Listen to What the Flower Children Say

Victor Davis Hanson knows what's wrong with the Democrats:

We are in unsure times amid a controversial war. Yet the American people are not swayed by the universities, the major networks, the New York Times, Hollywood, the major foundations, and NPR. All these bastions of doctrinaire liberal thinking have done their best to convince America that George W. Bush, captive to right-wing nuts and Christian fanatics, is leading the country into an abyss. In fact, a close look at a map of red/blue counties nationwide suggests that the Democrats are in deepening trouble.

Why? In a word, Democratic ideology and rhetoric have not evolved from the 1960s, although the vast majority of Americans has — and an astute Republican leadership knows it.

I rather think their rhetoric and goals have not changed fundamentally since Harry Dexter White last betrayed Harry Truman on behalf of Uncle Joe Stalin, myself. Perhaps if the schools weren't too busy teaching kids to cook meth and roll rubbers over erect fruit more future Democrats would have read and understood Orwell's "Animal Farm" and "1984".

Whoops, then they wouldn't be future Democrats, would they?

Keep cooking up the rock and paging through the kama sutra, kids---we need you zonked out and producing wards of the state for the forseeable future.

At least until we can import more leftists, that is.

David Brooks "Grows" into a Wuss

Must be awfully lonely to be the token conservative on The Times' op-ed page. Peter Augustine Lawler isn't sympathetic to David Brooks' toadying to the Left:

Clearly the constitutional principle that governs the two houses of Congress is majority rule. The two houses are supposed to check each other, and in turn be checked by the other two branches of government. There's no constitutional foundation for the Senate's perversely building yet another counter-majoritarian check into its internal structure. In truth, there's always been something vaguely but insistently unconstitutional about the filibuster. Liberals used to know this quite well back in the days when it was understood to be a perverse mechanism used by Southern racists to block civil-rights legislation favored by most members of Congress and most Americans. What did Martin Luther King Jr., another authority appealed to by Brooks, think about the filibuster?

Foul!

Don't go resorting to historical precedent and logic when clearly this is about the FEELINGS of the Democrats, who through no fault of their own can't get a majority of Americans to buy their silliness any longer.

I Think of Myself as More of a Salt Pork Conservative

The Ankle-Biters land an exclusive interview with the author of "South Park Conservatives":

As you point out in your book the snobbish and dismissive responses of the MSM and other elite liberals to the "alternative media" led to the rise of the "South Park Conservatives". Are there any signs that liberals have figured out why Rush, Fox News, and right-wing blogs became so popular and have changed their approach to dealing with and responding to the ideas coming out of these mediums?

The revolt against the liberal media—against liberal elites—that I chronicle in South Park Conservatives has left some on the Left befuddled and angry. Fox News is a “fifth column,” blusters Al Gore, or “crazy people exchanging views,” according to the chairman of Time Warner. Liberal commentator Thom Hartmann likens the rise of conservative talk radio to a harbinger of fascism. The Washington Post’s David Broder blamed the lousy journalistic ethics of the mainstream media on the bloggers! “When the Internet opened the door to scores of ‘journalists’ who had no allegiance at all to the skeptical and self-disciplined ethic of professional news gathering,” he complained, “old pros” like Howell Raines and Dan Rather “got caught up in this fevered atmosphere and let their standards slip.” If only we could back to the good old days, when liberal elites handed news down to the peasants, who’d take what was healthy for them—that has been a common liberal response to the new world I describe in this book.

Some—even John Kerry a few weeks ago—would even like to see the Fairness Doctrine restored, which would wipe out political talk radio. Ronald Reagan phased out that regulation back in the late eighties. It required broadcasters airing political opinions to provide equal time to opposing viewpoints. So if you had Rush Limbaugh on, and he was getting 15 million listeners a week, you’d also have to have Mario Cuomo on, even if he was getting 20,000 a week. Radio stations generally concluded it would be best not to air any political opinions. The end of the Fairness Doctrine liberated political talk radio.

It’s no surprise some on the Left would like to see the Fairness Doctrine restored, since liberals have done so poorly on the airwaves. The Right completely dominates political talk radio, and liberals have never found a successful formula to compete on the dial. Air America, the latest effort, is drawing a 1.2 Arbitron rating in New York City, a smaller audience share than the all-Caribbean format it replaced in New York a year ago. So far, with a few exceptions, it is struggling everywhere it is on the air. I found it illuminating that Al Gore has been telling people that his Gore-TV won’t be anything like Air America goes cable—a sign, I think, that liberal radio is going nowhere fast.

Needles to say, Bulldog Pundit asks more thoughtful and probing questions of an ideological fellow traveler than Tim Russert ever will when Sonorous John sits across from him clutching his Magic Hat.

"South Park Conservatives" are an interesting phenomenon, the inevitable backlash to the Oprahfication of America.

Proof That I Have PMS

Everyone in traffic is an idiot.
Turn already, for the love of God! The speed limit is 45! WHY ARE YOU GOING 40?! Do you SEEEE the guy in front of you? Stop riding his butt! Turn. TURN!!! Get OUT of my way! What the.. OHHHH, of COURSE you're stopping for the yellow light! Of course! You're such a good little girl scout citizen aren't you? Not that ANYONE is in -- I don't know -- a HURRY!
TURRRRRN!!!!

I am fat and ugly.
Makeup? Dry and flat -- all the colors are wrong or look as if they've been glommed on with a putty knife. Every morsel I put in my mouth instantly turns to blubber, specifically in the areas of my stomach, thighs and underarms. (YAY!) Hair? Disaster.

I have a bad attitude.
You got a problem with that? What are you lookin' at, Nursey? Oh, yeah? Shut up and get out of my way. *Blinking daft moron.*

I'm crying for no reason.
[John Lennon playing on the iPod.]
That's so *sniff* profound. *Snurf-sniff* That is all we need... *hitch-breath, weep* Why don't more people get that? *Croaky singing* "All you need is LOVE! Love... Love is all you need..." *snurffle-sniff*

Men don't get this.

Thank God. Because we would kill them.

So Much for the Scientific Method

The Telegraph reports that major science journals are refusing papers questioning prior claims of consensus among climatologists regarding man-made climate change:

The author of the research, Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.

Dr Oreskes's study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser.

However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.

They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.

Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been "widely dispersed on the internet".

Dr Peiser insists that he has kept his findings strictly confidential. "It is simply not true that they have appeared elsewhere already," he said.

A spokesman for Science said Dr Peiser's research had been rejected "for a variety of reasons", adding: "The information in the letter was not perceived to be novel."

Dr Peiser rejected this: "As the results from my analysis refuted the original claims, I believe Science has a duty to publish them."

Dr Peiser is not the only academic to have had work turned down which criticises the findings of Dr Oreskes's study. Prof Dennis Bray, of the GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, submitted results from an international study showing that fewer than one in 10 climate scientists believed that climate change is principally caused by human activity.

As with Dr Peiser's study, Science refused to publish his rebuttal. Prof Bray told The Telegraph: "They said it didn't fit with what they were intending to publish."

Prof Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama, a leading authority on satellite measurements of global temperatures, told The Telegraph: "It's pretty clear that the editorial board of Science is more interested in promoting papers that are pro-global warming. It's the news value that is most important."

He said that after his own team produced research casting doubt on man-made global warming, they were no longer sent papers by Nature and Science for review - despite being acknowledged as world leaders in the field.

As a result, says Prof Spencer, flawed research is finding its way into the leading journals, while attempts to get rebuttals published fail. "Other scientists have had the same experience", he said. "The journals have a small set of reviewers who are pro-global warming."

Concern about bias within climate research has spread to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose findings are widely cited by those calling for drastic action on global warming.

In January, Dr Chris Landsea, an expert on hurricanes with the United States National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, resigned from the IPCC, claiming that it was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and was "scientifically unsound".

The parallels to the arrogance of the MSM and their denials of bias in the face of clear and compelling evidence of the same are easy to see, of course. Grant-hungry scientists and their media buddies are creating plenty of global warming spewing all that hot air on the subject.

When Will We Do Something About the Mullahs?

Michael Ledeen's not optimistic:

Worst of all, from the standpoint of the terror masters, the ultimate threat — freedom — is growing stronger, just as the president wishes, and freedom is spreading even though, despite his constant promises to support democratic revolution, he is doing virtually nothing to help it. He, along with Secretaries Rice and Rumsfeld, has not rallied to the side of the Iranian people, even though the Iranians have abundantly demonstrated their desire to be rid of the mullahs. Two weeks ago there were massive demonstrations and work stoppages in the oil-rich regions, centering around the city of Ahwaz. The demonstrators called for an end to the regime, scores of people were killed, and hundreds were beaten and arrested. On May Day, workers again demonstrated against the regime, this time in all the major cities. In Tehran, strongman and likely president-in-waiting Hashemi Rafsanjani was hooted down by the crowd, and pictures of him and Supreme Leader Khamenei were torn down and trampled. Yet no one in the American Government spoke a word of support for the demonstrators, and no one has yet endorsed the one thing that unites the overwhelming majority of Iranians, whatever their political proclivities: a national referendum on the legitimacy of the regime itself. If there were a national ballot on the single question — Do you want an Islamic republic? — the regime would pass into history overnight. But there is silence in official Washington.

The anti-Rafsanjani demonstrations are very important, because Rafsanjani will soon formally declare his candidacy for the presidency. Elections are scheduled for June, and the regime is desperate to "prove" its standing with the people. To that end, they will use force and trickery to produce a huge voter turnout. They will compel all government employees and all military personnel to go to the polls, and they will spread rumors (if you don't vote, you'll never get an exit visa; if you don't vote, your family members will be punished, etc.) to bring the unwilling to vote. The mullahs know that many millions of Iranians plan to boycott the elections, in a kind of silent demonstration of contempt.

The trickery has to do with Rafsanjani's grand return to national politics (he is an ex-president). He intends to campaign as the anti-establishment candidate par excellence, and has reportedly connived with Khamenei to prepare a super-reformist image. Rafsanjani intends to run against the Supreme Leader, criticizing the regime's performance on everything from foreign policy (hoping to seduce the West into thinking that he — who has been a key figure in the mullahcracy for decades — will produce the long awaited "opening" to the United States) to the management of the economy. It is unlikely that many Iranians will fall for this; they remember Rafsanjani as one of the most brutal leaders of the vicious crackdown on the student demonstration of the late eighties (a story recounted in shocking detail in the memoirs of the Grand Ayatollah Montazeri), and they are aware of the billions that he and his family have reportedly stashed away in foreign banks and real estate.

All of this is public information, yet we do not hear it from our leaders, and the silence in Washington must be terribly discouraging to the Iranian people. It will get even worse if the Rafsanjani ploy or others that will follow are taken seriously by our diplomats, as they surely will by those Europeans eager to continue to do business in Iran and restrain the United States from pursuing regime change there.

My read on our inexplicable caution toward Iran is simple: they already have a nuclear weapon, perhaps several, and we can't be sure we can take out their capability in a conventional strike.

Otherwise, you'd have to think we'd be much more aggressive toward the terror masters.

A Retorquel Question

Courtesy of Brandon Crocker:

Do many others see the humor of Al Gore preaching to the gathered Michael Moronites at MoveOn.org about the "extremism" of George Bush's judicial nominees, or is this something that can only be appreciated by extremist, right-wing theocrats?

Do the American people want Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, and Barbara Boxer to be the arbiters of what constitute "extremism" and the "mainstream?" I doubt it, but it seems as though the "mainstream" press does. We are witnessing an absurd farce being portrayed as high political drama. Will the Republicans steamroller the embattled Democratic minority that is refusing to back down off its principled defense of the "independence of the judicial system"?

Could be a case of Democratic yourony.

Every Chirld A Wanted Chirld

George Neumayr nails it again.

Ah, I can hear Jocelyn Elder's drawl now:

The every-child-a-wanted-child sloganeers ludicrously promised a culture of greater sensitivity to children. What it actually produced was a culture of habitual cruelty toward children, mainstreaming abuse against them, starting in the womb, and implicitly conferred upon parents a right to abuse or neglect children who didn't live up to expectations or proved inconvenient in some way. That child abuse rates climbed after the legalization of abortion is no accident. According to pro-life writer Karen Gordon, after "New York legalized abortion in 1968, it experienced a rise in child abuse of 44% per year. Washington state legalized abortion in 1970. Within 28 months, incidents of child abuse in Seattle, its largest city, rose 379%."

If unwanted children could be abused before birth, why not afterwards too? One child abuse expert, Philip Ney, had the guts to say that in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry in 1979: "When we are so careful not to tamper with the delicate balances of plant and animal ecology, one wonders why we do not at least study the far-reaching effects that killing unborn infants may be having on the human species. We may have disrupted a very delicate balance....The abortion of unborn infants may diminish the value of all children. When the destruction of the unborn is socially sanctioned and even applauded, children cannot have much value."

The every-child-a-wanted-child concept elevated the rejection of imperfect children to an enlightened choice, and pumped life into a discredited eugenics movement. That eugenics drive has brought American society to the threshold of the total eugenics of designer children. Germline genetic engineering, which allows scientists to manipulate the genes of an embryo, has begun, and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), which gives scientists the power to select the most desirable embryos for in vitro fertilization, is becoming more common.

Funny how often the Left has to resort to slogans and euphemisms to get ordinary people to adopt its hideous and dehumanizing policies.

Oh! The Humanity!

So sorry to do this to you all... especially if you're trying to get work done. But this site is so chock full of time-wasting, 80's arcade goodness -- I just had to.

You can play Frogger, Donkey Kong, Asteroids, Pac Man, Moon Patrol, Space Invaders, Pong and Tetris.

Sorry.

BlogRoll: Ankle-Biting Pundits

In the beginning, there was Crush Kerry. And it was good.

Once John Kerry was headed to that special hell reserved for power-mad, press-buttered liberal anachronisms once they've lost a presidential election, and Crush Kerry had served its noble purpose, it was given a Viking funeral. Ankle-Biting Pundits arose from the ashes.

Patrick Hynes and Bulldog Pundit dish up Atkin's Diet-friendly, snarky, policulti commentary meaty enough to sink your incisors into without 'em touching.

If The Drudge Report were really a blog, this is probably the kind of blog it would be. Or the kind of blog it wished it was, anyway.

So with a heave, and a ho,
To the BlogRoll it will go!

If PBS Doesn't Spout Leftist Propaganda, Who Will?

George Neumayr rips PBS a new one:

PBS is a government subsidy for obnoxious, deep-pocketed progressives and a jobs program for liberal journalists. But the New York Times' story targeting Kenneth Tomlinson, the Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, suggests that the left is losing its grip on PBS and getting pretty worried about it. The Times story -- titled "Republican Chairman Exerts Pressure on PBS, Alleging Biases" -- reads like a press release from the office of Bill Moyers.

And that's just the opening paragraph.

Lead, Follow, Or Get Out of the Way

Finally, some positive movement on left lane squatters:

In at least two states -- Colorado and Florida -- cops are beginning to target drivers who squat in the far left lane and refuse to move right to let faster-moving traffic get by. For decades, these drivers have been allowed to create rolling roadblocks and interrupt the smooth (and therefore safe) flow of traffic with virtual impunity because "failure to yield" laws were either not on the books -- or not enforced. And twenty-plus years of dumbed-down, politicized "driver's education" and "safety" campaigns had effectively propagandized the populace into believing there was only one cardinal sin -- "speeding."

And so the focus of traffic "safety" enforcement was speed limit laws -- which of course were often ridiculous (the best example being the 55-mph National Maximum Speed Limit that Congress finally repealed in 1995). But these under-posted, artificially low speed limits were found to be very useful in terms of generating an unforeseen flow of easy money for state and local governments -- who soon became addicted. And it was so much easier for traffic cops to simply shoot fish in a barrel with their radar guns -- because almost every car on the road was going faster than the absurdly low posted limits.

Much easier than actually looking for dangerous drivers, anyhow.

This is finally changing, though.

Speed doesn't kill---speed differentials kill.

'You Serious, Clark?

If you give Randy Quaid five bucks, he'll read your palm:




You know, I find that not enough men take ownership of maternity smocks. So well done, Randy. Well done. (For an extra $5, do you do Tarot?)

Hat Tip: Go Fug Yourself

Terri Schiavo's Final Hours

First hand account from, Fr. Frank Pavone, the Priest who was at her bedside before, during, and after her death.

Hat Tip: Wittenberg Gate

The Vagina Monologues: Interesting Twist

Christina Hoff Sommers over at NRO, has the double standard, well, nailed.

Warning:The following contains adult (in this case, collegiate) language, along with gratuitous references to male and female genitalia.

College administrators have been enthusiastic supporters Eve Ensler’s play The Vagina Monologues and schools across the nation celebrate “V-Day” (short for Vagina Day) every year. But when the College Republicans at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island rained on the celebrations of V-Day by inaugurating Penis Day and staging a satire called The Penis Monologues, the official reaction was horror. Two participating students, Monique Stuart and Andy Mainiero, have just received sharp letters of reprimand and have been placed on probation by the Office of Judicial Affairs. The costume of the P-Day “mascot” — a friendly looking “penis” named Testaclese, has been confiscated and is under lock and key in the office of the assistant dean of student affairs, John King.


The P-Day satirists are the first to admit that their initiative is tasteless and crude. But they rightly point out that V-Day is far more extreme. They are shocked that the administration has come down hard on their good-natured spoof, when all along it has been completely accommodating to the in-your-face vulgarity of the vagina activists.

V-Day has now replaced Valentine’s Day on more than 500 college campuses (including Catholic ones). The high point of the day is a performance of Ensler’s raunchy play, which consists of various women talking in graphic, and I mean graphic, terms about their intimate anatomy. The play is poisonously anti-male. Its only romantic scene, if you can call it that, takes place when a 24-year-old woman seduces a young girl (in the original version she was 13 years old, but in a more recent version is played as a 16-year-old.) The woman invites the girl into her car, takes her to her house, plies her with vodka, and seduces her. What might seem like a scene from a public-service kidnapping-prevention video shown to schoolchildren becomes, in Ensler’s play “a kind of heaven.”

The week before V-Day, the Roger Williams campus was plastered with flyers emblazoned with slogans such as “My Vagina is Flirty” and “My Vagina is Huggable.” There was a widely publicized “orgasm workshop.” On the day of the play, the V-warriors sold lollipops in the in the shape of–-guess what? Last year, the student union was flooded with questionnaires asking unsuspecting students questions like “What does your Vagina smell like?” None of this offended the administration or elicited any reprimands, probations, or confiscations.

The campus conservatives artfully (in the college sense of "artful") mimicked the V-Day campaign. They papered the school with flyers that said, “My penis is majestic” and “My penis is hilarious.” The caption on one handout read, “My Penis is studious.” It showed Testaclese reclining on a couch reading Michael Barone’s Hard America, Soft America.

“Testaclese” tipped the scales when he approached the university Provost, Edward J. Kavanagh, outside the student union. Apparently taking him/it for a giant mushroom, Provost Kavanagh cheerfully greeted him. But when Testaclese presented him with an honorary award as a campus “Penis Warrior,” the stunned official realized that it was no mushroom. After this incident, which was recorded on videotape, the promoters of P-Day were ordered to cease circulating their flyers and to keep Testaclese off campus grounds. Mindful of how school officers had never once protested any of the antics of Vagina warriors, the P-warriors did not comply. The Testaclese costume was then confiscated and formal charges followed.

It is easy to understand why school officials would not want a six-foot phallus wandering around campus; nor why they would ask students not to paper the college with posters describing all the things it likes to do. But that is just the sort of thing the vagina warriors have been doing, year after year, on hundreds of campuses. In fact, P-Day at Roger Williams was mild by comparison. Wesleyan College hosted a “C***” workshop; Penn State held a “C***”-fest. At Arizona State, students displayed a 40-foot inflatable plastic vagina. It was not confiscated and no one was ever threatened with probation.

Unhappily, P-Day may be the only effective means of countering V-Day with all its c-fests, graphic lollipops, intrusive questionnaires, outsized effigies of vaginas and its thematic anti-male play. The prospect of public readings from P-Monologues on campuses around the country just might be the reductio ad absurdum that could drive the vagina warriors to the bargaining table. The student activists opposed to V-Day will gladly cancel P-Day the moment the V-warriors abandon their vagina–fests.

But for the short term, college administrators should brace themselves. The rebels at Roger Williams are talking about a Free Testaclese Fund. And word is spreading to other campuses. P-Day and Testaclese will be back next year. And not just in Rhode Island.

Hat tip: The Anchoress

Another Lefty Monument Falls

Finally, Republicans get over their fear of Big Bird and begin to reform another left-wing bastion built upon your tax dollars:

Mr. Tomlinson said that he was striving for balance and had no desire to impose a political point of view on programming, explaining that his efforts are intended to help public broadcasting distinguish itself in a 500-channel universe and gain financial and political support.

"My goal here is to see programming that satisfies a broad constituency," he said, adding, "I'm not after removing shows or tampering internally with shows."

But he has repeatedly criticized public television programs as too liberal overall, and said in the interview, "I frankly feel at PBS headquarters there is a tone deafness to issues of tone and balance."

It would be better to simply destroy it. Let the pampered liberals pay for their vanity channel themselves.

The Story Behind the State Department Terrorist Stats Fiasco

More reasons why Foggy Bottom shouldn't be trusted with anything more serious than inviting foreign leaders to dinner parties:

Last Wednesday, April 27, to explain the dissemination of the statistical breakdown, the agencies wisely dispatched two very able and accomplished officials: State’s top lawyer, Philip Zelikow, and the interim director of NCTC, John Brennan. Before coming to State this year, Zelikow was the top investigator for the 9/11 Commission. One of the commission’s chief recommendations was the creation of NCTC, and that proposal was adopted by statute when Congress overhauled the intelligence community in December 2004.

This is germane for several reasons. By law, the primary mission of the NCTC is to be the government’s “shared knowledge bank on known and suspected terrorists and international terror groups[.]” That means, as a practical matter, that the NCTC, not the State Department, ought to be doing things like compiling annual reports on global terrorism. But there’s a problem. The law by which Congress has for several years required an annual report dictates that the report is State’s responsibility — which may have made sense before there was an NCTC but doesn’t now.

The Bush administration was an early enthusiast for the NCTC. The president actually created it by executive order in August 2004, four months before Congress enacted it. Moreover, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s recruitment of Zelikow signaled that State would be committed to seeing that NCTC functioned as envisioned. This called for bifurcating the report: State would do what it was minimally required to do in making the report to Congress, but the data now belonged to the NCTC, and it would be primarily responsible for how that would be released.

Why couldn’t they get their act together last week? The best explanation appears to be a web of transition. Although the NCTC established in the president’s executive order was essentially the same NCTC codified by the intelligence reform bill, there was a significant chain-of-command difference. Under the former, NCTC reported to the CIA director; under the latter, it reports to the newly created Director of National Intelligence (DNI) — another recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. Unfortunately, although John Negroponte’s nomination to fill that post has long been known, there was no DNI until April 21 when he was finally confirmed and sworn in.

Time To Stop Playing "Small Ball"

Bush needs to move on judges, now:

It is time for George W. Bush to call on those who owe a service to him. When John McCain came to the president and sought “justice” from the political insults of his enemies, Don Presidente granted his request and signed McCain-Feingold into law, despite his serious reservations with its legality. When Arlen Specter sought protection from the slights of his fellow Republicans, Don Presidente stepped into the Republican Senate primary in Pennsylvania and backed Specter over his more conservative challenger, Pat Toomey, drawing the howls of Bush’s most ardent supporters. Many others have called on the kindness of the president for similar political favors, not to be disappointed. Early in his tenure as capo, he even reached out to the other families, appointing two of President Clinton’s holdover nominees to the federal courts of appeals.


And what does he have to show for these acts of kindness? Very little. Languishing in the Senate for the last four years are a group of highly qualified, top-notch nominees to the federal court, supported by a majority of U.S. senators but unable to receive an up-or-down vote. Fueled by ultra-liberal interest groups like Moveon.org and People for the American Way, Democrats have successfully blocked the majority of the Senate from exercising one of its most important constitutional functions, advising on and consenting to the president’s nominees to the federal court. Using the filibuster, a procedural device never before used to block a judicial nominee who would otherwise be confirmed by the Senate, Democrats in the Senate have prevented nearly 1/3 of the president’s nominees to the U.S. Courts of Appeals, the prestigious courts that sit in review of lower-court judgments. Because of obstruction by Democrats, President Bush has been the victim of the lowest confirmation rate for appellate-court judges in modern history.

Who Killed the Kennedys? After All, It Was Ted and Bob

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., feeble-minded nutjob:

America is misinformed, Kennedy maintains, because “right-wing” pundits and conservative media outlets “twist the news and deliberately deceive the public to advance their radical agenda,” while major media outlets sit silently complacent. No part of the mainstream media exposed “President Bush’s calamitous lies about Iraq, the budget, Medicare, education, and the environment,” he complains. The major networks failed to cover “real issues” during the campaign and — horror of horrors — Bob Schieffer asked no questions about the environment in the final debate.

Kennedy laments the "post-election decision to retire Dan Rather,” yet makes no mention of the overzealous anti-Bush “investigations” that led to Rather’s demise. Presumably Kennedy found Rather’s coverage of Bush’s National Guard Service a model of objectivity and balance.

Kennedy complains of a dearth of “strong progressive voices” on radio and TV, even though he’s a regular of the talk-show circuit. Kennedy repeatedly attacked the Bush administration during the 2004 campaign on everything from NPR to Fox News, often without challenge, let alone a contrasting view. Ironically he also calls for reviving the “Fairness Doctrine” in broadcast media, without considering that this would end his own free ride in major media outlets.

There is no liberal media bias in Kennedy’s view, but rather “lockstep coordination among right-wing political operatives and the press.” The mainstream media is too concerned with the bottom line to finance investigative reporting while “radical ideologues, faced with Niagara-sized flows of money . . . bombard the media with carefully honed messages justifying corporate profit-taking." Relying on Media Matters’s David Brock, Kennedy’s tale turns somewhat conspiratorial. Kennedy writes of a “propaganda machine” that “orchestrate[d] Clinton’s impeachment” and largely dictates the public agenda. The Washington Times is not just a conservative newspaper, but a key element in a plot to “establish America as a Fascist theocracy.” At stake, Kennedy warns, is nothing less than “democracy’s survival.”

This is why the estate tax is unnecessary: the blood of the aristocracy thins and corrupts over time, leading to finances being controlled by the terminally daft like RFK Jr. Let him blow his money saving Mississippi mud ducks and building solar power farms far from where they might offend his sight. The Kennedys have lost their juice, and their days ruling the roost in the Bay State kleptocracy are nearing their long-awaited end. Time pays all debts.

Boris Badenov Does It Again

Jed Babbin's got it exactly right.

Repeat after me, kids---Vladimir Putin is NOT our ally:

CAN ANYONE BELIEVE IT a coincidence that while Putin is allying Russia with both Iran and Syria, those two nations are more or less formalizing the Axis of Evil? Last February, Iranian veep Mohammad Reza Aref said Iran and Syria were forming a "common front." He said, "We are ready to help Syria on all grounds to confront threats." Syria's principal threats are Israel and America, and so they will remain as long as Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism. That the two terrorist states are allying more formally, with Russia playing the third-party co-conspirator, should send chills up every spine in western Europe. The last time this happened, Stalin was signing up to play second violin to Hitler.

While this is going on, Putin is also offering to train "security services" among the Palestinians and selling them helicopters and communications equipment. Unmentioned in Putin's trip to Israel last week were the armored personnel carriers he was also offering the Palestinians. It seems Mr. Bush's pal is eagerly seeking to restore Russian influence in the Middle East, but not in the interests of countering terrorism: only countering America.

In addition to the ongoing support for our enemies in the Middle East, who, despite the lunatic claims of the Left, are firing Soviet-made weapons at our troops, not American ones, Putin has recently tried to assassinate the man who eventually became president of Ukraine, has interfered in the politics of Georgia and Kurgistan, and has extolled the virtues of the former Soviet Empire.

The storm clouds gather. Are we prepared for the rain to come?

Attack of the Killer Dummocrats

Love this blog, just for the sheer genius of their name. Wish I'd thought of it. Guess it goes both ways, they made us their Blog Showcase for today.
Thanks, Dummocrats!

Inane Church Billboard of the Week

"TITHE IF YOU LOVE JESUS; ANYONE CAN HONK!"

I swear to you, a church near my house proclaims this on their outdoor placard. Because that's how we prove we love Christ. Uh-huh.

Mark 12:28-34:
28 One of the teachers of the law came and... asked [Jesus], "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"

29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' 31 The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

32 "Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."

34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God."
And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.

Oh, yeah and tithe. Tithe, tithe, tithe. Nothing more important than tithing. Nothing. Tithe. How is God going to bless you unless you tithe? Hmmmm?

A little brunette seeker raises her hand, "Um, Pastor... do we tithe off our net or tithe off our gross?"

"Well, do you want a net blessing or a gross blessing?!"

Tithe. That's what it's all about, Tithing. This silly business of loving people and helping the hurting in the name of Jesus Christ? Pah. A mere pittance. What the world really needs is cash. Bread. Dinero. Bigger buildings. Larger edifices in memoriam to tithing. Larger halls packed with people. C'mon. Tithe. Let us wet our beaks a little. Tithe.

You don't have money to pay your power bill? Don't worry. God will provide. Tithe. You have to give to us first so God will know you love Him. Write a check. We need another rug for the Welcome Center. Tithe. Pastor needs a new suit. Those people starving in Cambodia? They get the money you have left over after you give us your tithe. You know, what you have left after you tithe off your gross, the value of birthday presents, exactly 10% of the value of any gift certificates you may have received, the random money someone gave you for gas last week, that penny you found on the ground. Tithe. That's where it's at. Tithe.

Matthew 23:1-24 --

1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

5 "Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

8 "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

13 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

15 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

16 "Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' 17 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18 You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.' 19 You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22 And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.

23 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices -- mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law -- justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

I'm still crying in the wilderness, wondering when the Church is going to hear me. Wondering where my safe place is. Wondering where I can go to worship that is honest, strong in faith, seeking, growing, loving and right smack-dab in the middle of the Kingdom of God. I don't want perfection, just a church that gets it.

I haven't been to church in 3 weeks. Why? Because the church that I and my fiance (MF) have been attending thinks it's more important to raise money in the pulpit than to praise the Giver of all Good Gifts. I don't go to church for that. I don't even go to corporate events for that. My worship time is precious to me. Why waste it?

But I admit, I am starting to feel irritable, uneasy, frustrated, teary. I miss my Jesus time. And I know I can tap in to that anytime I want to on my own, but Sunday services are special. It's the act of checking in with the rest of the Body; doing worship together; Being of one accord. And church has the added advantage of bringing things to the table that I can't. The music, the liturgy, the sermon, the prayer requests, the unity. But I don't feel unified with my church. I don't know if I ever will again. How can they let this go on, all smiling and glossy, and expect me to support them in other areas? It clouds the whole thing. What I'm left with is a sense of the church as a Christian country club, not a house of worship. Meanwhile, I'm huddled up crying, shaking my fist at the sand.

And yes, we did finally meet with a member of the Pastoral staff regarding our concerns. He was very helpful and sweet. And reading between the lines, one could come away with the sense that he was telling us, "Yeah, don't worry about it. It'll be over soon. It's bugging everybody." The only "answers" he had were that our denomination is at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to giving monetarily and that the number of people who actually tithe is about one handful, give or take. You wouldn't know it, judging by the facilities. That money has got to come from somewhere, right?

Anyway... *deep sigh* I'm still in the Wilderness, indefinitely, wandering around, doing my thing, hoping God approves of it. I've equated church attendance with holiness, being a good girl, and the like. Missing it has me worn down. Maybe that's what's going on. Maybe at the bottom of this wringing-out of legalism, I'll find what God wants to tell me. Maybe...

Maybe I'm just a heathen who needs to get on board with the cardboard, plastic, one-size-fits-all church.

Oh, and tithe.

The Rise and Fall of the Liberal Catholic University

The Anchoress is feeling a bit under the weather (our prayers are with her) but she still managed to slog through pneumonia to bring us a tasty bit of news about a not-so-Catholic school that has been called out for being just that.

Amen, Anchoress. You're absolutely right. When the maxims of Christianity are loosened, the Gospel itself is tarnished. In the meantime lovers and seekers of Christ are frustrated and exhausted at the prospect of finding a safe place to grow. Good thing the new Pope realizes this. Good thing traditional religious universities are holding fast to the Creed. *smirk* And which institutions are experiencing the biggest influx of parishioners and students again?

Comic Cover of the Week: Matador # 1

No clue as to what this is about, but the cover sure grabs me.

50 Most Beautiful People My....

Well, it's that time of year again.

People Magazine has released it's list of the 50 Most Beautiful People and somehow I got passed over yet again this year.

Here's their list with my commentary:

• Jessica Alba - how many nations' collagen production capacity was diverted to give her Mick Jagger lips?
• Jennifer Aniston - If she's so beautiful why is Brad chasing down skankalicious brother-nosher Angelina Jolie? Smokes like a chimney, looks about as much fun as a colonoscopy.
• Drew Barrymore - Tatted up trollops turn on the trailer trash.
• Mischa Barton - She looks like a Japanese cartoon character's Pez dispenser.
• David Beckham, International soccer star - Only beautiful if a middle-aged Vanilla Ice impersonator floats your boat.
• Halle Berry - Sorry, but everytime I see her I think of her rolling around on a couch with Billy Bob Thornton screaming, "Make me feel good! Make me feel....good!"
• Orlando Bloom - Looks like a fourteen-year-old whose dad hasn't bought a razor for.
• Penelope Cruz - Those deep brown eyes behind which lies utter vacuum.
• Patrick Dempsey, Grey's Anatomy - Is this Hugh Grant and Nic Cage's love child? I haven't seen a look this hangdog since John Kerry realized all that time he spent face-up in the crack of Newsweek reporters didn't seal the presidential deal after all.
• Johnny Depp - Looks like a botoxed Keith Richards.
• Hilary Duff - About as attractive as a 70s porn star, minus the novelty
• Sara Evans, Country singer - Vince Vaughn in drag
• Colin Farrell - So that's what l'il Eddie Munster looks like all growed up
• Jamie Foxx - I get the idea he tells his barber, "Just give me what Usher ordered, only shorter."
• Tim Green, former NFL star and best-selling author - So having Chris Isaac's hair is sufficient to make this list?
• Mariska Hargitay, Law & Order: SVU - All that plastic surgery to look like the ugliest member of a boy band?
• Tyler Hilton, One Tree Hill - Well, at least we know who's watching Jim Traficant's toupee while he's in prison.
• Josh Holloway, Lost - Is he auditioning for Children of the Rainbow's version of "Bride of Frankenstein"?
• Scarlett Johansson - If her lips get any bigger she'll be talking like Mushmouth from The Cosby Kids
• Angelina Jolie - Ditto, plus tats. That's "tats."
• Juanes, Colombian musician - Have he and Jennifer Connelly ever been seen in the same room together?
• Alicia Keys - Well, okay, I'll give them this one.
• Heidi Klum - I suppose this isn't the 50 Smartest People....
• Jude Law - Remember those kitschy gay sailor ads from the 90s? Law's groomer does.
• Lindsay Lohan - Lohan compares herself to Ann Margaret. Ann Margaret did not look like a telephone pole to which 2 basketballs had been fastened.
• Eva Mendes, Hitch - Like J-Lo minus the junk in the trunk. Why not just put J-Lo on the list?
• Jesse Metcalfe, Desperate Housewives - Carson Daly's brooding older brother? You've gotta be kidding me.
• Sienna Miller, Alfie - Built like a tire pressure gauge.
• Catalina Sandino Moreno, Maria Full of Grace - C'mon, admit it---the dude from "The Crying Game" was prettier.
• Sandra Oh, Sideways, Grey's Anatomy - Include Oh but not the much finer (and badass) Michelle Yeoh? You've GOT to be kidding me. Oh's a Yeoh wannabe, no?
• Sophie Okonedo, Hotel Rwanda - Oh, my....mmm hmmmmm.
• Clive Owen, Sin City, Closer - Looks exactly like every middle-aged pasty white boy who whines to his pedicurist about how stressful and demanding his life is.
• Tyler Perry, Diary of a Mad Black Woman author - Writers aren't pretty. If they were, they wouldn't have any spiteful things to write about those who are.
• Brad Pitt - Admit it---doesn't he really look like the dude who rings up your slurpee at the Kwik-E-Mart?
• Julia Roberts - When Eric Roberts is the pretty one in the family, you're automatically excluded from consideration for this list
• Seal - Great singer, but if Bill Murray's acne keeps him off this list, oughtn't the enormous scars do the same for seal? Or is this 50 Best Abs?
• Maria Sharapova, Russian tennis player - I hadn't noticed her looks---I focus on her tennis skill.
• Jessica Simpson - More plastic in her than a Hyundai.
• Elizabeth Smart, Utah teen - Umm, all things considered, wouldn't it be better NOT to call attention to her beauty?
• Martha Stewart - She wasn't even one of the 50 most beautiful female prisoners, yo.
• Hilary Swank - Shouldn't winning an Oscar playing a convincing boy disqualify you from this contest?
• Usher - Tells his barber, "Just give me what Moe Howard ordered, only shorter."
• Dwyane Wade, Miami Heat basketball player - If you model your facial hair grooming on that one guy from The Smithereens, you're not beautiful. Period.
• Oprah Winfrey - She must be tipping the scales again for People to throw her this bone.
• Kate Winslet - One of the few Hollywood actresses to not look like a prepubescent boy, but I'm not sure that makes you a Top 50 looker.
• Ziyi Zhang, House of Flying Daggers - I would master every Chinese dialect plus learn kung fu just for the privilege of picking up the steaming poo her dog laid down while she walked it. That's how hot she is.

Wonder Why the L.A. Times Circulation Is Down?

Could be because they've taken to manipulating the news to undermine America's position in the War on Terror.