Arnold, in the previous RNC convention

There's a fun website called "American Rhetoric." Its basically a bank of speeches and quotes that its keeps on hand, taken from movies and politics.

Just recently, I ran across the speech that Arnold Schwarzenegger made for the 2004 Republican convention. Its beautiful. I hope that every speaker who takes the stage for the RNC convention this year listens to it before writing theirs. It would give them a hint to what their audience wants to hear.

I know that many people think that Arnold is the punchline to a joke. The thing is, Arnold knows that. He also knows that he wouldn't be famous or wealthy without the opportunities that this country gave him. Which is why he's a Republican.

Politico, and McCain being 'desperate'

Politico got slammed this week by its readers for printing "6 things Palin pick says about McCain".
The number one thing they wrote?

He’s desperate.

Apparently, I'm not the only Republicans that took offense to that. Politico was surprised to find their inbox filled with e-mails of protest.

I'd like to think that the reporters took this to heart. But judging from the e-mails that they picked (which seem to be a collection of the poorest e-mails ever written) I don't think that they're thinking was swayed.

Its annoying that they insinuate that those who e-mailed them were activists. (I almost did, but had to run at the time.) But its more annoying that they don't seem to get why people were angry with their presumptions.

Since I didn't write it there, I'll write it here.
McCain was only trailing by a few points, in the polls, behind Obama when he picked Palin. That's hardly the time to be desperate. This was despite the fact that Obama's been getting the vast majority of the press coverage.

If anyone should be in a desperate situation, it should be Obama.
He's lost ground over the past month, and can't seem to seal the deal. Seldom has a lovefest between a candidate and his press existed like that between Obama and the MSM. Yet, the poor guy can't top 50% in the polls.

And this poll from Zogby suggests that its a dead heat. 47% for Obama, 45% for McCain. Moreover, according to that poll, 52% of the electorate feels that Palin will help McCain's chances.

CNN puts Obama at 49%, and McCain at 48%.

This poll by Rassmussen says:

Palin Makes Good First Impression: Is Viewed More Favorably than Biden

They break the numbers down further.

Palin earns positive reviews from 78% of Republicans, 26% of Democrats and 63% of unaffiliated voters.

The unaffiliated numbers are the really great ones. Those are the ones that McCain would love to tie down.

So if this move by McCain was 'desperate', it worked desperately well.

Daily Kos thinks Palin faked her baby

I don't run a website where people maintain public diaries.

I say this, because if I did, I'd moderate the living fuck out of it. I wouldn't let any jag dork write something stupid that would make me look like an asshole later on.

For instance, oh.. I dunno... let's say that I insinuated that Palin isn't really the mother of Trig, her child who has Down's Syndrome.
Let's say that I accused her 16 year old daughter of having her.
You know? Like this jerk at DailyKos did:

Well, Sarah, I'm calling you a liar. And not even a good one. Trig Paxson Van Palin is not your son. He is your grandson. The sooner you come forward with this revelation to the public, the better.

Keep in mind, there is no proof of this. Its just a bunch of photos that the blogger found, and who apparently can't keep the dates correct on when they were taken.
He / she uses these photos to suggest that Sarah couldn't be pregnant at the time, because she doesn't look it. In the meantime, he/she points to a photo of the daughter and suggests that she looks like she might be pregnant in the photo.

This offends me on so many levels I don't know where to start. But I'll try.
1) If you're going to accuse a 16 year old girl of hiding the fact that she had a kid, you better have damn good evidence. At least something more then a burning desire to slander her mother. I think that whoever wrote that blog forgot that she is a 16 year old girl. Jackass, you just accused a 16 year old girl of getting pregnant and hiding her pregnancy. Dick move on your part.
2) An even more dickish move? To point to the photo of a 16 year old girl (a year ago) and go: "hey, she looks pregnant." Honestly, if this were my daughter, the originator of the post would find himself/herself on the receiving end of the first fist that I've ever thrown in anger.
3) Accusing someone of lying with no evidence. None. Unless you consider looking at misdated photographs, and writing out loud that she's not fat enough to be pregnant 'evidence'.

If it turns out that Trig really is her grandson, I will publicly apologize to the absolute jagoff who wrote that, print this post, and eat it. And I'll post photos of me eating it online.

In the meantime, its good to see that at least 5% of the population of The Daily Kos recognizes that posts like that only make them all look like assholes. Particularly when there are so many on that board that are saying things like, "Yeah! I'll bet the kid is her grandson!"

Fun at MSNBC with Olbermann

This makes me happier then the Easter Bunny!
Yay!
There is infighting at MSNBC.
I reported, earlier, how Joe Scarborough got into a tiff with Olbermann. Apparently, that's just the tip of it.
In this article at Politico, they describe the tensions that have been building behind the scenes. I guess you can't attack your fellow anchors on air without a little bit of fur flying.

I know that MSNBC won't fire Olbermann. You have to demean a person of another race for that to happen. But I predict its only a matter of time before Olbermann gets his lunch handed to him on air.
Heck, Joe pretty much bitch slapped him earlier when Olbermann said "get a shovel". Joe's response was priceless.
I think that the next time that Olbermann falls over the edge, someone's going to go to town on his behind. Personally, I can't wait to see it. Particularly after Olbermann's horrible distortions of the truth.

Rome and the DNC

Trying to blunt criticism of Obama as being 'elitist' and 'arrogant', the DNC built a roman collesium for Obama's Thursday speech.

Wait. What?
This is so far out there, that Republicans weren't sure how to address it. According to ABC's Political Radar:

"Is this from the Onion?" quipped a McCain adviser.

That would make sense, wouldn't it?
But this is real.
A Greek / Roman stage has been built for Obama's Thursday night appearance. After he talks, fireworks will go off. Oh, and I mentioned earlier that CNN paid for a blimp to cover all of this.

I think its safe to say that in 2008, the Democratic Party is embracing the empty photo op as something that they can get behind.

Various outlets are predicting that Obama will give his best speech yet.
Of course, they say that about every Obama speech. Obama speeches are like ER episodes.

The most moving ER episode... ever. This one, you have to see. Don't miss it. Why aren't you in front of your TV already?

We've all seen those commercials.
That's what Obama speeches are like. Except with more stedicams.

"No, he's not a Messiah. We just worship him."

The New Republic gets stupid, again, in an article dismissing the idea that they think of Obama as a messiah. They write:

The hysteria about Obama's alleged messianism is, in part, a calculated response to his wild popularity with the Democratic base.

Uh, no its not.
There is nothing calculated about watching a bunch of people chanting "O. Bam. Ah." at a rally and thinking, "Huh. That might be unhealthy."
There is a population of people out there who literally think that if Obama gets elected, their lives will suddenly get better. That Obama will take care of them.

Just so that we're all clear on this, I understand what Democrats believe.
Democrats don't think of Obama as actually being the return of Jesus Christ to our earth.
There is a big difference for Democrats. To start with, Democrats don't believe in believing in Christ. At least as a party. That's soooo 1974. Yes, the Dems are co-opting the idea of believing in God for this convention. They are allowing prayer meetings and that kind of thing. But that's just a big photo op.

-And I think its pretty funny to watch Democrats try to toe the line between offending the bitter gun-toting-Jesus-freaks, and offending their own bitter Pagan-ritual-astrology-vegitarians-against-Christ. Nothing entertains me more then the guy wearing pyramid earings talking about Fein Shei who questions those who read a bible.

On the other hand, there has to be a word for it when someone looks at a potential leader and actually believes that this Democrat (as opposed to Bill, the last one-who-will-set-us-free) is the real deal. No, that word isn't a Messiah. And its not hope.

I believe the word for those type of believers is... Naive.

What if Global Warming Wasn't?

I know. I know. All these scientists agree that we're in a warming trend. Right? Not according to this article by weatherman Tom Skilling:

Decade has had fewest 90-degree days since 1930

How did that happen? How can Chicago have one of the coldest decades on record (since 1930) and the rest of the world is warming?
This is just part of the story. Keep watching.

Rap Song advocates killing O'Reilly, Michelle Malkin

I won't mention the name of the band, because the only reason that they're doing this is because of the publicity.
If I print their name, then they get the pub they wanted.
But I honestly hope that if/when someone takes retribution on them, these morons get the definition of irony.

Olbermann once again proves that he's an idiot

Olbermann, in covering the elections, had a reporter named Joe who was commenting on the McCain campaign. If I understand the background, Joe was telling Olbermann that McCain was gaining serious ground.

Olbermann - being the asshat he is - asked Joe if he needed a shovel.

Joe - being an actual reporter, rather then someone who fellates Democrats - smacked down Olbermann with facts.

Watch it until the end. Its a great example of how a blowhard can be left speechless when challenged.

Governor Rendell calls pro-Obama coverage embarassing

In a panel discussion that included Tom Brokaw and George Stephenopolous, Governor Rendell called out the MSM.
According to the Politico:

"Ladies and gentleman, the coverage of Barack Obama was embarrassing," said Rendell, in the ballroom at Denver's Brown Palace Hotel. "It was embarrassing."

Yes. Yes it was.
More embarrassing was the comments by Judy Woodruf at the event. She suggested that Rendell sit down.
So much for freedom to speak about the press.

Phil Spector votes against Capital Punishment

Guess who wants to vote Obama?
If you're a rock star accused of murder, you probably want to go with the guy who is lenient on crime.
According to Wired, Spector was recently wearing a "Barack Obama Rocks!" pin.
He's gotta be proud.

TV Networks are working overtime on Photo Op

McCain creates a photo op, and the networks complain that its a photo op.
Obama creates a photo op, and the networks try to make it a better photo op.

From the New York Times...

When Barack Obama accepts his party’s nomination on Thursday before a capacity audience of 70,000 at Invesco Field in Denver, an aerial camera will hover above the stadium turf, using a TV technique normally applied at football games.

The special camera angle — and CNN’s decision to spend close to $100,000 on it — shows the steps networks are willing to take to compete for viewers as the presidential campaigns move into the fall.

So CNN is spending $100,000 to get the best angle of Barack's big speech.
But I assure you... there is no liberal bias in the media.

Former POW back's McCain's "cross in dirt" story

From the National Review; Orson Swindle, another POW, remembers McCain telling him this story back in 1971.

"I recall John telling that story when we first got together in 1971, when were talking about every conceivable thing that had ever happened to us when we were in prison" Swindle told me a few minutes ago.

Kinda kills the whole idea that McCain has been cribbing this idea from someone else.
When it comes to using original material, its McCain - 1, Obama - 0.

John McCain's POW story

There is a great story on John McCain from US News and World Report. It was originally written in May of 1973. In it, McCain describes some of the propaganda that was used against them from the people who were protesting the war.

If you ever had any doubts about what McCain went through, this is a good place to start.
A short passage of what happened when McCain complained that he was being treated like an animal:

When I said that, the guards, who were all in the room—about 10 of them—really laid into me. They bounced me from pillar to post, kicking and laughing and scratching. After a few hours of that, ropes were put on me and I sat that night bound with ropes. Then I was taken to a small room. For punishment they would almost always take you to another room where you didn't have a mosquito net or a bed or any clothes. For the next four days, I was beaten every two to three hours by different guards. My left arm was broken again and my ribs were cracked.

McCain is not my ideal candidate. But its important to note what he's been through.

Milorad Cavic ; Olympic class

You don't know his name, but you should.
You see, Milorad was racing Michael Phelps in the 100 meter butterfly. Cavic was ahead by a stroke when Michael - defying the physics of water resistance - took one last stroke to win by 1/100th of a second.

To put that into context, its the smallest amount you can win by. Everyone in the stadium, including Michael's own mom, thought that Cavic had won until they looked at the scoreboard. NBCs commentator went apeshit when he realized what had happened.

But that's not what this post is about.

You see, Milorad Cavic swims for Serbia. -And Serbia decided to challenge the race results. Serbia did, but not Milorad. According to his website:

Filing a Protest: Yes, as you all saw, I almost won the Gold, and if you ask me, the clock does not lie. I had nothing to do with this filing, and neither did my coach Mike Bottom. This is just another attack on my coach who has done never wronged anyone in swimming, except coach foreign athletes (non-Americans) to Olympic medals. You all have to understand that any coach would have done this for their swimmer if there were any possibility of error, but I’m sorry to disappoint, it was my Olympic committee and swimming staff who did the filing. We’re not “sour grapes” and we’re not “pissed”… If you ask me, it should be accepted and we should move on. I’ve accepted defeat, and there’s nothing wrong with losing to the greatest swimmer there has ever been.

Milorad, you are completely right... and one classy man. I honestly felt for you when Michael beat you, because you swam one hell of a race. Mike beat you by the smallest of margin's humanly possible while tearing apart pretty much every swimming record along the way.
If you have to lose a jump shot, lose it to Jordan. If you have to lose a putt, lose it to Tiger Woods.

You lost by 1/100th of a second to the greatest swimmer on the planet... someone that even Marc Spitz looks up to. You had an amazing day, and you handled it with class.

Thank you.

"Big Law" versus "Big Oil"

Its interesting to me how "Big Oil" - some dark conspiracy of unnamed oil executives - has become the latest bogeyman. Its even displaced "Big Insurance Companies."

The Democrats are using Big Oil to good effect with a MSM that's more then willing to oblige. Heck, we just had a film about evil oil men in the visage of "There Will Be Blood," and there's been a lot of drama made about the fact that John McCain has recieved more then a million dollars from the oil industry.
It made me wonder about the other industries that are contributing to the election campaigns.

What industry do you suppose is the number one contributor to Barack's campaign?
That's right; lawyers.
According to this page on Open Secrets, Obama has recieved over $20 million from lawyers and legal firms.
Now if I have to be worried about oil executives because they gave a million dollars to McCain... what should I think of the twenty million that lawyers have given Barack?

John Edwards, on 'personal lives'

In the past week, I've argued with a number of people over the relevance of a candidates personal life. Edwards made a great argument as to why its relevant.
He made these comments in an interview with 60 minutes. People were questioning his judgement about whether he should stay in the race while his wife had cancer. Edwards said that he didn't want people to vote for him just because his wife was sick. Then he said this:

But, I think every single candidate for president, Republican and Democratic have lives, personal lives, that indicate something about what kind of human being they are. And I think it is a fair evaluation for America to engage in to look at what kind of human beings each of us are, and what kind of president we'd make.

Let me expand on that.

If a man can't remain faithful to the one person in his life who he's claimed to love and cherish forever, then how should I trust him to have my best interests at heart, when he's never met me?

Let me go further.
People like to point out that 50% of men cheat on their wives. Yes, I understand that. That's the lower half of men. Why do I want to vote for the lower half of men? The one's who are clearly motivated by greed and desire, without any consideration for the feelings of the one person that they claim to love the most?

If you don't want to vote for a man who would take advantage of women and children that he's never met... why would you vote for a man who will take actions that will hurt those closest to him?

Anyway, thanks Mr. Edwards for making it clear that personal lives of the candidates are relevant. Now do yourself a favor and drop out of public life, and stand by your own words.

Vapid Edwards, Vapid Vanity Fair

Because of the National Enquirer report on John Edwards, I started to visit his website. I was curious about how much John Edwards talks about his family.
It turns out, he has a whole section of his "about me" for his wife and his daughter Cate.

You know what? If you want to run for president while cheating on your wife... great. I won't vote for you, but cool. Whatever. Its your life. You fuck it up.

Its her problem for getting involved with you. I know so many women who willingly block out such bullshit because they want to believe that they are different from the previous women that their husband has cheated on. They honestly think that they are the first woman that the man will faithful to.
They are naive, but its their problem.

But do me a fucking favor, and don't try to bullshit me into believing that I should vote for you because you are a family man.
Leave that shit off of your website.
If you don't have the integrity to divorce your wife before having an affair with a twenty-something, then don't even try to con me into believing you love her. -Or that you're faithful to her. -Or that you'll be more honest with me then you were to your wife.

John Edwards:
Assuming that you weren't at a hotel to provide emergency child care for a single mother... You are a dick. I hope she asks for the vice presidency as part of the divorce proceedings. If she does, I might actually vote Democratic just to see you whimper as she gets the title of VP.

One other thing I learned while dropping by the Edwards website, and its about John's daughter Cate:

Cate later lived in New York City, working as an editorial assistant for Vanity Fair magazine. She currently attends Harvard Law School.

Vanity Fair is a horrible mag. I'm not saying that because it leans so far left. (They actually have a "Bush Countdown" clock on their website.)
Its horrible because its one of the most vapid and shallow magazines I ever had the disdain to subscribe to. Yes, I actually subscribed to it... once. I thought it would be a good experiment to read something that I wouldn't ordinarily read, and the subscription was really cheap. Bad writing is usually very cheap.

So it made a lot of sense when I read that Cate Edwards, daughter of John Edwards, worked for Vanity Fair. This is the same magazine that trumpeted liar Joe Wilson (husband and wife of Valerie Plame/Wilson) as a whistleblower. Its the magazine that has a section on the "Sexiest Models" in this issue. It defends the NY Times.
Its so vapid that they actually have an article this month on The Unbearable Dullness Of Luxury Goods.
I'm not even going to touch their taste in music on their "Hot Tracks" page. Fuck... I gotta say something!
Apparently, you can't be a hot track unless you sound British.

I am a pacifist. I don't believe in violence. But if I could magically blink my eyes and improve the world with one nod of my head, I would use my mystical powers to make Vanity Fair disappear. It would improve the IQ of the US, and quite possibly make women love themselves again. It would definitely improve the political discourse of this country and there would be one less website with a George Bush Countdown Clock on its website, or a "Countdown to Obama" clock on their desktop workstation.
American music would start sounding less like Americans trying to sound British. And poor Cate, daughter of John Edwards, wouldn't have to sit on her hands as her boss at Vanity Fair explains away why her dad really isn't a dick... but just another wealthy Democratic presidential candidate who cheats on his wife.

Obama is losing traction after Berlin World Tour

He was covered live by the MSM while he gave his speech in Berlin.
He's been covered by so many magazines, news reports, and Olberman gushing that a poll suggests that half of Americans are tired of hearing about him.

How bad has it gotten?
He's dropping in the polls.

For the second day in a row Rasmussen shows John McCain and Barack Obama tied with 44 percent and with "leaners" added, McCain takes a 1 percentage point lead. Zogby also shows McCain with a 1 percent lead and Obama losing support with the young and women

A while back, I predicted to friends that - at some point - the Obama fascination would get old. After all, you think the prom king is cool when you're in high school. A couple years later, you see him working at his dad's office and he's not as cool anymore.

Obama is starting to work for his dad. (Note to Democrats: I mean that as a metaphor.)
It was bound to happen. After all, that Berlin thing was pretty over the top. To date, no one can explain to me why an American presidential candidate - in the middle of the election - has to campaign in Berlin.

The weird thing is that Obama hasn't had his Dean scream yet. I thought the Dean scream might have been the seat on his campaign airplane with the word "President" written on it.
I was wrong.
Apparently, no one thinks that's weird.
But people do seem to have a problem with him giving that speech in Berlin. And just for tonight, that will reenforce my belief in my fellow man.

Atlas Shrugs pwned Obama on donations

I've been looking into this myself, but I'm not as good as the staff of Atlas Shrugs. Their detailed articles on contributor Monir Edwan, an Obama contributor from the Gaza strip, is extraordinary.
A short summary, in case you haven't kept up on this:

Monir has two receipts. One dated 10/27/07 for $1,290.63 (primary - this is in the FEC file), the second dated 10/30/07 for $1,671.85 (primary - this is in the FEC file). The total on the receipt for Election Cycle is $9,598.54 (above allowed). NOTE THE TOTAL HE GAVE JUST ON 10/30/07 ACCORDING TO THE FEC FILE IS $7,435.81.

Atlas Shrugs would get a Pulitzer for their in-depth research if they were not a blog. -Or if they were reporting on contributions to a Republican.
If you don't understand how important this is, maybe I can help. A Palestinian has illegally contributed just under $10,000 to Barack Obama.
This leads me to two key questions:

• Why? Why would you donate $10,000 to Barack if you lived on the Gaza strip? As an American president, how would Obama affect your future that much if elected?
• Why wasn't this caught by the Obama campaign? Every campaign has some form of auditing to make sure they don't break election laws. This isn't because all campaigns want to be honest. Its because they know it looks bad if they get caught breaking FEC laws.

Congrats to Atlas Shrugs on their research! They earned a spot on my toolbar with their homework.

The small donors for Obama get bigger

Remember being told about how Obama was getting support mainly from small internet donations?

Uhm... it turns out that's not true. At least not now.
The always dubious International Herald Tribune has an article about Obama's big donors. Granted, I always have doubts about the International Tribune, however, this is their conclusion:

But records show that a third of his record-breaking haul has come from donations of $1,000 or more - a total of $112 million, more than the total of contributions in that category taken in by either Senator John McCain, his Republican rival, or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, his opponent in the Democratic primaries.

Yes, the man of the little people. The little people who can give $1,000 or more to a presidential candidate.

Will anyone admit Obama's real problem?

I don't get it.
If you were to rank the criticisms on a scale of 1-10 of Obama, what would be in first place?

1) Arrogant / self-aggrandizing

Right? That's 'our' worry, those of us who have been trying to warn others of him?
Right?

So if you were the campaign chief of staff, and you KNEW that, wouldn't you take every step to blunt that criticism? To make everyone believe that the charges of "arrogance" weren't true?

I mean, you don't need to have Obama prostrating himself in front of the press. But after the "presidential seal" fiasco, and the "presidential Euro trip" thing, wouldn't you try to tone down the presumptuousness?

Or does his staff think that's his best trait?

They must, because of this:

His chair has his name and campaign logo embroidered on the back top -- “Obama ‘08” on one line and “President” underneath.

Not "for president".
President.

If you think I'm making this up, look at the photo (CBS/Allison Davis O'Keefe):




Again... presuming that you were the person running the campaign, wouldn't you try to AVOID this kind of presumptiveness?
I know what you're thinking: "we'll... maybe he's owned this for a while"
No.
From the same article:

Barack Obama’s new campaign plane is nothing short of grand. Well, for the candidate that is.

What am I missing?
What makes this guy so special that he can just be president without a vote?
Even more importantly, what makes his campaign people so incompetent that they keep on allowing this side of him to show? -Or is it that Barack is SO arrogant, that they can't even STOP it from happening?

Obama and 200,000 Berliners, flyered in

How do you get 200,000 Berliners to show up for a presidential press conference? I mean, when you're not actually president?
You have your staff flyer the city.
Patrick Ruffin had linked to the flyer before the speech. Later, I read a report (yeah, I can't find the damn thing now) about how staff distributed flyers around the city.

This is what I find interesting about that report:
I can't find any references to it today. Which either means that I imagined it, or that none of the press thinks that was important enough to mention.

You almost have to admire the ability of the MSM to go along with the photo op.

What's popular vs. what's right

Is the popular answer the same thing as the right answer?

I'm pretty certain that Dale - a fellow blogger - will never cite the popularity of Bush from November of 2001 as proof that Bush was right. Not when his favorability ratings went into the 80 percentile. I'm quite certain that Dale would never argue that everyone should have liked Bush then, because so many other people did.
I'm also certain that he wouldn't argue that Americans are right, when between 55-75% disapprove of the job that the Democrats in Congress are doing.

Yet, in "That Fifth Dentist", Dale tosses himself into that logical void, never to return. In it, Dale argues that I'm the guy who doesn't agree with the population who disapproves of Bush... and thus I'm incorrect for calling Olbermann out for editing one word out of Bush's interview.

Being popular is never the same thing as being right.
Democrats used to brag about how popular Clinton was. They don't do that so much anymore.
We know what those four dentists said, but we don't know what the fifth dentist answered. Thus, there is that logical falacy of believing that the fifth dentist is automatically wrong.

Dale writes:

In the comments, Dentist #5 has thrown himself into to the defense of our so-called president, insisting that this answer stopped between the "o" in the word "No" and the comma immediately after it; the rest of the president's answer, the part that amounts to a detailed yes -- consisting of the president's anecdote about having had a round of golf interrupted by deadly news from Iraq, and arriving at the epiphany that it's just worth it to play golf -- only seems responsive to the question as asked.

I never said that the sentence stops at the word No.
Unlike Olbermann, I included the rest of the sentence.
I didn't leave out the one word that would put to death my conclusion, as Olbermann did.
I included the whole text. Which is why I'm still a thousand times more honest then Olbermann will ever be.

The rest of the president's answer doesn't amount to a detailed yes. Not if you include the word "no" before it.
I've explained this to Dale before, but I guess that the first few explainations didn't sink in. Maybe they weren't popular enough to warrant his attention.
I'll try again.

If I were asked if there was any particular moment or incident when I decided to learn how to program computers:
"No. My friend had a Bally computer that allowed you to program in BASIC. I remember sitting in front of it for hours, just to get it to put together streams on text on its own."

Does that mean that I learned how to program computers that day?
No.
Does that mean that it was the Bally computer that I first programmed on?
No.

Of course, if we're to take the Dale/Olbermann route to my answer, the word "no" should be ignored and clipped off, and only the second part of the sentece is relevant.

Its worth noting that Dale previously argued:

And the larger point, of course, is that the sacrifice of golf is all this piece of crap could give by way of reply to the question of how he himself has sacrificed for his Iraq war.

This is incorrect
Bush was never asked what he had sacrificed. He was asked:

Q Mr. President, you haven't been golfing in recent years. Is that related to Iraq?

I note that to date, Dale hasn't corrected himself for saying that. Maybe he's waiting for a different point of view to become popular first, so that he can agree with the other four dentists.

Why Politico and the Huffington Post are dishonest

About a week ago, I caught a brief glimpse of an article that said that George Bush had given up golf out of respect for the dead in Iraq.
I thought it sounded out of context, and it was. But what's pretty horrific to me is the way that Politico, the Huffington Post, and of course Keith Olbermann have been deliberately slanderous in interpreting what was said.

To bring you up to date, this is what Politico wrote, and quoted:

Bush said he made that decision after the August 2003 bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello, the top U.N. official in Iraq and the organization’s high commissioner for human rights.

Sounds pretty cut and dry. Right?
This is the actual quote from Bush that they provide:

“I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life,” he said. “I was playing golf — I think I was in central Texas — and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, ‘It's just not worth it anymore to do.’"

From that, you would assume that Bush was asked when he made the decision to give up golf, and his response was that he did it when de Mello was killed.
Correct?
There probably isn't a word that could change that meaning. Right?

Now let's look at the actual transcript:

Q Mr. President, was there a particular moment or incident that brought you to that decision, or how did you come to that?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life. And I was playing golf -- I think I was in central Texas -- and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, it's just not worth it anymore to do.

Note the very first word out of the president's mouth - the one I bolded - when he was asked if there was any particular moment or incident that bought him to that decision.
The word was "no."
That word is kinda important, because Politico left it out of their quote. Please note that.

Now Keith Olbermann has interpretted Bush's statement to say that he promised - the day that de Mello was killed - that he wouldn't play golf anymore. (Olbermann had video of Bush playing two months later, and slobbered into his petty microphone that Bush lied about golfing. Its important to note that in the past 4 years, no one has come up with an incident of Bush playing golf.)
This would be relevant if Bush hadn't actually said "No..." when he was asked if there was any particular moment or incident that made him take that decision.

Does Bush follow up with a story on something that clearly helped him come to that decision? Yes. But only after telling the interviewer "No..." that there was no particular moment or incident.

Let me put it another way. If the word "no" didn't blunt the words after it... then why did Politico edit it out?

Now you can argue that the Huffington Post just never read the actual transcript. Cool... they've had time to read it since then.
-And you can't possibly argue that Olbermann hasn't seen the whole transcript, so he's just being a dishonest asshole as usual.

But to me, the question becomes about the left in general. How is it that the actual transcript eluded all of them? Didn't someone on the left feel obliged to say, "Hey, you know, he actually said 'no' at the beginning of that sentence"?
Really?
Anyone?

Peace Prostestor Plagiarism

I really can't stand the idiocy of the anti-war crowd for many reasons. But one annoying constant is that peace protestors seem to lack any originality.

Please start by watching this video. Its from a group called "Improv Everywhere." Their ideas are pretty cool, and they create head-turning moments that I love. In this instance, they arranged for a couple hundred people to freeze in place for exactly five minutes, at the same time.

Cool... right?

Okay, now watch this video... also done in a train station.
I'd like to know what it is about the left lately, that their ideas have become so unoriginal. The left is supposed to be full of artist and free-thinkers. But more and more lately, they seem to be eating their own ideas rather then creating new ones.

Its annoying enough that they don't understand that they are undercutting the safety of men overseas by giving terrorists in Iraq hope. But do I really have to watch them plagiarize a great idea?

Obama starts to slide in the polls

But before I talk about polls, it's important to put Obama's support for Wright in context.
This might help.

"I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus," Obama told ABC News, "but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude."

Obama said that in April of 2007. Wright was on his staff at the time, and Obama had known Wright for about 20 years.

We are now asked to believe that in the 20 years that Obama had known Wright - a man who he describes as being like an "uncle" to him - he had never said anything racist in Obama's presence before.

Obama was interviewed by Chris Matthews about Imus that April, and he said that Imus should be off the air. "He would not be working for me," he said. "I don't want to be an enabler"

But Obama was an enabler, and the polls are reflecting that.
According to Gallup, as quoted on PollingReport.com, Obama is slipping dramatically in the polls. Call this the story that hasn't been covered, but since March 13th, his numbers have gone straight down. My summary... among Democratic voters:

Clinton Obama
3/14 44% 50%
3/18 49% 42%

That's a pretty big slide.
It might have something to do with how tone deaf Obama has been about this issue. According to CNN's Anderson Cooper who had an exclusive interview with him after his speech:

Asked why he didn't denounce the controversial comment when he first heard of them more than a year ago, Obama noted Wright was on the verge of retirement.

"I told him that I profoundly disagreed with his positions. As I said before, he was on, at that stage, on the verge of retirement. ... You make decisions about these issues. And my belief was that given that he was about to retire, that for me to make a political statement respecting my church at that time wasn't necessary."

Yah. Right. Okay.
He was on the verge of retirement... a year ago. And Obama had him on his staff since then. Keep in mind what he said about Don Imus:

I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group.

Apparently, to Obama, those were words... just words.

An Obama video that you won't see on Olbermann

There's a lot to this story, so please stick with me.
A pastor named Jerimiah Wright has a long history of making anti-American rants from the pulpit. O'Reilly put together a selection of his comments on a video that you can watch for yourself.
Its pretty amusing stuff to see a pastor say "G--damn America" for bombing Iraq, 9/11, and Nagasaki. Its a bizarre thing to see a relic from the black panther days suggest that if we don't find WMDs in Iraq, we will plant them there 'like the cops in LA' plant drugs on people. That's all part of Mr. Wright's patter.

On the Huffington Post, Obama tried to distance himself from his pastor:

When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

So keep that in mind for a second... that Obama said that he knew about Wright's comments at the beginning of the campaign.

Obama further tried to distance himself on Olbermann's Countdown, and you can watch the video of it here. But he's careful to simply distance himself from Wright's comments, rather then the man himself. After all, Wright was his "spiritual guidance" counsler, and part of his actual campaign.
Obama has to make this small distinction of separating himself from Wright's comments, rather then the actual man, because even though Obama has said that he learned about Wright's comments at the beginning of the campaign, he praised the man as late as June of 2007.
Thanks to YouTube, you can see the video of Obama praising him.
If Countdown had any consistency, Keith Olbermann would play this video and then spend the next twenty minutes excoriating Obama for his outright lying.
But Countdown won't, because they aren't really a news program. They are Obama's cheerleaders, clear and simple.

The rest of the media still has a chance to show themselves as unbiased. Let's see what they do with the video, and if they cover this story as it should be covered.

Why Obama won't win the presidency

He can't be beaten. Right? Everybody wants Obama for President. Right?
Okay.
So if that's true, then how come he's only getting 46% of the vote in this survey of the Democratic primary? Shouldn't he at least be in the 60-70% range among Democrats?
That's not exactly a among his own party.

On the death of Gary Gygax

Like most geeks, I grew up awkward.
I loved chess and programming computers. I had my own TRS-80 Model 4 (That was one of the first home computers.) I made electronic kits.
I was the ultimate underachiever.

Somewhere around 1982, a friend of mine named Tom introduced me to a game called Dungeons and Dragons that changed my life forever. It was pretty complicated. It involved dice, but it didn't have a fixed playing board. You made up your own character and they existed in this other world.

I vaguely remember asking Tom what my character could / should do, and he said "whatever you want to do".
Anything?
A game where your character could do anything?

Dungeons and Dragons was the ultimate game that ever existed. It was only limited by the imagination of the "Dungeon Master" and ourselves. And if the Dungeon Master was feeling uninspired, he could buy an adventure (called a module) and let you explore that world.

It was a game that Gary Gygax had invented.

For the rest of my high school life, I spent way more time creating campaigns (worlds) for my friends to go through then I did on any of my homework. I created short programs on my computer to help me do the grunt work of creating monsters. At lunch, in the Cafeteria, my friends and I would play short adventures on graph paper, until our high school outlawed D&D. (They later overturned that ruling.)

Because of D&D, I knew at least five words on my ACT test that I wouldn't ordinarily know. I knew how to add and subtract extraordinarily quickly, because it was part of the game. I became adept at performing multiple characters, because as the DM (Dungeon Master) I was responsible for helping create the world that my friends entered.
I also got horrible grades because I was spending so much time on D&D.

For a number of years, my friends attended Gen Con (a convention of game players up in Wisconsin.) When I could afford it, I would go with. That became our pilgrimage. A "guys weekend" for us guys who were more geeky then the rest.

I learned of Gary Gygax's death through those friends. Although we no longer play Dungeons and Dragons on weekends, we still get together to play video games on occasion. That's been our social gathering for about 20 years.
Those weekends formed some of the most fun I've ever had with friends. We ate bad food, made stupid jokes, and argued about stupid things. But in the end, it was just a good time.
I owe Gary a thank you for a really good time.
...For the idea that I could go in any direction that I wanted on a map of a place that didn't exist.
...For the concept of a world where the good guys usually won, at least if they used their brains.
...For the notion of creating an adventure for my friends, and telling a story that they could take part in.
...For giving a creative outlet to a very quiet guy, who wasn't always the best at social interactions.
...For making me take pride in owning a set of "crystal" plastic D&D dice.

Its amazing to me how many of "us" know who Gary Gygax is.
I doubt that the World Of Warcraft would exist without him, or the game Hexen or Heritic which came before WOW. In my opinion, Gary started it all.

You can read the moving tributes of other fans here.
My friends are making the pilgrimage to Wisconsin for his funeral over the weekend. Once again, I can't go make the trip up North because of previous commitments. Which I suppose is fitting, but still bittersweet.

Gary, I had a hell of a lot of fun because of you and your game.
Thank you.

Clinton Aide Insults Ken Starr

According to this article from CBS news, an aide for Hillary Clinton landed the ultimate insult to the special prosecutor:

A top aide to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday compared rival Sen. Barack Obama to independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr.

I'm sure Ken wasn't too insulted. After all, they were words... just words.
:)

Barack runs head first into press favoritism

Barack has run head first into his first tough questions of the campaign. While in San Antonio, an incredibly good reporter named Carol Marin - from Chicago's own channel 5 - started asking Obama specific questions about his brushes with fund raising. She asked him specifically about his real estate deal brokered by felon and Obama fund raiser Tony Rezko.

What makes this even more interesting is the reaction of those who are covering the campaign to this latest development: The first two articles I've read on his press conference, the one above and this one, have both accused Hillary of being the catalyst behind the questions.

Which leads me to ask: why does the press need someone to push them into asking these questions?

This study from the Project on Excellence in Journalism might give some of the answer.
Its a study on the coverage of presidential candidates during the campaign.
Gathering stories over a five month period in the beginning of 2007, the project sorted stories into "positive" coverage, "negative" coverage, or neutral. They looked at network news coverage, cable news, talk radio, newspapers, and online coverage.

What it revealed wasn't that shocking to me. Its what conservatives always knew...

Overall, Democrats also have received more positive coverage than Republicans (35% of stories vs. 26%), while Republicans received more negative coverage than Democrats (35% vs. 26%). For both parties, a plurality of stories, 39%, were neutral or balanced.

Of course, those of us on the right are not surprised.

And as much as I've argued that Obama was benifitting from a plethora of positive coverage, this was the part that confirmed my arguments:

Democrat Barack Obama, the junior Senator from Illinois, enjoyed by far the most positive treatment of the major candidates during the first five months of the year—followed closely by Fred Thompson, the actor who at the time was only considering running.

In fact, the only one approaching Barack's positive coverage number (47.6% of his stories were positive), was Rudy Guiliani (27.8%) and Hilary Clinton (26.9%)

The negative numbers were similiarly skewed. Only 15% of the stories on Barack were negative. The closest other candidate to him was Rudy, with 37% of his stories negative.

So yeah, I guess that number for Barack might actually go up to 16% negative coverage after this week. But since the press is blaming this on Hillary, I imagine her negative press coverage number will go even higher.

Chicago Reader publishes anti-war message as a PSA

For all of you who think that the media is not liberal: In the past issue of the Chicago Reader, there is a PSA on page 45 of the music section.
The "Public Service Announcement" is from "World Can't Wait", a we-hate-Bush/ anti-war group. The ad is for an upcoming protest that they are planning. This full-page ad would have normally cost them $3,000. But they are getting it for free, courtesy of the Chicago Reader.
As a public service, I thought I'd let you know that...
Chicago Reader = free ad for anti-Bush group

This is the ad. I'm copying it as a public service to the people who support the war and want to be at the protest.

When you want to assassinate the president...

...then its time to re-examine your politics.

I've hated presidents and politicians. I really have. I thought that Clinton was a scourge on this country, and when people asked me why, I listed off a string of things that had nothing to do with Monica. So I understand- to some distant degree- how some liberals can dislike Bush.

However, when you make a movie about assassinating the president?

The first question is, why would you make a movie about assassinating any real person? Someone who actually exists? You have to break a lot of new ground on being a dick before you could even get me thinking about such things. But Gabriel Range, the writer of the docudrama, starts there.

The thing is, someone along the line had to green light this project. They had to think that it was a good enough idea to assassinate (on film) an actual living person. They had to make the concious decision that this wouldn't be a dick move to another living human being.
Which makes them... a dick.

Gabriel; I'm sure you are a human being capable of love and other human emotions. But the day you decided to write this? That day, your heart died. -And when I say "died", I don't mean that I'm killing you off for dramatic purposes. I mean you ceased to be a normal human being, and you fell into that abyss that I reserve for only the most disconnected of those I know: moonbats.

-John

Newsweek Prints the Plame Truth

Do you think they got it right this time?
I mean, this was the same rag... er, mag, that kept suggesting that Cheney, er, Rove, er, Libby was the leaker?
It must have hurt Newsweek to admit that Bush wasn't responsible for Valerie Plame's name becoming public. You can practically hear the reporter typing through clenched teeth.

"The disclosures about Armitage, gleaned from interviews with colleagues, friends and lawyers directly involved in the case, underscore one of the ironies of the Plame investigation: that the initial leak, seized on by administration critics as evidence of how far the White House was willing to go to smear an opponent, came from a man who had no apparent intention of harming anyone."

So Valerie Plame wasn't outed by, you know, Bush? Someone should put the members of the left on suicide watch. Isn't this going to just kill them?

-John

Further proof that anti-war jagmo's hate the troops

Cpl. Scott Vincent's name appears on an anti-war T-shirt. It is among 1,700 names on the shirt, casualties of the war in Iraq.
According to the New York Post, he T-shirt in question also says "Bush lied", "They died".


Now it would be ridiculous to assume that all 1,700 of those brave men would support the anti-war t-shirt that mocks their actions in Iraq.
Indeed, the mother of Cpl. Scott Vincent intervened, and asked jagmo and t-shirt entrepreneur Dan Frazier to remove her sons name from his shirt.


What do you think Dan's actions were?

Do you think, because he "cares" about the soldiers, that he would remove the name from the shirt?

Why... that would take a good $20 to create a new silkscreen.

Nope. Jagmo Dan Frazier sent out a public letter praising the "bravery" and "sacrifice" of the soldiers, and said that he would continue to sell t-shirts with Cpl. Scott Vincent's name on them.

I have a new headline for your t-shirt, jagmo Dan Frazier:
"Soldiers died", "So I could sell more t-shirts"

Asshole.

Ray McGovern's letter from "Camp Casey"

But hey, he's just some guy coming forward to question Rumsfeld. Right? He's got no axe to grind?
Here's his letter.

In it, he talks about a rumor going around that Karl Rove set fire ants off in the camp.
He says that he has a dream that "Camp Casey" can do a Selma-like march over the bridge, in protest.
But then he goes off and starts talking about how we can all help Cindy protest "an unnecessary war", and he goes into this part:

Ignore. That's what the vast majority of Germans did in the 1930s as Hitler curtailed civil liberties and launched aggressive wars. I was born in August 1939, a week before Hitler sent German tanks into Poland to start World War II. I have studied that crucial time in some detail. And during the five years I served in Germany I had occasion to ask all manner of people how it could possibly be that, highly educated and cultured as they were, the Germans for the most part could simply ignore. Why was it that the institutional churches, Catholic and Evangelical Lutheran, could not find their voice? Why was it that so few spoke out?

May I respond?

Nuts. That's what the vast majority of us think you are, when you compare our actions in Iraq to Hitler's Germany. America did not blindly support this war, nor do we look past when the very few of our men violate the rules of war.

Stop being a dick, Ray.
I don't mind if you have something of substance to add to this debate. But man, I cannot stand your ignorance and dishonesty.

-John

When all of the tin foil reaches critical mass

Sometimes you find something out that just makes soooo much sense.

Like... well, when you find out that Ray McGovern was planning on protesting with Cindy Sheehan. Or when you find out that there is a photo of him, David Swanson, and Cindy Sheehan at some "impeach Bush" rally.
(In case you haven't been paying attention, Ray McGovern is the self-appointed "CIA analyst with 27 years of experience" who told Rumsfeld that he lied about WMDs.)

The photo feels like the black hole of tin foil to me. Somehow, I imagine a swirling of Che shirts all around them, as all anti-Bush conspiracies reach critical mass.
You've GOT to see the photo. Honestly.

-John

The GAO final report on Clinton WH damage

Something I found while looking up other somethings.

It is the G.A.O.s final report on the damage to the White House when Clinton left. It was released in June of 2002, and kinda got lost in the news. I was curious so I started to read.

Damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks did occur in the White House complex during the 2001 presidential transition. Multiple people said that, at the beginning of the Bush administration, they observed (1) many offices that were messy, disheveled, or contained excessive trash or personal items; (2) numerous prank signs, printed materials, stickers, and written messages that were left behind, some of which contained derogatory and offensive statements about the president; (3) government property that was damaged, including computer keyboards with missing or damaged “W” keys and broken furniture; and (4) items that were missing, such as office signs, a presidential seal, cellular telephones, doorknobs, and telephone number labels. In addition, documentation provided indicated that some broken, missing, or possibly stolen items were repaired or replaced at the beginning of the Bush administration. Several EOP staff said they believed that what they observed during the transition, such as broken furniture and excessive trash left behind, was done intentionally.

Basically, it says that yeah, there was a lotta damage to the White House, but according to Clinton staffers, the White House was damaged when they got there, too.
Oh, and the Clinton staffers said that they have no idea how the damage happened.
I guess that so many people are allowed through the White House offices unescorted, that pretty much anyone could have been gluing the "W" buttons to the walls and putting Gore stickers on the inside of cabinets.

The Bush White House responded to it at the time (their response is included in the report) and basically accused the G.A.O. of trying to downplay the damage. Which, if you read the report, is entirely true.

Anyway, read away. It shows you just how juvenile the former Clinton staff was, and kinda explains why they have to spend their nights bad-mouthing the Bush White House.

-John

Ray McGovern Lied About Rumsfeld

Here's a little background primer. Ray McGovern is a former CIA member with 27 years of experience. You probably already heard that, because every liberal website wants you to know that.
What they probably haven't told you is that he has been out of the intelligence business since the early 90's. Instead, he joined one peacenik group and created a second. His is called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, or VIPs for short.

I wanted to try to skip over the part where I make fun of someone who calls their organization VIPs. But you can't. For God's sakes, he calls his group VIPs. What does that say about his ego? His maturity? His inflated self-opinion?

Of course, the real point is 'was he right?'
Rumsfeld was speaking in Atlanta on May 3rd at the Southern Center for International Studies, when McGovern took him on in this exchange (Relevant parts bolded):

RAY MCGOVERN: I'm Ray McGovern, a 27-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. (Light laughter.) I would like to compliment you on your observation that lies are fundamentally destructive of the trust that government needs to govern. A colleague of mine, Paul Pillar, who is the top agency analyst on the Middle East and on counterterrorism accused you and your colleagues of an organized campaign of manipulation, quote, "I suppose by some definition" --

SEC. RUMSFELD: Could you get to your question, please?

MR. MCGOVERN: -- that's been called a lie.

Atlanta, September 27th, 2002, Donald Rumsfeld said, and I quote, "There is bullet-proof evidence of links between al Qaeda and the government of President Saddam Hussein."

Was that a lie, Mr. Rumsfeld, or was that manufactured somewhere else, because all of my CIA colleagues disputed that and so did the 9/11 commission. And so I would like to ask you to be up front with the American people. Why did you lie to get us into a war that was not necessary and that has caused these kinds of casualties?

AUDIENCE: (Booing.)

MR. MCGOVERN: Why?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, first of all, I haven't lied. I did not lie then -- (applause). Colin Powell didn't lie. He spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence Agency people and prepared a presentation that I know he believed was accurate, and he presented that to the United Nations. The president spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence people, and he went to the American people and made a presentation. I'm not in the intelligence business. They gave the world their honest opinions. It appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there.

MR. MCGOVERN: You said you knew where they were.

SEC. RUMSFELD: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were, and we were --

MR. MCGOVERN: You said -- you said you knew where they were near Tikrit, near Baghdad and northeast, south and west of there. Those are your words.

SEC. RUMSFELD: My words -- my words were that -- no, no, no. Wait a minute, wait a minute. Let him stay one second -- just a second. (Referring to security removing Ray McGovern from the press conference.)

MR. MCGOVERN: This is America, huh?

Do you think McGovern wanted honesty?
Did Rumsefeld say that he knew exactly where the weapons were to bring us to war? Did he say that they were in Tikrit, Baghdad, etc?

Here is the exchange from This Week With George Stephanopolous, March 30th 2003.
Note the date. The war was already under way.
So for McGovern to suggest that Rumsfeld said that he knew exactly where the WMDs were, as a justification for war, is a lie.
But let's move on...

SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Second, the [audio glitch] facilities, there are dozens of them, it's a large geographic area. It is the -- Answar Al-Islam group has killed a lot of Kurds. They are tough. And our forces are currently in there with the Kurdish forces, cleaning the area out, tracking them down, killing them or capturing them and they will then begin the site exploitation. The idea, from your question, that you can attack that place and exploit it and find out what's there in fifteen minutes.

I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.

So how is it that McGovern noted the first part of Rumsfeld's statements, but not the second?
How is it that McGovern noted where Rumsfeld said the WMDs would be, but he missed the caveat where Rumsfeld said that they might not be there anymore?

Why is McGovern quoting Rumsfeld's comments during the war as an example of what Rumsfeld said to justify going to war?
Is McGovern a liar? Or did he just a victim of bad intelligence?

-John

John Murtha, Democratic troll from PA, has opened his mouth against our troops. Again.

He held a news conference to talk about a November 19th action by our troops in Iraq. A pentagon investigation into the events in Haditha is pending, but Murtha has declared the troops guilty already.
According to The Seattle Times:

"There was no firefight. There was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed those innocent people," Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said during a news conference on Iraq. "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them. And they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. That is what the report is going to tell."
How does Murtha come to this conclusion? Its hard to say, since he admitted not reading the report.
So basically, Murtha has come forward again to oppose any action in Iraq.

What a douchebag.
Hey, if you want to spout your opinion, that's one thing. But Murtha is the ranking Democrat on the Defense Appropriations committee. Which means that he shouldn't hold a press conference to give a verdict on an investigation that he hasn't read the report on.
It also means that he's using the death of Iraqis as a political football.
Which makes him a douchebag.
But we already knew he was. Right?

-John

Dixie chicks; Flipping and flopping

Apparently, taking their cue from John Kerry, the Dixie Chicks are flip flopping.

How, you say?

In 2003, singer / political pundit Natalie Maines was in London when she said, "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas."

Natalie didn't expect the reaction from her fans, many who supported Bush. At first, she issued a kinda half-hearted "guess I shouldn't have said that out loud" kinda thing. That didn't go over with her fans. So, as CNN reported, she apoligized to the president:

"As a concerned American citizen, I apologize to President Bush because my remark was disrespectful. I feel that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect," Maines said in her latest statement.

Of course, no one expects musicians to have convictions, thoughts, or consistency.
-But Maines seems to have none of these things. The Chicks put out the first single from their new album, "Not Ready To Make Nice." Which is kinda ironic, cause they already did. But now they don't want to be nice. Again.
From her Entertainment Weekly interview:

Every day a soldier dies, I am more proud that I spoke out. For the last three years, I am at a loss for words as to... what this country is. Who we are. I really think people have just gone insane. And they think we've gone insane. I think it's sad that you have to truly seek out the truth these days, because CNN and Fox News don't give it to you. So you can't really point a finger at individuals, because it's exhausting to seek out fact from fiction. I used to try and make sense of it but when Bush got reelected, I just didn't know what to do. Keep livin'. It's gotta change back.

Later, Maines says that the American people don't have a voice. She calls it a corpocracy, which makes her a corpocracy nut.

I want to be clear here; when someone hates the president, I'm cool with it. I'm even cool with the borderline conspiracy nuts who believe that CNN is on Bush's side. I would keep sharp objects away from them, but for the most part, they are pretty harmless.

But I can't stand people who apoligize for what they said, and then turn around and say it again.
You have no balls Miss Maines, which is why you don't understand what's going on in Iraq. We are putting a lot more then our reputation on the line in Iraq, and those of us who support the actions there, understand that. This isn't just about the safety of one soldier, or 100,000 soldiers. If you understand anything, please understand this;

There are people out there who want you and I dead because we do not worship their god.

They are not just upset with us because we traveled thousands of miles to kick a dictator out of Iraq. Its not as simple as "leave our country, and we won't hate you anymore."

You know those idiots who sent you death threats?
Picture tens of thousands of them, all organized, and ready to travel. That's our problem in the Middle East. Its not just some idiot sending you a "I hate when you speak" e-mail. Its a group of highly radicalized idiots who don't like it when you wear a low cut dress or talk dirty.

Now we can't pretend like those people don't exist. But what we can do is send over the people who are most qualified to kick their asses, and send them the message that they cannot sqelch the freedom to live as one chooses to live.

Anyway, I will now wait as that concept soars over the heads of those who aren't intellectually prepared to understand it. And I'll wait for Maines to get all whiny about the fact that I've called her a flip flopper.

-John

Translation: Democrats are gullible as perch

Yeah, I've been gone. But now its time to rant with a vengence.

My latest problem?
The un-fucking-believable tendency of the left to believe that everything that GWB says is a lie.

Yesterday, Kos went on a rampage because he found a Reuters article quoting Bush as sayng that he caught a 7.5 pound perch.
Which, as fishermen know, is damned impossible. Apparently, the record for perch is 4 pounds.

What did Kos leave out? Besides, you know, the fact that it was an interview with a German paper "weekly Bild am Sonntag"?
Kos left out the part that it was an English translation of a German article.

Which, of course, means that somehow Bass was translated into Perch.
Here's the White House version of the same interview.

Did I mention that the left is full of pillow heads?
This is the very example of moonbattery.

-John