The Swann Song

I've been wondering what to make of Lynn Swann's gubernatorial bid, since he's offered so little specifics about where he stands on what. Supposedly, he's a conservative Republican, so I guess I should take it as read that he stands for a whole raft of positions. As noted in this Phinqy article, he's been rather unspecific so far.

But that Phinqy article seems to be a bit of a trend in the coerage of Swann, which seems to me to be geared toward portraying Swann as an unschooled, unlearned vanity candidate who doesn't know how the government works. That is: they want you to think Swann is stupid.

However, all of the state's white skinned newspaper reporters cannot be so blunt about it, so they have to go the route of the over-cautious over-documentarian and be careful not to mention the fact that Swann is black. This is me guessing, mind you, but most white skinned reporters probably hate the fact Swann is black because he's not on their political side. So, what you get is a rather meticulous take-down of Swann's intellect because his skin color makes taking him down with the usual methods unappealing because it might seem racist.

But it's early in the campaign. Things can change. Maybe.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

With the early stages of the election ramping up, of course you're going to get pieces like this. That the writer doesn't understand the issues he needs to write about is almost astounding, but that's what you get from the local media: reporters who take their lead from the majors. And, as I've noted before, the majors aren't necessarily interested in the issues so much as advocacy. Could be the case with this writer, too, but let's look:

Bucks County Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick, R-8, wants to improve public perception of the Republican Party, unify with Democrats on Capitol Hill and work toward legislation with broad support from both parties.

"I’m concerned about the sometimes inability of Congress to set aside partisan politics and work for the common good," Fitzpatrick said in an interview. "We need to start working together."

Whatever. Bipartisanship is always good, though, of late, harder and harder to get. The Democrats don't stand for anything and the Republicans are power mad, so, well, do you want them working together?

Last week, Fitzpatrick sent House Majority Leader John Boehner, ROhio, a letter outlining his dissatisfaction with the direction the Republican controlled Congress is moving in and his plan to bring agreement between party politicians.

"Missteps by the administration during Hurricane Katrina have been attached to our work in the House and there is growing dissatisfaction with our role in Iraq," Fitzpatrick wrote. "This is, indeed, an important time for the Republican Party to show that it is still an agent for positive change in America."

Now, this is idiocy masquerading as compassion. The federal government was not at fault for the Hurricane Katrina response. As anyone with a clue knows, FEMA performed exactly to standards in responding to the disaster, so there's no connection from it to the Bush Administration on performance. None. That Fitzpatrick goes soft on this is not too surprising, given that he probably believes the newspapers he reads are telling him nuetral information based in actual facts. He couldn't be more wrong.

During President Bush’s State of the Union speech in January, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle sprinkled the speech with frequent rounds of applause. However, Fitzpatrick counted 29 times when politicians from both parties stood and clapped together.

Those 29 rounds of unanimous applause included calls for energy independence, affordable health care, billions in relief for the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast and reform of homeland security.

"I understand there are issues we will need to resolve, but these are 29 areas we can work together on," Fitzpatrick said. "I’m going to do everything I can to pursue those ideas and I’m working hard to bring people together."

In his letter, Fitzpatrick said pursuit of those widely supported goals would be "the first step to bring the parties together by capitalizing on our similarities instead of our differences."

Well, we have multiple political parties so that we have multiple points of view, so this nonsense of bringing the parties together is never going to happen. Especially not with the current Democratic Party: they lose Kos and Atrios if they meet the Republicans half-way, and Fitzpatrick is an idiot if he doesn't recognize that.

Andy Warren and Patrick Murphy, two Democrats who hope to face Fitzpatrick in November’s election, said the freshman congressman was not the lawmaker who could unite Capitol Hill.

"The idea is right, but the messenger is wrong," Warren said. "The messenger needs to be a new voice."

Neither of them think that for real. They just want the job.

Warren said Fitzpatrick is too entrenched in party politics. Despite his calls to bring the parties together, Warren said, Fitzpatrick will always be a "reliable vote" Republicans can depend on in close votes, such as the Central American Free Trade Agreement, which Fitzpatrick voted for last year and passed the House by two votes.

"You can’t be a party to the situation for a year and a half, then all of the sudden get religion and say ‘Oh, we’ve got to change,’ as we get closer to an election," Warren said.

Whatever.

Murphy, an Iraq war veteran, pointed to Fitzpatrick’s vote for last year’s budget reconciliation package that cut billions from Medicaid and student loans as a sign that the congressman did not have the track record to work with Democrats. He said Fitzpatrick’s letter to Boehner showed that Republicans in Washington, sullied by corruption scandals and dissatisfaction over the Iraq war, were on "their political deathbed."

Un-hunh. "Cut billions from Medicaid"? Well, any writer with a clue knows that's a lie. I don't even need to google up the past two years of budget allocations for Medicaid to know that the more recent allotment is larger than the previous year. That this reporter just plopped that phony fact into a news story isn't so amazing as you'd think, since everyone in D.C. considers smaller-than-requested increases in budget requests to be "cuts" in funding. It's not surprising for politicians, but humiliating to be a news reporter passing on such a bit of misinformation.

"In the military, I learned that actions speak louder than words and Mike’s actions have certainly not been one of bipartisanship," Murphy said. "Now he’s trying to change his tune, but it’s too late for Mike to do that."

Right. Actions. Words. Whatever.

But why doesn't this writer ask Fitzpatrick to defend all the pork barrell spending he did in his first term? Hell, Fitzpatrick sent out a flyer rejoicing to his district in all the millions of dollars of federally-funded projects he brought to his district, and almost every one of them was unnecessary.

Right there you know the reporter isn't familiar with politics: he focuses on what the politicians are saying, not what they're doing.

Political Motivations

The Rendell types claim a recent investigation into Republican challenger Lynn Swann's internet sales site is not politically motivated. Don't believe them. I mean, sure, if he's required to forward state sales tax on some items, he should. But, the state shouldn't be investigating him during an election year when he's running against the incumbent. That's just plain wrong. And obvious.

But here's a nugget of hope for the rest of us:

"We estimate we lose about $235 million a year in sales tax revenue from online sales," he said, adding the department is trying to reduce that loss.

That is, an income tax and a consumption tax and a gas tax and an alcohol tax and a tobacco tax and property tax, and etc.. is just wrong, so wherever you can avoid giving the government your money, go for it.

How the AP Misdefines the Iraq Conflict

This is how the day-to-day struggle in Iraq is mischaracterized by the mainstream media. Do not believe what you read in a dead tree format. Wait until it has been fact-checked by some random blogger with the ability to google and think rationally.

Changing Your Mind

You know, you can be wrong about something, realize it after the fact, and change your mind. As long as you own up to the change and the reasons, feel free to change your mind. Charles Krauthammer writes up a piece on weather-vane historian Francis Fukuyama and FF's supposedly important change-of-heart about the liberation of Iraq. Apparently, Fukukyama lied about his reasons for changing his mind:

A convenient fabrication -- it gives him a foil and the story drama -- but a foolish one because it can be checked.

There's a certain caliber of person out there that keeps forgetting there's a certain caliber of yokel who knows how to google.

The Call of the Lied Piper

This is why the Democrats have no hope: they believe the crap Markos Moulitsas says. Any objective viewer of the mainstream media knows that it is tilted to the left, making it the "partisan noisemaking machine" Moulitsas says the Democrats don't have. As for the AM talk radio bit, Markos ignores NPR's lefty influence on the FM side of dial, and probably wouldn't even realize that without federal funds, NPR wouldn't be half as successful as the various and sundry AM pundits.

But this CNN segment cracks me up in so many ways, especially the ongoing claims by the left that the media takes it too easy on Bush, that Bush has never really been as popular as his poll numbers once said he was, and on and on and on. The media is too easy on Bush! And here we have this fellow Moulitsas with his not-very-popular book making the talk show circuit and being treated as if he were a serious, smart, intuitive pundit on the "progressive" side of the debate.

Heard him saying essentially the same stuff on The Diane Rehm show this morning and otherwise analyzing the effect of the blogosphere on politics. You get this sense that after all these years the Democrats still seem to think that if they tell the professional news media that they are disorganized and voiceless because of all the clever ways the Republicans spent decades organizing in the background that now gives them the controls to the newspapers, radio stations and TV news outlets. So, it's back to the drawing board to come up with a way to break through the wall the Republicans have put up to keep the people from finding out the awful truth.

There were amusing moments galore, such as how Moulitsas and Armstrong once again tried to come up with a way to answer the whole "Why didn't Kerry answer the Swiftboat Vets charges?" question, and they hemmed and hawed because they couldn't and wouldn't say, "Well, because the charges were true."

The other thing to notice about the interview is the tone deaf nature of Rehm's selection of two whack-job lefty extremists (Armstrong runs the lefty blog MyDD) to analyze how the blogosphere can rehabilitate the Democratic Party. I'd say, not this way.

What to Tell Yourself When You Fail at Life

Okay, so WaPo runs this column by Joy Jones in which she basically throws up her hands to the idea of marriage. Didn't happen in her window of opportunity. She offers various defenses and explanations for her inability to find a mate, this one is humorous:

"Marriage is for white people."

Of course, that's just bunkum and we can move on to the real heart of the matter, which is that nobody would want to marry this woman. No idea what she looks like, but I know one absolute fact, anybody who wants to marry can marry. And will. If you don't, well... how do you explain it?

As I reviewed the situation, I realized that all the things I expected marriage to confer -- male companionship, close family ties, a house -- I already had, or were within reach, and with exponentially less drama. I can do bad by myself, I used to say as I exited a relationship. But the truth is, I can do pretty good by myself, too.

She misses the point about marriage in the modern world while being able to detail the benefits: falling in love. Sheesh. My guess: this woman can't fall in love. Probably too busy nitpicking the negatives about whatever man she was with. I mean, c'mon, most people want to be in love, not experience "male companionship, close family ties, a house." Those are the bullet points.

Pay No Attention to Document Behind the Curtain

Now, so far as I can recall, Bush never made the al Qaeda - Iraq connection in his rationale for why it was a good idea to invade Iraq. The left, curiously, has been lying for years about this phony connection having been made by Bush. We now have access to all of the official Iraq regime documents and are in the process of translating them, a process many on the left seem to oppose and regard as more Bush lying.

And then out pops this:

"Osama bin Laden Contact With Iraq"

A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.

The report then states that "Saudi opposition figure" bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location," it states.

Of course, the folks at ABC do the whole "editor's note" dealie again in an attempt to minimize the damage this does to the left/media/antiwar/Democrat side of the debate.

Road to Hell Paved with Good Intentions

People are idiots. Bureaucrats are even more idiotic:

Being in a bar does not exempt one from the state laws against public drunkenness, Beck said.

You know, except for one thing: being in a bar means you're on private property, ergo, not capable of "public drunkenness." I hope the folks collared by these Texas arsewhores get a lawyer smart enough to realize that.

Coming soon, the need to protect people from the make-believe ills of second-hand smoke in public places. Coff, right, I mean, private property.

The Deranged Left

I've noted before the fact that the left in America is allied with the media to defeat the US military in Iraq by convincing the federal government that we are losing, not winning, the war. I don't think the left will win, given the fact the blogosphere exists and fights back with equal intensity. But listening to this Victor Davis Hanson interview on the Hugh Hewitt show brought out this nugget:

So we have that kind of extremism, but what we don't realize is we all canonized Lincoln, but Lincoln was hated more than Bush ever was.

Plus, lots of other corrective information for the delusional lefty.

The Truth About Iraq

Mark Steyn:

But in Iraq today the glass is seven-ninths full. That's to say, in 14 out of 18 provinces life is better than it's been in living memory. In December, 70% of Iraqis said that "life is good" and 69% were optimistic it would get even better in the next year. (Comparable figures in a similar poll of French and Germans: 29% and 15%.)

I see the western press has pretty much given up on calling the Ba'athist dead-enders and foreign terrorists "insurgents" presumably because they were insurging so ineffectually. So now it's a "civil war." Remember what a civil war looks like? Generally, they have certain features: large-scale population movements, mutinous units in the armed forces, rival governments springing up, rebels seizing the radio station. None of these are present in Iraq. The slavering western media keep declaring a civil war every 48 hours but those layabout Iraqis persist in not showing up for it.

Wonder when the left/progressives/antiwar/Democrats will figure this out?

No Brainers

A curious lack of original thinking from the contenders for the Democratic Party nomination to run for my local House seat. Neither is likely to get my vote. And the incumbant Republican is unlikely to get it, either, seeing as he mailed out a flyer announcing how much pork he had secured from the previous federal budget. Really. I was stunned. Talk about a political tin ear.

Groupthink Idiocy

Proof that reporters just don't understand what the hell they're reporting on when it comes to military operations in Iraq. You know, if you don't understand the subject your asking an expert questions about, how do you think you can put it into context for the folks back home?

Answer: you can't.

But what mystifies me, only partly, is the extremes to which US military officials go to not offend the egos of the uneducated reporters harassing them with theoretically pointed questions which are, in truth, clueless interrogatives from idiots. Gen. George S. Patton would've handled this nitwittery much, much differently.

The Changing Iraq Fiasco Meme

Suffering a string of defeats on the merits, the left continues to change its talking points about how the US is losing in Iraq. It's almost all-out civil war! Or something. From Wretchard at the Belmont Club:

So what's the truth? The principle in determining truth should be to apply the factual indicator test. A civil war is a visible event whose indicators includes the insubordination of armed units, mass refugee flows, the rise of rival governments, etc.

And, of course, a side of the debate with actual talking points and political objectives. The "insurgency" in Iraq has neither.

Politically what's interesting is how the narrative has changed. Nobody is talking about the Sunni insurgency succeeding any more. Even the press hardly makes the claim of an insurgency on the brink of success. As late as November 2005, the Daily Kos was boasting: "The occupation is exacerbating terrorism in the country. America is losing, the insurgency is winning. Maybe we should say, 'has won.'" But by the December 2005 elections this view could no longer be held by anyone with the slightest regard for the facts...

In my view, the shift of meme from the "insurgency" to a "civil war" is a backhanded way of admitting the military defeat of the insurgency without abandoning the characterization of Iraq is an American fiasco.

But the left, Democrats and the media aren't done fighting, yet. Once beaten, though, they'll move on to something else, conveniently ignoring they ever fought and lost this debate.

Another Reason to Hate New Jersey [It's Personal]

Well, if you want to go with Blue State/Red State line of thought, there's no way the average shmoe in New Jersey can complain about Corzine's new budget and the concomitant tax increases, since the blue people though the federal tax cuts were unfair and should be repealed. They want to pay more taxes, and now their governor has obliged. But you have to notice a couple of oddities in the higher taxes:

Most of the nearly $2 billion in new taxes would come from raising the 6 percent sales tax to 7 percent, costing a family earning the $88,400 annual state average an estimated $4.08 a week - or $212 a year. The 7 percent would be one point higher than Pennsylvania's sales tax but match the rate in Philadelphia.

Okay, he's spreading the pain equally. You buy, you pay. That's fair. Note that average annual family income, though. New Jersey is filled with rich people! The same people who got their federal taxes cut through unfair tax cuts for the rich!

The plan calls for the nation's highest cigarette tax, raising the per-pack rate 35 cents to $2.75, and new fees on liquor and luxury cars.

That's right, tax the chumps who smoke even more! Hmm, use your imagination to conjure up the financial and lifestyle image of the average NJ smoker. Sound like a rich white person to you? No? Sound like a low income person living in one of NJ's crappy urban areas? Now, consider this, while there's a crusade to eliminate smoking in New Jersey, Corzine marries his budget to a cigarette tax that, if his health nazi instincts were to win out, would tank his budget. Idiot. The stupid state has already outlawed smoking on private property [by calling bars and restaurants public property, interestingly enough. Will any property owners sue the state? We'll see, though I doubt it.].

An estimated $2 billion in budget cuts includes $169 million from state aid to colleges and universities and $40 million from municipalities. Experts said those cuts would lead to higher tuition and local property taxes.

Corzine is the anti-eduation governor. Sweet Loki, you have to be kidding me that he's getting a pass from the Phinqy on all this. No gloom and doom in the piece, just realpolitik.

The state would save an additional $53 million by slashing 1,000 nonunion jobs through layoffs and attrition.

Corzine hates the common worker. He's going to eliminate 1000 good-paying jobs.

Corzine's budget breaks a centerpiece campaign promise by offering a fraction of the bump he had vowed for popular property-tax rebates. Rebates would grow $35 for middle-class families that received the maximum $350 last year and $120 for seniors who received the maximum $1,200.

But, you know, all is not lost. While he's raising taxes and cutting funding and eliminating jobs, Corzine can still find a way to give property owners some of their tax money back, because, apparently, the average Garden State voter isn't clever enough to square the results of property tax rebates with sales tax increases and all the rest. You know, you have to fund your bloated state government somehow.

Corzine has "made some hard choices... I think bravely," [Senate President Richard J. Codey (D., Essex)] said.

You know, the hard choices would've involved going through last year's budget with a Sharpie and eliminating the millions of dollars of waste. Sadly, no governor of any state seems capable of doing that. Hell, you can't even get the PUSA to do that. Or Congress.

And, weirder still, you can't get the average Joe to get much worked up about it.

The "Kerfuffle" Kerfuffle

I'm sure James Taranto of Best of the Web will have an answer for this:

CLEVELAND - President Bush is known as a plainspoken man, a straight-talker. So how did a word like "kerfuffle" come out of his mouth?

Because, of course, Shrimpy W. Hallihitler is stupid, plain spoken and ignorant. And evil. Nobody you can describe that way would off-handedly toss off "kerfuffle," so there must be a sinister reason he came up with it. Must be.

The Phony Pacifists

Christopher Hitchens skewers all the arguments against the war in Iraq with this tidy piece of work. It's link rich, too, so even the most tendentious member of the Bush-hating angry left will be able to track down the evidence and proof that nobody was lied into war, and that most of our pre-war assumptions were right. And then he ends with this bit:

Well, if everyone else is allowed to rewind the tape and replay it, so can I. We could have been living in a different world, and so could the people of Iraq, and I shall go on keeping score about this until the last phony pacifist has been strangled with the entrails of the last suicide-murderer.

Jeff Goldstein has additional thoughts.

Outing Yourself as an Idiot

Dude wins argument, girlfriend is immediately stoned to death by the Iraqi "resistance." You have to love it when clowns don't know what they're talking about, much less protesting against. Let's see, the religious fundamentalists he's in favor of winning the conflict in Iraq are the exact same ones who would force this woman to cover herself from head to toe in a burkha.

But, you know, facts and reality don't need to get in the way of a good protest march and speaking truth to power and all that.

My Latest Email

Hello Matthew,

Just thought you should know that US military personell don't "execute" people in the field:

BAGHDAD - An Iraqi police document accuses U.S. troops of executing 11 people, including a 75-year-old woman and a 6-month-old infant, after a raid Wednesday on a house about 60 miles north of Baghdad.

Oh, right, and good use of the "baby killers" meme. Nice. But tell me, why are you aiding and abetting the other side? Oh, right, you're just "reporting" the "facts." Nice try. Did you see the official document? Did you see the crime scene? Did you see the autopsy reports (as if, in Iraq?) Did you see the bodies? Did you, in fact, do any work other than type a "story" based on something somebody told you?

You know, it's Vietnam all-over-again. When it comes to the news reporting, anyway. Thanks. Although, you know, we out here on the receiving end of this stuff could use the truth once in a while. Wading through all this "reportage" from the front to separate the fact from fiction is tiresome.

Sincerely,

William Young

Counting Casualties

I hate the current vogue of body count journalism, because it doesn't tell even the tiniest bit of the story. All you get is how many died and how they were killed, no context, no story, no history. Because the media is on the other side, is why. Who knows why? Not me. But here's some context:

the total U.S. military deaths in Iraq since March 20, 2003 is 2,317 lives, one more than the worst month in Vietnam. In this count of 2,317 deaths

[emph. mine]

Yeah, I know, we need to bring the troops home NOW!!! We can't win. It was a mistake. We'll lose our Army at this rate. We were lied to. We can't take it. It's too much.

Douchebags.

Clooney Tunes

I didn't watcht the Oscars, although I saw George Clooney's speech the next day in the news. Shrugged at it. Then, via Jeff Goldstein, comes this bit of temporizing truth:

Show Biz Update

When George Clooney accepted his Oscar for best actor in a supporting role earlier this month, he mentioned that "we are a little bit out of touch in Hollywood every once in a while. I think it's probably a good thing. . . . This Academy, this group of people, gave Hattie McDaniel an Oscar in 1939 when blacks were still sitting in the backs of theaters."

In the midst of all the self-congratulatory back-patting, he omitted one relevant detail: McDaniel and her guest were forced to sit by themselves during the ceremony--in the back of the hall.

Clooney doesn't even know the history of his own business. Nice. Keep preaching, bro'.

Reality, Interrupted

I suppose there's a version of earth in some alternate reality where humans do not kill each other and all the money earned by everyone is divided equally to support the needs of everyone equally, and everyone isn't dirt poor but instead, everyone has a HD plasma screen on the wall, a Car Model 1 or 2 in the driveway (colors: black, white, red [sporty]), and everyone is fed on organically raised food. Not sure I want to live in that world, but, still, all things being possible in alternate realities. That said, we live in this reality, and this is just pathetically unreal:

At 86, Miller is a veteran anti-war protester. He's not just against the Iraq war. He's against all war. Anytime, anywhere.

I don't respect that guy one whit. This viewpoint, however idealistic and idyllic, is unsupportable in the reality of the earth we live on. You live here, you have to fight, sometimes. Refusing to accept that reality is not sufficient grounds for a world view or a cause or a protest. Stay home and nurse your decaf chai latte and biscuit, you homo sapiens ignoramus.

Take That

You know, I'm going to go out on a limb and say this isn't how the Bush Administration feels about this:

ALBANY, N.Y. - In a stinging setback for the Bush administration, a federal appeals court sided with Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and a dozen other states yesterday and blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from easing clean-air rules on aging power plants, refineries and factories.

"Stinging setback?" Hardly. This decision probably merited a less-than-twenty-word sentence in the daily briefing Bush gets. But, you know, the media has to fight the dreaded conservative neocon anti-environment Republican theocracy somehow. And you know what, you don't even need to read the rest of the article with a lede like that.

Thanks, AP writer Mark Johnson for your nuanced bias!

Historical Revisionism at the New York Times

"President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a 'free and peaceful Iraq' that would serve as a 'dramatic and inspiring example' to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict."--editorial, New York Times, Feb. 27, 2003

"One prominent neoconservative, Francis Fukuyama, asserts in a new book that the administration embraced democracy as a cornerstone of its policy only after the failure to find unconventional weapons in Iraq. The issue was seized upon to justify the war in retrospect, and then expanded for other countries, he says."--New York Times, March 17, 2006.

*Couldn't figure out how to get the permalink to the post, so I figured I'd just steal the idea outright.

UPDATE: Instapundit figured it out, somehow, so here's the link.

Anonymous Sources

I've written before about the MSM overuse of anonymous stories to push memes along and how I distrust stories with anonymous sources in them. You don't know the motive of the source and why he is coming forward with this information, and often the information is so lame you really want to know why the person needed anonymity at all. But the media just hands you the story without much of an explanation, if any, as to why the source couldn't be named.

Oh, but when this kind of story linking Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein in plotting to attack America, the MSM gets its panties all bunched up trying to explain the "context" of the anonymous sources in the story:

(Editor's Note: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable — i.e. an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." The date of the document — four days after 9/11 — is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.)

So, the hint is that I'm supposed to be skeptical of official Iraqi government documents describing things official Iraqi government types did in service to the Iraqi government because the sources in the document are unnamed. Riiiight, Iraq might have kept fake documents in its filing cabinets for some really weird reason.

Or is it maybe the media wants you to think these documents were possibly typed up on a version of Microsoft Word and then run through a Xerox machine a couple dozen times and then yellowed under the sun for a couple days before being inserted craftily into the document mix?

The Awful Truth

Of course, the left will never be convinced:

Among the enduring myths of those who oppose the war is that Saddam, though murderous when it came to his own people, had no weapons of mass destruction and no terrorist designs outside his own country. Both claims now lie in tatters.

Wanna bet the MSM largely ignores this development in the narrative of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the Global War on Terror?

Mission Creep

Reporters are creatures of habit, and one of the habits they've universally picked up over the years -- thanks to MADD, primarily -- is that blood alcohol level means something. It doesn't. Drunk is as drunk does, but your BAC is only a tool created by the state so as to have a "scientific" basis to convict you of intoxication.

Now, you get crap like this in stories:

Dauphin County Coroner Graham Hetrick said yesterday that Rachel Kozlusky had a blood-alcohol level of 0.35. Under state law, motorists may be charged with driving under the influence with a level of 0.08.

First off, if there was any science to this BAC nonsense, there would have been no need to downwardly revise the original 0.10 figure. Second, just because a motorist can be charged with DUI at 0.08 doesn't mean anything in context to "falling" from a building, if you want to believe the story. Nothing. Can you be charged with drunken falling?

And, anyway, she was most-likely pushed through the window, so why does it matter what her BAC was? Or his:

Mr. Eckenrode, a state gaming board employee, has been released on $200,000 bail. He had a blood-alcohol level of 0.256 on the night of Ms. Kozlusky's death, officials said.

What is the reporter trying to tell us by this faithful reporting of the BAC levels of the individuals involved? What are the consequences of such steadfast reporting. Sure, it's a fact, but it's not illegal to have alcohol in your blood except for driving and flying [and, maybe, boating]. Do reporters not understand the unpublished agenda they advance with each and every reference to the blood alcohol of an individual and its relationship to the legality of driving an automobile? Do they not recognize they have been duped by the neo-prohibitionists and health scolds?

I don't think they do.

Gambling Concerns

Well, even the state Legislature recognizes that Philly is a bad bet when it comes to a casino:

The state House voted, 280-20, on Tuesday night to bar the city from enforcing local ordinances when it comes to casinos within its borders. That would include zoning rules that might prohibit building casinos in certain areas. Instead, all decisions concerning casino locations would be determined by the 10-member Gaming Control Board, which is appointed by legislators, including Perzel, and Gov. Rendell.

Rendell, of course, is from Philly, and is corrupt [probably], so he took offense with the vote:

The Street administration was offended by the suggestion that the city is too corrupt.

"We think it is absurd," spokesman Joe Grace said.

The gambling deal just gets more and more absurd and wrong the more the politicians tinker with it to make the public think everything will be okay.

The Sound of the Fury

The far left keeps trying to drag the Democratic Party over the edge, and even hyper-partisan lefty Democratic politicians resist the urge. Almost makes you wonder why? They say this kind of stuff all the time on the weekend talk shows, but when it comes time to buy the product, they demur. If Shrimpy W. Flightsuitburton is the evil, mornoic, clownish, control-freak the left and media make him out to be, why can't any of them live up to their own rhetoric?

Do they not have the courage of their convictions?

Because of the Corruption

Why did the Pennsylvania house of reps. reverse course at night? Because of the corruption possible, of course, and the potential to create pathways to money for people connected to both a state representative and a gambling interest. Repealing Act 71 is the only proper course of action at this point, but that's not going to happen. The state government, too fearful of coming up with a way to balance the budget that included increasing taxes and/or reducing expenditures, came up with this boondoggle and the citizens of Pennsylvania shrugged.

Making the Call

I don't know if any of the things US Rep. Weldon believes are true are true, but this one comes close to something I believe just because:

Yet even as his story triggers more and more questions, Weldon is making explosive new allegations. He says a high-level source has told him that terrorist leader Osama bin Laden has died in Iran, where he has been in hiding

Until proven wrong, I still believe Osama bin Laden is a smear on a cave wall in Afghanistan, the victim of a bunker-busting bomb delivered by an F/A-18. That's why there's been no verifiably new video of the guy: he's dead, has been for a while.

A lot of the other stuff is conspiracy theory stuff, and I tend to shy away from that kind of thought. But even if the Able Danger claims of identifying Mohammed Atta are true, you can't blame the Bush Administration for not acting more quickly. Bush had only been on the job eight months when the terrorists attacked, he couldn't make all the decisions, and he couldn't make them all right away, divorced from context and using Future 20/20 Hindsight.

Fresh Air to the Iraq Debate

The relentless negativity of the US mainstream media on the Iraq occupation and pacification phase of the Iraq War is weird, since we won the war and are winning the hearts and minds of the average Iraqi. Need a breath of fresh air, click here and read the reality. Teaser:

During a recent visit to Baghdad, I saw an enormous failure. On the part of our media. The reality in the streets, day after day, bore little resemblance to the sensational claims of civil war and disaster in the headlines.

Now, read the rest.

The Hypothetical Loss Scenario

Sometime last week, at my current favorite lefty blog, Innisfree, blog hostess Katieg quoted 80s douchebag Gary Hart's comments that Mickey Kaus skewers with this post. I commented at Katie's site that there wasn't a single chance in hell that this is even remotely possible. This whole "lose our army" stuff is such nonsensical nonsense it's almost embarassing to have to refute it, because it shows the sheer uncomprehending inability of the spouter of the argument to recognize what the words she/he are saying actually mean.

But, quickly, there's no way in hell that a civil war in Iraq causes any serious damage to our army. If Saddam Hussein's fully-equipped and fully-trained [to their standards] professional army couldn't defeat ours, then there's no way in any alternate universe for a rag tag band of poorly armed and untrained stragglers to defeat the US military. None. Can't happen.

Anybody who claims differently just doesn't know what the heck they're talking about. I mean, do I have to mention all the helicopters, airplanes, satellites, naval vessels, cruise missiles and UAVs -- for starters -- that the US has that nobody else has, especially Iraq? Hello, anti-war lefties: get a grip.

Plus, anyway, the US Army is something like 1.3 million strong. We ain't losing that in an Iraq Civil War scenario.

Quality Reportage

Okay, the Phinqy's parent company gets sold, and the Phinqy needs to use The AP to write a story about it. I guess nobody at the Phinqy was qualified to write a story about the sale of the Phinqy.

The Real Deal

I frequently come across folks in my blog travels who argue that the "media is on the other side" argument is a fiction of right wing bloggers. Well, here's a member of the media reporting on the issue:

The opposite is true of "reporting" by most news organizations in the wake of the destruction of the Golden Mosque in Samarra Feb. 22. Journalists who accused President Bush of "cherrypicking" intelligence to support the war in Iraq have cherrypicked facts and quotes to give the false impression there is civil war in Iraq.

The news media is on the other side. The only question is why?

Evil 1, Good 0

Well, so much for putting the guy on trial. Sheesh, the UN/EU nexus of justice just sucks. Makes you wonder how long Saddam Hussein will be on trial. Remember, the same rules apply: he dies before conviction/sentencing, he wins.

Hassling You for the Common Good

John Cole of Balloon Juice notes what he calls a future Supreme Court case in the germination phase of existence. Un-hunh, the police are pulling people over for good driving. Like there's not enough bad driving going on to keep them busy, these idiots in Texas are pulling people over to tell them, "Atta boy for using the turn signal back there."

Sometimes, you have to wonder who the hell is running the show.

What's That Smell?

Hijinks in New Jersey? Watergate redux? Who knows? We'll never know, as it will likely end with the press corps with this story:

TRENTON - It doesn't always pay to be a nice guy.

Multimillionaire Gov. Corzine's freewheeling generosity landed him in trouble again yesterday after he confirmed that he spent $5,000 to bail a Trenton lobbyist out of jail.

You know, the old reportorial cliche of "follow the money" really would take a reporter somewhere when it comes to Corzine, and I'm only guessing, here. I mean, on the very face of it, it is absolutely inappropriate for a governor of a state to be personally bailing anybody out of jail. You know, unless that person is his wife or kids, and then he's still got a lot of questions to answer.

Corzine came under fire during the gubernatorial race last fall when it was disclosed that he had forgiven a loan of nearly half a million dollars to a former girlfriend, Carla Katz, president of the state's largest public-employee union. Corzine's net worth was estimated at several hundred million before he spent about $44 million on his gubernatorial campaign.

As I recall, there was a little bit more to that issue that just forgiving the loan, though I'm way too lazy right now to google up the relevant issues and the reporter writing this article is way to dissembling to tell you, because it would make Corzine look bad, and reporters these days don't like Democratic politicians to look bad [unless they're centrists].

Woman Becomes "King"

First off, nobody could care less about this than me. That said, this is an artificial controversy, given that only 169 students voted out of 2,100 in the student body. And only 64 voted for the lesbian who won the homecoming king designation. So, a small segment of a small segment of the student body thought it'd be funny to vote a lesbo into the "king" position. Because it would be funny. There's no message here, since even the "king" admits to not having been a participant to the joke, which she doesn't classify as a joke, but as the will of the student body.

But, sheesh, the media in this country just won't let up on all this gay stuff. They're queer, they're hear, can we move on and admit there's nothing weird about it? Some people are gay. So what? Some people think vanilla is the best flavor. So what?

Message Received, Prepare to Die

A threat is a threat is a threat. This is a not-so-subtle threat. Anybody want to line up on the side of "Iran is not a threat" to the us? Anybody? I mean, they just threatened us. Oh, right, anybody want to line up on the side of "the US must do nothing" in the face of a real or perceived threat to the US?

Identity Politics

You aren't who the news media says you are. You are who you say you are. Eventually, we'll all just be people.

A Good Thing

Now, this is the best news, yet, if it works:

State Rep. Mark Cohen hasn't faced a primary opponent in 22 years. The Philadelphia Democrat has one now.

Twenty-seven House and Senate members are calling it quits, the most since 1992.

And 587 candidates filed their nominating petitions by yesterday's deadline for the May 16 primary - nearly 200 more than the last legislative election and the most in at least a decade.

And by works, I mean switches out the incumbants for the newbies. Incumbancy is a bad thing, generally, because of the inherent personal corruption incumbancy brings to a politician. It's a fast-acting toxin, too, as my local US representative displayed recently in a federally sponsored newsletter to me showing me exactly how much money he has siphoned from the federal government to spend in Bucks County. And he was proud of the pork!

Pomposity is a side-affect of incumbancy:

"New blood may not be an improvement. We may lose some very dedicated public servants and many of those running don't have a clue what this job is about. It's 24/7," said Rep. Jacqueline Crahalla (R., Montgomery) who is retiring after this term, her second.

"When I go to the grocery store, I get asked for a handicapped placard application. There is no life for yourself."

Right. Keep the kleptocrats in office because they're the competent ones who know how to pull the levers of government. Got it. Plus, the job is hard, you have to be dedicated and blah blah blah. Whiner.

Term limits, anyone? There is no public official elected to any office in the state who deserves to remain in that office by dint of personal appeal or electability. Public service corrupts over time. Politicians should either move upward through the political ranks, or move out into the private sector after some period of time. We can hash out the details later.

Permanency

Phinqy politics reporter Dick Polman continues to astound with his inability to understand how the US military works. First off, he takes the "criticisms" of the Bush Administration by Gary Hart way, way too seriously and dismisses the appearances of Gen. Peter Pace on network TV blatherthons because he didn't "address" the "issues" raised by Hart.

Puhlease.

First off, it would be irresponsible of the US military not to build reinforced concrete buildings to house it's operations. What, Polman thinks our troops should suffer in tents? This is because he's unserious on the topic.

Second, the mere building of "permanent" structures on Iraqi soil by the US military does not mean the US is planning on colonizing the place and stealing the oil, as is implied in the notion about "permanent military bases." As I note in the comments at his site, the US has permanent military bases in Germany and South Korea, just to name the biggest two places off the top of my head, and we haven't taken over either of those countries. Hell, we gave Japan back to the Japanese after WW2.

But wondering about this whole permanancy thing is only evidence of Polman's inability to understand what the hell he's talking about and a strong encouragement to shut the hell up.

Membership is Enough

To me, mere membership in Al Qaeda is enough to warrant death. Yep. You got it. You're a member of AQ, we here in the US kill you. Either in battle or in jail. But you die. That's the only choice. No jail. No life in jail. No nothing other than death.

Of course, when it comes to Zacarias Moussaoui, it's a little bit personal with me.

The Arab Allies Alternative Reality

Mark Steyn notes a hidden truth in the anti-Dubai side of the ports issue and, generally speaking, the awful truth of the "war on terror":

But what I find interesting is the underlying argument: At heart, what Hillary Clinton and Co. are doing is dismissing as a Bush fiction the idea of "friendly" Arab "allies" in the war of terror. They're not necessarily wrong.

This means either we do much, much more in the region, or much, much less. Either way is a difficult row to hoe. Doing more means taking the initiative; doing less, ceding the initiative. As in any war, taking the initiative is the way to victory.

I Think He Means 'Hell'

Things they didn't think of when they weren't opposing the governor's plan to introduce slots parlors everywhere:

Bristol Township Building and Planning Director Glenn Kutcher said he's particularly worried that sections of Route 13 in Croydon could "turn into a billboard heaven. We just don't want Route 13 to look like the road leading into Atlantic City," Kutcher said.

Wonder what our public caretakers will realize they forgot about next.

Routine Sunday Morning

Hello Cynthia

Just wondering why you are perpetuating the myth that the transfer of port management to Dubai has anything to do with security on any level. Surely, you're aware that it has nothing to do with security, so, either you are lying or [fill in the blank]. Which is it?

Sincerely,
William Young

Bush: India Not a Threat

Okay, so Shrimpy W. Halliflightsuit travels to India and pronounces it not a threat to the US. Economically, he means. Well, of course not. India is where American companies go to make sure they make a profit selling stuff to Americans. India becomes a threat only if it starts making stuff of its own design that appeals to Americans.

Militarily, the hell, nobody is a threat to America in any real sense. You want to fight the US? You need a first-rate navy, a first-rate air force and a first-rate army, and there's not many countries out there that can make that claim, and those that can don't have the numbers necessary, nor the desire, to threaten the US. Because they're friends.

The Other Solution

Okay, so the Phinqy is joining the crusade against Wal-Mart. Not content to hate Wal-Mart simply because it is declasse, the journalists there now consider the question of whether the state should require employers of certain sizes to have fewer of their employees on state-funded medical plans. Apparently, it is in the purview of a government to determine what benefits a company delivers to its employees, because, you know, the employees didn't volunteer to work there and didn't know in advance of working there what benefits they would get. So, it's not fair. Got that? Oh, right, they did ask to work for the company and were aware of the benefits available if they worked there. Oh, still not fair. Got it.

Well, I have an alternative solution to the one being proposed everywhere else, which is to force Wal-Mart to pay a certain percentage of its sales. This guy notes how this actually defeats its purpose with some employers, but I'm going to go the entire way to the opposite end of the spectrum and say, well, if corporations are abusing a state-funded medical program designed to help people who earn less than some government-designated amount of money, then abolish the program altogether and instantly end the corporate abuse. Then, take the money saved from abolishing the program and reduce the state tax burden by that amount for the people below the income level who were benefitting from the program. Nobody rich benefits, and certain lower income types have more money to spend on medical care.

I know: crazy.

The Two Front War

Victor Davis Hanson is somewhat more upbeat than I on the progress of World War III:

Few observers suggested that the Samarra bombing of a holy mosque by radical Muslims might be a sign of the terrorists' desperation--killers who have not, and cannot, defeat the U.S. military. After the furor over Danish cartoons, French rioting and Iranian nuclear perfidy, the entire world is turning on radical Islam and the terrorists feel keenly this rising tide of opposition on the frontline in Iraq.

As I've said, worldwide, this is a super low intensity conflict, fought mostly in the media. On that front, we are losing at home. The US media will not - not "can not" - aid the US in the fight. Although, almost to a man [woman], I'll bet the MSM really doesn't want to convert to Islam or live under sharia.

But on the actual physical confrontation front, we're winning. The Islamofascists cannot win through force of arms, and they know it. They must win by convincing us our victories are defeats, our causes are corruptions, our values are debasements. On that front, well, at least they've convinced the US media, which actively works to convince the average US citizen/resident.