Sunday, January 28, 2007

She's a man baby, yeah!

Clinton said he will run hard in Iowa's leadoff caucuses, an early contest her husband skipped when he sought the nomination in 1992. That year, Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin (news, bio, voting record) was in the race and Democratic rivals opted not to challenge him in his home state.

Maybe the AP is trying to help her out with the woman question. Anyway watch this video at Hot Air and see who you think she's talking about.

We've got mail!

From Sara Finch (X's replace the real domain), I'll let her? decide if she? wants the rest of it out. It's not the same domain as jefinch used, just the same format. Here it is in all it's glory:

Golly gee, Mr. Rectal Wart, it sure was adult of you to block me from your discussion/comment session.

"Adult" as in tremendously immature.

No big deal. I can always mock your stupidity at ml's place. You and I know the rules there, so I won't out you as the cross- dressing pederast with the world class foreskin piercing that your friend Andy knows all about.

Toodles, big boy. Don't t forget to wear rubbers, especially if you're whipping it up with Dick, Rummy and all your other Oval Office boys!

For what it's worth NOBODY is blocked from commenting here, as yet we don't even require you to be signed up with a blogger/google account. We do close off old posts after a few days to prevent spam, but once they're shut off they are shut off for everybody.

Saturday, January 27, 2007

Who knew Hillary could sing?

I doubt anything can be done for the voice, but she could at least learn the words.

O say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Hollywood joins Barackapaloosa

Movie moguls Steven Spielberg, David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg want their Hollywood peers to join them at a Feb. 20 fundraiser the three are throwing for Obama.

For $2,300 a person and $4600 a couple, they can meet the candidate at a reception at the Beverly Hilton Hotel, from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. Those who commit to raising $46,000 (10 couples/20 tickets) for the evening will be invited to a private dinner at Geffen's Beverly Hills home.

The fundraiser represents a major slap for Obama's main competitor, Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has received financial support from all three moguls in the past. Spielberg, Geffen and Katzenberg, along with other employees of their entertainment company, Dreamworks SKG, have contributed $47,000 to Clinton since her 2000 New York Senate campaign.

Hillary already got Kerry to tearfully bow out since he knew full well she would leak those elusive records of his likely dishonorable discharge and his FBI files. Hollywood better know that once she whacks Barack she'll expect some big time groveling and tons of $$$$$.

Sunday, January 21, 2007

Watch for the real Hillary to come out around the 6:45 mark

An inconvenient interview?

Well it wasn't until Al learned that he would be sitting down with someone that had some inconvenient facts to present. This seems to be a habit with Democrats lately.

Al Gore is traveling around the world telling us how we must fundamentally change our civilization due to the threat of global warming. Last week he was in Denmark to disseminate this message. But if we are to embark on the costliest political project ever, maybe we should make sure it rests on solid ground. It should be based on the best facts, not just the convenient ones. This was the background for the biggest Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, to set up an investigative interview with Mr. Gore. And for this, the paper thought it would be obvious to team up with Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," who has provided one of the clearest counterpoints to Mr. Gore's tune.

The interview had been scheduled for months. The day before the interview Mr. Gore's agent thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he's been very critical of Mr. Gore's message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore's evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a reporter. These conditions were immediately accepted by Jyllands-Posten. Yet an hour later we received an email from the agent saying that the interview was now cancelled. What happened?

One can only speculate. But if we are to follow Mr. Gore's suggestions of radically changing our way of life, the costs are not trivial. If we slowly change our greenhouse gas emissions over the coming century, the U.N. actually estimates that we will live in a warmer but immensely richer world. However, the U.N. Climate Panel suggests that if we follow Al Gore's path down toward an environmentally obsessed society, it will have big consequences for the world, not least its poor. In the year 2100, Mr. Gore will have left the average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle many of the problems we will face, climate change or no climate change.

Clearly we need to ask hard questions. Is Mr. Gore's world a worthwhile sacrifice? But it seems that critical questions are out of the question. It would have been great to ask him why he only talks about a sea-level rise of 20 feet. In his movie he shows scary sequences of 20-feet flooding Florida, San Francisco, New York, Holland, Calcutta, Beijing and Shanghai. But were realistic levels not dramatic enough? The U.N. climate panel expects only a foot of sea-level rise over this century. Moreover, sea levels actually climbed that much over the past 150 years. Does Mr. Gore find it balanced to exaggerate the best scientific knowledge available by a factor of 20?

Saturday, January 20, 2007

Hillary's in.

Do you wonder why she doesn't mention her recent trip to Iraq? Newsbusters may have your answer.

Friday, January 19, 2007

When Worms Attack

As if hundred-mile-per-hour winds aren’t bad enough, a malicious worm is making the rounds in Europe and elsewhere, using e-mailed storm warnings as a way to propagate itself.

In the latest sign that virus writers are getting craftier in their nefarious work, the nasty Storm Worm masquerades as legitimate e-mails with subject lines bearing storm alerts, such as “230 dead as storm batters Europe.”

The e-mails are being sent with worm-infected attachments — “video.exe,” “fullstor.exe,” or “readmore.exe,” among other names — designed to wreak all sorts of havoc on PCs.

OK, this isn't the best news I've heard lately

U. S. intelligence agencies believe China performed a successful anti-satellite (asat) weapons test at more than 500 mi. altitude Jan. 11 destroying an aging Chinese weather satellite target with a kinetic kill vehicle launched on board a ballistic missile.

The Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, NASA and other government organizations have a full court press underway to obtain data on the alleged test, Aviation Week & Space Technology reports on its web site

If the test is verified it will signify a major new Chinese military capability

Let's hope this test wasn't quite as successful as advertised.
These kinds of deals sure make this development more uncomfortable. But what the hell, Billy Jeff needed campaign cash.

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

In case RE is reading I needed to get one more bird reference in today

This line of reasoning, of course, is nothing new for liberals. I wish I had a dime for every time I've heard one of them say that those who didn't serve have no moral right to opine on war issues. This "chicken-hawk" argument is so childishly misguided you would think liberals, who consider themselves superior logicians and cerebral sophisticates, would be too embarrassed to make it.

The question is not who is qualified to opine, but whether an opinion has merit, irrespective of the characteristics of its proponents or opponents. Under liberal logic, the rich-from-birth Ted Kennedy is disqualified from empathizing with and advocating for the poor. And, the Framers should have limited the franchise in presidential elections to military personnel and their parents, and maybe their grandparents, but not aunts, uncles, brother, sisters or cousins.

Interestingly, Boxer pretended she had no standing to opine either, since her children are too old and her grandchildren too young to serve. But that didn't stop her from making clear her view that the war is not worth American lives, because her opinion is sanctified by its liberalism. Since she's against the war, the ending of which would supposedly end the risk to American lives, her opinion is legitimate.

What this really boils down to is the antiwar left's intolerance for dissenting opinions and their propensity to make decisions on an emotional, rather than logical basis. If you don't agree with them, you either aren't listening -- another charge Boxer leveled at Rice -- or you don't have the right to opine. But Boxer's logic is self-defeating: If your personal circumstances disqualify you from opining, they do so regardless of the nature of your opinion.

The story itself is a little dated, but the arrogance of liberalism is well illustrated in this column and that arrogance is pervasive in every issue you ever care about.

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

We are consistent

Even though the blog opened on the 14th last year, the site counter was added on the 16th. Exactly six months later we welcomed our 10,000th visitor. Remarkably or at least consistently we will will welcome our 20,000th visitor today, exactly six months from the last milestone. I guess you could say any number of things about that depending on your outlook on life. I think it's blind luck!


We have a winner!!! Believe it or not the odds are very strongly against it being one of the regulars here, but not when @@ is playing. Congratulations to @@ and I hereby present her kind words and a hearty handshake.

Sunday, January 14, 2007

It's our Birthday!!

As some of you know, this blog was never a serious effort and wasn't even supposed to be around more than a couple of weeks. Today the blog turns one year old with this being the 427th post and sometime in the next few days we will welcome our 20,000th visitor. So much for a couple of weeks.

It's still not much of a serious effort to inform since most of the people that visit here are already quite informed, but more of a forum to record events and discuss virtually anything. One of the great joys I get from this blog is the avant-garde nature of the comment section.

Our very first post was Butterscotch-(the original). A few days later we got into the hard news business when we found out that Supreme Court Nominee Sam Alito had once shot Pope John Paul. From there the blog was off and running. I had thought about linking to something from each month, but perusing the archives I found too many posts that all of you had turned into very special memories and found it too difficult to choose.

Thank you everyone!

Saturday, January 13, 2007

Jamil Hussein-Back among the non-existent

Did AP just forget that "Jamil Hussein" was actually "Mohammed Achmed al-Fruitbat?"

I'm sure you can backtrack to follow this story. It's not exactly new, but it has more twists than the Rosie/Trump feud.

Short version, The Associated Press has run several stories of horrific violence in Iraq quoting a police captain that apparently didn't exist. Last week the AP put an end to the story by saying the Iraq Ministry of the Interior had located and confirmed his existence. The big problem with that is the Interior Ministry denies that so all we have is the AP's word that the AP was right. Trust us..wink, wink So now the story is that maybe he was using a fake name. Click the title of this post to read why that's an absurd excuse and we'll backtrack in the comment section if anybody wants to play "Where in the World is Jamil Hussein."

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Choosing Victory Over Surrender-David Limbaugh

David does a good job of showing how you can never please a liberal.

President Bush has now done what Democrats have been demanding of him for years. But are they satisfied? Of course not. They make sure of that by forever moving the goal posts.

Democrats have constantly complained that President Bush never admits mistakes and is too stubborn and inflexible to change his strategies. But on all these counts, his speech on Iraq should give Democrats much to cheer about.

He admitted he has made mistakes in Iraq and that his policies were not working. He accepted responsibility for his failures and laid out a new strategy specifically to address and remedy them. But instead of praising him, Democrats redoubled their criticism and reaffirmed their resignation to our defeat.

How about the president's new strategy? The press is heavily emphasizing his plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq, but is ignoring the other equally important aspects of the strategy.

Click the post title to read the rest of Limbaugh's article.

For anyone that missed part of the President's speech doing something else or got lost in his less than stellar delivery, the text is here. Even if you watched it all I encourage you to read it. I'm often taken aback at how bad a speech by W can sound, yet be so full of vital information. It's the exact opposite of hearing and reading a speech by Billy Jeff. They always sounded great until you read them and realized he hadn't said a thing.

Newsflash for David Wu (D-OR) The "real" Klingons weren't real either.

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Does President Bush believe for one second he would get this treatment?

If he does he's nuts. Let's say that, God forbid, a Democrat takes office in 2009 and a member of the Bush team gets caught stealing and destroying classified documents. There will be a call for a public execution, instead the Bush justice department is perfectly happy to let Sandy Berger off with a slap on the wrist.

“My staff’s investigation reveals that President Clinton’s former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger compromised national security much more than originally disclosed,” Davis said. “It is now also clear that Mr. Berger was willing to go to extraordinary lengths to compromise national security, apparently for his own convenience.

“The 9/11 Commission relied on incomplete and misleading information regarding its access to documents Mr. Berger reviewed. No one ever told the Commission that Mr. Berger had access to original documents that he could have taken without detection.

“We now know that Mr. Berger left stolen highly classified documents at a construction site to avoid detection. We know that Mr. Berger insisted on privacy at times to allow him to conceal documents that he stole. One witness with a very high security clearance believed he saw Berger concealing documents in his socks.

One of the worst parts of this is that we don't have the first clue what was really taken and destroyed and it's hard to find the government's eye witness very credible.

“The Justice Department’s assertion that Mr. Berger’s statements are credible after being caught is misplaced. One wouldn’t rely on the fox to be truthful after being nabbed in the hen house. But the Justice Department apparently did.”

Saturday, January 06, 2007

Jokers to the left of me, clowns to the right... This one must be for Honu.

WASHINGTON--Who's funnier, on the whole, liberals or conservatives? It's an old question, but a terrible one. Even to inquire after it reduces the whole curve of human comedy to politics; and besides--sad to contemplate--perhaps the most accurate answer is that they're both humorless. On the liberal side of the register, you can hardly be funny if you're constantly feeling guilty about things; many conservatives meanwhile believe that everything is going to pieces, and there's nothing funny about that.

P.J. O'Rourke, the political satirist, neither hesitates nor hedges. "Conservatives generally tend to be funnier in their private lives," he explains, "because of the hypocrisy factor. I am of course a big fan of hypocrisy, because hypocrites at least know the difference between right and wrong--at any rate, know enough to lie about what they're doing. Liberals are not nearly as hypocritical as conservatives, because they don't know the difference between right and wrong. But anyways the personal lives of conservatives tend to be funnier: They've always got the embarrassing gay daughter, and so on."

In public policy, Mr. O'Rourke claims, "liberals are always much more hilarious. Liberals are always proposing perfectly insane ideas, laws that will make everybody happy, laws that will make everything right, make us live forever, and all be rich. Conservatives are never that stupid. Having conservatives in government is like having a stern talk with your dad in the den about what your allowance will be. . . . Of course, the Republicans always end up giving in: You know, giving you more money than you should have in your pocket, and the keys to the car, and then also a bottle of whiskey."

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Video-Democrats cut and run from Cindy Sheehan

Click the post title and the video will begin after a brief ad.

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Democrats call for Presidential bake sale

I have no idea why this article is headlined Democrats Pledge to Restrain Spending because the story talks only of increasing spending, raising taxes, and apparently telling President Bush to fund the war himself. Same old Democrats it seems.

Determined to banish their old tax-and-spend image, Democrats want to shrink the federal deficit, preserve tax cuts for the middle class and challenge the president to raise money for the Iraq war when they take control of Congress next week. But it won't be easy.

The incoming Democratic chairmen of the House and Senate Budget committees said they plan to honor a campaign promise to devote billions of additional dollars a year to homeland security and education. And they reiterated a commitment not to cut off funding for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?