. McClintock is a politican, knows the ins and out outs of California politics, so that leads me to believe that had it been McClintock running instead of Simon, in 2002, he could have closed that 5% gap in the polls quite quickly, and this conversation - recall wise - would be completely moot. But that's fanciful thinking my part.

Voting Day; Who? Tough question in all honesty. I do not live in California, so I cannot answer this question with any degree of objectivity. However, it would be my advice to vote your conscience. If you honestly believe that voting for McClintock (assuming he is still in the race) is the right thing to do, then vote for him. If not, then vote for Arnold. If you think the recall is a bad idea, then vote no on the recall, and leave your vote for Davis' replacement blank. True your ballot might not be counted, but if you vote no, then what's the point of voting for a replacement? But do not sell out your conservative principles just because you want a governor with a little R next to his name. Agreed at this point, anyone would be better than Davis or Bustamante, however, which would you rather have come the next election cycle in 2004? A state economy that is still in the crapper, and have it be laid at the feet of a Republican, regardless of who? or would you rather Davis be in office, and have the mess laid at his feet and the feet of liberals who control the state, where it rightly belongs? I know, and you know, that if Arnold or McClintock get elected the chances of them turning around the California economy within the next year and a half is pretty damn slim, you also know what the state Democrats are going to say about it as well. This would be, ultimately, a giant feather in the cap for the liberals who currently control California politics. They would be able to sit on the sidelines and say, "Hey, look, you got your Republican governor. He wasn't able to fix anything, like he promised. So we were right, and you were wrong." Or words to that effect. That is political reality, and you, me, and pretty much every other politically astute individual knows that.

So who should you vote for? Although the better question would actually be; Who would I vote for? McClintock. Granted the chances that he would get anything accomplished in California is a long shot by any measure, but it is far better than no shot at all, which is what I believe I would get with Arnold.

We Believe in Free Speech. Just as long as we are the ones who speak.

Tom Daschle is a complete and utter moron.

Any time somebody speaks out criticizing this administration or its policies, there is this orchestrated concerted effort to attack those who criticize. Criticizing those who are vocal in their personal criticism, their approach, their concerns, is McCarthyesque.

Okay, let me see if I get this straight. Daschle can, with impunity, voice his "dissent" as many times as he sees necessary (which with him seems almost daily), and no one can then criticize his "dissent"? That about right there, Tom?

Look you liberal moron, free speech is not exclusive to those on the Left. Free speech is a right that all people get to enjoy, you want to "dissent" all you want to? Fine, you go right ahead. But when you utter such pedantic, blathering nonsense as you did above. You will be called on it. Period.

And Tom, if I might make a suggestion. Read the Constitution of the United States of America. Primarily the First Amendment (although reading the entire thing couldn't hurt you), which says to wit:

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

In other words Tom, whenever someone disagrees with you, they are not infringing on your right to free speech. Only asshats such as yourself can infringe on the right to free speech by passing a damn law.

In short Tom Daschle wants to have it both ways. He wants complete and total freedom to criticize the President, but he does not want to extend that same freedom to the people who criticize him.

Go to Hell, Tom. And say hello to bin Laden while you're there.

From the Bush-Hating Archives

Comes the following charming examples.

Ted Rall -- Marxist, no he really honestly is.

First but not foremost, Bush's detractors despise him viscerally, as a man. Where working-class populists see him as a smug, effeminate frat boy who wouldn't recognize a hard day's work if it kicked him in his self-satisfied ass, intellectuals see a simian-faced idiot unqualified to mow his own lawn, much less lead the free world. Another group, which includes me, is more patronizing than spiteful. I feel sorry for the dude; he looks so pathetic, so out of his depth, out there under the klieg lights, squinting, searching for nouns and verbs, looking like he's been snatched from his bed and beamed in, and is still half asleep, not sure where he is. Each speech looks as if Bush had been beamed from his bed fast asleep. And he's willfully ignorant. On Fox News, Bush admits that he doesn't even read the newspaper: "I glance at the headlines just to kind of [sic] a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read [sic] the news themselves." All these takes on Bush boil down to the same thing: The guy who holds the launch codes isn't smart enough to know that's he's stupid. And that's scary.

As charming as Rall's screed is, there's more.

Johnathan Chait -- Senior Editor at TNR

I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it. I think his policies rank him among the worst presidents in U.S. history. And, while I'm tempted to leave it at that, the truth is that I hate him for less substantive reasons, too. I hate the inequitable way he has come to his economic and political achievements and his utter lack of humility (disguised behind transparently false modesty) at having done so. His favorite answer to the question of nepotism--"I inherited half my father's friends and all his enemies"--conveys the laughable implication that his birth bestowed more disadvantage than advantage. He reminds me of a certain type I knew in high school--the kid who was given a fancy sports car for his sixteenth birthday and believed that he had somehow earned it. I hate the way he walks--shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from his sides like a teenage boy feigning machismo. I hate the way he talks--blustery self-assurance masked by a pseudo-populist twang. I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him. I hate his lame nickname-bestowing-- a way to establish one's social superiority beneath a veneer of chumminess (does anybody give their boss a nickname without his consent?). And, while most people who meet Bush claim to like him, I suspect that, if I got to know him personally, I would hate him even more.

There seem to be quite a few of us Bush haters. I have friends who have a viscerally hostile reaction to the sound of his voice or describe his existence as a constant oppressive force in their daily psyche...

How charming, no? That is liberalism in a nutshell for you folks. Men and women so caught up in their own hatred for Bush that they write venomous screed's such as this. Chait even gets out of sorts about how W's elbows look when he is walking. That is completely irrational. Liberals claim to be tolerant people, Chait and Rall's screeds prove their "tolerance" only extends to people whom they like.

And people wonder why Dean became such a popular candidate by constantly attacking Bush, despite having no clear alternative vision to the President's policies. Read Chait and Rall, and you'll know why.

via (Right Wing News)

From the Surrender First Then Sue for Peace Department..

Comes this little gem Go ahead, read the whole thing, I'll wait...

All done? Okay, good. Analysis time.

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Citing security concerns after two attacks on its Baghdad offices, the United Nations said on Thursday it was pulling out 19 of its 105 international staffers from Iraq and more would follow.

So they advocate running away when the going gets tough. Awww, poor babies. The United States has been putting up with attacks like this since, what, May? The UN is in Iraq for only a month, and they up and run off, but yet morons like Daschle, the Ten Little Indians, and France, want a larger UN role in Iraq. Sure, let's let the UN come in, make a mess of things, and then -- when they get attacked, they can pull out everyone and let Iraq fend for itself against the Islamists. Sure, sounds like a great idea. Excuse me Mr. UN Advocate, but just what in the blue hell are you smoking, and where can I get my hands on some?

Oh but wait, the article gets better. Did you perhaps notice this little gem?

The decision to withdraw international staff, even temporarily, was a blow to U.S. claims the security situation in Iraq was under control.

Read the fine print? What they are saying is that is the entirely the fault of the United States that the UN is getting attacked, and not say..oh.. the fault of the terrorists themselves. The bottom line here is this. Is the security situation in Iraq perfect? No, to say otherwise would be disingenuous. However, the United Nations knows it isn't perfect, but they sent people in anyway. And when those people get targeted, they blame the United States for mis-representing the over-all security situation in Iraq in the first place. See how that works? News flash for you there Kofi, this isn't a war against the United States per se, but rather a war against Western Civilization as a whole, for which the UN is seen by the terrorists, however erroneously, as being a part of. If you think your people should be safe, just because they work for the UN, you are completely deluded.

The United Nations proves yet once again, that when the going gets tough, they go run off and avoid the problem. They did it with the Iraq War in the first place, and they are doing it again. To turn the management and reconstruction of Iraq over to the UN in it's entirety would be a mistake of colossal proportions.

The United States is on the ground in Iraq, we have endured far worse casualties than the UN has, and we are still there. I think it is quite clear just who is really serious about giving the Iraqis a better life.

Next Up for Shock and Awe.. Iran?

Iran has nukes. Or, at the very least, they are damn close to having them.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog has found traces of weapons-grade enriched uranium at a second site in Iran, diplomats said on Thursday, and President Bush warned Tehran it faces global condemnation.

One diplomat told Reuters the discovery could support Tehran's explanation that the discovery of highly enriched uranium at a previous site in Iran was due to contamination from imported components.

But several other diplomats said it could support the U.S. theory that Iran has been secretly purifying uranium for use in a nuclear explosive device -- a charge Tehran denies.

So Tehran denies it has been secretly purifying Uranium for use in a nuclear explosive device? Well, do we actually think Tehran would come right out and admit as such? It is a "secret" program after all. Wouldn't want to spoil the surprise now would they?

The White House is, of course, standing firm, unlike the UN.

The White House said earlier Iran had "one last chance" to comply with nuclear safeguards and threatened to take the dispute to the U.N. Security Council if Tehran refused.

Bush told reporters Iran's nuclear ambitions would be on the agenda for his talks on Friday and Saturday with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Bush has pressed Putin to stop Russia helping Iran build its first nuclear power station in the southern port of Bushehr, a deal worth some $800 million.

Speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, the diplomats said the new traces of enriched uranium were found in environmental samples taken during inspections at the Kalaye Electric Company on the southern outskirts of Tehran. Earlier this year, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found traces of enriched uranium at a plant at Natanz, some 150 miles south of the Iranian capital.

Forget what I just said about the White House standing firm. Going back to the UNSC is a colossal mistake, as the whole "run-up" to the Iraq War proved beyond any doubt. Just what is the UNSC going to do differently this time? More sanctions? More "tough-talk"? "OOOOH you evil mullahs, give up your nuclear program, or ELSE!" That worked so well last time didn't it?

No here's what the United States, and the White House, should do. Tell Tehran they have X number of months to come completely clean about their nuclear program, at the end of the dead-line, if they don't comply, can we say "regime change"?

I am in no way advocating war, however, we must be honest. Iran is a country run by Islamofascists, as well as a country that harbors and actively encourages terrorists, and the current regime does not like the United States at all. It is not outside the realm of probabilty that Iran would give terrorists access to nuclear weapons of the tactical kind, or even nuclear material to make a so-called "dirty bomb". Indeed those factors only increase the likelihood of such an occurance, and in a post-9/11 world we can no longer afford to take chances such as this. If the Bush Doctrine is to mean anything, it needs to be applied here.

Media Bias 101

From... get ready for the big surprise... Reuters

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqis reacted with skepticism Tuesday to a call from President Bush for more international help in rebuilding Iraq (news - web sites), saying the United States was looking after its own interests at their expense.

Even if the above is true, what's wrong with United States looking out after it's own interests. Isn't that the reason why we toppled Saddam Hussein the first place? Well kind of not really, if you read the president's remarks on the eve of the war he makes it quite clear just why we went into Iraq. But wait, this Reuters article gets even better.

"Street vendor Ali Hussein said more international involvement would only prolong Iraq's occupation.


"It's an excuse to stay in Iraq... It will create chaos and will not solve America's predicament in Iraq," he said.


"Bush should call back the Iraqi army with the exception of the Baathists, and leave them to police the country," he said, referring to Saddam's old ruling party.

America is now in a real mess and they want to find a way out... It's worse than Vietnam but getting more troops will only make it more difficult for them here," said Abdul Rahman Khalaf, a clerk in a private accounting firm

Haider Ali, a money exchanger, said more troops in Iraq would just mean more hardship for Iraqis.

"This will only make it clearer it is an occupation, without offering us anything in return," he said.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but this sounds suspiciously like those "Man on the Street" interviews the New York Times is infamous for. Here it is, Reuters finds five Iraqi's out of 25 million, who actually do not want the United States there and then they use their views to make the informed opinion that the country, as a whole, does not want the United States there. If the same thing is done in say, the United States, do you honestly think that that represents the views and opinions of the country as a whole? Well if you work for Reuters it just might.

But let's be honest, it is not like this Reuters reporter actually went out and found these 5 Iraqi's and quoted them. No, this is what this reporter did, he came up with the story idea that that Iraqi's are unhappy with the occupation then he went out to find quotes to fit his story. After finding the 4 or 5 most "relevant" ones he then used them. There was, in all actuality, very little "reporting" done by this "reporter". Of course that is just speculation on my part, but I would not be the least bit surprised if that is how it all went down. I get criticized by some of my more liberal friends for making conclusions like this, but which would you rather have. Someone who just accepts this reportage at face value? or someone who actually engages in a little critical thinking about said reportage, then makes up his own mind? If you wish to engage in group-think be my guest. Me, I would rather make my own decisions.

Ask any Iraqi what their biggest fear is, and they will tell you that is the United States abandoning them and not the United States itself. That the "main-stream" media does not report it, does not make it any less true. In a poll conducted I believe two months ago it was discovered that 87.1% of Iraqi's do indeed want us in Iraq, that they really are appreciative of what the United States did when it toppled Saddam Hussein. These are facts that anyone on the Internet can look up and verify, that this reporter from Reuters did not, only shows me just how biased he really is.

For those that would use the above quotes to prove just how bad it is going in Iraq, allow me to enlighten you. Do you think, under Saddam Hussein, those Iraqis would be able to give their honest opinion? (going on the assumption they actually feel the way that they feel) Not for a minute, those men would just "disappear", undoubtedly into one of Saddam's torture chambers. In a mere four months Iraq has gone from a brutality repressed country, where people couldn't criticize the leadership, into one that can. For me, that spells p-r-o-g-r-e-s-s. For liberals it is a sign of a quagmire. You tell me, just which ideology actually believes in the decency of our system of government?

And the media can still say they aren't biased with a straight face? Astonishing.

Squirrels in the News: The Good Old Days.

The world was more simple just a few short years ago, wasn't it? Before September 11th, before 'terrorist' became an everyday word, everything seemed easier. Do you remember those golden years, when the most dangerous threat to our country was not dirty bombs, or yellowcake?

It was squirrels.

What, do you doubt me? Then how do you explain this front page article from the July 31st issue of USA Today, 1998?

WHAT'S THAT GNAWING AT YOU? PROBABLY A SQUIRREL

In nature's leafy kingdom of plague and pestilence, the backyard squirrel hardly ranks as a pretender. But in the realm of royal pains, he's on the fast track to the throne.

The 60 million people who feed birds and have helplessly watched squirrels devour the cardinals' seeds know this greedy gymnast well. But as more families seek neighborhoods blessed with "old shade" and developers bulldoze woodsy habitat, the nation is finding itself in a turf war with squirrels as never before.

And for untold numbers of Americans, the summer of '98 is playing out like a warped Hitchcock movie: It's The Birds, but in little fur coats.

"Are they ruining my summer?" repeats an incredulous Susan Reynolds. "Squirrels have ruined my summer, my spring, my fall--all of the above." The Irving, Texas, executive secretary has waged an escalating, six-year war with squirrels. "It seems to be worse this summer than ever. It's a regular zoo out there."

One o' them fancy squirrel zoos, no doubt.

While killer bees and kudzu grabbed headlines, the squirrel methodically gathered a swelling constituency of haters. He's why Jonathan Schaefer ordered another 600 animal traps this week to sell from his U-Spray store in Atlanta. He's why the Weber Kettle people are considering making squirrel guards standard equipment on their gas grills. He's the mover and shaker solely responsible for the squirrel-proof bird feeder industry, with annual sales of $4 illion.

The squirrel is responsible for the "squirrel-proof bird feeder." Hm, learn something new everyday.

Already, the squirrel is No. 1 on the list of revenue generators for animal pest control operatives; he's the prime suspect in half of all unsolved fires; he's the documented culprit in a majority of nonweather-related power disruptions; he's the wire chewer who twice brought NASDAQ stock trading to a halt.

Dot Com bubble burst? Don't blame it on inflated prices, it was the squirrels.

And, if anecdotal evidence is a reliable indicator . . .

Isn't it always?

. . . the twitchy menace is on a record tear this summer, chewing up decks, gnawing through garden hoses and biting off bicycle handlebar grips.

"Twitchy menace"? You mean squirrel? I'm calling the ACLU. This writer has an obvious squirrel bias. Where's Jesse Jackson?

"Squirrels are opportunists," says Vagn Flyger, who has studied them for half a century and is professor emeritus of wildlife biology at the University of Maryland. "We humans are providing better living conditions with bird food and bigger trees in our yards than squirrels can find in the wild."

Though no one counts them, experts agree the population is "healthy," if not exploding. "The plentitude varies," says Flyger. "We have an abundance here (in suburban Washington) right now." Including such squirrel cousins as chipmunks and woodchucks, the USA has dozens of native species of tree, ground and flying squirrels. One kind or another is found in just about all 50 states.

Food is the dominant factor in their rate of reproduction, but a healthy female has an average of three babies per litter, and can have two litters a year.

The perennial plentitude allows hunters fond of a squirrel fricassee to take 25-50 million a year. After hunters, the squirrel's main natural enemy is the automobile, one of the few things that seems to confuse these otherwise clever creatures.

The automobile is a natural enemy? This writer needs to get out more.

These opportunists also are a wellspring of opportunity for companies such as Critter Control, a nationwide pest control service that probably would not exist without squirrels, according to president and founder Kevin Clark.

"This wasn't an industry twenty years ago," says Clark, "and now there are thousands of Nuisance Wildlife Control Operators," as the booming profession describes itself.

And about twenty years ago we voted for Reagan, too. Coincidence?

Next to bugs, he says, squirrels are "probably the number one problem in the country."

Forget drugs and terrorism. Bugs and squirrels. I'm surprised Clinton didn't declare war on squirrels and drop some bombs on unsuspecting parks throughout the US.

That's because squirrels can and do wreak havoc once they've chewed their way into a home or scrambled down the chimney. Reports of shredded drapes and slipcovers and plundered kitchen cabinets are fairly common. It's not unheard of for a pest trapper to remove 50 squirrels from a single attic.

Oh, those poor drapes and slipcovers! Kill 'em all, now!

After just 15 years, critter control has 100 offices in 30 states and Canada. Sales rise 15% a year like clockwork, says Clark, and largely because of squirrels. "They are the most common wildlife nuisance, and, yes, they are on the increase."


Suicidal Squirrels

Just ask Susan Reynolds.

Must we?

The frustration of seeing squirrels merrily dig up her flowers and tease Sable the cat is giving way to physical and fiscal suffering. By running up a nearby utility pole and getting into a transformer, suicidal squirrels have triggered "at least six power failures this summer alone."

Suicidal? These are militant squirrels, guerilla squirrels, not suicidal.

She has lost more than one refrigerator full of food during hours-long outages and has gone without air conditioning in the Texas heat.

Better not let these squirrels get to France. This kind of menace could wipe out the country in a week.

Reynolds says she has finally convinced the power company to install some kind of squirrel shield. Meanwhile, she can only watch in quiet desperation as "they jump in my flower pots and get those little hands going and sit in the trees and make those awful noises."

Not to sound high and mighty, but you could always . . . oh, I don't know . . . kick them?

The trouble lies, in part, with their teeth.

Don't it always?

Big, pointy teeth I'd wager.

Squirrels gnaw to keep their rapidly growing teeth under control. Anything and everything makes a fine squirrel teething toy: tool handles, Styrofoam coolers, even plastic gas cans. Garage items are attractive because they're often doused with minerals such as road salt, according to Clark. Gas grill hoses are targeted as much for the drippings of last night's ribs as for the gratifying chewability of a well-constructed rubber hose.

Gratifying chewability of a well-constructed rubber hose?

Whatever the reason, those grill hoses are squirrel magnets of uncommon power this summer. Amy Doyle, a customer service representative with grill giant Weber-Stephen Products, estimates that one in five gas grill owners has had to replace a chewed hose. Hence, Weber now makes a hose protector, and sales have doubled in the two years since introduction, Doyle reports.

Ever occur to you to use a charcoal grill? They are cheaper you know.

Less common (but no less well documented) are squirrel attacks on humans.

The events of two summers ago still strike fear in the hearts of Vicki Albright and her daughter Paige. Paige, then 13, was the first of about a dozen victims of a squirrel that went on a biting rampage through Westerville, Ohio. "In the beginning . . ."

"When the seas ran red with blood . . ."

. . . recalls Vicki Albright, "his antics were comical. But then every time we'd look out, there he was. We felt like prisoners in our own home."

Did it ever occur to you to, I don't know, actually shoo the squirrel away?

The squirrel jumped on Paige and bit her hand, requiring a trip to the emergency room. It bit the UPS delivery man, who had to defend himself with his clipboard. Then it went after a young woman across the street who had called the police about the menace and was attacked in view of an arriving officer.

The police officer, upon assessing the situation, wrote her a citation for acting
like a baby.

The Albrights have not had any more squirrel problems since getting Dakota, their Siberian husky.

Nice to know you had to get a dog to solve your squirrel problem, wuss.


It's not all bad

Whew, I was beginning to worry.


Still, there are good--or, at least, interesting--things about squirrels.

So at best, squirrels aren't even good? Terrorists are militants, but squirrels are evil menaces and vermin?

Squirrels must be republican to get this kind of treatment.

Beyond being entertaining acrobats, they're excellent swimmers, says Flyger. They can sniff out a buried acorn through a foot of snow. They devour poisonous mushrooms.

No, they devour mushrooms. The squirrels don't find them poisonous, idiot.

They rarely carry disease. And they have legions of generous fans, including the legendary Washington, D.C. matron, who, when unable to get to Lafayette Park to feed the squirrels, dispatched bags of peanuts with her chauffeur.

Squirrels, as a group, seem unimpressed by such gestures.

Maybe they are republicans? They don't need a step up from the man.

They will dig up your geraniums to get at fungi, which is a staple of the squirrel diet. They will chew your electrical wiring, destroy your bird feeders and, according to one medical journal, even threaten you with a human form of mad cow disease should you indulge in too much stew containing their brains.

Has eating squirrel brains become that huge of a problem?

Among wild bird fanciers, squirrel-proof feeders stamped with such Star Wars names as Absolute II and Droll Yankee Jagunda are brecoming hot stuff. One called Wild Bills retails for $120 and professes to discourage squirrels with a "harmless sting." Birds are too light to trigger the "breakthrough electronic technology."

Next weapon -- in the war against squirrels? Tactical Nukes.

Despite his size (forest game gourmands say it takes four to make a meal), the squirrel is no puny adversary.

Yes it is.

Defeating him on the bird feeding battlefield requires strategy and money, which is why Arundale Products of St. Louis is selling so many of its Mandarin Sky Cafes, "the Fort Knox of bird feeders."

Bird feeding battlefield? We need to resurrect Patton. He'll show those squirrels what for.

Fort Knox of bird-feeders? Presumably with it's own honor guard I'd wager.

Tim Bush, Arundale vice president, is looking for a 10% boost in sales this year as increasing numbers of bird fanciers come to realize that "anyone who puts up a bird feeder is going to get a squirrel."

Not everyone, of course, is bent on ridding their yards and lives of squirrels.

Not everyone is stupid, either. But what's your point?

Flyger, for one, has a kind of squirrel circus going in which the performers hang from a horizontal wire by their hind feet while pulling strings tied to cans filled with nuts.

Some people are easily entertained it seems.

For him, the rascally rodent is as much fun as it is scholarly pursuit. Since beginning his squirrel studies in 1941, "I got sidetracked a few times to work with polar bears and whales. But I always came back to squirrels."

And... this one time.. at band camp...

If you are not sufficiently terrorized by the prospect of YK2 computer meltdowns, perhaps the YK2+4 squirrel population explosion will get your attention. The year 2004, says University of Maryland biologist Vagn Flyger, brings the next wave of 17-year-locusts to some parts of the USA.

That means squirrels--which love to eat locusts--will be well-fed. Well-fed squirrels mean larger-than-usual litters. And that all adds up to more squirrel problems than ever.

Locusts or squirrels? Why can't we have both!

Unfortunately, there's not much you can do to get rid of pesky squirrels, short of hiring an expert or trapping them yourself and relocating them.

Or using your foot.

Moth balls, dried blood, ammonia, plastic owls, wolf urine, and a host of other suggested remedies don't have much effect on squirrels.

Use all of the above, but do not use a broom. It might work.

Some experts say they even get used to red pepper when put in the bird seed they steal. (Birds apparently don't care what kind of seasoning is on their food.)

Squirrels that get used to red pepper? Must be those cajun squirrels we hear so much about.

A product named Ropel, advertised as pet safe but bad tasting for all animals, is recommended for spots where squirrels or other creatures have already left tooth marks. Pest control experts recommend capping your chimney, stapling rat wire over all openings and vents and trimming limbs that overhang your house.

And while you're at it, bar your windows and cut the phone lines. The squirrels can run through them like in the movie "Shocker."

Otherwise, nothing seems to work, though squirrel-fighters have tried everything from gasoline to bleach.

Where did they try this stuff, and where are the videos?

"Well, I blinded myself with bleach, and burned down my house, but I'm pretty sure I got that damned squirrel, er, twitchy menace."

"Chirp."

"Noooooo!"

Flyger's advice: Squirrel-proof everything you own and then "sit back and enjoy the show."

And how!

Shamelessly "borrowed" from Jason Kallini. With my own added comments, well a few anyway.

Expanding the Security Council

While I am loath to admit it, I actually agree (in part) with Kofi Annan.

Australia has backed a call by the United Nations secretary-general to expand the world body's Security Council.

Kofi Annan says more countries should be admitted to the council to make it more representative of the geopolitical realities of the 21st century.

I agree completely with this rationale. The UNSC has always reflected the geo-political reality of the Cold War world. Now that the Cold War is over (and just who did win that by the way?) it needs to be realigned. However I disagree with statements made by Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer in the same article.

"What we would like to see is a Security Council which includes the structures of today as well," Mr Downer said.

"That is, countries like our neighbour Indonesia, Brazil perhaps, certainly one of the African countries, Japan, being permanent members of the Security Council, and then have additional elected members of the Security Council."

Excuse me, but Indonesia? The country lacks any of kind military as well as any kind of political stability. African countries as well. South Africa perhaps being the exception, and that is a long shot by any measure. True, while South Africa does have a reasonably stable democratically elected government (although it is socialist in it's intent); it does have a massive crime problem and it really has not come up with a plan to deal with said problem. A South American country should be on the UNSC, I do agree there. Brazil is perhaps the best choice, but then so would Chile. Japan as a permanent UNSC member? Perhaps, they are one of the world's leading economies. But they seriously lack in the military department, although that limitation is, by and large, self-imposed and they can remove it at anytime simply by amending their constitution.

However there is a larger issue involved here. If the UNSC is to be "realigned" to reflect the post-Cold War world then shouldn't the Central European nations be represented more? How about Poland as a permanent member? As part of the "New Europe" they have willingly embraced the ideals that the UN says it holds dear, free-markets, democracy, freedom, and liberty. As a permanent UNSC member they would have a definite say in the post-Cold War world. As well as provide a certain voice of reason to counter-act the shrillness of other countries, such as France.

Speaking of France, isn't it about time that that third-world country masquerading as a first-world nation give up it's place at the table as a permanent member? Their military is, by and large, non-existent. Every time they get into trouble it seems they need the rest of the free-world to "bail them out" as it were (WWII ring any bells?). Their socialist leaning, nanny-state government is choking their economy. And they are, by and large, treated as a joke by the most powerful nation on earth, the US. "Old European" nations, such as France, do not remember this one basic tenet, "Freedom is not free" and sometimes freedom must be defended at all costs. The United States and the nations of "New Europe" realize this. France does not. Yes, it really is that simple.

However, and to deal with the anti-UN crowd, any attempt to broaden the scope and membership of the UNSC, could, and quite possibly should, be seen as an attempt to dilute the pre-eminence of the United States on the world stage. Of course I am just engaging in idle and complete speculation here, but it seems to me that as the most powerful nation on earth we should have more of a say in world affairs, as they relate to us, than say Poland, or France for that matter, should. Once again, this is just complete speculation on my part. However, I feel it deserves some thought and analysis.

In a post-9/11 world, the United States cannot, and should not, be bogged in the minutiae of a bureaucracy, such as the UN. When our national security is threatened, and our national interests are at stake, we should be able to act unilaterally. And damn world opinion. If other countries want to go along, then fine, they're welcome to. However, to think that we, the most powerful nation on earth, should go running with our hats in our hands to the UN to get their "blessing", is extremely dangerous. The UN cannot convey "legitimacy" on anything the United States does to defend itself, only the United States can.

In that sense, then I must agree with anti-UN crowd. We need to leave, and let the United Nations fend for itself. It has done nothing to make the world a better place, which was one of the reasons why it was created in the first place. It has done nothing to foster democracy and liberty across the planet, which was another reason for it's creation. In short, the United Nations has been a complete, total, and abject failure. It is bogged down in it's own bureaucratic mind-set so much so, that it actually thinks non-stop talking about a problem is actually the way to solve the problem. The article above is a prime example of this. Expanding the UNSC might be the "smart" thing to do diplomatically speaking, but when you add more "cooks to the kitchen" you increase the likelihood of a fire breaking out. And just what is to be done when diplomacy fails? Do we keep "talking" about the problem, in the hopes that it will somehow "go away"? Or do we go out and solve the problem? Say what you will about the Bush Administration's "unilateralism", but you have to be honest enough to admit this one thing. When the world was confronted with a problem, what was the one country -- willing to stand alone if need be -- to go out and solve the problem? Hint: It was a country with United in it's name.

The United States can have diplomatic relations with other countries, but we do not need to be a part of the United Nations for that.

link via (Right-Thinking)

Meet the New France...

Same as the old France.

President Jacques Chirac called today for the immediate transfer of sovereignty in Iraq to the Iraqi people, and indicated that France would approve only a new United Nations resolution that recognized this need.

Wow, the French standing in the way of progress. Again.

When is the Bush Administration going to wake the hell up and recognize what most of us in the conservative blogosphere already know? France isn't our intransigent ally. They are our enemy. Out to obstruct any kind of meaningful reconstruction in Iraq.

If the Bush Administration goes along with Chirac's plan to turn over immediate sovereignty to the Iraqi people, Iraq will collapse back into Baathist Party rule at best, for then we will be right back where we started. Or at worst (and this is the more likely scenario) it will become another Afghanistan, ruled by Islamic Fascists.

This is France's vision for Iraq. Do not doubt for a second they are the friends of democracy, liberty, or freedom anymore.

via (Kallini.Com)

The Next US Ambassdor to Canada, if a Democrat gets elected? Martin Sheen.

"Every time I cross this border I feel like I've left the land of lunatics," Sheen said Saturday, adding he was "proud" of Canada for not entering the Iraq war. "You are not armed and dangerous. You do not shoot each other. I always feel a bit more human when I come here."

I am not really going to say anything, other than this. People like Mr. Sheen only feel comfortable bashing the United States when they are no longer on United States soil? Why is that? Well honestly it cannot be because they are afraid of "voicing their dissent" on US Soil could it? It can't be because the majority of Americans do not share their views is it? It can't be because they are taking the position their hero, Bill Clinton, took when he bashed America from England during Vietnam could it? Naww... couldn't be any of that.

Hey, I'm proud of Canada as well, they are finally seeing the light when it comes to their cradle to the grave welfare state. And I don't even have to leave the United States to do that. How amazing.

read the rest of the Martin Sheen story here.

link via (Kallini.Com)

Amen Lee. Amen.

From Right-Thinking

On the night of Wednesday, August 27, two men dressed as computer technicians and carrying tool bags entered the cargo processing and intelligence centre at Sydney International Airport.

The men, described as being of Pakistani-Indian-Arabic appearance, took a lift to the third floor of the Charles Ulm building on Link Road, next to the customs handling depot and the Qantas Jet Base.

They presented themselves to the security desk as technicians sent by Electronic Data Systems, the outsourced customs computer services provider which regularly sends people to work on computers after normal office hours.

After supplying false names and signatures, they were given access to the top-security mainframe room. They knew the room's location and no directions were needed.

Inside, they spent two hours disconnecting two computers, which they put on trolleys and wheeled out of the room, past the security desk, into the lift and out of the building.

The brazen theft has prompted Australia's top security agencies to conduct emergency damage audits amid fears that terrorists may have gained access to highly sensitive intelligence from the computers.

Note to the rest of the world: you are not safe from terrorism. You cannot appease it away. You cannot wish it away. You cannot cooperate with it or reason with it. It wants you dead. It wants you to beg for Allah's mercy while your wives and daughters are forced to wear the burqa. It wants the destruction of [what] all free men hold dear. Are you going to be up to the challenge?

Australia have bravely stood up to the task, and many will claim that by doing so they have opened themselves up to attacks that would not have otherwise occurred. This is naivety in the extreme, doing what Churchill described as "hoping the crocodile eats you last." Nobody is safe unless this cancer is excised from the world body as expeditiously as possible.

Are you up to the task? Or are your heads in the sand, ass pointed skyward, hoping it will all go away? Choose your place in history. Twenty years from now there will be an accounting. Where will your place be chronicled? I think Patton's famous speech sums up this question nicely.

"There is one great thing that you men will all be able to say after this war is over and you are home once again. You may be thankful that twenty years from now when you are sitting by the fireplace with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what you did in the great World War II, you WON'T have to cough, shift him to the other knee and say, "Well, your Granddaddy shoveled shit in Louisiana." No, Sir, you can look him straight in the eye and say, "Son, your Granddaddy rode with the Great Third Army and a Son-of-a-Goddamned-Bitch named Georgie Patton!"

All too many countries are all perfectly prepared to shovel shit in Louisiana, and that is pathetic.

Will the real Wesley Clark please stand up?

Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark said on Friday he would never have voted for war in Iraq, 24 hours after he told reporters he probably would have supported the Congressional resolution authorizing the United States to invade.

I am not so naive as to think Mr. Clark isn't just saying things to get himself elected, but this is just blatant pandering to the anti-war Left (a.k.a. Howard Dean supporters).

"I would have never voted for war," Clark told Reuters before delivering a foreign policy speech at the University of Iowa. "I'm a soldier. I understand what war's about, but I would have voted for the right kind of leverage for the president to head off war and avoid it."

Yes Mr. Clark, but you led a war from 15,000 feet with no casualties to speak of. That isn't war, that is a coffee klatch. In a war soldiers die Mr. Clark, no matter which side they are on. If you were half the "warrior" you claim yourself to be, you would know that. Also, the threat to use force is meaningless unless the force is actually used. Rattling the saber is just fine, but there comes a time when the saber must be drawn for it to be effective. Ostensibly Mr. Clark would rather Saddam Hussein and the Taliban still be in power and still present a threat to our National Security.

While I do agree with Clark that war should be avoided. I do not agree with Mr. Clark that war should be avoided at any price. That is appeasement, and appeasement only serves to make the aggressor more aggressive. If Mr. Clark was a warrior he would know this, but since he isn't he is now painting himself as a member of the peace at any price crowd. That Wesley Clark shares the same vision of American foreign policy as his former boss, Bill Clinton, should come as a surprise to no one.

War is unfortunate, yes. However, sometimes it cannot be avoided. We were viciously attacked on September 11th in what was a tantamount act of war. We did not start this war Mr. Clark. But we will finish it, for our very survival is at stake.

And Wesley Clark is now the Democrat's white knight? the man that is going to deliver to them the White House in 2004? Not likely. He is, and has been, all over the map when it comes to the War on Terror. That he is disingenuous is a given. That he is intellectually dishonest is also a given. That he is unfit to lead, also is a given. In short he should fit in quite nicely with the other Democratic candidates. If Wesley Clark is the Democrat's white knight, if he is the best the Democrats can do, then Bush will win in a landslide come November 2004. And that is just fine with me.

To read the rest of the story on Wesley Clark, click here.

To read Mark Steyn's take on Wesley click here.

links via (Kallini.Com)

One explanation for California...

"'My vision is to make the most diverse state on earth, and we have people from every planet on the earth in this state. We have the sons and daughters of every, of people from every planet, of every country on earth," he said. - California Governor Gray Davis (emphasis added)

So space aliens live in California now. Nifty.

via (Free Will)

Unilateral Police Action

The NYPD has gone too far!

A 35-year-old man posing as a police officer with a badge and a gun was shot dead by cops on a busy Bronx sidewalk yesterday after he refused to drop his weapon - which turned out to be fake.

Steven Seignious of The Bronx dressed in a cop's turtleneck, emblazoned with the NYPD logo and wearing a sergeant's gold shield and a pin bearing his name, was killed in a hail of gunfire in the Fordham section of The Bronx.

Police said the dead man's gun was a replica that looked just like the Glock 9 mm semiautomatic issued to city cops.

"At first blush, it looked like the real thing," said Bronx Borough Chief Anthony Izzo.

I cannot believe the NYPD would take such an irresponsible action. What they should have done was assembled a police coalition comprised of members of police forces from all across the world. Next, they should have assembled a dossier listing the specific charges against the man, with overwhelming evidence against him. Advice should have been solicited from coalition members on how to deal with the problem. After a substantial amount of discussion and debate, making sure that all sides were heard and included in the process, a broad-based plan for dealing with the suspect should have been drafted. This plan should then have been presented to the community at large, to get their input. When any concerns had been addressed a final plan should have been drafted, and then put into place.

Of course, by this time the suspect would have simply run away, or possibly died of old age.

After subsequently finding out that the gun was, in fact, fake, and posed no threat, a massive internationmal police tribunal should be convened to try and punish those members of the NYPD who brought the "threat" to light in the first place.

Shamelessly "borrowed" from Lee over at Right-Thinking.

More Bad News from Iraq...

Johann Hari, a writer for the Independent in London, is close to many Iraqi exiles. Those refugees from the Baath Party dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. These same refugees returned to Iraq after the ouster of Hussein, and Hari was worried about them, his fears his out and out dissipated however when he met with them when they returned to London for a brief visit.

First, they wanted to establish debating societies and newsletters in the Baghdad universities. "These are going to be the seeds of democracy," Yasser explains. "Once you learn to argue against people instead of killing them as Saddam did, you're on your way. We explained to the university students that they could have different newspapers - and even have different opinions in the same newspapers - and it seemed totally surreal to them. They just couldn't understand it. But when they realised that it really was possible and nobody was going to punish them, they were so excited that they were just obsessed. They were in the middle of their exams and supposed to be studying, but they insisted on writing and photocopying a newsletter that they distributed everywhere. They wrote articles on amazing things they could find out about on the internet - philosophy and art and the difference between proportional representation and first-past-the-post! It was the best thing in my life, seeing that," Yasser says.

Amazing, no? Like the fact that there are already 200 competing journalism outlets in Baghdad and beyond already. Iraq Today being written in English. They do have concerns however. Security, Yes. Electricity Problems, Yes. But most telling of all. The fear that they will be abandoned by the United States.

There is a terrible fear among many Iraqis that they will not be able to match the Kurds' achievement if they are abandoned by the Americans once again. "The memories of 1991 are so vivid," says Sama. "People still fear that somehow the Americans will abandon us and Saddam will claw his way back from the grave. They say, "It happened in 1991, it could happen again." That's one crucial reason why people are reluctant to cooperate with the coalition." She adds: "I find it absolutely incredible that the anti-war people are now calling for the coalition to leave straight away. Nobody in Iraq wants that. The opinion polls show it's just 13 per cent. Don't they care about the Iraqi people and what they want at all? This isn't a game. This isn't about poking a stick at George Bush. This is our lives."

Not while George W. Bush is president Sama. You won't be abandoned. We made a mistake in 1991 and we learned from it. We won't abandon you again.

via (Andrew Sullivan.Com)