GOOD FOR THE MAYOR!

Sometimes this PC nonsense goes way too far - like when the organizors of NYC's Columbus Day parade decided to ban the cast members of "The Sopranos" from appearing in the parade - because the show is "little more than a negative caricature of Italian-American life." (Ummm... I don't ever recall the show claiming it was representative of "Italian-American life." Last time I checked, it was about this one family who's in the mafia... Idiots.)

What a great idea - tell the cast members of the most popular show in the nation not to appear in your parade.

Well kudos to Mayor Bloomberg:

"[M]ayor Michael Bloomberg said Friday that if the organizers of the Columbus Day parade don't want cast members of the Sopranos to march, then he won't march either.

Meanwhile, the organizers, the Columbus Citizens Foundation, were in federal court Friday trying to block the actors' participation in the parade."

Federal court. Federal freakin' court.

What a bunch of pantywastes.

Somebody oughta sic Paulie Walnuts on 'em.

RANDOM LIFTING FROM THE ONION

Defense Department Typo Results In U.S. Attack On Ira

ARLINGTON, VA—The U.S. Defense Department apologized to Skokie, IL, dentist Ira Nussbaum Tuesday following a bombing campaign aimed at removing the 37-year-old from power. "Apparently, the intelligence source who drafted the attack plan against Iraq failed to strike the 'Q' key hard enough," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said. "The 'Q' was always a little stubborn on that keyboard. Sorry." This marks the first military action taken against Nussbaum since a malfunctioning shift key prompted Ulster Unionists to detonate his Ford Taurus in 1998.

MWO CONTRADICTS ITSELF

But that shouldn't surprise anyone with a lick of common sense...

Now they're trying to link the sniper attacks to the G.O.P. while simultaneously lambasting Reps for attempting to use the killings for partisan gain. Of course, that's a contradiction within itself, but it gets better...

First, MWO says:

"Specifically, Republican Senate candidate Doug Forrester of New Jersey, fearful of almost certain defeat, is attacking his opponent, Frank Lautenberg, on the grounds that no gun safety law could have prevented the current killing spree that had traumatized the nation's capital ... In fact, of course, Forrester knows absolutely nothing about the circumstances of the horror that has gripped the Washington area. Nobody does. except for forensic experts who are on the case -- and they're not talking, least of all to Doug Forrester."

And later, asks:

" ... [W]ill they condone the exploitation of this unspeakable tragedy to buck up the NRA which has spent millions upon millions to get the gun-nut Republicans back into power? The NRA which has aided countless killers through its advocacy of dementedly anti-regulation positions -- including the DC sniper, who is now benefiting from gun nuts' opposition to measures that would not have infringed on anyone's right to own a gun for protection, but could have helped investigators"

So, first "nobody" knows enough about the circumstances of the case to comment on whether stricter, or more relaxed, gun laws would have had an impact...

Then, the NRA has "aided" the killer by it's support of anti-regulation positions...

Which is it, MWO?

NEVER ONES TO SHY AWAY FROM POLITICIZING ANYTHING

Gotta love those Democrats...

WHY?

Everybody's wondering why this sniper is going on a killing spree... what's the purpose? Are the victims random or not? Is it the work of a "terrorist cell" or is it some lone kook with a God complex?

Send me your thoughts, or links to your thoughts... I'll be sure to get 'em posted.

One theory is that it's the work of a member of cell designed to distract law enforcement while another major terrorist attack is planned. I could see some plausibility in that, mainly because it's happening in and around the capitol, and could free up a "cell" to organize an attack on a major site in the capitol.

My first instinct was terrorism. Then, when the tarot card was found, I began to rethink that. The whole "I am God" statement didn't strike me as something that a radical, fundamental Islamist would do. But, of course, it could've been intended to throw off profilers. I just don't know...

No doubt, this is terrorizing. Attempting to find a motive to killings as senseless as these is nothing more than guess work for laypeople like us. But naturally, we're all going to wonder about it and try to make some sense of it. Your thoughts?

INTERESTING...

from MSNBC:

"SUSPICIOUS VAN STOPPED
Knight said that one white van was stopped nearby as it “was bumping cars trying to leave the area.” He said officers were questioning the occupant of the vehicle."

ANOTHER SNIPER DEATH IN VIRGINIA

A man was shot while pumping gas at an Exxon earlier this morning, and has died.

They've shut down 1-95 and are searching every white van & truck.

Good luck, guys.

Here's some links, since there's nothing to say that hasn't already been said:

CNN
FOX
MSNBC
WTOP (local D.C. radio station)

Feel free to send some comments, I'll post 'em up.

BOOK RECOMMENDATION

Everyone, regardless of political affiliation, should read Breakdown by Bill Gertz. I've heard the book referred to as "right-wing claptrap," and, granted, I'm only a chapter or so into it, but I can't see where that would apply. It's a damning indictment of our intelligence agencies, that's for sure. If that's "right-wing" then I'm afraid for the "left-wing." So far, it paints a pretty favorable picture of Clinton's efforts to counter terrorism, but at the same time fairly accounts the many, many shortcomings. But the blame for those shortcomings don't fall on Clinton's shoulders, as they are the fault of the whole culture of our government.

Give it a read. If you've read it already, lemme know your thoughts on it (alee973@hotmail.com).

Here's something that is exemplary of the massive failures that are so prevalent in our intelligence and counter-terrorism measures. It's not just the CIA and FBI... it's the State Department as well. But you'll never hear a gov't spokesperson admit that their particular agency is a joke... they've got to continue to justify their existence.

"[T]he cover story in National Review's October 28th issue (out Friday) details how at least 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers should have been denied visas — an assessment based on expert analyses of 15 of the terrorists' visa-application forms, obtained exclusively by NR.

In the year after 9/11, the hand-wringing mostly centered on the FBI and CIA's failure to "connect the dots." But that would not have been a fatal blow if the "dots" had not been here in the first place. If the U.S. State Department had followed the law, at least 15 of the 19 "dots" should have been denied visas — and they likely wouldn't have been in the United States on September 11, 2001."

Read the whole thing - it's scary how bad these applications were, and they still got rubber stamped on through.

I do wonder if the people responsible for this are still on the job - or are they protected by their unions?

QUOTE OF THE DAY

"Excellence is an art won by training and habituation. We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but rather we have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit."

- -- Aristotle

LIBERTARIANS IN GEORGIA

This is good, good news.

Do you think it's a coincedence that one of the nations most well-known, popular libertarians broadcasts his #1 radio show out of Atlanta, Georgia?

FRANCE IS GETTING ON BOARD REGARDING IRAQ

Thanks, but I think the Iraqis will be able to surrender without any help.

(I know... too easy)

YOUR CHILDREN AND YOUR INCOME TAX

A story of some excellent parenting, lifted from Boortz:

I received a letter from a very worthy parent. Why worthy? Because this particular parent makes his teenaged children sit down and prepare the family income tax return with him. He shows them how much he earned, and how much was taken from his earnings for the payment of state and federal income taxes. He shows them the total amount paid in Social Security taxes, and explains that the real Social Security tax is really twice that figure.

Armed with these figures he then shows his children just how much money he has to earn in order to purchase a $100 item, or to give them a $100 bill. With the payroll taxes, the income taxes, sales taxes and the rest, he has to earn a bit over $175.00 to have $100 to give to one of his children.

Then he takes it a step further. He compares the income earned by the children’s mother to the amount of taxes the family is paying. These figures allow him to illustrate to his kids that if the tax rates were not so high it is quite likely that their mother would have been able to stay at home with them during their school years --- not only that, but the family would have had more disposable income.

Too bad more parents don’t do this. This is a harsh lesson the children are going to learn sooner or later --- no time like sooner.

WHY IS IT THAT YOU ONLY HEAR WHEN THE NEWS IS BAD?

Certain liberal bloggers and e-zines seem to enjoy posting a little too much when the Dow has a bad day...

Strangely, though, they're so quiet when this happens.

You'd almost think they don't really want the Dow to do too well... then they'd have one less thing to blame Republicans for.

HERE WE GO AGAIN...

Y'know, it gets tiring seeing Democrats use these kinds of tactics, when they're always the ones whining about their patriotism/character/personal lives being questioned...

See the ad. Judge for yourself.

UPDATE: For many links, letters, and analysis, go to the always-worth-reading Instapundit.

THE RESOLUTION HAS PASSED

It's a go.

77-23 in the Senate, 296-133 in the House. Here's the text.

This is, of course, a good thing. Not because it means war is imminent. Not because Bush won.

Because it allows us to move forward on the ultimate goal of regime change. Because it sends a message to Saddam Hussein that we're serious - let the inspectors in, no games, and disarm, or everything you've heard will happen will happen. Because it's precisely what the U.N. has failed to do - put some consequences, some teeth, into the security resolutions.

Maybe I'm naive, but I still think there's a chance this will be accomplished without an "invasion." This resolution is yet another tactic in some serious Cold War maneuvering, in my opinion. Not that I think Bush will hesitate to call for the military - but I just don't think that's the first and only option. The goal is a regime change and disarmament. That can still be accomplished without military action, but there is no way Saddam would cooperate without an imminent threat. Now there's a threat, and the next move is Saddam's.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

WHO'S REALLY BEING UNILATERALIST?

via Instapundit

While the Bush administration is being slammed for the possiblity that military action against Iraq might be unilateral - as if that's the horror of all horrors, that the United States does something without that tacit approval of the U.N. and all our allies - our allies in Russia are basically bribing us for their support.

In Russia, it really is all about oil.

"A senior Kremlin official indicated yesterday that Russia would demand a high price for its support in the campaign against Iraq but that it would not ultimately stand in America's way.

With Tony Blair due in Moscow this afternoon, the Kremlin's senior spokesman said Russia would adopt a "pragmatic" position over Iraq, shorthand for a demand that it must receive substantial financial compensation."

Succesful campaign in Iraq = dropping oil prices = less $$$ for the Kremlin. Big problem, especially considering Iraq has 10 billion dollars in unpaid debts to Russia...

BOOK RECOMMENDATION

This one's for Neptune.

Oh yeah, one more.

RE: STATES RIGHTS

Neptune World opines:

"Conservatives are contantly yammering on and on about how legislation should be left to the states .... Now, our "conservative" administration is telling the voters in California that they don't care what they say, we're the federal government and we know what's best. Regardless of your silly little votes."

What he's whining about is California's attempt to require that a percentage of cars sold are electric...

"The Bush administration sided Wednesday with auto manufacturers in opposing a California requirement that a percentage of passenger vehicles sold in the state achieve zero emissions, meaning reliance on all-electric cars."

One problem, though:

"The Energy Policy and Conservation Act provides that when a federal fuel economy standard is in effect, a state or a political subdivision of a state may not adopt or enforce a law or regulation related to fuel economy standards,'' the department argued."

So, the reason that California cannot establish their own fuel emissions standard is the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, right?

Not those mean, hypocritical conservatives in the Bush administration.

TYPICAL...

Did the Democrats try to pass a resolution increasing the scope of the authority granted in the war resolution, just so they could pretend to be concerned about the scope, and then ultimately defeat the resolution?

Punditree has more...

Senator Bob Graham, who I truly respect:

"If you don’t want war with Iraq, have the courage to stand up and say so. Don’t hypocritically propose to expand the war powers resolution and then turn around and have “concerns” about the scope of that power. This is beneath contempt."

ANOTHER IDIOT ENTERTAINER HEARD FROM

Question: Why are entertainers considered relevant when they comment on politics and the news? Barbra Streisand's job is to entertain me. Sing for me. Then go home.

Now Harry Belafonte has been heard from. Who's Harry Belafonte? Exactly. Some guy who hasn't had a hit in, oh, about 85 years. And the one hit he did have is probably best known from that scene in "Beeltejuice." If you asked 100 people who sang that silly "Day-O" song, chances are they'd guess it was Catherine O'Hara before Harry Belafonte. Have I expressed how irrelevant I think this guy is well enough yet?

Well, not only is the guy irrelevant, turns out he's a race-baiting idiot as well.

"There's an old saying," Belafonte began. "In the days of slavery, there were those slaves who lived on the plantation and were those slaves that lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master... exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him.

"Colin Powell's committed to come into the house of the master. When Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture."

Hateful. Shameful, racist, and hateful. Harry Belafonte is attacking Colin Powell over his skin color. Why is it that liberal blacks who have acheived some success in life are considered heroes and role models, but conservative blacks who have acheived some success in life are considered sell-outs and "house slaves?" Why is it OK to call a conservative black man a "slave?" Could you imagine the outrage if Walter Williams, J.C. Watts, or Condoleeza Rice called Jesse Jackson a "house slave?" But Harry Belafonte, this irrelevant, asinine idiot whose sole claim to fame is that he screamed "Day-O" (a song written by a white man), can go on the air and call one of the most respected (from both sides of the polticial aisle), successful, and well-known black men in the country a "house slave," and the only people who will comment on it are so called "right-wingers." I was watching Crossfire on CNN last night, and Belafonte's quote was the "quote of the day," and Paul Begala ducked it like it was the West Nile Virus being thrown at him. He refused to comment on the quote, instead choosing to bring up the speculation that Powell may not finish his term as Secretary of State (despite repeated denials of that by Powell himself - but unnamed sources are much more fun to believe when you're slinging mud).

Here's the transcript:

"Quote: "Colin Powell is permitted to come into the house of the master. When Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture."

CARLSON: Belafonte ought to be ashamed of himself. That's one of the meanest, most hateful things I've heard in a long time. He said it simply because Colin Powell is black and disagrees with his politics. They don't share the same politics. If Colin Powell was white, he never would have compared him to a slave.

It's an outrage and I can't imagine that you would defend that.

BEGALA: I think we're going to have to find out what happens after the elections. There are rumors that Colin Powell is being forced out.

CARLSON: No. No. No. Back up. Address this slur.

BEGALA: He is trying to keep Colin Powell, as I think General Powell is, trying to keep us from rushing into a war and I applaud that and I think he is having a positive effect. And I think we'll have to wait and see whether he lasts

CARLSON: Well, maybe tonight on "LARRY KING" he will address this. Everything that you have said pertains to the merits of the argument: Should we go to war, should we not.

This is an attack on his skin color. No, literally. This is comparing him to a slave. This is so vicious and outrageous. This is what liberals do to Clarence Thomas simply because he's black.

I'm serious. It's so mean.

BEGALA: There's an enormous difference between Colin Powell and Clarence Thomas."

Duck and hide, duck and hide, Begala.

Anyhow - Colin Powell is truly a class act.

"If Harry had wanted to attack my politics, that was fine," Secretary Powell added. "If he wanted to attack a particular position I hold, that was fine. But to use a slave reference, I think, is unfortunate and is a throwback to another time and another place that I wish Harry had thought twice about using."

Again - reverse the politics here - let a conservative black man make a racial slur about a liberal black man - and watch the outrage. And Paul Begala would be amongst the loudest.

HAS IT HAPPENED AGAIN?

Police are investigating another shooting in Manassas, Virginia, which is about 30 miles west of D.C.

"Everything is very similar," Montgomery County Executive Douglas Duncan said. "Let's hope this is not it."

Unfortunately, I'm afraid it probably is "it."

"The shell recovered in the school shooting was a .223-caliber, the same kind of bullet that authorities believe was used in the earlier shootings. It was the first casing found since the slayings began Oct. 9."

Meanwhile, I heard on the radio news this morning that there were other writings on the tarot card that was found that indicated the man did not want police to release the info on the card to the media. Profilers believe that the killer wanted to start a dialogue with the police, out of the public eye. If that's true, that's very, very strange. Typically, (and I'm no profiler or anything) I'd imagine that part of what would drive someone like this to commit these acts would be the thrill of watching the inevitable media circus. To see his actions result in mass public fear, right on his TV. I just don't know - this seems too much like it's right out of some cheesy movie. I can just picture this Dennis Hopper-like character sitting in some small room with TV's everywhere, and I'm waiting for some Keanu Reeves character to disable the bomb on the bus.

ABC News is on the radio right now - no new information there. Witnesses report seeing a white Dodge Caravan leaving the scene with "1 or 2 people inside." I'd expect this to be a 2 man thing. One driver, one shooter. Hopefully we'll find out for sure sooner than later.

FROM AN UNLIKELY SOURCE...

The Independant from London is reporting that Saddam Hussein is working on a "supergun."

"Saddam Hussein has been acquiring the technology to build a long-range "supergun" capable of firing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, German prosecutors allege."

So we've got a notoriously leftist, anti-American/Bush "newspaper," citing sources from a county that has recently been one of the most vocal detractors to Bush's policy of a regime change in Iraq... What gives?

I mean, I know more and more countries have been coming around to the "right" side of the Iraq debate, more and more Congresspeople have been coming around, the U.N. has been coming around - but if The Independant and Germany are on board, well hell, sounds like Bush and Co. have been pretty convincing, eh?

UPDATE: The Washington Times has a report on the "supergun." Can't they come up with a name for it that doesn't sound like it was invented by a comic-book villian?

MARYLAND SHOOTING UPDATE

Nothing new to report - the manhunt continues with little success, the tarot card is being considered a taunt, and/or an attempt to establish some sort of dialogue by the killer, and residents in and around Bowie are scared, staying home more, and the local economy is practically shut down.

Not much of an update, I know. If anyone ever deserved the death penalty, whoever is responsible for this sure fits the bill. With any luck, some citizen or law enforcement will speed up the sentancing process, if you know what I mean.

ARAFAT WON THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE IN 1994

Did Yasser Arafat attempt to assassinate Colin Powell?

Punditree's all over it.

IT'S ALL ABOUT RICE? WAR FOR RICE?

I'm sure you've heard the phrase "It's all about oil!" in the discussion over Iraq...

The Village Voice disagrees, though. Apparantly rice has something to do with it...

"Before the first Persian Gulf war, Iraq had become a sizable market for American rice, wheat, and chickens. In the last half of the '80s, the United States sold $4 billion in food to Iraq. Twenty percent of the American rice crop went there at one point in the 1980s.

In 1988-89 the United States exported 521,000 tons of rice to Iraq, making it our number one consumer. More recently, the figure has been zero. A spokesperson for the U.S. Rice Federation, which takes a dim view of the sanctions, wouldn't comment on the current situation. But it's safe to say there would be nothing like a war, regime change, and the subsequent lifting of sanctions to open up this lucrative market once again."

People keep saying that Bush needs to focus on the economy, not Iraq... maybe they go hand in hand?

War for Rice!

(thanks to Best of The Web)

SABOTAGING HOMELAND SECURITY

Nice little synopsis of what's being called the "Daschle Dawdle Watch" (thanks Indepundit and Punditree.)

Why is Daschle letting unions determine the power the President should have during wartime?

Oh, yeah. Dollars and votes.

TOMORROW NEVER KNOWS

Nice.

E-MAIL QUESTION

SLee writes:

"Just finished reading the article on the court decision upholding the
government's right to keep immigration hearings closed, not only to the
press, but to friends and family. What I find confusing is how secrecy
helps the government. If the purpose of an immigration hearing is to see
whether you stay or go, then once that decision is made, don't you stay or
go? And, whether you stay or go, can't you tell your friends, family and
al quieda contact what the testimony was, how they caught you, what to look
out for, etc, etc? How does it help things to keep the rest of the world
out of the hearing if you can walk out of it and tell anyone anything about
what just happened? Can you help me out here?"

I can't say I fully understand the logic here either, any input? (alee973@hotmail.com) The article says this:

"If a terrorist cell learned one of its members had been detained, the judges reasoned, it might flee, destroy evidence, kill witnesses, modify its methods of entering the country or even accelerate plans for an attack. "

OK - if a member was detained, how long would it take for the rest of the "cell" to figure out what happened to him?

I understand the necessity of crucial intelligence information being kept out of the public forum, and I respect that. But I think the ACLU has it right on this one. If the gov't desires a hearing to be private, they should have to make that case in front of a judge. That decision should not rest solely on one man, the attorney general. This is certainly not a black-and-white issue. The gov't has the right to keep certain information private in the interest of national security, and dealing with domestic terrorists, some of whom may be U.S. citizens, is tricky, and is certainly entering into territories previously uncharted. I don't know what all the answers are, but we are a government of laws, not of men, and the power to detain potential terrorists with no hard charges and no explanation should not be given to any one man.

IF YOU FEED THEM, THEY WILL COME

That's what liberals in Santa Monica, California are learning.

"This liberal, beachside town passed two laws that will prohibit homeless people from camping in front of businesses at night and limit free meals served to them....

"The public is scared and tired and just generally want it stopped," Councilman Herb Katz said."

Here's the best part: an ordinance that forbids homeless people from sleeping or sitting in front of doorways from 11pm to 7am, as long as the business posts a sign requesting it, passed unanimously, and homeless advocates (what a strange term) are calling it "unconstitutional."

So, the homeless have a constitutional right to sleep on private property? I'd like to see that amendment... Of course, in California, it may well exist...

The way to fight homelessness is not to make it easier to be homeless - it's not more handouts, more free meals, relaxed loitering laws, etc. It's encouraging more economic development, thereby increasing the number of jobs in a community. And how do you increase economic development? Lower taxes and fewer regulations. Make your community attractive to businesses, and they will come, and bring jobs.

Of course, resources need to be available for those who truly need them. No question about that. Nobody wants to see people starving on the streets. But when you reach a point of over-generosity, as numerous examples have shown, you simply attract freeloaders and take away incentives for them to improve their own lives.

THE UNITED STATES OF THE OFFENDED

2 items...

(from Poet & Peasant) A women's group has asked for this billboard to be taken down, because "To blow this message up as a billboard for people throughout Silicon Valley to stare at attracts negative attention to women in high tech.''

Let's just ignore the fact that the billboard has nothing to do with women in high tech...

And here locally, vandals changed the message on a Coors Light billboard - if you watch sports at all, you've no doubt seen the commercial with "The Twins." (I do love the twins...) Well, some offended vandal with too much free time, changed the wording "Here's to Twins" to "Here's to Sexism." The vandal did a great job, though, matching the font and everything to where you'd never realize it was vandalism...

THE FUTURE LEADERS OF THIS COUNTRY

You should read this column from an 18 year old junior at UCLA.

Yeah, 18 years old and a junior at a top university.

BREAKING NEWS - MARYLAND

There's been another shooting in Maryland - but this one is inside a hotel room, and, as of about one minute ago, ABC News is saying that it does not match the profile for the sniper shooting. More as it comes...

UPDATE: The shooting appears to be a domestic incident and unrelated to the sniper attacks, according to the AP. Police refuse to comment yet. There's a press conference in a few minutes (9:30am EST).

MARYLAND SERIAL KILLER

In light of the information coming out this morning, I'm thinking my earlier theory is off the mark.

"A sniper terrorizing the Washington suburbs reportedly left behind a Tarot card with the words, "Dear policeman, I am God," and a bullet casing outside the school where a 13-year-old boy was critically wounded."

The Tarot card was the "Death" card.

I don't think this cowardly piece of shit has any agenda with these killings, no goal of shutting down the city or anything, I think he's just a sick, crazy bastard. A serial killer who enjoys the feeling of absolute power that comes with random killings.

Catch this guy, soon, and be thankful that Maryland is a death penalty state.

UPDATE: Now the Secret Service is getting in on the manhunt. Good. Get everyone available out there. And the Washington Times reports that officials are considering an "international terrorist" connection unlikely.

UPDATE II: Police Cheif Moose has some choice words for the media and all the reporting of the "tarot card." I can see both sides of this issue - the public wants and, to an extent, deserves as much information on the killings and the killers, and the media is doing what they're supposed to do, but at what point does the media hinder the investigation? I don't know. You run the risk of "copycats" and/or the killer changing his MO. On the other hand, a well informed citizenry can be responsible for catching the killer and/or preventing another murder. I don't know... if you've got any thoughts on this, drop me a line (alee973@hotmail.com) and I'll post 'em up.

UPDATE III: A fellow I work with just brought up an interesting point...

The message on the Tarot card was reportedly: "Dear policeman, I am God" Say that out loud. Does it sound like something that would be said by someone who was fluent in English? Singular tense with "policeman?" Sure, it's just speculation, but that sounds like it was written by someone whose first language is not English.

UPDATE IV: Yeah, we're all playing profiler on this case. Punditree makes some good points.

QUOTE OF THE DAY...

On the Neal Boortz show, a caller calls in during some talks about the economy, and says:

"Why should I give a damn about the governments deficits when the government don't give a damn about my deficits?"

hehe

Struck me as funny...

SPEAKING OF THE ECONOMY...

Give this a read.

A LITTLE UNSCIENTIFIC POLL

I have a question I'd like some feedback on (alee973@hotmail.com):

If you were the president right now, and you decided you were going to devote your full attention to the economy - to stimulate it, speed up the recovery, whatever - what 3 actions would you take, right now, that you think would have some immediate impact?

QUICK Q & A ON SOCIAL SECURITY

1) Which party took Social Security from an independant fund and put it in a general fund so that Congress could spend it?

2) Which party put a tax on Social Security?

3) Which party increased the tax on Social Security?

4) Which party decided to grant Social Security payments to immigrants, even if they moved here at age 65 and never paid a dime into it?

5) Which president planned to invest the Social Security general fund into the stock market?

Answers:

1) The Democratic controlled Congress under Democrat Lyndon Johnson

2) The Democrats

3) The Democrats, with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.

4) The Democrats

5) President Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

Next time you hear a Democrat tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away, ask them these simple questions.

ANYONE WANNA GO TO THE BEACH?

Sure!

No, wait.

A MUST READ

Mob Rule in New Jersey.

UPDATE: Seems that Boortz's writing got some people a little upset.

Good. It should.

Anytime the rule of law is replaced by the will of the majority, or in the case of New Jersey, the will of a powerful political party, people should get upset.

Oh. That's not what upset him. Sorry.

He got upset because Boortz refutes the common perception that America is a democracy.

Question: Does anyone out there think there was a reason the founding fathers absolutely avoided even using the word "democracy" in any of the papers establishing our form of government?

In a democracy, the only law is the will of the majority. When the will of the majority can change any law at any time, there is no other law than the will of the majority.

And, that is the simple reason that we are not a democracy.

We are a republic with democratically elected representatives. I can see why that confuses the feeble-minded into thinking we are actually a democracy. But, as usual, they're wrong.

IT'S A TRAP!

Was the terror attack on a French oil tanker Sunday designed to lure U.S. ships into the region?

"Navy and military intelligence analysts have already concluded based on flyovers and other information that the attack on the French-registered oil tanker Limburg was part of a tactic by terrorists to bring more U.S. ships into the region so they, too, can be attacked by small boats loaded with explosives. "

Sounds like we've got a new candidate for the "Axis of Evil:"

"Yemen, trying to shed an image as a haven for Islamic militants, says a fire set off Sunday's blast on the tanker in the Gulf of Aden and not an assault similar to the October 2000 suicide bombing of the U.S. destroyer Cole in Aden."

Oh. Well if Yemen says it was just a fire...

RANDOM POST OF THE DAY

"There is not one person ... who would risk their dream job to see her naked."

Wow. That's pretty harsh.

Look at the picture, and I think you'd agree.

"She's a man, baby!"

DONATIONS ARE BEING ACCEPTED...

For this.

Interesting... Make sure you check out the "Letters" section.

AH, THE JOYS OF A WELFARE STATE

Do you live in a city or state with generous welfare benefits?

If so, does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

Well listen up. Freeloaders are getting smarter and smarter. Just ask the residents of Lewiston, Maine.

Seems that some Somalis living in Atlanta got wind of the generousity of the Lewiston (pop 36,000) taxpayers, and started moving there en masse.

Now, the housing and jobs are drying up... and the wage earners and property owners are being asked to reach deeper in their pockets to support these recent arrivals.

Now, I feel for the Somalis - they come from a war ravaged country and truly want a better life. Many speak little or no English and have little or no education or job skills. But is it alright for them to just plant themselves in any city and start demanding benefits? It's gotten so bad that they mayor has asked them to stop moving to Lewistion until they can get a handle on the increased burdens. Of course, the Somalis immediately cried "racism," even though the letter was crystal clear:

"In the letter, Raymond said, "This large number of new arrivals cannot continue without negative results for all. The Somali community must exercise some discipline and reduce the stress on our limited finances and our generosity ... We will continue to accommodate the present residents as best we can."

The letter concluded, "We have been overwhelmed and have responded valiantly. Now we need breathing room. Our city is maxed-out financially, physically and emotionally."

What will be the net result of these well-intentioned welfare programs in Lewiston? The wage earners, property owners, and long time residents will eventually decide that they don't really feel like paying more and more taxes to support these immigrants, and will move away to a community that will let them keep their hard earned money. The immigrants will continue to be a burden on the government, which will then seek more money from the state or federal government.

Again, does your city or state have generous welfare benefits? If so, you may want to start planning your escape route...

IN ADDITION...

Instapundit points out the ridiculousness that is the British newpaper The Independant.

Here's the news story about the President's speech...

And here's the perfunctory denouncement...

One problem, though.

They were both written hours before the speech actually occured.

RE: ALPHABET NETWORKS SNUBBING THE PRESIDENT

Stephen from Punditree directs us to this satire from Scrappleface, and writes:

"[T]he networks have certain obligations to carry important news and educational programming as part of their licensing agreement. I don't believe the existence of the 24 hour news stations relieved them of this obligation. The FCC should forcefully remind them their obligation."

Agreed.

A common argument you'll hear in the campaign finance reform discussion is that broadcasters should not profit from political advertising, because they're obligated to "act in the public interest," and political advertisements are in "the public interest." They're they public airwaves, and broadcasters are simply allowed to use them at the behest of the public, therefore, if the public decides that politicians should have free airtime, so it should be.

I'm waiting for a supporter of campaign finance reform, who uses that argument, to explain to me why they think it's OK for a broadcaster to decide that "Fear Factor" is "in the public interest" over the President's speech on Iraq.

I'll probably be waiting for some time...

THEY'VE LINKED THEM

This mornings shooting of a 13 year old boy has now been linked to last weeks killings.

I hope they catch this piece of shit, and soon.

PREZ SPEECH UPDATE

So it seems that our local affiliates aren't going to pre-empt their sitcoms and reality shows to carry the presidential address tonight.

Am I the only one who's just a little shocked by this?

Here we are, possibly on the brink of war, and our president plans a national address to present us with some information on the possiblity of military action - pre-emptive, controversial military action.

And our national networks think "Fear Factor" and "The King Of Queens" are more important?

Well, whatever... my radio station is carrying it live... maybe it'll get us some new listeners...

But this is just going to fuel the fire in the "liberal media" debate.

AXIS OF EVIL UPDATE

North Korea admits that it kidnapped many Japanese - But, they say, the victims really liked it there and wanted to stay. Oh, yeah, a lot of 'em are dead, but all from strange mysterious causes... and nevermind that most of the graves have disappeared. It's really from all those floods.

For some reason, many Japanese think these explanations are unlikely. They probably don't trust Saddam either... geez.

PC PATROL!

A must-read.

RANDOM POST OF THE DAY

This amused me.

Conservatives can be some silly bastards sometimes. But this is kind of embarassing...

REAL QUICK, THOUGH

Doesn't today's Supreme Court ruling poke holes in that whole "The Supreme Court selected Bush because they're Republicans" theory?

THE SUPREME COURT REJECTS G.O.P.

Yep, the feds declined to hear the case about the NJ Senate race, and as I posted below, it's probably the right call. There's no federal jurisdiction here, as there was in the 2000 presidential election.

Now before you lefties start celebrating too much - keep in mind this in no way vindicates what the Democrats did.

Putting Lautenberg on the ballot this close to the election is illegal in New Jersey. The Supreme Court of NJ decided to ignore that, don't ask me why, but that doesn't make it any less illegal.

Questions to ponder:

Is the two-party system so important that laws should be ignored to uphold it?

Are the Democrats and Republicans simply entitled to have a candidate on any ballot they decide they want one on?

Is the fact that the voters of NJ did not select Lautenberg as their candidate completely irrelevant?

Isn't this a dangerous precedent to set? Will we see the two parties start pulling candidates who are losing more often and arbitrarily replacing them as the election gets closer? And, if so, should we just abandon the primaries and allow the parties to select their candidates on their own?

And, am I making too big a deal out of this whole thing? It just doesn't seem to be bothering too many people out there that the laws take a backseat to the whims of a political party....

This is an ugly precedent. I'll be saying "I told you so" later on...

UPDATE: Neptune World assures us that there's no dangerous precedent being set here. And his reasoning? Well, he basically just trusts that the political parties won't pull losing candidates at the last minute and replace them. And Josh Marshall agrees. "It's hardly likely to become a pattern" is the logic being used to tell us that there's no problem in the works here.

Good. I'm glad you guys trust the power hungry political parties that much. Liberals tend not to worry much about unintended consequences. Kind of a pattern with them. But if little ol' me, sitting here in my little ol' office can see the potential for abuse here, doesn't it stand to reason that some political strategist can see it as well, and is already looking for ways to exploit this precedent? We'll just have to watch and see, won't we?

Let me re-link you to this excellent piece.

ARE LABOR UNIONS A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY?

It's obvious, to most objective observers, that the Democratic party is absolutely beholden to labor unions. To the extent that they're holding up the Homeland Security Bill to appease the unions.

Apparently, labor unions have a history of grabbing power during times of war. And the Democrats are more than willing to let them.

"True to form, union officials have also used the horrifying attacks of September 11 as cover for their march for increased government-granted privileges.

Only two days after al Qaeda toppled the World Trade Center towers, for example, Democrat Sens. Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton rammed a bill that one union dubbed "the largest expansion of labor [union] rights considered by Congress in decades" through a closed-door Senate committee without a single word of testimony or even a recorded vote. Later, they tried to sneak it through the Senate by unanimous consent. And in November, union-allied senators attempted to push through the legislation via an amendment to a "must pass" appropriations bill.

Through these shameless maneuvers, Mr. Kennedy and Mrs. Clinton sought to federally mandate that all state and local governments anoint union officials as the monopoly bargaining agents for local police, firefighters, paramedics, and other public safety officers — even in jurisdictions that have wisely banned this form of compulsory unionism."

Listen, unions have done many incredible things in this country. They're important, no doubt about that. But, as has happened with so many well-intentioned ventures in the past, they've evolved from being true champions of worker's rights to power hungry, monopolistic political players. Nobody should be forced to join a union. And nobody who is in a union should be bullied into making donations to a particular political party, nor bullied into voting a certain way. Unions have a legitimate role in a free market, capitalistic society. Unfortunately, the unions here have gone far past what should be considered legitimate.

For more on the Democrats allowing special interests to impede national security issues, and the economy, make sure to read the second item from Nealz Nuze today.

BBC'S TAKE

Here's the BBC's report on the Maryland shootings.

Nothing there that you won't find everywhere else, mind you - what caught my eye was the insert on the right hand side of the screen with the header "America and The Gun."

Give 'em a read. They seem to think that the very premise of the gun control debate in this country is off the mark, so to speak.

And don't miss their special report, The United States of Murder.

IS IT POLITICAL, REALLY?

I highly recommend this post from Poet & Peasant.

And, rather than polling Americans about whether or not we should liberate Iraq, perhaps we should poll Iraqis.

If they're not too afraid to speak freely, that is.

MARYLAND SHOOTINGS

Go here to stay on top of the latest.

WOW

There goes that right-wing media again...

UPDATE: Neptune World responds to my comment. Just to be clear - I didn't intend for this to be any evidence of "liberal bias." But for those who often cry about a right-wing bias, this certainly serves as evidence that they're just plain wrong.

But to call this a "little thing" is ludicrous - this is the president of our country delivering a speech that could very well be a precursor to military action in Iraq. And several major networks aren't sure if it's worth pre-empting "Fear Factor," "The King Of Queens," "Yes, Dear," "Drew Carey," or "Whose Line Is It Anyway?," to air it.

They had no problem interrupting prime time for Bill Clinton to wag his finger at me and tell me that he did not have sexual relations with that woman, but war with Iraq? Nah...

To be sure, I'm confident that they'll carry the address. The backlash if they don't would be horrendous. But that they even need to consider whether or not they should is shameful.

And, again, clear evidence that there is certainly no "right-wing bias" out there.

"WELL THEY DID IT TOO!"

Seems to be the latest argument as to why the Democrats should be allowed to ignore election laws in New Jersey. (via Neptune World)

Here's the relevant part:

"Mr. Genova also uncovered a legal memorandum from Mr. Forrester's lawyer written in April, when State Senator Diane Allen, one of Mr. Forrester's opponents in the Republican primary, was trying to block him from taking the ballot position of James W. Treffinger. Mr. Treffinger, the Essex County executive, had resigned from the race because of scandal three days earlier, or 40 days before the primary.

Senator Allen maintained that moving Mr. Forrester's name to Mr. Treffinger's place on the ballot would come too late under Title 19 of the state election law, which sets a deadline of 51 days before an election for ballot substitutions. It is the same argument that Mr. Forrester's lawyer, Peter G. Sheridan, made before the State Supreme Court on Wednesday, opposing Mr. Lautenberg's placement on the ballot. The Democrats said that the deadline was merely a guideline."

So it would seem, based on that report, that Forrester got put on the ballot after the deadline. I intend to look into that a little more, but if that turns out to be true, then Forrester should not have been allowed to be put on the ballot.

It's pretty simple, folks, laws are laws. Laws can be wrong, and they can be changed, but until they are, they need to be followed - especially in matters as important as elections. No parties desire for political power supercedes the law. You saw it in Florida - the Democrats wanted the laws/rules changed during the game because they didn't like the outcome. The state Supreme Court was going to let them, and the federal Supreme Court made the right decision and forbade it. The feds had jursidiction in that case, because it was a federal election. The feds don't necessarily have that authority here, so the case may not be heard, and that may be the right decision.

But the bottom line is this: It's a dangerous precedent to allow laws to be ignored because some political party wants it that way. I don't want that to become common practice, but it seems to be heading in that direction.

UPDATE: Check out John Fund's Political Diary: Election Through Litigation?

SCARY STUFF

3 days ago, this report comes out:

"U.S. intelligence agencies received reports this week indicating Islamic terrorists have targeted American schools for attack, intelligence officials said."

This morning, this happens:

"Police investigating a string of six sniper-style killings in the Washington area were probing the shooting of a 13-year-old student today. The boy was shot outside a middle school in Prince Georges County, Maryland."

Now this is pure speculation on my part - let's get that out of the way - but I think this is organized terrorism.

Think about it - a major goal of the attacks of 9/11 were to cripple our economy. They did some damage, but Americans have been resolute and recovery has been slow but sure. Think about what would happen if these types of "urban warfare" attacks started happening in major cities simultaneously. Parents would not send their children to schools, meaning they would not go to work. Many people wouldn't go to work in places that could be considered "easy targets." People wouldn't be going to malls, Wal-Marts, gas stations, etc. Think about what that would do to the economies of those cities. They could acheive a virtual work stoppage and a virtual stop to consumption of goods and services. What would it take for you to keep your kid home from school and call into work?

Again, this is nothing more than personal speculation. Hopefully it's just some wackjob with an axe to grind, and they catch the bastard ASAP. But check out this report from Sept. 4th 2002.

"An al-Qaida training videotape, captured in Afghanistan, shows Osama bin Laden's terrorists are not only planning attacks with weapons of mass destruction but are preparing to kill Americans with drive-by shootings and home break-ins, through ambushes of law-enforcement officers and targeted assassinations on golf courses, WorldNetDaily has learned."

The tapes than CNN ran also showed urban warfare training.

And, finally, today is the one year anniversary of American attacks on Afghanistan, which some are saying makes today a prime choice for attempted terrorist attacks.

My thoughts and prayers are with that 13 year old boy and his family this morning, and again, I hope I'm wrong about all this.

UPDATE: Thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the link - I'm interested in any thoughts about all this at alee973@hotmail.com

UPDATE II: This is a good site for the latest on the story.