December 2005 Archives

LB, TB, and the kids wish all of you a very merry Christmas.

The oil-for-food scandal is really getting to Kofi Annan as he vapor locks at a year-end news conference:

The usually unruffled U.N. chief castigated what he called unfair media coverage of his role and that of his son's in the now-defunct U.N. oil-for-food humanitarian program in Iraq.

He scolded James Bone of the Times of London for saying, "Your own version of events don't really make sense."

Annan responded: "I think you're being very cheeky. Listen James Bone, you've been behaving like an overgrown schoolboy in this room for many, many months and years. You are an embarrassment to your colleagues and to your profession. Please stop misbehaving and please let's move on to a serious subject."

Funny, most of us think the media didn't cover it enough.

Via AP/Yahoo:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein again grabbed center stage at his mass murder trial Wednesday with claims that Americans beat and "tortured" him and other defendants while in detention.

The deposed leader's lengthy complaint came after witnesses graphically described how their captors administered electric shocks and used molten plastic to rip the skin off prisoners in a crackdown following an assassination attempt against Saddam in 1982.

I wonder if the left is going to come to his defence over this?

After sitting quietly through several hours of testimony, Saddam launched into an extended monologue, saying he'd been beaten "everywhere on my body. The marks are still there." He did not display any marks.

"I want to say here, yes, we have been beaten by the Americans and we have been tortured," Saddam told the court before gesturing toward his seven co-defendants, "one by one."

Really (chuckle), folks, we should (snicker) launch (snort) an investigation (giggle). Right away (chortle).

Nancy issued this statement today:

"When I learned that the National Security Agency had been authorized to conduct the activities that President Bush referred to in his December 17 radio address, I expressed my strong concerns in a classified letter to the Administration and later verbally.

"Today, in an effort to shed light on my concerns, I requested that the director of National Intelligence quickly declassify my letter and the Administration's response to it and make them both available to the public.

"The president must have the best possible intelligence to protect the American people. That intelligence, however, must be produced in a manner consistent with our Constitution and our laws, and in a manner that reflects our values as a nation to protect the American people and our freedoms."

Of course, terrorists need good intel, too. And if Nancy and Howie have their way, they'll get it.

Careful how closely you follow Howard, Nancy. If he stops suddenly...

The anti-Wal-Mart croud has had a mostly free ride in the press - along with a lot of help from liberal activists and politicians. Almost every time Wal-Mart is mentioned in the news, they are painted as the anti-christ of the corporate world. And Wal-Mart is hampered in their ability to respond, since it's a public relations issue for them - as a rule, businesses are understandably reluctant to take an aggressive stand on issues involving labor unions.

So it interested me when I saw this press release:

Community Leaders Form 'Working Families for Wal-Mart'

A diverse group of community leaders today formed the steering committee of Working Families for Wal-Mart -- an organization dedicated to talking about Wal-Mart's positive contributions and making sure working families benefit from the consumer savings and job opportunities that the company offers in communities all across America.

Their website is pretty new and has little more than bios of the steering committee and this mission statement:

Working Families for Wal-Mart is committed to fostering open and honest dialogue with elected officials, opinion makers and community leaders that conveys the positive contributions of Wal-Mart to working families.

We believe that Wal-Mart provides value to its customers, to its associates and to the communities it serves.

They give a phone number as well. Being the curious type, I called to ask about 40 or 50 questions, but got voice mail instead. Bummer.

It will be interesting to see how this new bunch fits into the debate. If they are effective, it will certainly tax the resources of the union. Considering that there are still no unionized stores after all the expense and effort thus far, this can't be good news for wakeupwalmart and their leftist supporters.

On the other hand, anything that keeps this guy busy and off the roads is probably a good thing.

after this illuminating op/ed by Joel Mowbray in the Washington Times. He's apparently received one of the union group's communications detailing plans for the Ft. Lauderdale protest:

Inside a South Florida Wal-Mart last Thursday, union-sponsored protesters handed out empty, gift-wrapped boxes to children and made them cry, according to multiple witnesses -- and it appears that the arrests of two of the protesters may have been part of a grand strategy designed by Big Labor-backed WakeUpWalMart.com.

Yet despite internal WakeUpWalMart.com communication -- obtained exclusively by this columnist -- indicating that the union-funded front instructed its protesters to test police patience, the organization is now playing the race card since the two protesters arrested (out of 15 total) are both black.

You'll recall that I mentioned the race accusations in a previous post. But Mr. Mowbray add a new element - instructions from above to push the envelope of police patience, in front of the cameras, for the purpose of provoking an incident:

In an internal WakeUpWalMart.com PowerPoint presentation that lays out a 10-part timeline for attacking the retailer from late October through the end of the year, the ninth step -- which is supposed to take place between Dec. 14 and Dec. 19 -- calls for activists to place "Santa Claus in front of WMT stores with children asking for health care and signs." Beneath that, though, it reads: "they can't arrest Santa -- and if they do, make sure the press is there."

Mr. Mowbray poses the theory that the protesters mistakenly went too far, and this seems to be a good read of the situation. But it appears that the rest was planned. Getting arrested is a favorite and time-honored protest ploy.

Here's the way it appears to have happened:

The four protesters entered the store and started distributing their union pamphlets and their vocal views to the employees and the customers (in other words, disrupting business), all planned and executed knowing that it was illegal to do so, in hopes of getting the police called out. This also included passing out the "presents", or rather, empty boxes, to employees (planned) and the customers (likely unplanned, probably straying from the script due to the excitement of the moment). When the police arrived they would incite the police into an embarrasing photo-op in true protest tradition.

Their plan went south when the manager refused to take the bait, instead hustling them out of the store with only his staff to assist instead of the headline generating police that they craved.

Perhaps they felt the push to the manager, in their desperation to salvage something from the day, was the only way to get the police called to the store. Regardless, it backfired. The cops interviewed a few bystanders and simply arrested the two protesters - not because they were black, but because they were the ones who did the pushing. And all the posturing by wakeupwalmart's Paul Blank is an obligatory attempt at butt-covering, and making lemonade from an event that obviously went sour.

After getting caught in this lie, wakeupwalmart should issue an apology to the store employees, the public, and the police for the false assertions in their statements.

One would hope that the press would view further statements from the union with a jaundiced eye in the future.

I knew Howie couldn't stay sidelined for long - and the NSA flap was just too tempting for him to ignore:

I got a spamogram from the DNC today (click to view). In it, Dean is asking for signatures to a FOIA request for - oh, I think I'll let him say it:

"According to reports, political appointees in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel wrote still-classified legal opinions laying out the supposed justification for this program.

"I have asked our General Counsel to draft a Freedom of Information Act request for the relevant legal opinions and memos written by that office. Since the program's existence is no longer a secret, these memos should be released..."

So parts of a secret program is illegally leaked to the press, and Dean thinks that more of it should be made available to our enemies?

What a maroon....

Of course I've been following the story - Michelle Malkin, as usual, has been an invaluable addition to the news feeds and television reporting. I've stayed out of posting on it, with the exception of this about the reason for the sudden urgency at the New York Times.

It's not that I'm disinterested. Far from it. But I'm not a lawyer, or a constitutional scholar. I'm just a humble teacher. And the conversation very quickly centered on the legal aspects of the issue, and little else. So I've held back.

Now, the talking heads are starting to repeat themselves, and the media is turning to the more emotional aspects of the story. Case in point, Barbara Boxer's inquiry of legal scholars about whether the President has committed an impeachable offense:

"On December 16, along with the rest of America, I learned that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. President Bush underscored his support for this action in his press conference today."

"...Unchecked surveillance of American citizens is troubling to both me and many of my constituents. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible."

I'm not going to fisk this, even though she deserves it. Others will no doubt do so. No, I only quoted Sen. Boxer to illustrate the tone that I expect to spead over the next few weeks as the Dems take up their limp, non-violent swords over this, the latest battle cry from the BDS afflicted. Maybe I'll dismantle it later. Right now, I'm writing this to express my view.

It's mentioned frequently by politicians and pundits that we live in a nation of laws. Although it's stupid of them to repeat this so much (most other nations have laws too), it's also true. Laws represent boundaries - much the same as the fence that many of you had to restrict your movements as a toddler, or the edge of your yard (along with your Mother's voice) if you had no fence.

It appears from the discussions on the talking head circuit that there are indeed some gray areas here. If the President exploits those gray areas to further the mission of national security, I'm for it.

As the President of the United States, I expect George Bush to respect and follow our laws. But as the man responsible for protecting our country (which includes my family), I expect him to be bold enough to test the absolute limits of those laws. Bush gets no award for being a shrinking violet in my view. I expect him to walk all the way to the edge of the yard, not slow down or stop when 5 or 10 feet away. If there are gray areas, I expect him to occasionally stick his toes over that gray area - if it saves American lives, it's worth the risk.

Actually, I don't expect it. I demand it. There's just too much at stake.

As for the gray areas - If the laws weren't sufficiently clear, the President doesn't deserve impeachment for testing them. Rather than arbitrarily draw a fresh line where politicians and scholars alike couldn't agree on before, then apply it to the President after the fact, Congress needs to take a look at the ambiguity of it's own product. And take corrective action.

And as for those who have known about this for months, took no action, and now express shock over the President's "illegal" actions (like Reid, Rockefeller, Pelosi, etc.)- I'm sure there's a legal term for someone who witnesses a "crime" and does nothing (which would have continued had their inaction not been exposed). If they want to press the issue, I hope someone makes room for them in the hearing schedule. At the low altitude table.

Once again, AP/Yahoo gives us a glimpse into their hearts:

Presidential Christmas Message

The article is fine. But look at the inappropriate and unflattering photo they companioned to the story:

No class at all.

Note: The photo (from AFP) was taken at yesterday's presser.

Photo by Miss Yasmina

Via Reuters/Yahoo:

Dark chocolate may cut heart disease risk: study

LONDON (Reuters) - A few squares of dark chocolate every day might cut the risk of serious heart disease by helping to stave off the hardening of arteries, according to a study published on Tuesday.

Researchers from University Hospital in Zurich studied 20 male smokers, who are at greater risk of hardening arteries characteristic of coronary heart disease, to see the effects of dark and white chocolate on arterial blood flow.

The group, who were asked to abstain from eating foods rich in antioxidants for 24 hours, were given 40 grams (2 ounces) of chocolate to eat.

After two hours, ultrasound scans revealed that dark chocolate -- made up of 74 percent cocoa solids -- significantly improved the smoothness of arterial flow, whilst white chocolate, with four percent cocoa, had no effect, the study published in Heart magazine said.

The researchers, who said further studies were needed, suggested that the possible benefits arose from the antioxidants in dark chocolate.

"Only a small daily treat of dark chocolate may substantially increase the amount of antioxidant intake and beneficially affect vascular health," they said.

Sheesh. Like I needed an excuse....

That's what the organizer of this crime spree involving drunks in Santa suits calls it:

WELLINGTON (Reuters) - Forty drunken Santas rampaged through central Auckland, stealing from stores and assaulting security guards, the New Zealand Herald reported on Sunday, in a protest against the commercialization of Christmas.

Police said some of the Santas threw beer bottles, one tried to climb the mooring rope of a cruise ship and a security guard was punched during the fracas.

"They came in, said 'Merry Christmas' and then helped themselves," convenience store staff member Changa Manakynda told the Herald, which reported the Santas also attacked a Christmas tree.

The ringleader apparently warned about this in advance:

The event organizer, Alex Dyer, had warned the antics would only stop when someone was arrested, said the Herald, which linked the incident to "Santarchy."

Santarchy (www.santarchy.com) and online encyclopedia wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org) record protests going back around 10 years in the United States, with participants marking Christmas in anti-commercial manner involving street theater, pranks and public drunkenness.

Virtually everyone agrees that Christmas is too commercial. But most folks don't perform drunken crimes in Santa suits to protest it. I wonder how many kids saw them, and what effect did it have?

Also, they may not be able to punish all of them for their vandalism and theft, since the police line-up is going to be a joke:

Police said identification was a key issue as they tried to sort out which of the 40 men and women had done what.

"With a number of people dressed in the same outfit, it was difficult for any witnesses to confirm the identity of who was doing what," Senior Sergeant Matt Rogers told Reuters.

The sad thing is that this kind of behavior won't make Christmas any less commercial. Instead, it just puts negative images in the media about Santa at a time when children are paying close attention. Doesn't anyone think anymore?

Last night the President made yet another forceful speech. I especially liked the way he framed the choice as victory or defeat. This is the proper way to view it – there’s no gray area here.

What I didn’t like was the way Bush took responsibility for the war. Not that he shouldn’t – he is the President, and as such should take responsibility. But the way he framed it was entirely wrong, exposing a disturbing memory loss in the White House. Glenn Reynolds wrote:

Why did he do that? Because he thinks we're winning, and he wants credit. By November 2006, and especially November 2008, he thinks that'll be obvious, and he wants to lay down his marker now on what he believed -- and what the other side did. That's my guess, anyway.

That may very well be, but I still feel it was a grave error to frame the decision for the war around WMDs alone. This simply shores up the false accusations of the left. And it’s exactly why Sen. Reid is applauding the President’s candor, even though it's nothing of the sort.

Bush should have reminded the public that there were many more reasons for going to war in Iraq. And he should have done by using the text of the resolution that gave him the authority to do so.

The Democrats have framed WMDs as the sole reason for far too long. The administration should be getting more specific in answering the left’s increasingly disingenuous and shrill rhetoric, not pandering to it.

For other opinions, try here.

Via AP/Yahoo:

"This Congress has done very little oversight," Reid, D-Nev., said on "Fox News Sunday." "There should be an investigation and hearings."

Reid acknowledged that he was briefed by the administration about the surveillance program "a couple of months ago."

Of course, when he learned about this a couple of months ago, he asked for hearings then. Didn't he?

From AP/Yahoo comes this misleading gem:

Cheney Visits Iraq; Attacks Kill 19

Of course, the minority of surfers who actually read the story will realize that Cheney isn't behind the deaths.

From Al-Reuters/Yahoo:

You've got mail, and maybe gonorrhea

E-mail sent through Web sites launched in Los Angeles and San Francisco is providing people with a free, sometimes anonymous, way to tell their casual sex partners they might have picked up more than they bargained for.

The website is called inSPOT and is funded by the San Francisco Department of Public Health. There's another in Los Angeles as well.

Now I do recognize that folks need to be notified if they might have caught some dread disease. And as much as I feel that folks should take responsibility for their own actions, I can see that some folks simply won't. And this might have been a good idea, if the ecards weren't tasteless and easy to abuse (click to enlarge):

I predict these will start showing up as joke emails in so many inboxes that they'll have to pull the sites down.

And in case you're speculating, no - I didn't send one to Glenn Reynolds as a joke, or even as a cheap attempt to garner an instalanche. That would be - well, tasteless.

To go from this:

To this:

Shows that Cindy's acting skills are improving. I bet she's taken lessons. Maybe she'll get her own TV show next year.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

In the ongoing war between Wal-Mart and the Unions, things are heating up:

Deputies arrest two in Wal-Mart protest

The head of a South Florida labor-rights group was arrested on assault charges Thursday after about 20 protesters clashed with a Wal-Mart manager outside the retail giant's store in North Lauderdale.

Alyce E. Gowdy (pictured left), 30, who runs South Florida Jobs with Justice, and Jean A. Janvier (pictured right), 41, were arrested during a protest against Wal-Mart's labor practices. Some of the demonstrators were dressed as Santa and his elves.

Someone called 911 after one of the protesters pushed the store manager, according to the Broward Sheriff's Office. Deputies arrived at 3:24 p.m. at the store at 7300 W. McNab Rd. and took Gowdy and Janvier into custody.

Now the interesting thing about this incident isn't the scuffle. It's the diversity of the two sides' stories shilled to the press. Here's WakeUpWalMart's story:

Contrary to the myths put out by Bob McAdam, a former Tobacco spokesman, what actually occurred, based on over 10 witnesses in and out of the store, was that four of our supporters, one of whom was a 13 year-old child dressed in an elf costume, entered the Wal-Mart to make the manager aware of Wal-Mart's terrible health care record.

Note that they went inside the store - a union protesting no-no.

According to all who entered the Wal-Mart store, at no time did a single customer react negatively to our group, nor did any child cry. Wal-Mart statements to the contrary are false and manufactured lies. At all times, our supporters were respectful and polite to all. In fact, the truth is that many customers were shocked to learn about Wal-Mart's poor health care record.

"According to all who entered the Wal-Mart store..." it appears that they're referring only to the four protesters. Why no independant witnesses? And the reference to customers being "shocked". When you enter a business and start discouraging customers, you're inhibiting the operation of that business. A no-no for anyone. And I would have to say that "shocked" is indeed a negative reaction.

The manager then said he did not care about our health care concerns and asked the group to leave. The group said to the manager they would leave immediately - and did.

As the four supporters exited the Wal-Mart, the manager and his security personnel became hostile to the outside group and then pushed two of our supporters. In fact, contrary to misstatements by Wal-Mart's Bob McAdam, our supporters were peaceful and respectful inside and outside the store. In contrast, the Wal-Mart manager and security personnel not only unfairly targeted two of the group, but the manager became hostile, aggressive, and Wal-Mart personnel actually were the ones to push and shove the two African-American supporters.

Again, all who witnessed the event, including a Reverend and professor, state the event and actions by our supporters were peaceful - both inside and outside the store.

"including a Reverend and professor" - The Reverend is Reverend Dr. Lucy Hitchcock Seck of the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Miami (pictured left). Here's a sample of her work:

"The whole Iraq mess is scary not only because we, the people, the Congress, the United Nations, the Brits, were duped into going to war unnecessarily, but because our elected officials will still not become transparent, but issue statements that are crazy-making. We live in a Halloween house of spooks and mirrors. What wraith will jump out at us next? And each wraith is re-imaged, and distorted and impossible to catch as it bounces from one teller or observer to the next. In the Nike case before the courts, it is being determined if false advertising can be legitimated as free speech. That is, which is the higher value before the law honesty or the free speech that allows false advertising? On NPR this week, I heard some earnest government spokeswoman's cover-up of our President's subterfuge regarding what he knew before going to war and wondered if she knew the truth herself or if she had just bought so much party line, had been fed so much propaganda, that the truth was lost forever."

Sounds more like BDS than religion. Here's another sample:

"I am thankful for Kurt Vonnegut whose real religious practice, as I see it, is to speak out against injustice and foma or lies. He helps us to overcome despair with a cat's cradle, “a pulling of the strings of our life back together” again and again. Perhaps there is “no damned cat, no damned cradle,” no God, no Heaven, but he reminds us there are “Houses of Hope and Mercy in the Jungle.” There are Albert Schweitzers. "

Somehow I don't picture her flock muttering "amen" and "praise the Lord" or even something in Latin or Arabic very much.

Anyway, her statement starts with "A group of us were taking part in WakeUpWalMart.com's 'All I Want for Christmas is Health Care for Mommy' campaign." Anyway, she's a player, and definitely has a dog in the fight. Not the first choice for a credible witness. Even the religious credentials are somewhat shaky - the Unitarian Universalist Association looks more like a magnet for left-wing political activism than a religion.

How about the professor? That would be Bruce Nissen (pictured left), whose statement starts with "We were peacefully handing out literature to customers." Oops. Another player. And the credentials don't help here, either. And a side note for anyone putting together professor bios on college web sites - Avoid using the word "scholarly" repeatedly, as in "He has published seven scholarly books", and "Dr. Nissen is also the author of 20 scholarly articles in books and in journals". It's redundant, and gives the appearance that you're trying to convince someone - and will likely have the opposite effect.

So if the witnesses are not credible, what do they have left? Well, there's the language of the "witness" statements. Each has two common themes - the first is best done by showing examples:

That they can't separate their political message from their statements about the alleged assault speaks volumes. Also, doesn't this kind of sound a little like Eddie Haskell from Leave It To Beaver and other characters from the 50's and 60s, answering charges of wrong-doing by starting out, "well, I was on my way to help out the sick and elderly when suddenly..."

The second theme is more odious. Here's a few quotes:

"target two African-Americans for arrest"

"unfairly targeted two African Americans"

"they targeted two African Americans"

And here's a sentence from Lucy Hitchcock Seck to tie it all together:

I can only hope Wal-Mart will acknowledge its profound mistake and explain why two citizens were apparently racially profiled by Wal-Mart.

I think the direction taken here is obvious. And to cap it off, the press release includes an ad hominem attack on a Wal-Mart employee:

"Contrary to the myths put out by Bob McAdam, a former Tobacco spokesman..."

"...instead of thinking about new ways to use a former Tobacco spokesman who only specializes in misleading the American people."

Okay - in one corner, we have the union bunch from United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (that's the WakeUpWalMart bunch above). In the other corner, we have Wal-Mart, with a statement on their web site:

“Unfortunately, this union leader campaign stunt went too far,” said Bob McAdam, vice president for corporate communications at Wal-Mart (pictured right). “Union demonstrators dressed as Santa and his elves entered a Wal-Mart and began presenting some of the children in the store with wrapped boxes. The children became excited and started saying things like, ‘Let me have the big one.’ But when the children opened the boxes, they found that the boxes were empty. Needless to say, the children were upset and some began crying.

“When asked to leave, the demonstrators became argumentative. They claimed that they had permission from the Wal-Mart home office to demonstrate, but, in fact, they did not. Soon the demonstrators began pushing and shoving Wal-Mart associates. The Broward County Sheriff’s office was alerted and deputies arrested two demonstrators for battery and gave fifteen other demonstrators trespassing warnings."

You probably think I'm gonna go easy on Bob, but I'm not. First, bringing the "children crying" meme adds nothing to the overall story, and is included just to elicit emotion.

"Pushing and shoving Wal-Mart associates" is somewhat of a stretch compared to the news account ("Someone called 911 after one of the protesters pushed the store manager").

And this last paragraph is noteworthy enough to quote in its entirety:

“The Washington, D.C.-union leader campaign is failing. With sales up 4.3% last month and 10 million people visiting our stores in just the first six hours of Black Friday, the union leadership is resorting to desperate and divisive attacks. The American people are becoming increasingly incensed by the nature of this campaign and are still wondering why the union leadership is obsessed with attacking a company that creates jobs and provides affordable health insurance to working families.”

If Bob really wants the protesters to go away, taunting them isn't going to help. And in a statement about an alleged assault, it's definitely out of place.

It's curious that Wal-Mart, famous for the number of video cameras in and around their stores, hasn't released any security video of the incident. Or perhaps the police took the tapes for evidence. Still, if I were that manager, I would be pressing to get the tape on the six o'clock news. Wouldn't you?

So who's telling the truth here? I think, even with the posturing by Mr. McAdam, Wal-Mart probably has the upper hand for believability. One would have to presume that the Broward County Sherriff's Deputies would ask a few uninterested bystanders what happened, and probably review any relevant security tapes.

In the end, we may never find out the truth. My prediction is that Wal-Mart will drop the charges to spare itself the accompanying publicity. But as the union's war against Wal-Mart gets increasingly emotional, I expect this won't be the last incident.

By the way, if you want more analysis of the politics of the union vs. Wal-Mart soap opera, Starling Hunter at The Business of America is Business has a number of very good posts. Try here, here, and here for a start, but check out the rest of his blog as well - some good stuff there.

Update 12/19/05 7:19 PM: Commenter Amy asks: "Did they, or did they not, hand out empty presents to children?" Well, you ask, we deliver. According to the Ft Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel:

Kali Zervos, membership director of South Florida Jobs with Justice and a Thursday afternoon protester, said four people went into the store and handed out the gift-wrapped boxes: Santa, an elf and two activists. The boxes were given to employees and the manager, not children, she said.

As I said before, why no uninterested witnesses? The two stories are sooo far apart.... And again, I still have to award higher believability to Wal-Mart overall. If these union stooges gave empty presents to my kids, I'd have a lawyer already.

If only they would put so much effort into illegal immigration and drug interdiction:

Mexican Park Rangers Protect Butterflies

SIERRA CHINCUA, Mexico - With assault rifles over their shoulders and body armor strapped to their chests, Roberto Paleo and his 17 officers are among the world's most heavily armed park rangers. Yet they guard one of nature's most delicate creatures — the monarch butterfly.

The rangers say they need the weapons to protect the winter nesting grounds of millions of orange and black winged butterflies from armed gangs of illegal loggers in the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve.

Loggers in this country have a reputation for being rough and rugged. But they pale in comparison to the loggeristas:

In 2003, a group of 100 loggers armed with shotguns and machetes held three park rangers hostage for six hours while they chopped down trees.

"These loggers are heavily armed, organized groups who are sometimes linked to drug traffickers," said environmentalist Homero Aridjis, a Michoacan native who has been campaigning to protect the monarchs for three decades.

TB and I lived in a northern Texas town for a few years that was on the Monarch migration path, the tree next to our house attracted thousands of butterflies every year. Very pretty, but they kept us up all night with their wild parties. Still, that's a minor inconvenience next to the prospect of a hundred armed loggers.

Sigh. Soooo glad to be an American.

about domestic spying has Drudge and others speculating that the 11 month delay (or rather, the ending of the delay) in publishing is timed to coincide with James Risen's book (Due out Jan 06). I think the reason is somewhat more ominous than a bunch of journalists trying to make a buck. No, the reason is nothing short of trying to influence the Senate - and it worked, too:

Senate Rejects Extension of Patriot Act

But the Patriot Act's critics got a boost from a New York Times report saying Bush authorized the National Security Agency to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds — perhaps thousands — of people inside the United States. Previously, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations.

This makes much more sense to me - it the timing was to support the book, I think they would have waited until a few days prior to the release, when it could have had the most effect.

As far as the Patriot Act goes, I've always been kind of a fence rider. Although I recognise the need for such powers to fight terrorism, I'm not sure where to draw the line between homeland security and individual rights. Perhaps it's drawn where it should be, but I'd be a lot happier if there were severe penalties spelled out for any that abuse it. That said, I would still be on the fence even if there had been wide-spread abuse from law enforcement. There will always be the chance for abuse due to the inescapable fact that humans are involved.

Next week should be busy as the pros & cons in the Senate duke it out.

A reader emailed me asking how I knew the Schmidt photograph was photoshopped to add the black warts. Well, if you don't believe me, believe the Ohio DNC. Here's the billboard (click for larger view):

And here's the full-page ad using the very same photograph (click for larger view):

Here's a closeup of the black spots:

Now, does anyone think they photoshopped the full-page version to improve Jean's appearance? I didn't think so.

I had already mentioned in a previous post how it's probable that the original picture wasn't black and white - even if it was, it was crudely adjusted to make the photo unreal and harsh. And thanks to someone scewing up at the Ohio DNC (using a pre-black spot picture for the full-page ad), we now have proof that the original billboard had the black spots puposefully added.

You know, when your ideas have merit, you don't have to go to all this trouble. Which is why I expect the DNC to continue the use of this tactic.

And again, I'm not defending what Rep. Schmidt said and apologized for. But she doesn't deserve this. Photoshopping a person's image to elicit a negative reaction is dishonest and infantile.

Previous posts:
Dems continue attacks on Schmidt
Lamar offered compromise, DNC refused
An interesting twist
All that begging - Wasted!
Dean: "Brother, can you spare a dime?"

The Ohio DNC couldn't get their disgusting billboard past Lamar. But they're continuing with rolling billboards and full page ads:

On Thursday, Dec. 15, Ohio State Representative and Iraq War veteran John Boccieri, Cincinnati-area veterans, and Ohio Democrats will participate in a news conference unveiling new Democratic National Committee (DNC) advertisements aimed at holding Republican Congresswoman Jean Schmidt accountable for her attacks on veterans.

Amazing how they'll exploit servicemen to achieve their goals, when all they normally show them is contempt:

Boccieri, a major in the Air Force Reserve and a C-130 pilot who served four tours of duty in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, will join Ohio Democratic Party Communications Director Brian Rothenberg, and local veterans in unveiling a new mobile billboard and ads in local newspapers and popular internet sites.

Disgusting and pathetic. Schmidt didn't attack veterans - she attacked the coward Murtha. And she apologized for it. But that doesn't stop Ohio DNC from showing a wraith-like photoshopped image of her, complete with black warts:

I'll try to get the full page ads as soon as they're available.

Two weeks ago, I posted about Sen. Dorgan's dirty hands in the Abramoff scandal and how it affects his role in the investigation. Here's the latest via AP

Sen. Dorgan Returns Tribes' Donations

WASHINGTON - The top Democrat on the Senate committee investigating Jack Abramoff's Indian lobbying is returning $67,000 in donations in response to Associated Press reports that he collected tribal money around the time he took actions favorable to those of Abramoff clients.

Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record), D-N.D., said Tuesday that while he never met Abramoff and didn't take any actions at the lobbyist's behest, he nonetheless wants to return the money to avoid any appearance that tribal money was directed to him by the controversial lobbyist.

"Even though those contributions were legal and fully reported as required by law, I will not knowingly keep even one dollar in contributions if there is even a remote possibility that they could have been the result of any action Mr. Abramoff might have taken," the senator said.

A question for Sen. Dorgan - if all the other politicians give their donations back, does that give them a pass in your investigation? After all, what's good for the goose...

A bill passed the Senate last month for a new themed coin program:

WASHINGTON - New dollar coins featuring all 37 of the nation's dead presidents will begin rolling out of the U.S. Mint in 2007 under a bill Congress is sending to President Bush.

Lawmakers hope the coins — and an accompanying $10 gold piece for collectors featuring former first ladies — will be a big money raiser for the government like the 50-state quarter program. They also hope the dollar pieces will rev up interest in the Sacagawea dollars, which have been little-used.

But halfway into the article, this pops up:

The front of the coins would depict former presidents, but not those who are living or have been dead for less than two years, and the backs would show the Statue of Liberty.

Only one former President has died in the last two years - Ronald Reagan in June of 2004.

Why the slight, congress? What the hell were you thinking?

via AP/Yahoo:

Iran Leader Reiterates Holocaust Doubts

TEHRAN, Iran - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has reiterated his doubt about the Holocaust and called on Muslim nations to take a proactive stand on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, state media reported Tuesday.

The president's comments, published on Iranian state television's Web site, were the second time in a week he has expressed doubt about the Nazi genocide of Jews during World War II. In October, Ahmadinejad also said Israel should be "wiped off the map."

"If the killing of Jews in Europe is true," the Web site quoted Ahmadinejad as saying during a speech at an Islamic conference in Tehran, "and the Zionists are being supported because of this excuse, why should the Palestinian nation pay the price?"

You really have to wonder what his game is. Of course, this kind of speech is popular among his citizens, but last time he said this stuff, the rest of his government had to backpedal like crazy to the international media after widespread criticism. And this certainly doesn't help those that support their desire to build a nuclear bomb nuclear power plant. This is going to be a further embarrassment for Russia.

It will be interesting indeed to monitor reaction from the rest of the world as this progresses.

Other coverage: Yahoo/AFP, Reuters, Al Jazeera

The Democrats feel they have found the proper "framing" of their message, hoping it will get them back into power:

Democrats Test Themes for `06 and `08

LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. - To hear Democrats tell it, an anxious and isolated public craves a sense of national community and would galvanize behind a leader who asks people to sacrifice for the greater good. John Edwards says he's that leader.

Wait a minute, so does Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack. Ditto for Virginia Gov. Mark Warner.

Edwards, Vilsack and Warner, all likely presidential candidates in 2008, are toying with the same lofty community-and-purpose message. And that says as much about the sour mood of the country as it does about the state of the Democratic Party.

Wonder if anyone will notice that this is the same Democratic Party that has obstructed and undermined every single step the current administration has taken? And done so not out of committment to "community-and-purpose", but instead for cheap partisan politics? Will anyone take stock of what the Democrats have sacrificed for "the greater good" in the last five years?

How rich. If this is the best they can come up with, I say bring it on.

is again on display in Iraq as voting begins:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Voting began Monday in hospitals, military camps and even prisons across Iraq, launching the process to choose a new parliament that the United States hopes can help quell the insurgency so U.S. forces can begin heading home.

The woman pictured at right voted today in a Baghdad hospital.

Although most of the 15 million eligible voters will cast ballots Thursday, soldiers, police, hospital patients and prisoners not yet convicted of crimes can vote Monday.

No amount of defeatist rhetoric from the left can mask the truth that Iraqis are indeed taking charge of their own future. Even as the media puts their darkest spin on the election, this woman shows us the truth - Iraqis are more determined to succeed than any on the left would care to admit.

And yet Howard Dean and other leaders on the left call for surrender and retreat - a cynical dishonesty of spirit that leaves one breathless when contrasted with the truth pictured here.

Can't win? By many measures, we've already won, Howard. The choice now is between maintaining that victory or shattering it.

In London, Euromoonbats continue to fawn over Cindy Sheehan. Now they're turning her into the Princess of Pathetic Plays:

LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. peace activist Cindy Sheehan, who won wide attention with a vigil outside President George W. Bush's ranch in the name of her soldier son killed in Iraq, is the subject of a new play by Nobel laureate Dario Fo.

"Peace Mom" received its world premiere in London on Saturday night, starring British actress Frances de la Tour, with both Sheehan and Italian dramatist Fo in the audience.

The one-woman show is based on extracts from Sheehan's letters to Bush and other writings. De la Tour delivered the monologues beneath large pictures of Sheehan's son Casey and a tank in the Iraqi desert in front of a plume of fire.

"Frances did such an amazing job of conveying my feelings of anger and betrayal," a tearful Sheehan said after the play.

I'm assuming this was classified as a comedy. If the name Frances de la Tour (pictured to the right) sounds familiar, it is. She plays the giant headmistress Madame Maxime in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

Additionally, the play is going on tour:

The play was rushed into production to conclude a day-long conference of activists opposed to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, with de la Tour reading some passages from a script.

Fo, the leftist playwright who won the 1997 Nobel Prize for Literature, said his wife and artistic partner Franca Rame would star in a longer final version of the play in Italy.

I guess he has a knack for fiction. By the way, one of Fo's websites is creepy.. And here's another website of his where apparently, he's running for mayor of Milano. And if you're curious what kind of it takes to win a Nobel prize for literature, here's a sample of his "work" from 2004:

Dario Fo’s new play has aroused not only ire but a lawsuit. The Nobel Prize winner’s latest, The Two-Headed Anomaly, pokes fun at Italian premiere Silvio Berlusconi, with Fo himself playing the prime minister and Fo’s wife, Franca Rame, playing Veronica Lario (Berlusconi’s wife).

In the play, Berlusconi is visited by Russian leader Vladimir Putin, who gets shot by Chechen rebels, and part of Putin’s brain is put into the Italian’s head. The result is a vodka-drinking, confused drunk worried about men trapped in a submarine.

What a good choice to write a play about a demented moonbat. And to top it off, here's an excerpt from his bio in Columbia Encyclopedia:

A long-time member of the Communist party (he was denied entry into the United States in the early 1980s), Fo has often been critical of the policies of the Roman Catholic church, which has termed some of his plays blasphemous. Forceful, wittily anarchic, and often disturbing, his work was impeded by Italian censorship before 1962. In 1968, Fo and his wife, actress Franca Rame, with whom he has frequently collaborated in writing and acting, began presenting plays on contemporary issues. The most famous of these is Accidental Death of an Anarchist (1970), a farce about the alleged suicide of an anarchist in police custody. Among his more than 70 other plays are Mistero Buffo (1969), Can't Pay, Won't Pay (1974), The Pope and the Witch (1989), and The Devil with Boobs (1997). Fo was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1997.

Say it isn't so! Cindy being canonized by a communist? I wonder where we've seen that before...

Shawn A. Cox, that is.

If you'll recall, He's the one who jumped the White House fence last Monday. Turns out he was not after President Bush:

Chelsea Clinton, not any current occupants of the White House, was the preoccupation of an Arkansas man arrested after he jumped over a fence onto the grounds of the executive mansion at Washington, according to a preliminary psychological assessment.

A court-ordered report from the District of Columbia Department of Mental Health said Shawn Cox, 29, of Mammoth Spring believed that Chelsea Clinton still lived at the White House, and that he was destined to marry her.

Clinton is the daughter of former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and lived at the White House during her father's two terms as president, 1993-2001.

Cox was arrested Sunday at the White House by the Secret Service, which provides protection for presidents and their families, after scaling the fence separating the mansion's north lawn from public sidewalks. A judge sent him to St. Elizabeth's Hospital, which provides mental-health services to D.C. residents, for a month of evaluation before a scheduled Jan. 6 court appearance.

Robert Benedetti, a licensed clinical psychologist, said in a report filed with the court that Cox appeared "grossly psychotic and manic." The report said Cox told Benedetti that he had been hospitalized in Arkansas several years ago.

Cox told Benedetti his head was a "cell phone implanted by Jesus," the report said.

"He insisted that Chelsea Clinton was in the White House as well as President Bush and described how former President Bill Clinton had told him that (Cox) was 'going to marry my daughter' when he had met him in Arkansas," Benedetti wrote.

Cox is a possible danger to himself and others, the report said, and should be closely monitored.

I'm guessing that he probably won't see the outside of a padded room for quite some time.

Cindy Sheehan on her soapbox son, Casey, from an interview in the Guardian:

"His recruiter told him that even if there was a war, he would never see combat because he had scored so high in the entrance exam - he'd only be in a support role," says Cindy.

Obviously she feels that all those in combat roles are dimwits. I guess she didn't see this.

Also, she needs a massage:

The non-stop campaigning has taken its toll, she says, and Cindy feels in need of a good massage: "I really feel I'm carrying the whole world on my shoulders," she says.

Any combat soldiers want to help her out? I didn't think so.

Hat tip Little Green Footballs

over at All Things Beautiful has served up one of her best posts ever. A must read.

For a political blog, All Things Beautiful is a rarety. The imagery, sometimes whimsical, sometimes dark and disturbing, are a treat for both eye and mind. The writing is direct and well organized, and clearly Alexandra's opinions never suffer from a lack of passion. Either would be an attraction alone, but her unique blending of the two is simply electric.

That's why we recommend that you rush right over to the Weblog Awards site and vote for All Things Beautiful in the "Best New Blog" category.

You still here? What are you waiting for? GO!