Thursday, September 30, 2004

I've been saying this for a long time

The act of voting is, statistically speaking, an irrational act. Amazingly, the problem of collective action that plagues so many other attempts to mobilize large numbers of people has not destroyed democracy, notwithstanding sub-50% turnout.

Scare tactics

So the Kerry campaign has decided to accuse the Bush team of "scaring people" with the war on terror.

Note to Kerry: the war on terror--and the jihad that has been declared against us--IS scary, and IS real.

Meanwhile, Cameron Diaz appears on Oprah to encourage mind-controlled, shrieking, loser, fat women with low self esteem to register to vote. Why, they ask, should we vote? "If you think rape should be legal," Diaz reasons, "then don't vote." Wha.....? (Obviously, of course, she wanted to talk about abortion, but that's not the point. I'm also embarrassed to say that I was watching when she said it (the Plaintiff made me) and we both just looked at each other with mouths agape. Surely, she helped Bush with that absurd comment.)

And meanwhile, Kerry surrogates suggest that Bush is considering bringing back the draft if re-elected. Once again--wha........? I mean, how can they get away with suggesting this kind of stuff, especially after Cheney got skewered for suggesting that a Kerry presidency would leave America more vulnerable to a terrorist attack (and when taken in context, Cheney's comments weren't nearly so controversial).

Reminds me of when I was teaching 7th grade, talking about the possible war in Iraq with the kids, and one of my black students asked, "Is it true that Bush wants to make us all slaves again?" And this is not to mention the "Medi-scare"/SS fear campaigns the Dems run every election to scare the elderly away from Republican candidates.

But Bush is the one scaring people about, you know, airplanes flying into buildings, trains blowing up, and schoolchildren being massacred. Because, you know, none of that stuff has actually happened.

Urine a lot of Trouble, Kerry

I thought twice about posting this, seeing as how we have one of the most widely-read and credible blogs on the internet, but I decided it was too funny to pass up.

The latest rumor on the Kerry front is that Hanoi Kerry peepeed on an American flag after returning from Vietnam--and the best part: there are pictures. Sure, the revelation of this act of treason will do considerable damage to Kerry's campaign, but even more devastating will be the confirmation of his undoubtedly small weiner.

Apparently, the charges were first made by a caller on Hannity's radio show last night.


For you aspiring lawyers...

I've done the math and, based on working hours, I'm actually making a little less than I would be wearing a hairnet at Subway.

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

Truly a badass

Christopher Hitchens is maybe the baddest writer around. Here he manhandles The Nation, which is the literary hub from which all the psychobabble/anti-American sentiment emanates. I have ceased to be amazed by the growing degrees of drivel that comes from the Left, but the headline of the article Hitchens eviscerates ("Bring Najaf to New York") is appalling.

What will happen to these people in five weeks? Will they split from the Democrats and form their own party? After an election in which they get trounced by running a semi-hawkish candidate (relatively speaking, of course, when you consider the primary season continuum of Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich), will the party shift even farther to the left? I wonder if Bill Clinton will try to take the reins of the party again and steer the ship back on course, but then that raises the question of will anyone listen to him, or will the indignant outrage of the party's base be too much for even him to quell?

Thoughts? Predictions?

I'm Rubber and You're Glue...

For the lamest comeback of the political season, hit the link.

CBS hasn't learned

Here they go with a draft story. Nevermind that Rumsfeld got in trouble earlier when he talked about how detrimental drafted soldier would be to our troops, nevermind how many times Bush has denied any intention of instituting a draft. I guess since John Kerry said we'd have one, then we will.

Tuesday, September 28, 2004


Hugh Hewitt has a nice post on partisanship, and even takes a nice dig at Tucker Carlson (Hewitt notes that Carlson gets "kicked around the stage on every single Crossfire" by Begala and Carville - and I couldn't agree more). He also takes issue with how Andrew Sullivan & Co. regard "partisans" as repulsive creatures.

Also, the link I posted above doesn't take you directly to the post it is supposed to, so scroll down the page until you get to the 6:20 AM post from today (Tuesday). Also, check out the item on Sara Lister, a former Assistant Secretary for Defense under Clinton. Her comments about Marines, which promptly garnered her resignation, are what the Clinton, hippie, Michael Moore-left actually think about our armed forces. They are repulsed by the idea of fighting (in their minds, slavishly and foolishly) for - well, pretty much anything. Unfortunately, Lister forgot that you can't be publicly anti-Marines and still hope to have a job at the Pentagon.

Hitchens is at it again

The fact that we graduated from college...

is more impressive when you consider the utter stupidity that surrounded us during our formative years.

Woman calls authorities after drug deal goes bad

By Bernie Delinski Staff Writer

SHEFFIELD -- It's getting to the point where a crack cocaine user can't even trust her dealer these days.

Police received a call around 3:30 a.m. Monday to respond to a theft complaint at a 14th Avenue residence.

They arrived to find a 48-year-old woman, who told them someone had just stolen $8 from her, according to a Sheffield police report. The report lists the complainant's name as Eloise Davis.

The woman told officers she had gone to the suspect's home to purchase crack cocaine, the report states.

Police said she told them she doesn't know the man's name but would recognize him if she saw him again.

The woman told officers she told the man she was there to purchase crack, according to police. The police report states the man went back inside the residence, and returned a few moments later with a substance she described to officers as "a piece of Sheetrock."

She confronted the man about the bogus crack, at which point the man grabbed the $8 from her and ran back into the residence, according to the report.

That left her standing outside, with no money and no crack.

Upset about the theft and failure to successfully make the drug deal, she called Sheffield police and complained. Police arrived and wrote an incident report on the matter.

No arrests have been made in the case, Sheffield police Capt. Greg Ray said.

"Obviously, this case is still under investigation," he said.

Monday, September 27, 2004

Autumn in Charlottesville

Ah, yes...the crisp autumn air...the vibrant orange and red leaves...and the privilege of hearing the Redskins radio broadcast every week.

These guys register in the solid 80s on the Unintentional Comedy Ratings.

Kerry & The Big Lebowski

This is spectacular. Scroll down the page I linked to (or read the whole thing - there are some good articles on there too) and you'll find a nice comparison between Kerry and Walter, John Goodman's character, in "The Big Lebowski." Hysterical.

Kobe's accuser is pregnant

"Tha baby daddy" is a guy she met in drug rehab. Classy, huh?

The more that comes out about this case, the more it is apparent that this girl is looney-tunes, pure and simple. I understand that even crazy girls can be raped, but at some point, particularly as it pertains to the sexual history of the defendant, isn't it Kobe's right to point out that she obviously has loose morals and is easy to get into bed? I mean, particularly when she had sex the day after the purported rape, doesn't that indicate anything?

The only reason I mention this is that I had a conversation with my dad a couple weekends ago, and he thinks this girl got the short end of the stick in court. I couldn't have disagreed more - if anything, from what I knew about the case, she was lucky it got this far.

I'd welcome comments here, particularly from lawyers and future lawyers.

Sunday, September 26, 2004

The boys at Powerline

are doing some heavy-lifting when it comes to exposing the MSM. Here are just a couple of their efforts from today.

-Jennifer Lowen, an AP reporter, borrowed some of her husband's (who is an advisor for Kerry) words when describing a Bush initiative

-Deacon obliterates David Broder's column from today, which makes the absurd claim that alternative media (cable news and blogs) were responsible for Dan Rather's collapse

Check it out. It's worth a quick read.

Funny happenings

I had a rousing editorial board meeting today. There's a ton of stuff I have to do tonight, so let me just provide you all with a quick recap.

You might remember the one guy I mentioned earlier who said that he felt the media was giving Bush a free pass on his National Guard service (in spite, of course, of the fact that this was covered in 2000, in July of this year, and then was brought up again with the CBS scandal). Well, this kid is a fountain of ignorance. Today he asserted that the comments made by Armitage, that terrorists in Iraq want Bush to lose the election, was dirty politics. When I pointed out that Michael Moore and Richard Clarke both had said 9/11 had occured on Bush's watch, and that these two gentlemen were Kerry's attack dogs, he then said: (1) Michael Moore never said 9/11 was Bush's fault; and (2) that Michael Moore wasn't a Kerry attack dog.

I don't think I need to add anything here, but everyone else please feel free to.

Saturday, September 25, 2004

Saw Barbara Bush...

at the bar tonight. She definitely looked at me a few times, as I contemplated approaching her. Still kicking myself for not talking to her. Didn't want to be that guy, but cool to see her out nonetheless.

Thursday, September 23, 2004

Note to future lawyers

If you really need to pay back those loans, maybe you should contact this girl.

Victor Hansen on the UN

This is my favorite writer, and I believe one of Tortfeasor's as well. In this column, he takes the UN to task for. . . well, just about everything.

Check out Football Fans for Truth

They've got some funny stuff up.

The mythical Nader effect

These polls reflect what I've suspected for a long time -- the Nader effect that is supposed to help the President is a myth.

Click the link above to see the table of polls, via The bottom line: Bush leads by an average of 5.8% in the head-to-head polls, but only 5.4% in the three-way polls. The trend is reflected in each individual poll as well.

The conventional wisdom, of course, has been that 90% of Nader voters would instead cast their votes for the Democratic candidate if Nader weren't on the ballot. These polls suggest, however, that Nader voters, given a choice only between Rs and Ds, either: a) tend to split their votes fairly evenly between Bush and Nader, or b) do not vote at all.

Remember: a vote for Nader is either a protest vote, or it is a vote cast by the truly irrational person. Nader voters may feel that the Democrats have become too pragmatic and willing to sacrifice core principles for electability; therefore, given the choice between Bush and Kerry, the protest vote, for a Naderite, may be for Bush--in their view, better to vote for the wolf in wolf's clothing than the wolf dressed like a sheep. Nader voters may also realize that it is the Dems, not the Republicans, who have worked to keep their man off the ballot; they may not appreciate the Dems' tactics to try to corral their votes. Again, the protest vote is for Bush -- or to stay home on election day. And finally, Nader voters are overall just weird people whose politics can't make a whole lot of sense -- so who can predict what the hell they'll do?

CBS - DNC coordination?

Check out this timeline. (Via Instapundit.)

Stop what you're doing right now

and go watch the new John Kerry ad. I linked to Bush's campaign site above, and the ad should still be on the homepage tomorrow or the next day. I fell out of my chair laughing at it. Did John Kerry think that windsurfing, not exactly a red-state sport, would be a positive photo-op?

PS. The best part of this is the music. Even in an organic test today, I couldn't stop laughing when I thought of this ad. Priceless.

Wednesday, September 22, 2004

Cups in the NFL

It's a comfort thing and a macho thing, he says. The cups are too bulky and obtrusive for today's player. (As opposed to gonads swollen to the size of grapefruit, which must be a real treat to deal with.) According to Hatfield, no one wants to get teased by Hugh Douglas for, I guess, the outrageous concept of protecting their nards. The ironic jocularity behind that statement is almost unfathomable.

This article is HILARIOUS.

Even Dick Morris. . .

points out how terrible McAuliffe is. The whole article is pretty good (Morris is always an interesting commentator, despite his bizarre sexual/personal habits), but if you're looking for the money quote, scroll down to the last third.

A Jockstrap?

Everyone HAS to read this.

Now that we know, how many times has it happened?

Like the husband who catches his wife cheating, it's time to ask the next logical question: how long has this been going on?


But they didn't. And I've said this before, but it bears repeating: don't fool yourself believing that this is the first time this has happened. Come on. If you have watched "60 Minutes" then you are familiar with that feeling you have at the end of a segment, when you think to yourself: "Wow, everything seems to point to one conclusion." You thought that was because everything really did point to one conclusion?

Tuesday, September 21, 2004

Kitty Kelley humbled

Some of you may have seen this on The Corner tonight, but if not, read this review of Kitty Kelley's book. It's a devastating critique, delivered with the biting sarcasm that any good review of this book deserves.

Rather is a nutbag

Everyone probably guessed this, simply by his bizarre refusal to back down in the Memogate saga, but this article sheds a little more light into "Gunga Dan."

Pretty funny stuff.

Daschle v. Thune

Here's an interesting piece on the trouble that Tom Daschle now finds himself in up here in South Dakota. I'm not sure how much help the RNC or Republican Senatorial Committee is giving to Thune, but by all accounts I've read, it would be money well-spent.

It also seems that Daschle is one of the seedier politicians out in DC. It's one thing to implicitly admit some sort of big-city sleaze via your public lifestyle (Torricelli, who lived the fast life of models and expensive hotels, is a good example) but it's another to represent yourself as a populist when you're really not. It's been noted in several newspaper articles I've read, but Daschle's wife is a big lobbyist (with energy companies, I believe) and seems to traffic exclusively off her husband's job as a Senator. If there isn't a more despicable yet legal exploitation of democracy, then I don't know what is.

Anyone out there?

Quiet couple of days in these here parts. Not that I did much to change it. . .

Monday, September 20, 2004

Give it up, Terry

I mentioned some of this in my column from last week, but it has now been cemented in my mind that Terry McAuliffe is the worst party head in the history of the world. Fresh off the "revelation" that CBS used forged documents to slander the president, McAuliffe decides that his best strategy is to continue attacking Bush on these grounds. Ignore the fact that America decided four years ago that Bush's NG service was irrelevant to his current capacity to command our troops, but my theory is that the Dems' internal polling (and most external polls too, from what I've seen) indicate that national security will be THE issue that defines this election, that most voters place it at the top of their list of concerns above economy, health care, etc. This, to me, seems to be the only logical explanation why McAuliffe would continue this line of attack, even though it is obviously a battle they by all accounts are losing badly.

Of course, the Dems are stuck with a dovish candidate who can't make up his mind about Iraq. I think this liability will be exposed for all America to see in the debates, provided Bush has halfway-decent coaches; one tactic might simply be to recite the laundry list of military funding Kerry has voted against, and then draw the distinction between himself (a strong leader) and Kerry.

At any rate, unless the co-presidents Bill and Hillary step in to bail McAuliffe out, I can't see why he will keep his job. Lost the 2000 election, lost control of the Senate and several House seats in '02, and appears to be losing even more Senate seats (btw: Daschle looks to be falling behind Thune in SD) and the presidency this year. It will be interesting to watch the Democrats respond to another humbling election year - will the party become even more stratified (between hawks and doves) or will they come to their sense and move towards the New Democrat model of post-1994 Clinton?

Sunday, September 19, 2004

Kerry's sister?

First off, if this isn't typical arrogant Kerryism, then I don't know what is. Apparently the syndrome runs in the family. How do you think the Australian people take to being subjected to lectures from an American? (I know, she lived there for a number of years, but she is speaking AT Australians from an outsiders perspective) If anything, I think the Australian people, who aren't some illiterate third-world populace, would be able to deduce their susceptibility to terrorist attacks for themselves, rather than have to hear it from an American living there.

Secondly, if this isn't playing the "politics of fear," which John Edwards works himself into a hissyfit over, then what is? Of course, why don't we ask Russia (both of whom acquiesced mightily to terrorists via obstructing the war in Iraq) if that immunized them from Islamofascists. If I remember correctly, the Breslan tragedy wasn't perpetrated by crazed Christians or Buddhists.

If we're going to have a discussion about terrorism, the war in Iraq, and presidential administrations, then I'm all for it. But to send your sister off to promote fear among the Australians because of their efforts in Iraq, then why can't we discuss whether your administration would make our country more susceptible to attacks?

And finally, what exactly is Kerry's sister's point? Is she trying to convince the Australians to pressure the Australian PM to withdraw troops, and therefore isolate America further in Iraq? What else would be the point of making such an outrageous statement?

This drives me absolutely crazy. I almost wish she was here in the States saying stupid things, though; perhaps she'd be as much of a liability (were she in closer proximity) than the soon-to-implode Theresa (Ter-EZ-a) Heinz.

Brodie out for season

Cecil's thoughts here.

I couldn't disagree more with Cecil on this one. You can't treat a football player, no matter how "franchise" he is, like Cameron's dad treats his Ferrari in Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

Injury happened on the first offensive possession of the second half, after the offense had sputtered in the first half--the 31-0 score was misleading, resulting mainly from costly turnovers by WCU. In fact, at halftime, Bama had only outgained WCU by about 50 yards or so. (I'll check on this.) It made perfect sense, in my opinion, to give Brodie one more possession to feel sharp before Arkansas. As it turns out, the injury occurred on what would have been Brodie's last play of the night.


Saturday, September 18, 2004

Ping-pong Matrix

Pretty damn cool. How long you think it took to put the whole act together?

Deconstructing the "Fox does it too" myth

Stuart Buck deflates the argument that Fox News has been just as guilty as CBS. (Thanks to Tom Maguire of JustOneMinute.)


You know, the first thing I thought when I heard about the "Buckhead" posting that started the Hurricane Dan downfall was Shelley Fulghum, the esteemed girlfriend of Basco, straight out of the ATL. Turns out, the poster really IS from Buckhead. More about him above.

Disclaimer: I have indeed visited the lovely Ms. Fulghum in the ATL (of course, with Basco) and I confess to liking certain parts of the town, namely the ones with attractive girls (which is everywhere in Atlanta, it seems). I especially like how every bar in Buckhead has valets, even the crappy ones. Of course, crappy in Buckhead equals opulent in Iowa City, so I guess it all evens out.

Friday, September 17, 2004

NPR's swing voter?

One has to wonder: how often did this stuff get by before the blogosphere existed?

MR's Weekend Picks

Boston College -7.0 vs. UConn

Kentucky -1.5 vs. Indiana
LSU pk @ Auburn
Clemson pk @ Texas A&M
Over 63 - TCU @ Texas Tech
Florida +3 @ Tennessee (sorry, PTH)

No line on the Bama game, but for the hell of it:

Bama 41
WCU 10

And the Hits Just Keep On Comin'

As if there were any doubt as to the legitimacy (or illegitimacy, as is the case) of the CBS Guard memos, General Staudt--the man who allegedly asked Killian to "sugarcoat" Bush's record--has given an interview to ABC in which he completely refutes the content of the memos. The guys at Power Line have more on this. I guess that doesn't do much for CBS & co.'s newest defense--that, even if the documents aren't original, the spirit of the memos is accurate and that's what we should be focused on. It's been nice knowin' you, Dan. On second thought...

Morris: Kerry plays checkers while Bush plays chess

B-b-b-b-b-b-ut....Bush is so dumb...?

Poll average

Overall average: Bush +5.5.

Bernie Goldberg in WSJ

What we've been saying all along: the source must be more embarrassing than standing by the obvious fakes.

UCR needed!

We need an Unintentional Comedy Rating for the following quote ASAP:

"Sen. Kerry is like Seabiscuit: He runs better from behind," says Donna Brazile, who was Gore's campaign manager.

Do you really want to compare your candidate Kerry, who by all indications could successfully eat an apple through a chain-linked fence, to a racehorse?

So, Sen. Kerry...why the long face? And now that I think about it, he kind of talks like Mr. Ed, with that put-on authoritative tone. Say, "Hello, I'm Mr. Ed," then say, "I'm John Kerry, and I approve this message." Hear it?

(From the USA Today article on the Gallup poll, showing Bush up 55-42.)

UCR: 90.

New column is up

Sex workers: an ignored demographic

I think everyone will probably have the same reaction that I did. I like how in the 6th paragraph, this becomes an issue of workplace rights: Brittany says that "this is an issue on human rights. No one should face assault on the job." Which sort of makes you think that they probably shouldn't be prostitutes then. Or that being a prostitute (like being a drug dealer) comes with certain risks, since your "profession" is illegal.

Which then begs the question of why should the government be forced to offer protection to people whose jobs ARE illegal? I already complained about the slippery slope argument in my earlier post, but I do not see how this would not lead to protection for all sorts of criminals. What if a drug dealer gets money stolen from him? Should he have police protecting him while he does his business, even though his business is illegal? It also becomes an issue of "they had no other choice because they were poor," which is maybe half-true. Undoubtedly, Harvard graduates don't turn to prostitution, but it's not like it's a choice between starving to death because you can't find a job and selling your body on the street. Of course, the only solution in a liberal's mind is more government to rectify the situation, because if there was enough government, we wouldn't have prostitutes. Or crime, for that matter; it'd just be one big nirvana.

Finally, yet again, the terminology gets to me. They're not "sex workers," they're prostitutes. Just like robbers aren't "wealth redistributors," they're "burglars." I recognize that her argument loses a lot of its merit if you start inserting "prostitute" for every reference made to "sex worker," which makes the argument even shabbier.

UPDATE: I just noticed something else. Second paragraph, she says "sex work can be a chosen field. . .but in America we may take this opportunity for granted." Ha! The slobby Americans in their self-absorbed suburbian stupor fail to appreciate the precious advantages this nation offers for hookers! Shame on them! Where is your sense of patriotism??

Of course, the fact that she says "sex work can be a chosen field" then implies that the only reason people choose to prostitute themselves is because of poverty seems to be a massive contradiction, but at this point, who's counting?

Handicapped incident

This story presents an interesting legal question. Well, kind of. First off, I feel sorry for the kid with cerebral palsy, and I would really be upset if Kinnick Stadium didn't have some sort of accomodations set up for him. I think with an event of 80,000 people, there should be some concessions made for disabled folks.

But I don't see how a train that services so few people should have to do the same. First off, it's not as if the train has outlawed handicapped people from riding it - in fact, a number of wheelchair-bound people rode it last weekend. I just don't see why the University should have to spend the large amount of money (I'm assuming that putting in one of those mechanized elevators would not be cheap) to accomodate so few people, particularly when the function of the train (to get to the game) can be handled by the handicapped parking spots right next to the stadium.

I also dislike the victimology parlance being used here: that his son was "demeaned and degraded." Come on, now. Demeaned and degraded means not being served dinner at a restaurant because of your skin color. There has to be some intention to maliciously slight another person before I think something can be categorized as demeaning. It's "inconvenient" that a handicapped person has to make special arrangements to attend sporting events, but it's certainly not demeaning. Also, his claim that the train operators were effectively telling him that his "son isn''t as good as everyone else" is ludicrous.

I guess I see this sort of thing as a slippery slope argument, even though I normally hate that principle. What happens if his son can't reach the counter at the concession stand because he can't stand up? Is that being told you're not good enough? Will the stadium have to provide concession stands for handicapped people, with lowered counters? At some point, it seems like he should stop blaming others for trying to exclude his son.

I admit that a lot of why I'm hot about this is the victim mindset that this guy employs. It really is a tragedy that his kid is confined to a wheelchair, and on an emotional level, the case sure is striking. But on a legal level, should the UI really be held responsible for getting his son to a football game?

I'd welcome some comments here, especially if you think I'm being insensitive.

Thursday, September 16, 2004

Iraq and WMD

Read the headline, then read the article...and then tell me there is not an obvious liberal media bias.

Bob Dole's statement

This is in response to the new MoveOn ads, which show an American soldier walking across the desert, then slowly sinking into quicksand with his hands in the air, while a voiceover talks about Iraq and the quagmire it represents. I've always liked Bob Dole, and this just makes him that much cooler:

“As Chairman of the Bush-Cheney Veterans Coalition, and as a veteran, I call on John Kerry to demand that take down their ad depicting a defeated American soldier.

It’s one thing to debate whether we should take the fight to the terrorists, but depicting an American soldier in effect surrendering in the battle against the terrorists is beyond the pale.

I cannot believe that John Kerry, who reminds us daily of his Vietnam service, would possibly approve the disgusting and demoralizing portrayal of American soldiers fighting for us in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world.

John Kerry has raised doubts about our troops' ability to maintain security as well as Iraqi's ability to decide their own future through elections. He has called the allies in Iraq "window dressing." This is all reminiscent of his appearance before a Senate Committee in 1971 where he suggested with nothing but second hand information American GIs were committing atrocities and war crimes of the worst kind in Vietnam.

This defeatist attitude undermines the great progress and sacrifices of our men and women in the military and the contributions of our allies who are fighting against terror and standing up for freedom around the world.

The politics of pessimism that is being pursued by John Kerry and the extreme liberals demonstrates they are consumed by the past with nothing to offer but attacks on the President's agenda for creating a safer world.

John, say it isn’t so and denounce this latest effort to divide Americans.”

Cool, huh? He's got some good points too. It is one thing to talk about American soldiers, it's another to portray one as giving up in an advertisement. Kerry Spot pointed out that John Kerry isn't in charge of the MoveOn ads, but also that Bush wasn't in charge of the Swiftie ones either. Perhaps turnabout IS fair play.

Mort Kondracke

brought up an interesting point tonight on Brit Hume's show, one that I hadn't thought of before but now seems to explain a lot. He pointed out how the producer of ABC News (I forget the woman's name) had been researching this story for 5 years, and how basically there were lots of conjectures and some signs which pointed to Bush being given special treatment, but no definitive evidence to support these leads. Kondrake believes that the CBS crew was desperate to get this story on the air; after all, they had invested 5 years in the thing, and their opportunity for doing so was shrinking, since the election is looming and after that, revelations about Bush's service are irrelevant. Basically, CBS was looking for any way possible to run this story without coming across like complete rumormongers, and when the documents popped into their lap, they decided to use those documents as a springboard to introduce all this other evidence that is mostly tangential and very wobbly, in the hopes that the public would ignore whatever controversy there was about the inconsistencies in the memos and focus on the larger story (that of Bush skipping out on his duty).

Obviously, they gambled big and even more obviously, they lost bigger.

CNN just destroyed CBS

Absolutely took apart the CBS "experts" -- had contacted a real document expert who called what Matley does (graphology) as "what astrology is to astronomy. Noted that CBS' other two experts are unaccredited. Showed the other expert (Will or the other one) stating that the documents had real problems and were obviously faxed from Abilene. Then went into the Burkett angle, mentioning that he has been pissed at Bush since he was governor; stating that Burkett has no comment.

Kurtz is on now. I wish he were a little more rabid in his pursuit of this story. I'm afraid he's trying to play both sides a little too much, as he is a huge lefty.

Echoes of Bo in Hugh Hewitt's post

The money quote:

The left thinks that the issues around the TANG service are relevant – Bush was AWOL then, Bush lied about WMD, both instances involve acronyms, and can’t you SEE the cloven hooves? It’s the same sort of thing that gripped the feverish elements of the Right in the 90s: Clinton winked at drug-smuggling out of Mena, therefore he sold nuclear secrets to the Chinese for campaign donations. ISN’T IT CLEAR? But that sort of nonsense was confined the margins; the editor of the Clinton Chronicles wasn’t sitting in the presidential suite at the 2000 convention like Michael Moore sitteth at the left hand of Jimmy Carter in 2004.

Football Fans for Truth

New 527 to expose Kerry as the "sports poser" that he is.

FloraBama's gone

A sad day, indeed.

It's Burkett

Kerry Spot is reporting that, according to a reader, Burkett was in the Abilene Kinko's last week, and has a standing account there. And there's much, much more to implicate Burkett -- I'm just too lazy to summarize it here when you can read it over there.

Please remember that this guy has had an absolute obsession with Bush for many years; spent time in a mental health clinic for a while, I believe.

Unimpeachable, indeed.

Latest news on Rather!

UPDATE: Breaking news!

Wednesday, September 15, 2004

New CBS Blog

Flipped on MSNBC, and what do I see?

The ubiquitous and ambiguously gay...Ron Reagan in a North Face jacket, reporting from Panama City Beach.

Says something about the "profession" of news reporting, doesn't it?

So let me get this straight: law professors and lawyers are totally unqualified to comment on the news, but the ambiguously gay son of a president, who has absolutely nothing on his resume, is qualified to report on Ivan?

BTW, this just hit me: Dan Rather is a proud graduate of ....Sam Houston State College. Those crazy nuts at Powerline are Harvard Law grads.

Of course, Karl Rove didn't go to college, yet the lefties think he is omnipotent, so who knows?

Statement from CBS -- Andrew Heyward, president

"We established to our satisfaction that the memos were accurate or we would not have put them on television. There was a great deal of coroborating [sic] evidence from people in a position to know. Having said that, given all the questions about them, we believe we should redouble our efforts to answer those questions, so that's what we are doing."

Who knew what, when?

Several interesting leads...

Next RTJ course?

Difference between us and them

Look at some of the words this columnist uses: Bush is a "lie" and "phony" (4th paragraph), he assumed office "in a dishonest way" (5th paragraph), he has "extremist policies" (5th paragraph), the "phony case for war" (7th paragraph), and so on.

What is amazing is that this wasn't written by some college nutjob at the Daily Iowan, this was in a major national paper. The rhetoric employed by the author (who is actually a co-editor of the American Prospect, no big surprise) is so over-the-top and vitriolic that I believe it is off-putting to the average Joe Suburb. Do average Americans really believe that Bush lied to push America into Iraq? Of course not; only college professors and liberal columnists really think that, though it doesn't stop Terry McAuliffe from reciting it.

But what is even more amazing is how this mentality (Bush = evil, liar, phony, fraud, Nazi, coward) is no longer confined to the far reaches of the party, it's not front and center! And with the prominent faces of the party spewing such bile out, it has become part of the Democrats identity - ie, I'm a Democrat which means I hate Bush (which is why Zell Miller jumped off that ship). This is a phenomenon that can be traced directly to Howard Dean, who threw meat to the fringe element and thereby forced all the other primary candidates to throw scraps in that direction too. Unfortunately, the Dems seem not to apprehend that this might work in a primary when you're appealing to the most liberal 10% of America, but won't transfer well to the general election.

Also, it's telling that I have yet to find a Republican columnist that goes after Kerry with such bitterness or hostility. They all point out that he flip-flops, that his voting record is weak on defense, that he wants to raise taxes, but that's about it. That is, these thoughts exist, but you don't find them on the editorial pages of the WSJ or even on National Review.

It'll be fun to watch the apoplexy that will seize the Left once Bush wins again. If they're saying this stuff now, who knows what they'll come up with during a second term.

Re: Replicas, not forgeries

Maybe all you prospective lawyers out there can answer this. What legal recourse does the Bush campaign have? If they sincerely believe (obviously, everyone in America besides Dan Rather believes it now too) that the documents are fake, is there a legal avenue for them to pursue? I'm also not talking whether it would be politically wise or not, I'm just wondering if they are able to file a civil suit. Or do they file a complaint with the FCC?

I have no idea. We didn't touch on this matter in chemistry this morning.

You've got to be kidding me--"replicas," not "forgeries"?

Read this.

Quickly -- post predictions

What will CBS say in its noon statement?

Schieffer speaks

How long before he gets really irritated, realizing that his spot as debate moderator could be in jeopardy?

"I think we have to find some way to show our viewers they are not forgeries," said Schieffer..."I don't know how we're going to do that without violating the confidentiality of sources."

When will Hurricane Dan make landfall?

Conspiracy Theory Central

See Jonathon Last's blog here.

Several interesting theories as to who is behind the CBS memos. Be sure to read the comments.


The question raised by this article (is torture ever acceptable?) is always interesting to me. Personally, I don't have many qualms about torture when it comes to terrorists. If we catch someone driving away from a church bombing in Najaf or Fallujah with remnants of explosives in the back of the van, then I can't understand why you wouldn't coerce them. Presumably, they've done it before and want to do it again. And presumably, American soldiers are targets. Why wouldn't we use coercive force to obtain information that could prevent imminent bombings and save the lives of our troops?

I really feel this way about al-Sadr and his thugs. I saw yesterday that they bombed a church in Iraq again. To remind you, this is the group that hid out in a mosque for weeks to avoid decimation at the hands of our Marines. This is also the group that uses human shields, women and children included, to keep those same Marines from turning them into glass. If it were up to me (and I suspect that the generals and soldiers over there feel the same way), there would be a lot less "winning hearts and minds" and a lot more "whipping ass." I think the hearts/minds campaign is a fine idea, but first you have to win respect. The Arab world is such a backwards and corrupt region (where else would there not be widespread public outrage at the use of human shields? Or apathetic nonchalance at the bombing of churches full of innocents? Why doesn't al Jazeera inspire Arab outrage about that?) that using fear to coerce obedience to the rule of law seems to be the only way to establish some order, at this point.

That doesn't apply to all Iraqis, of course, but I think it's necessary to tame the few bad apples who make everyone else's life there hell. If that involves some heavy-handed tactics, well, I'd just think of that as the cost of securing a peace. I certainly won't lose any sleep if a church-bombing, children-killing Islamofascist spends the last few days of his life in agonizing pain. I expect that most Americans, particularly red-staters, feel the same way.

Thoughts on Britney

I have no sympathy for Britney Spears anymore. If you want to play the card that she's a girl that was pushed into it by her parents who wanted some success for her that they never had - well, then maybe I would have bought that somewhere back in 1998. But she's a big girl now, and since her life is a materialistic mecca (in which she seems completely at home, I might add) and she gets engaged to some dancer while his girlfriend is pregnant with his child, all the while pretending to be a role model for young girls - well, then she can go to hell. I don't think I'm being a grouchy old conservative windbag either; if she wants to party her ass off and have some fun with single guys, that's one thing. But getting into other people's relationships, particularly when they involve children, is dirty.

It's also particularly galling to me that she's held up as a role model for girls. This will probably evolve into another post at another time, but MTV has done a spectacular job at selling kids sex and telling them it's good/healthy/positive to express themselves sexually (see: Madonna) and then washing their hands of the consequences. I think this is particularly shameful when examined in the context of the black community. Just about any video played on MTV anymore (when they do play videos) is some rap or R&B song, and inevitably in every song you see women dancing around in nothing and prostrating themselves in front of whatever artist is featured. Which is fine, if you want to push that to adults (hell, I'm a guy - I like seeing girls in tube tops too). But MTV's target demographic has shifted from the 20-35 year-old crowd (remember back in the late '80s, when it played videos by adult entertainers?) to the 12-27 year-old swath of the population, a fact that is evident when you go to any Britney Spears or Christina concert and look at the faces in the audience. And it only follows logically that MTV holds some influence over how these kids view sex.

I guess if MTV occasionally played something OTHER than the Chingy/Lil' Jon fare, I'd be happy. But that's all you see. And they want to tell me that this has no effect on how adolescent males decide to view adolescent females? As I said, given the amount of young, unwed mothers in the black community, this is a huge disservice to the black youth, who quickly learn at a young age that women are good for objectifying, since their favorite rapper does it four times daily on MTV. I believe the Tortfeasor could comment at length on this, given his experience in Teach For America.

I guess I just see Britney as part of this same problem. Artists throw all of this sexually charged stuff at kids, then sit back in their mansions and say "what, why blame me? I'm just a musician. Parents, you guys should do a better job." Give me a break. Why do you think Pepsi signed Britney to a contract? Because she moves units, because she's adored by girls everywhere. It's tough to believe that little girls will want to buy Pepsi because Britney drinks it, but will choose to ignore the other message being broadcast about their body image and sex.

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

Britney's Mom

As Dave Chappelle would say, "You may not be a slut, but you got a slut's uniform on."

Frat Business Guy

I am the Chairman, and I approve the following message:

I am a Frat Business guy. I work in a nice office. I live for happy hours. I work long hours and get paid. I am the young tiger in the office. I am the reason my company is getting really big. My company is hotter than yours. I am the reason "Boiler Room" was written and I can quote more of "Wall Street" than you. I know that guy. I could nail your receptionist. I can make her laugh when I walk in. I can get her number. I don't have your card. I'm going to New York next week. I'm good on the phone. I act like I've never paid my dues as a copier tech. I have a nicer tie on than you. I have bigger deals than you. I'm always downtown. I have a new phone. I know that place. I live in a suit. I can quote "Office Space". My taxes are complicated. I've always been to that restaurant before. I'm getting my MBA because I want more. I read something about that. I can put you on hold when you call. I can accidentally hang up. I have big money on the other line. My 401(k) is getting big. I complain about taxes. I already have almost five grand in equity in the place I'm living. I'm out late every weekend. I love my alma mater. You see what university I went to when you walk in my office. The old guys in the office like me because I'm 'young and aggressive' and like to tell me stories. I practice my swing. I spend a lot of money. My fraternity was better than yours. I'm busy this weekend. I know which cigars are good. I might have to go into the office this weekend. I claim I can go out and run a marathon. I know a lot about IRAs. I have my real estate license too. I haven't told you exactly what I do. I'll ask if you saw that big play in that game. I ask if you listen to Stern. I played that course last weekend. I know my football team's record last season. I'll put these drinks on my expense report. It was never as good as when I was there. I shouldn't have a car this nice. I'm looking at buying a condo. I wasn't listening. I talk a lot. I know all the dirty jokes. I'm a darling to the ladies in the office. The other guys are tools. I've got a big future. I got invited to that wedding. All the guys I meet are idiots. I need to move companies because this one just can't pay me right. I can tell you about how that nice restaurant really isn't that great. I've never heard of your company. I already went to the gym. I can put them away and then get my car out of valet. I talk about stocks. I wear my suit to every happy hour. I know the big man. I know those guys, too. I wear a nice watch. Your girlfriend likes nice watches. I'm in the valet line waiting on my car. I pick up my cell phone when you're talking to me. I check my messages when you're trying to talk to me. I was just there. I know the cool bars. I just got these sunglasses but I really want the 5 Series Beamer. I never sent a gift. I'll be at homecoming over by the stadium. I have season tickets. I saw that hot girl on the elevator. I'm looking at a big bonus. You will get my card. I am everything that's wrong in America. I am everything you wish you could be. I'm a frat business guy.

Who is the source?

By now, it's pretty obvious that Dan Rather's willed ignorance about the nature of the NG documents will have to end, and most likely end in the next two days. Should the White House move on the story, and demand an investigation, then heads will quickly roll. I think the WH is perfectly content at the moment to let the blogosphere, Rush/Hannity, and (in something you rarely see) the MSM push the story, but should momentum start to falter in the next few days, I imagine the WH will step up to the plate and put heavy pressure on CBS to start answering questions.

Here is what Jonah Goldberg posted earlier today on The Corner. I've heard something to this effect elsewhere too (Powerline has expressed similar sentiments), but here it is:

I'm sure this has been covered elsewhere, but let's be clear. The moment CBS admits these docs are bogus, theymust divulge who their source was. Protecting sources who tell the truth is honorable (though not as sacrosanct as some in the press think). Protecting sources who gave your news organization an umbrella enema and then opened it, is nuts. You have no obligation to protect a source who lies to you. Indeed, you have an obligation to out such sources. The only plausible motive I can think of for why Rather et al would protect the source of these documents -- once they admit the truth -- is that the source of these docs is even more embarassing than the fraudulent nature of the documents themselves. If it's Chris Lehane or Ben Barnes or someone else tied to the Kerry campaign, CBS News will have actively aided and abetted a partisan smear. And they can't afford to admit that.

I think this is the only rational explanation for Rather to continue this charade. If it were some low-level flunky somewhere in the basement of (which is where Jim Geraghty of the Kerry Spot thinks the docs came from), then it's embarrassing, but not humiliating enough to risk an entire network's reputation. But if someone in the campaign supplied the docs, then it's a nuclear hit. I've also read some things about Rather's daughter, who is a player in Democratic politics, and the fact that perhaps his adamant denial of a forgery(in the face of all evidence to the contrary) is to protect her as the source.

Of course, could the Kerry campaign really be stupid enough to leak such obvious forgeries? It's hard to believe. But at this point, it's about the only logical choice left (save for Rather's daughter) given the fact that the stakes for CBS and Rather are now sky high.

At any rate, I was going to write about this for my column on Friday, but I think anything I put together tonight and tomorrow morning will be obsolete come Friday morning. Anyone else want to guess when this story finally breaks open? I'm going with Thursday. . .

WWI of the Media Wars -- Goldberg

Loved these last three paragraphs:

Anyway, let me make one directly partisan point while I'm at it. Dan Rather considers it outrageous and offensive that anyone would question the judgment that led to this situation. He defends what appear to be very shoddy methods (reading letters over the phone to sources, asking sources not to talk to the press, etc.), as if only a "partisan" or a fool would question them.

Well, if you agree with Rather, maybe you should give just a smidgen more slack to George W. Bush about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush's sources were more solid by several orders of magnitude than Rather's, and yet it is "obvious" to so many that Bush lied while Rather deserves the benefit of the doubt. George W. Bush had the head of the CIA, the intelligence agencies of all our allies, the Clinton administration, the United Nations, and most of the establishment media generally backing his understanding of the threat from Iraq. Dan Rather had a couple shoddy Xeroxes — not all of which were examined thoroughly or at all. He interviewed a partisan — Ben Barnes — a huge backer of Kerry whose story has changed several times. But because many who hate Bush believe he lied, they are willing to believe any lies that confirm what they already know to be true.

You might say the same to me, since I'm one of those people who've seen Dan Rather as a joke for a very long time. Fair enough. The difference is that I have better evidence on my side.

Monday, September 13, 2004

Wizbang: "On the trail of the forger"

The weekend

A few things:

-Hope everyone had a good weekend. If ISU had won, it would have been even better, but I wasn't expecting a victory and was pleasantly surprised that the margin of victory was so lean.

-Here's an apt demonstration of exactly how out of touch with reality some liberals are. Today, in my editorial board meeting, I was greeted with laughs when I asked if anyone else thought the mass media was liberal. It was the sort of uncomfortable laughter you hear when someone starts talking about the voices they hear in their head or about their newly diagnosed STD. Basically, the other writers exchanged glances and tittered among themselves. I even was subjected to this epiphany from another writer: "Well, I think some outlets are conservative, like Fox News, and some are liberal, and some are center, but there isn't a disproportionate amount on one side or another."

It's hard to know what to say to people like this. I usually end up so dumbfounded that I'm at a complete loss for words. Personally, the Dems I've talked with have always countenanced that the mass media is on their side (and if they didn't directly acknowledge it, then they at least implicitly did by responding "well, conservatives have Fox News"). It's hard for me to really respect the opinions of people who can't acknowledge at least some basic truths about American politics: the media is liberal, Michael Moore is a scam artist, and Bush didn't "steal" the election. Anyway, this little laugh-in came after I'd spent 20 minutes pointing out why CBS needs to start answering questions about Bush's service (by the way, in response to my point, another writer said "I don't see what the debate is. We all know Bush skipped out on serving," thus not only slandering the president but completely ignoring the focus of the debate altogether), and with a "fuck it," I gave up on it.

It's getting old being the only conservative in there. It's also hard to reconcile the idea that booksmart people can ultimately be so stupid.

I'll throw this out to the group. Do liberals you know at least acknowledge that the media is on their side? For me, the fact that the media IS so liberal perfectly explains why alternative media (blogs, talk radio, alternative print magazines) are so dominated by conservatives - it's because they have nowhere else to go.

Saturday, September 11, 2004

The Shape of Things -- comparing

memos typed on IBM Selectric with MSWord, using photoshop to overlay the two samples. Conclusive proof that the memos are FAKE. This is no longer debatable.

Click here.

Silent post -- September 11

Gillespie vs. McAuliffe

Now that we've seen Terry McAuliffe in the past two days all over the news, standing at a podium calling Bush a liar and AWOL, it's amazing what the differences between the respective heads of the two parties are. Gillespie will get on the cable news shows every so often and say a few pro-Bush words and lob a few grenades at the Kerry camp, but the tone of the attacks are always along the "weak on defense," "voted against X program and Y spending on the military," and "will raise taxes." Which is what you'd expect the leader of the Republicans to say: completely unsubstantive and actually quite boring.

Contrast that with the hysterical McAuliffe, who can't control himself from drifting further and further off into Deanland. Ask yourself: should the leader of the Democrats really be going on these ad hominem attacks? If they want to dispatch their surrogates, like Harkin or Robert Reich (saw him on Fox News tonight) or whatever, that's understandable, but the leader of a party is supposed to be above the fray - sort of the elderly statesman of the crew, the coach who doesn't get involved in name-calling with the other team's players but instead focuses on developing a devastating gameplan in private while dutifully reciting all the bland, substance-free cliches in public. I think these rampages by McAuliffe, which will obviously wreak major political fallout on him and his party once the Rather documents are exposed (I predict that Wednesday is when the house of cards falls down. They have the weekend to hide out in their Manhattan apartments, but CBS and Rather can't hide once Monday rolls around), more than anything make Americans wonder what the hell this supposed "leader" is doing.

The same could be said for Bush vs. Kerry too; Bush hasn't ever personally waded into the Swift Boat saga, but Kerry runs around with the Hollywood, Michael Moore conspiracy theorists, doing public appearances and fundraisers with them, not to mention his "Bush lied" and failed to serve his country schticks. I know the CW says that no swing voters exist, but I submit that a lot of people are becoming more and more put-off by the antics of the Democratic establishment. It's one thing to have attack dogs (I hate MoveOn, but they're certainly good at getting their message out. Their problem is that they're factually challenged), but it's another to bring the establishment into the fold.


You all know that I think Andrew Sullivan is a royal jackass, but this is the best. Look at his quote: "One wonders why this kind of piece isn't published by the Weekly Standard or National Review."

My question: What exactly is he implying? That the Bush campaign is buying off National Review and The Weekly Standard? That there is some sort of collusion between the WH and conservative media? I guess he also thinks that the National Review is a sellout mag now too, sort of the Smashmouth of conservative journalism, who is beholden to the corporate interests of its party-line subscribers instead of a principled ideology. But of course National Review is going to support Bush for re-election; what are the alternatives? John Kerry? Ralph Nader? As if those two would be more conservative in the traditional sense than Bush. And NRO has been critical of certain aspects of the Bush administration, like their outrage over Medicare.

I'm not claiming Bush is Ronald Reagan, but when you consider the tax cuts, his stand on abortion, the use of American force, No Child Left Behind, school vouchers, tort reform, then yes, Bush IS conservative.

My personal theory is that Sullivan is so angry about Bush's gay marriage stance (btw: anyone opposed to gay marriage is a bigot and homophobe) that he has revolted completely.

Dan Rather's now-eclipsed lowest moment

Who is worse...

Chris Rix or Marcus Randall?


Friday, September 10, 2004

One other thing re: documents

If you want a detailed analysis of why these documents are obvious forgeries, just check around the blogosphere: Powerline, LGF, Hugh Hewitt, Instapundit, etc. have pretty much exposed them.

But here's my contribution. The memo linked below is titled "Subject: CYA." My question: was "CYA" a commonly used acronym in the 1973 American vernacular? I doubt it, but I wasn't alive. Thoughts?

CBS forgeries vs. MSWord

Check this out -- dude typed out the CBS fake memo from 1973 into MSWord, then did an overlay. He blended the images so you can see just how similar they really are. Cool.

Islamism vs. the West

VDH (the best writer at National Review and up there with George Will for best conservative columnist alive, IMHO) clarifies what we all already know, but what leaders of our countries have yet to address fully in public: we're fighting radical Islam as well as terrorists.

the "L" word?

Excerpted from RealClearPolitics:

"Democrats are free to question Bush's record as harshly as they want. It is well within bounds for them to say that Bush compounded bad intelligence with bad judgment on Iraq. What they shouldn't be able to say without being rebuked by the media and the public, however, is that this President deliberately misled the country on the issue of Iraq and that 1,000 US soldiers are dead because Bush lied.

That hasn't happened. In fact, we seem to be rapidly headed in the other direction. I fully expect John Kerry to call President Bush the "l" word within the next 55 days. It's looking more and more like Kerry's only hope is to go nuclear against the war in Iraq and against the President personally."

Anyone else think Kerry will do it? I think it's a distinct possibility, given that Kerry has painted himself into a corner on both Iraq and Vietnam, which both fall under the heading "national security." To get out of this corner, I think he'll do something drastic, like drop the "L" word, and use the diversion that this bombshell will cause to begin talking to the MSM again, hoping that the MSM will focus on his attack on Bush instead of on Kerry's skeletons that all got exposed in August.

"The populist revolution against the so-called mainstream media continues."

John Podhoretz in the New York Post. Behold the power of the internet.


to Six Meat Buffet for adding us to his blogroll. Now, if/when our tech monkey (Mitch) finishes manipulating his new fantasy football team, we can return the favor.

Noticed that my rambling letter

was printed in the DI today. I should have left out the line about "imminent threat," as this is just semantics, but otherwise, I thought I got in a few good cheap shots.

They edited out my Al Sharpton line, BTW.

I wish I had spent more time on it (I wrote it in about three minutes), in retrospect, but I'm pleased nonetheless.

More pithy DI insight

Here's one of my colleagues ranting about abortion and women's rights (full disclosure: I dislike her on a personal level as well)(fuller disclosure: a lot of this stems from the fact that she never comes to our meetings, because she has to work at another job or has class. My thoughts are: perhaps you shouldn't be a member of a board whose meetings do not fit into your schedule, but what would a grouchy conservative know?).

First off, feminism is dead. Remember when NOW sat on their hands while Clinton used an intern for sexual gratification? Shouldn't that have been against virtually all of their bedrock principles? Whatever happened to outrage at sexual harrassment in the workplace, or using power to coerce sex? To cop Rush here, the acronym should more accurately be phrased NOLW, National Assoc. for Liberal Women.

Anyway, the big problem with feminism is that it's become synonymous with abortion. In fact, I'm unable to name a single issue that NOW has made a fuss about that doesn't involve abortion. Obviously I think abortion is reprehensible, but I can never understand how being against abortion can be construed as being against women. Do all women support abortion? Whatever.

I also can't stand the wage inequality issue. As if there are a bunch of scheming males in the executive wings (probably at Halliburton, no less) trying to keep women in the lower rungs, where they must go barefoot and cook lunch for their male co-workers. These studies rarely correct for the fact that many women choose to take time off and have kids; they believe that taking a few years off work to raise their children, despite the fact that it handicaps them those years in seniority, is worth the loss of income. Unfortunately, feminism is now teaching women that you should put your career first, that you have to outdo the men, that a family is for lesser woman, and that any woman that would stay home to raise their kids is a sucker and subservient to their husband.

So what is the solution to these evolutionary-dictated wage inequality? Government intervention? I honestly don't know how the federal government can be expected to solve these problems, since it's not as if bureaucrats can draw up a policy that enables males to bear the kids. My guess is simply quotas, or federally-mandated equal income, is what the feminist lobby has in mind, and we all know what a rip-roaring success that would be.

UPDATE: I just noticed her definition of feminism: "equality in reasonable ways." Well, jumpin' Jehosafat, what kind of sloped-brow conservative could oppose that? Of course, her definition of reasonable seems to encompass the killing of developing humans and some sort of government oversight on wage equality, not to mention insured contraception, but if you oppose those, I guess you're not being reasonable. And while we're talking about insured contraception for federal employees, what's the problem with opposing that? The beauty of the invisible hand: if it is a substantial disincentive for women to work for the government, then there will be a dearth of jobs in the public sector, and guess what? More benefits will be provided for government employees.

I'd better stop. I quit making sense a few paragraphs ago. Time for a glass of warm milk and maybe some blood-pressure medicine.

Guess which paper this was in?

If you said The Daily Iowan, then you win a free toaster. Animal rights people, in my mind, are among the nuttiest group of folks on the planet. I'm all for animal rights myself, if by that you mean humans shouldn't torture animals for fun. But I can't understand quotes like this priceless gem:

"Getting animals off my plate was the most effective means I had of extending mercy to the most disenfranchised beings on this planet."

What a crock. If you really want to have a peek at the most disenfranchised beings on the planet, why don't you take a walk over to the Sudan, where genocide (that's killing of humans, btw, not chickens) is rampant, thanks to Kofi Annan's incompetence. Or go visit North Korea, where people are starved so that Kim Jong-Il can make nuclear weapons. Or, if you prefer a warmer climate closer to home, there's always Cuba, where dissent of the government will land you a nice term in Castro's jailhouse.

It's just tough to take claims like this seriously, what with all the human injustices being perpetrated around the world. I just think working to save a cute little bunny serving as an test subject for cancer drugs is a massive waste of time, not to mention extraordinarily self-absorbed. If you really want to do something worthwhile, go join the Peace Corps or volunteer at an inner-city children's club or something.

I've always liked Al Michaels

and now I have an even better reason than his gambling references.

Re: Mitchell's psot

I'm sure we all share this opinion, but it is long past time for Kerry to reveal his war records and gain any sort of political advantage from them. If they had contradicted anything in the Swifties' accounts, then he would have released them somewhere in mid-August (after it became clear the toll that the Swifties' ads were taking on his poll numbers) and quashed the controversy. At this point, I think it's safe to assume that his records don't vindicate him from their charges, and perhaps would reveal some other tidbits that he would rather keep sealed.

Of course, his campaign staff (who I am sympathetic to, given that they have to make this guy electable) is comprised of idiots, as the last month has shown. But I still feel like even they know enough about politics to have understood that releasing his records (if they put him in the clear) would have evaporated any momentum from the Swifties back around mid-August.

I also think it's obvious that the MSM has no interest in those records anymore. But who knows, from that Slate article the Tortfeasor linked to earlier today, it looks like the press's patience is wearing thin with the media embargo. Also, maybe the CBS debacle and the ensuing, inevitable fallout will force the MSM to be a little more balanced in their coverage. They've been getting away with their slant for years, but it looks like those days (thanks to the Internet) are over.

latest cable news numbers

via Drudge:


Wow. That's a slaughter. I'm not sure what the liberal spin on this will be, since Democrats rely on television for their news too and presumably don't watch the diabolical media hand of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. I also think charges of Fox being a right-wing propaganda machine are false too; I remember Bill O'Reilly condeming the Swifties on the day those ads came out. I think liberals' main objection to Fox News is that they employ conservative commentators as well as liberal ones. Apart from the emasculated Tucker Carlson (who is also moderate to liberal on gay marriage) and anti-Iraq-war Bob Novak, I can't name any other conservative commentators on the CNN payroll. Of course, their reporting is obviously slanted left, but it's harder to prove that with tallys and numbers.

In other news, I saw Lou Dobbs last night, where he was talking about outsourcing of jobs. The disdain with which he treated businesses (he had one employer on the air who outsourced some telemarketing stuff to India) who do such a thing was palpable, but I also do not understand the uproar about this. Obviously there is an emotional aspect, in that the pictures of Mom & Pop Smith losing their jobs to an overseas worker is potent stuff, particularly for a liberal network. But, as far as I can understand, isn't the economic benefit of outsourcing passed along to all the consumers in America, who then get goods and services at a cheaper price? If anyone else knows more about this than me, please post some stuff, because my understanding is very rudimentary, to put it generously.

Thursday, September 09, 2004

Malpractice lawsuits

Listen, I feel sorry for John Ritter and his family, and it's a tragedy that he died so young. And I also don't know if this lawsuit has merit (that is, if the doctors really did screw up) or if it's just trying to get rid of some anger (anger of his family, not at the hospital or doctors, but simply at the fact that their dad/husband died so young; they want someone to be blamed for it when perhaps it's not anyone's fault). But it seems to me that doctors, unless they grossly misdiagnose something, like thinking a heart problem is a liver disorder, should be granted some degree of freedom. I mean, in what other profession can you send someone into financial ruin, via massive insurance premiums and a blemished record, for an honest human error? Now if you can demonstrate gross negligence on the part of doctors (a surgeon out drinking the night before a surgery or what have you), then I'm all for suing their pants off. But it's not like fixing a car, from what I understand; human bodies can respond in different ways to medicines and to surgeries, and there isn't a one-size-fits-all solution to each problem. I wish Republicans would make more of an issue of this than they have so far. It seems to me like it really should be an easy, politically viable issue - these lawsuits are raising the price of health-care for other patients (doctors ordering unnecessary tests for fear of being sued, higher insurance premiums of the doctors are passed right along to the patients when doctors start raising fees) and running certain services, like ob-gyn and neurosurgery, right out of parts of the country.

Bush documents

Well, Mitchell, I'm glad Drudge is running with the story, because CNN certainly isn't (link above). Oh wait, I mean they're running with the Bush AWOL story (including quotes from that gasbag Tom Harkin), but haven't even addressed the credibility of the documents, despite the fact that the blogosphere is blowing up about it. Hell, even Brit Hume's show tonight talked about it.

How ridiculous. If these documents turn out to be false, then I'll be as giddy as when Zell preached the truth from the podium.

While we're on it, things are looking so fishy and suspect that it seems almost certain that they are forgeries. At the very least, the documents (or rather, the material contained in the documents) could be real, but they have obviously been retyped. Check out The Weekly Standard online for Stephen Hayes's story, and also take a look at the Kerry Spot from around 7:00 EST tonight for a full recap. Although I'm sure you all are way ahead of me on that.

Bo's prediction: Documents are forgeries. The media largely ignores the subsequent "scandal" and CBS is, if not forgiven, at least allowed to slink away in relative quiet. But it would all be worth it to see Senator Harkin have to eat his words. I still can't believe Ganske lost to him.

Update: Bush Memos

Check this out on Little Green Footballs . Apparently, someone typed out the text of the memos using Times New Roman 12 point font on MS Word, and the result was an exact replica (spacing and all) of the memos used by the Boston Globe and CBS.

I am unwilling at this point to say that this is definitive proof that the Bush memos in question were forged, but it certainly raises some serious questions.

yet another UPDATE:

Drudge is reporting on it now.

Extra! Extra!

I'm sorry, but if the fact that CH had to publicly rule out pregnancy as a cause for her hiatus doesn't help you understand why I find the WNBA laughable, then I give up.

I can just see the scene playing out in my mind...

Holdsclaw: "Great news, Coach! My Clearblue Easy came up pink--Looks like I'll be playing this year, after all!"


Interesting Developments re: Bush Guard Memos

Powerline has been blowing up this morning with updates from readers about what now seems to be the very real possibility that the internal memos serving as the basis for the Boston Globe's big Bush National Guard story are forgeries. Pretty interesting stuff. Scroll down to the post "The Sixty-First Minute."

On a side note, why the hell isn't the MSM pointing out that Kerry has refused to sign the form authorizing the release of his own military records--something that Bush did months ago? Who's the one with something to hide?

Also, where's the outcry over the fact that Kerry has refused to take questions from the press for the past month?

Finally--and maybe the best question yet--why do I bother to ask these questions when we already know the answer?

Mitchell, you'll like this one

John McWhorter is the thorn in the side of affirmative action. He's a black linguistics professor at Berkeley who is rabidly anti-racial quotas and has even written a couple books on it. He's a badass.

Six Meat on Russia

I know I've been active today, but really, you must read this post from Six Meat Buffet today about the Russian school murders. This guy gets it.

Must-read: Hitchens on Russia's wake-up call

In Slate also.

"Department of Wellness"?

Ok, I'm back. Let's lighten the mood a little.

Mickey Kaus, ambivalent Kerry supporter, in today:

Department of Wellness"! Spirit-crushing foolishness from my candidate, John Kerry. The nation is trying to figure out how to fight global terrorism and he's talking about having "not just a Department of Health and Human Services, but a Department of Wellness." How about a Department of F***ing Perspective? If Bush is smart he'll be ridiculing Kerry about this for the rest of the month. ...Thanks, Iowa!

I love it.

Now for the CBS News/AP article

This is an actual paragraph from this so-called straight news article:

"Thirty-one years later, supporters of now-President Bush have been critical of opponent John Kerry's Vietnam record. Now it's the president's turn to answer tough questions about his own service."

***blank stare***

Are you freaking kidding me?

(taking deep breath)

Clearly, this is written to imply that the Vietnam issue was brought up "thirty-one years later" by "supporters of now-President Bush."

Who are these "supporters"? Does that include Bush himself? Bush family members? Bush campaign staff? Or are "supporters" merely people who despise Kerry for their own reasons and will vote for Bush to keep JK out of office? AP lets our imaginations run wild. No mention, of course, of the FACT that John Kerry has asked the American people to judge him not on his Senate record, but on his record as a soldier in Vietnam, ahem, some thirty-one years ago -- while Bush has made no such issue of Vietnam.

"now-President Bush." Um, yes, we know he's now president. You see, AP, I live in the good ol' US of A, and I have been conscious the last four years. This is an obvious slap at the President's re-election bid.

"Now it's the president's turn to answer tough questions about his own service." Oh really? Wasn't it his turn four years ago? And six months ago? And, oh yeah, I must have missed Kerry's turn to answer those "tough questions" from the mainstream media about his Vietnam service, as the MSM has dismissed each of the Swift Boat Vets' claims out of hand and has failed to broadcast the message that, no, John Kerry could not have possibly been in Cambodia in Christmas 1968, as he himself has had to admit.

OK, I need to step away from the computer now.

The whole truth about Bush and the National Guard

Byron York tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

After seeing it in context, the National Guard story is obviously nothing but yet another desperate attempt to permeate the Teflon shield around this President. And like the other attacks, it will bounce right off.

Wednesday, September 08, 2004

I'm also a racist. . .

At least, by the reckonings of this UI student (from today's DI). Of course, she is remarkably stupid, but that doesn't prevent her from slandering me. Note that I used the word "Islamism" instead of "Islam," the difference between which (post-9/11) has become clear to any but the most uninformed observer. Daniel Pipes has a nice essay on the massive differences between the two.

It's also pretty hard to write columns for a tremendously stupid audience, something that I am rapidly finding out. In Monday's DI, I got ripped by this guy for a number of things, most notably again the Islamism thing (which is indeed an ideological brother to Islam, and not a separate religion in and of itself - hence the reason I used the word "ideology" and not "religion"). Secondly, my "gene of evil" comparison was obviously a metaphor and not intended to mean that I am fully convinced that the lineage of Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Ladin is intertwined. He also gets on me for "questioning the motivations of our country," but uses the quote entirely out of context. My context was that Americans are sick of Ted Kennedy proclaiming that the Iraq war was cooked up in Texas, of the Michael Moore's claiming "blood for oil," etc. Good job in lifting those few words and grossly distorting the entire meaning of my previous six paragraphs, dumbass.

I also am getting sick of people telling the DI that they need to stop printing my writing or that I'm ruining debate or other some such. It's about as bad as when I'm accused of using "erroneous" facts, but then the writer doesn't bother to point out any erroneous facts in my column (see the Kerry/Cambodia uproar I caused a couple weeks ago).

Whatever. Sorry, just had to vent there.

Those racist Bama fans

Warren St. John in Slate today.

The article itself is fair, but the teaser on the homepage reads, "Hanging with racist football fans" next to a photo of Brodie.

Shocking, I know. This gets old.

Tuesday, September 07, 2004

I'm surprised we didn't see Ponder in any of these

Personal favorite: guy with football helmet aflame

At what price?

As my seventh-grade students dutifully completed their daily warm-up assignments, I sneaked a peek at to scan the morning’s headlines. The red “BREAKING NEWS” banner caught my eye. I beelined to the television in the corner of the room and turned on the power. A few students murmured as I began searching for a news channel, any news channel. And there it was: smoke billowed out of the two towers, and one of the girls blurted out, “What’s goin’ on, Mr. Ryan?” The towers would crumble a few minutes later as New Yorkers would frenetically try to outrun the tsunami of cement dust and smoke – as my students, and children around the nation, paid rapt attention.

Almost three years later, between law school classes, horrific images from an elementary school in Russia immediately take me back to those early days of my first year as a seventh-grade English teacher in rural North Carolina. Hundreds of children sit kneecap-to-kneecap on a gymnasium floor as their teachers roam among them, calming nerves and keeping order. I stare at the basketball goal, the cinder block walls, the skylight windows. And I remember -- my students, crammed into the bleachers, cheering for their classmates as they sing the latest R & B hit at the annual talent show; me, standing among them, looking stern, warning Thaddeus that I intend to call his grandma if he pops Dante in the back of the head one more time, cracking a grin every once in a while to remind them that I love them.

I stare at a photo of a man in black, a camouflaged helmet atop his head, inspecting his arsenal; a photo of a female militant in an Arab-style black headdress that exposes only her eyes, a pistol firmly in hand. And I remember – searching for the words to assuage both the legitimate concerns and the irrational fears of my students, for the answer to Jessica’s question: “Mr. Ryan, you think them folks are gonna bomb us? Are gonna bomb our school?”

I stare at a photo of a teacher, gripping the tiny hands of two of her students, escorting them—where?—as a heavily-armed terrorist watches threateningly. And I remember – sitting in the library at a faculty meeting, half-awake, as a video produced by the North Carolina Department of Education drones on about the appropriate emergency procedures in the event an armed intruder were to enter the school premises (immediately lock the door, gather the students in the corner of the room out of sight from the window in the door, place the green card in the window if no one is injured, a red card if someone is), and feeling confident that such procedures would never be necessary at my school.

I stare at the television as parents and grandparents sift through the charred remnants of their elementary school, searching for the physical leftovers of their reasons for living, their precious children; I listen to their howling, the excruciating agony and unfathomable pain so evident in every sob, whimper, and wail. And I remember – a young single mother, perhaps only a few years older than her child’s fresh-out-of-college English teacher, weeping during a parent-teacher conference because, after she has tried everything she knows to help her 13 year-old son learn to read, she has learned that Chris has passed his End of Grade Reading test for the first time.

Some have described the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan as chaotic. Perhaps this is true; I have personally visited neither place. But after experiencing September 11 -- watching the anxiety in the faces of twenty-eight 12 year-olds as they struggled to make sense of what they were seeing, trying to maintain a confident adult posture even as my then-22 year-old stomach grew nervous – I much prefer the somewhat controlled chaos of Afghanistan, administered by men and women much braver than I who freely volunteered to keep us safe. And even as the one thousandth American hero falls in the frenzied streets of Iraq, I much prefer his willing sacrifice to the sacrifices of thousands of unwitting New Yorkers, United Airlines passengers, and Pentagon workers.

As some politicians insist that the war in Iraq is the “wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time”— that the price, in dollars and in soldiers, is too high — I wonder: what price would the Russians pay today if they could erase the events of the last few days? Perhaps Al-Qaeda would never have struck again on American soil had we not toppled the Taliban; perhaps Saddam Hussein would never have threatened us with the devastating arsenal the entire world believed he had. Perhaps we could have avoided the awful price of war.

Perhaps. The question, though, haunts us: how much are we willing to gamble on that “perhaps”? For the alternative manifests itself in the contorted and anxiety-ridden visages of our children as they come to terms with an utterly terrifying future; in the death plunges of doomed Trade Center workers who choose free-fall over flame; in the gut-wrenching, tortured screams of a mother who immediately recognizes the lifeless hand of her beloved daughter above the rubble of a school gymnasium.

As Mr. McCain explained last week, “Our choice wasn’t between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war. It was between war and a graver threat.”

Given that choice, I sadly – but firmly – choose war.

Gore speaks

The New Yorker.

Note that this is the man that Chris Matthews--Chris Matthews!--referred to as "the Pander Bear" during the 2000 election because he was so obviously concerned with placating the various special interests of the Democratic Party.

Re: my post below

Actually, after thinking about it, I'm really mad about that column. If I write a letter expressing my points in the post below would anyone be interested in signing it and e-mailing it in from their account? Obviously, I can't comment on my own, and I won't see my roommates until late tonight. If so, shoot me an e-mail.

Or even better, if you want to write one yourself and send it in, I'd be happy to read it tomorrow and laugh away. Keep me posted. . .

UPDATE: Here's a great Letter to the Editor that does a nice job debunking that Reagan column I linked to below.

Here's a good example. . .

Of the kind of writing that can be found here at the Daily Iowan. Obviously, I don't agree with this guy's opinions, but it's the delivery that really gets to me. At least the other columnists, the liberal ones at the DI, have the common sense to frame their column around one or two basic points. The frenetic zeal has this writer trying to make a point with every other sentence. Note how he goes from Afghanistan to Iraq to the RNC to the GOP's stance on gay marriage to John Kerry's votes against defense funding to Zell Miller's speech to Zell Miller not appearing in a photo-op with the Bushes; talk about overkill. About the only thing missing is Halliburton.

I also cannot stand it when writers are content to shell the opposition's viewpoint, but never really feel compelled to offer solutions themselves. What does this guy think we should do in Iraq? What is his position on gay marriage? And why? Give me some reasons; formulate an ARGUMENT. That's the goddamn job of a columnist. It's not enough to simply stand in a corner and throw mud; any serious columnist has to put up some opinions of his own.

In anoter note, this guy actually said/implied in a column this summer that Ronald Reagan wasn't a fiscal conservative, which is such a breathtaking error that it's hard to take anything he writes subsequently very serious. It also means that he's just throwing as many punches out there as possible and hoping one lands. Here's the Reagan column for good measure.

Bo, your question re: "Titanic"

I asked the Plaintiff last night why the movie Titanic makes girls cry, as I've always wondered myself. I mean, Rose is a total slut, from what I can tell, and Leonardo a sneaky little SOB sipping on dude's Kool-Aid.

Her response is that it may have had something to do with the 1500 people who drowned/froze to death in the frosty waters of the North Atlantic.

Point taken.

Raising Toby

A fascinating essay by a black mother raising biracial children.

Definitely worth the read, and a nice change of pace.

The world's worst candidate

Read this post from Powerline about Kerry's tin ear.

Monday, September 06, 2004

Just a question

Anyone else have a major crush on Michelle Malkin? Is it just an Asian fetish on my part or what?

Of course, no one will ever replace my future wife and light o' my life, Jenna Bush, but Michelle is pretty damn sexy.

Paul Begala

Nate, this comes nicely on the heels of your last post. Note that Paul Begala, despite drawing a paycheck from the Kerry campaign as an advisor, is continuing to remain a commentator on CNN. Wasn't there some sort of uproar last week about an attorney for the Swifties also advising the Bush campaign? Perhaps the mainstream media forgot about it already, seeing as how Bush might have been a wild guy back in his 20's.

If anything, this Begala case is ten times worse than the Stephen Ginsburg (the Bush/Cheney attorney) situation, because CNN at least still pretends to maintain a neutral stance on this fall's elections. Talk about insidious.

Six Meat Buffet

Highly recommend this blog, especially for Mitch. Good times.

Some things you just don't question

The Plaintiff was just flipping the channels on the TV when she came across WWE Smackdown. She stopped, gazed at the TV with a puzzled look, and asked, "Why is there a cage? Why? Why is there a cage?"

***blank stare****
Bingo that's a goodie

You know it's killing them

As I'm sure y'all know, the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll came out today, substantiating the fact that Bush got a bounce out of his convention.

TIME: Bush 52, Kerry 41
Newsweek: Bush 53, Kerry 42
CNN: Bush 52, Kerry 45

Now, note the headline of this CNN article. Also note that did not report at all on the TIME poll results, even though has a partnership with TIME magazine.


(NOTE: the headline reads: "Poll: Bush apparently gets modest bounce.")

Re: Bush and Cocaine

Well, if this is the best the Dems can do, then I'm feeling even better about November. In contrast to the Swifties ad, this, my friends, is a REAL smear campaign. Some differences: the Swifties pointed out statements made by Kerry about his service that were: A) blatantly false; and B) used for political gain, most aptly in his Christmas/Cambodia story (btw: has any mainstream paper run with this yet? I haven't seen anything). Now take this new book, which exploits ghosts in Bush's closet that are of a personal nature. Hell, if substance abuse problems aren't of a personal nature, particularly when they took place 20 years ago, then nothing is. But, the liberals say, shouldn't Kerry's Vietnam exploits and medals be of a personal nature too? Yes, I'm all for letting sleeping dogs lie, but unfortunately it was John Kerry woke them up. If John Kerry had never spoke about Vietnam in his primary campaign or at his convention, then I'd be a lot less receptive to the Swifties (even though they do expose some pretty shady truths about Kerry). But Kerry's problem is that this was his choice; he wanted us to judge him on his record, and the Swifties are making sure that we're doing just that.

Now, as to political implications of the Bush/cocaine thing, there won't be a person alive (except for the hysterical Susan Estrich and her ilk) who cares about this. Why? First, as the Tortfeasor pointed out, Bush has a record now as Commander-in-Chief; that's a powerful trump card. Second, the idea of Bush as a wild, frat-boy younger man is not novel; we know all about his drinking and carousing, and these ghosts were all dredged out in front of us back in 2000. So unless there is a bombshell allegation, this book will fall by the wayside. And that bombshell allegation HAS to have some documentation, not just "Bush's old college roommate's brother said," because the public won't accept anything less, thanks to the good Dr. "Boy Who Cried Wolf" Dean. I also think there may be some sympathy for Bush out of it; the young man who becomes a repentant sinner is a compelling story (in large part because it's true and Bush's subsequent lifestyle certainly attest to that), and his social-conservative base will be protective of him and the deeper themes (redemption, Christ's saving grace, etc) that his conversion to Christianity represents.

Again, I hold to my position that the only thing that will sink him with said base is an abortion that he was a party to. Otherwise, the public's intolerance for the liberal media's headhunting will manifest itself very quickly - and I do think that the public is tired of this stuff (character assassination, that is, not valid questions raised by veterans - there's a big distinction here, but I don't want to drag this post out any longer than it already is).

Whatever happened to the post-bounce era?

"A day or two later, the numbers came in and showed that Kerry's "triumph" had mysteriously not prompted the traditional post-convention bounce in the polls. Even Michael Dukakis got a bounce. But not Kerry. Indeed, according to Gallup, he had the first recorded instance of negative bounce. Fortunately, the Dems and their chums in the press were able to reassure themselves that this lack of bounce didn't mean anything.

"'Just before the convention, polls showed that many more Americans than usual had already made up their minds about whom to support, leaving a small number of undecided voters to woo,' explained Bill Straub of the Scripps-Howard news service. As for the Republican convention, 'Bush is similarly unlikely to see his poll numbers flourish.'

"Ingenious! It was the instant conventional wisdom. There are no swing voters left to bounce. The post-convention bounce is no longer relevant. It's a thing of the past. It belongs to the age of buggy whips and whalebone corsets. Forget about it. We're living in the post-bounce era of American politics. Only a chump not up to speed on this new political reality would be dumb enough to suggest that the absence of bounce is because Kerry's Vietnam-retro acceptance speech was a flop."

Read the rest of Mark Steyn's column here
. Trust me, you need to read the whole thing.

Here we go...

Bush and cocaine

I say it bounces off Bush like allegations of NCAA violations bounce off UT.

Football talk

Fortunes rising:
Auburn -- preseason favorite LSU stumbles, looks much less formidable than last year, opening the door wide for AU to go to ATL; but 31 points against ULM may be a little worrisome. Can't tell until they open up the offense against an SEC opponent.
Alabama -- looked considerably more polished than last year -- few penalties and vastly improved special teams -- significant upgrades at skill positions -- and Brodie is looking healthy and stronger than ever; but defensive line looked suspect against a poor Utah State team.
Arkansas -- after losing 18 starters, took care of business against non-conference opponent.
MSU -- any win is a good win.

Fortunes falling:
LSU -- quarterback is going to be a serious problem. Randall is just as bad as he was two years ago, and Russell isn't ready (but shows some promise). Will not repeat as NC, and will have a fight on its hands for the SECW.
OM -- back to reality for Ole Miss -- defensive line was dominated (from what I'm told) -- and QB is in a different league (like Pee Wee) than Manning.

UT -- freshman QBs looked surprisingly polished, but didn't UNLV look terrible on D?
SC -- will be a much tougher team than most have predicted, IMO.
Vandy -- remains Vandy. Bottom line: you cannot compete in the SEC unless your school is willing to go all-out for football success.
UK -- what probation is supposed to do to a program.

Sunday, September 05, 2004

The following resolutions were unanimously adopted by the Board during its most recent meeting on September 5, 2004:

Whereas, the Board believes that the horrors of September 11, 2001 should never be forgotten, and

Whereas, the Board believes that all Americans should remember the losses suffered by our country on 9/11; and

Whereas, the Board believes that nothing is more American than good ol' rock & roll; and

Whereas, the Board recognizes that U2 is the finest rock&roll band of the past twenty years.

Be it now resolved, that the Chairman is authorized and directed to post the following link to the U2 website, which contains a video clip of u2's performance during halftime of the 2002 Super Bowl.

Directions: click on the link, click on "Exclusives" at the top of the page, and scroll down to the Superbowl clip. The portion of the performance honoring the 9/11 victims is strong as rope.

Roll Tide - and Go Clones

I didn't see the LSU outcome coming. If that OSU wide receiver wasn't such a dumbass and had just given the ball back to the refs, we would have seen the biggest upset of the season. Of course, the kicker is still an idiot (how do you miss three of them? Isn't that your only job on the team?), but if I were the OSU coach, I'd direct a little bit of my fury at the WR.

Also, the Iowa State Cyclones beat UNI today, 23-0. I can also attest that the game could have been a lot worse, but we controlled the ball for the entire third quarter, ran nothing but runs up the middle, and ate up 8 minutes of the third quarter with a single drive (coincidentally, our kicker also missed the extra point). So the game wasn't as close as the score might indicate. Unfortunately, playing at Iowa next weekend will be dicey.

Once again, the season doesn't really matter unless you beat your in-state rival. I know you all feel the same way. We could go on to a BCS bowl game (not likely at all, but let's play hypothetical here), but if we lost to Iowa this weekend, I'll still be pissed in January. I've never understood how people can feel otherwise either; I got into a few arguments about that when ISU beat Iowa in 2002, and Iowa went to a BCS game, and of course the stupid Iowa fans and their faux "tradition" said something to the effect of: who cares about that game, because the rest of our season was dynamite compared to yours. No way. You gotta beat the other state team or shut your mouth about it for the year.

Having said that, I predict an Iowa victory next weekend, and I'll promptly shut my mouth until next September.