The Dems Get Desperate, Part IV: When Will Rather Go?

First of all, everyone reading this should know by now that I absolutely enjoy the hell out Rathergate. Not only has the blogosphere ripped CBS a new one, they've been basically flawless in reporting facts that the mainstream media (MSM) gets to a few days later. Plus, a whole new world of people now know about some of my favorite places on the web to get news, like Powerline, InstaPundit, LGF and others. Best of all, the acronym for the Texas Air National Guard, TANG, has been used repeatedly.

Truth be told, we're now at a watershed point for CBS. They've dug in their heels on the story being true, in the face of all other reporting to the contrary. In a midweek edition of the Washington Post, they laid one of the CBS documents side-by-side with a legit doc from Bush's TANG file. Side-by-side examination of the documents makes it pretty damn clear someone was using something a helluva lot more advanced to draft the CBS documents. Granted, LGF beat them to the punch, but the MSM is starting to catch up. Meanwhile, ABC News managed to out-hustle Dan Rather (whose producer had been supposedly working on this story for five years) by grabbing an interview with the General who was referenced in the fake documents as providing pressure on Jerry Killian to sugar-coat things for Bush. General Staudt denies the charge, which would have been hard to prove anyway, since he had been retired for a year when the memo in question was written.

The source of the documents may well be Bill Burkett, the Texas Army National Guard official who's been in the news in the past for making wild (and typically false) allegations against George W. Bush. The blogosphere's been hammering the point home, and the Washington Post has now speculated about Burkett's connection as well. It appears Burkett might be the source for Rather, but the questions now seem to center on whether Burkett also provided said documents to the Kerry campaign as well, and if they played any role in getting CBS to pay attention to them. I'd guess they ignored Burkett as a crank, but I still wonder when there are loop jobs like Max Cleland involved (no, not questioning his patriotism, just his sanity).

But now, finally, the MSM has started to zero in on Dan Rather and his culpability. Tim Rutten at the L.A. Times misfires at times in his editorial, but watching him take CBS to task for destroying Murrow's legacy is, well, beautiful...

This, after all, is the house that Edward R. Murrow built. Anyone mindful of the legacy that keen and fearless man left to his network would want to make a tragedy of all this — with Rather, Lear-like, roaring on the moors. But it isn't that; what CBS has spun out over the last week is not drama but shabby farce. Rather and his network's executives resemble nothing so much as the doddering, penniless inhabitants of some crumbling old pile, lurking behind curtains and muttering increasingly incoherent excuses to the bill collectors pounding at their door.

CBS' initial report on President Bush's National Guard service was an embarrassment to Murrow's legacy. But the implications of that mistake pale alongside the potential consequences of the network's continuing refusal to do what the situation now demands: to forthrightly admit error, to undertake an independent inquiry and, then, to give a clear public accounting of how this happened. If the current custodians of CBS News willfully refuse to keep faith with their viewers, they will have disgraced Murrow's memory.

Jim Geraghty at the Kerry Spot, the leader of the Pajamahadeen, posted a nice strategy memo for people who want to see Dan Rather apologize and perhaps finally leave the anchor desk for a ranch in Texas. Perhaps Rutten's editorial is a sign that the MSM is willing to join that chorus.

What Annoying Song is Stuck in My Head Today?

If I need to suffer with a song stuck in my head, why shouldn't you have to do the same? Sometimes they're good, most times they're bad... but no matter what, they make you suffer. So I like to share the suffering whenever it happens.

Sometimes family members do inexplicable things, even though you think they're great people. This is one of those occasions.

The other night, in a moment soon to be captured in a wedding update, I was subjected to a half-hour promotional video from a company whom we are considering as a videographer for the wedding. In order to provide me with another sample of what wedding videos look like (since, to be honest, I've never once sat down and watched one), my future bride then played the video of her sister's wedding.

Now, I think the world of my future sister-in-law and brother-in-law. Not only are they intelligent people with brilliant futures (seriously, a lawyer from U of Chicago married to a radiation oncologist), they're very cool. My friends know that I enjoy intellectual stimulation and conversation on a wide variety of topics, and these two are just as comfortable discussing foreign politics as 80's sitcoms. Granted, we come from different ends of the political spectrum, but no one's perfect. Besides, every so often, they might even be right while I'm... well, not as right.

Anyway... the video's about five minutes in, and they're doing a scrapbook montage of different moments from their lives. One second, they're playing Kool and the Gang's "Celebration" and showing pictures of childhood. Pretty good. Then suddenly... the dreaded song begins.

Freaking Styx. Dennis deYoung, begins warbling in that high-pitched screech he calls a voice, and I feel like slitting my wrists, because I know the damn song will be in head for a week.

Put it this way -- I hate Styx, although not quite like others hate groups like Hansen. I can actually tolerate most of Styx's music. The only time I've ever tolerated this particular song was when South Park ripped it mercilessly, with Cartman hating the song more than I do.

What's funny is, I once discussed my hatred of this song with my soon-to-be in-laws at their home in Chicago. They took it in stride -- by promptly playing the damn song. Told you they were cool.

Here we go... "Come Sail Away"...

I’m sailing away, set an open course for the virgin sea
I’ve got to be free, free to face the life that’s ahead of me
On board, I’m the captain, so climb aboard
We’ll search for tomorrow on every shore
And I’ll try, oh lord, I’ll try to carry on

I look to the sea, reflections in the waves spark my memory
Some happy, some sad
I think of childhood friends and the dreams we had
We live happily forever, so the story goes
But somehow we missed out on that pot of gold
But we’ll try best that we can to carry on

A gathering of angels appeared above my head
They sang to me this song of hope, and this is what they said

They said come sail away, come sail away
Come sail away with me
Come sail away, come sail away
Come sail away with me

I thought that they were angels, but to my surprise
They climbed aboard their starship and headed for the skies
Singing

Come sail away, come sail away
Come sail away with me
Come sail away, come sail away
Come sail away with me

You're welcome.

The John Kerry Post of the Day

My latest discovery about my favorite cheese-eating surrendermonkey-looking Ketchup King cum Presidential candidate:

Moxie takes note of something that makes Ketchup Boy so much more like the common man (hat tip: MartiniPundit)...

Thanks to Vik at the Big Picture, I learned John Kerry named his $150,000+ yacht “Scaramouche.”

Which of course is “A stock character in commedia dell’arte and pantomime, depicted as a boastful coward or buffoon.”

How apropos of John Kerry especially as he choose the French spelling.

Sometimes, I think it's a dream, and I'll wake up and Bush will be forced to run against a real candidate. One other question -- can't he afford a more expensive yacht? Maybe Teresa cut off his allowance or something.

Oil-for-Food Scandal and the Links to al-Q

I think this piece by Claudia Rosset is well worth reading, as is the majority of the work she's done on a topic the MSM ignores while pursuing stuff like Bush's Guard duty. This time, we're dealing with where the money from the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program went, other than Saddam's pockets...

The original United Nations plan was to let Saddam sell oil solely to buy humanitarian goods such as food and medicine, with the U.N. Secretariat collecting a 2.2 percent commission on Saddam's oil sales to supervise the integrity of this process.

As the Oil-for-Food program actually worked, however, the United Nations let Saddam choose his own business partners. The world body also kept secret the details of those contracts and the identities of the contractors, and it let Saddam graft at least $4.4 billion out of the program through manipulated contract prices, by estimates of the U.S. General Accountability Office.

Saddam's standard scam was to underprice oil sales and overpay for relief supplies, thus generating fat profits for his business partners. Many of those contractors would kick back part of the take to Saddam's regime — or divert it to whatever uses Saddam might fancy. By various accounts, those uses ranged from building palaces to buying arms to supplying Saddam's sadistic son Uday with equipment for torturing Iraqi athletes.

One of the big questions is whether any of the money skimmed from Oil-for-Food also slopped into terrorist-financing ventures such as MIGA.

It's important to note that in tracking terrorist financing, the simplest starting points are the visible links, the potential connections through which money might most easily have flowed. Proving that funds actually coursed through those conduits is far more difficult.

Read the rest. It's well worth the time.

Note the following:

1. I think the benefits other countries were gaining from this corruption made them far less likely to follow through on the mistaken intel regarding WMD before the war. I definitely think Kofi Annan's recent comment about Iraq constituting an "illegal war" was designed to distract from this growing scandal. This is one of the reasons I've hammered on the point about WMD reports that other countries had as well -- they had the reports and refused to say the reports were wrong (perhaps their intel people feared being proven wrong and wanted to report the worst-case scenario), but their decision not to go to war had nothing to do with disbelieving the intel so much as it did self-interest of protecting profits.

2. I think that while everyone dithers about whether there's a link between Saddam and 9/11, they're missing the obvious. There is and was a link, especially in the financing of affiliated terrorist groups. Let me be clear -- that has noting to do with 9/11 itself. And there's a legitimate point to be made that one could have made decisions far less costly and short of war in Iraq to take out the sources of such financing. But please note that sanctions and inspections regimes had done nothing. The problem is not so much the issue of how you shut down the financing, but prevent the next leak in the dam from taking place. This is an important issue in the War on Terror -- how do we deprive these groups of the money they need to operate.

3. Anyone who still thinks the U.N. should be a trusted partner when we are making decisions about the security of our country needs to have their head examined.

One More Reason Democrats Are Evil

They tore up the sign of a three-year old kid? What's next? Are they going to start forging documents?

Oh, yeah. Sorry.

The John Kerry Post of the Day

My latest discovery about my favorite cheese-eating surrendermonkey-looking Ketchup King cum Presidential candidate:

If this is true, the election may be over. And the Lord of Truth may have a whole new reason to vote, as noted by Jim Geraghty:

So, how much is all this media focus on Dan Rather hurting the Bush in the presidential race?

Well, SurveyUSA has Bush head of Kerry, 49 to 45.

In New Jersey.

Is this possible? Well, according to Dales, Quinnipiac had Kerry by ten back on Aug. 23.

But Rasmussen had Kerry by 4 among 400 likely voters in Sept. 3. Rutgers/Eagleton had Kerry by two on Sept. 2. And Strategic Vision, a Republican pollster, had Kerry by three on September 12.

It will take another poll or two to confirm that Bush is ahead. But this last bunch of polls suggests its time to take New Jersey out of the “safe Kerry” pile and into the “toss up” pile.

I truly doubt Bush will win the Garden State. And I think Kerry will get one more bounce, and the conflicting poll numbers (Pew has it tied while Gallup has Bush up 14) are probably the result of sampling issues in the polls right now. But the fact that Bush is even close in New Jersey tells you just how weak a candidate Kerry is.

No Ice

The NHL is on strike. I'm a hockey fan, and I barely care.

Why? Simple. The season's too long anyway. Until we get to January, hockey is little more than a useful diversion during the week, and even then, I have college basketball to fill the void (even I'm not insane enough to still watch the NBA during the regular season -- now there's something pointless). I feel terrible for all the folks in hockey front offices and other places who are being laid off while the owners conduct their version of labor Armageddon, but there's plenty of injustice in the world. Until we hit post-Super Bowl and there's no hockey, I'm at peace.

But if they make me watch the NBA next spring... I'll never forgive them.

Reasons NOT To Bail on Jury Duty

Courtesy of the Lord of Truth, we have a whole new reason to respect performing your civil duty, at least in New York...

New Yorkers dreading jury duty take note: it's OK to be drunk on booze or high on pot or cocaine while doing your civic duty.

So said a New York judge on Wednesday, who refused to set aside the verdict on a retired city firefighter convicted of swiping souvenirs from Ground Zero, citing the U.S. Supreme Court to back her ruling.

Samuel Brandon, 61, found guilty in March of petty larceny for stealing personal items from the ruins of the World Trade Center, asked for a new trial after a juror told him after the verdict that he had been drinking during deliberations.

But Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Ellen Coin cited a 1987 Supreme Court decision which rejected the argument that jurors consuming alcohol, smoking marijuana, snorting cocaine and falling asleep constituted an "outside influence" on jurors.

The Lord notes that this is quite similar to the character played by Jack Klugman in 12 Angry Men. It may also explain the verdict of the O.J. jury.

The John Kerry Post of the Day

My latest discovery about my favorite cheese-eating surrendermonkey-looking Ketchup King cum Presidential candidate:

Sometimes, he makes it too easy. Check out this exchange this morning from Kerry's appearance on Imus, which was filled with his usual campaign gobbledy-gook...

IMUS: Do you think there are any circumstances we should have gone to war in Iraq -- any?

KERRY: Not under the current circumstances, no, there are none that I see. I voted based on weapons of mass destruction. The president distorted that and I've said that. I mean, look, I can't be clearer. But I think it was the right vote based on what Saddam Hussein had done, and I think it was the right thing to do to hold him accountable. I've said a hundred times, there was a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. The president chose the wrong way. Can't be more direct than that.

That last line is the greatest close he's ever given.

Okay, let's see. He voted to give the President authority to go to war, but didn't mean it? Maybe Ketchup Boy has forgotten that only Congress can vote to authorize the United States to go to war. That's exactly what Congress did in fall of 2002. Kerry's now trying to sell the vote like Congress voted to give Bush authority to shake his fist at Saddam, but not to punch him. Isn't this a confession that he basically abdicated his duty as a Senator to make the decision? No wonder Kerry likes the U.N. so much -- they're the same people who will pass a resolution threatening war, then follow it up with another resolution. Maybe Kerry thinks Bush had to go to Congress and get a vote to put Saddam on double-secret probation before he went into Iraq.

What's hysterical about Kerry's campaign is that he's gone totally negative, after asking Bush to run a "positive" campaign during the Democratic Convention. First he whined when Bush and others aptly criticized his record, now all he does is try and criticize Bush's record. He's got Terry McAuliffe and other surrogates trying to attack Bush on the Guard story, and I fully expect one of these idiots to go out and plug Kitty Kelly's book. We don't see any new proposals or new ideas out of John Kerry, just the same tired spin.

What's really scary is the idea that this guy could become President. This was the most electable candidate the Democrats had?

The Dems Get Desperate, Part III: Rathergate

I haven't posted a lot on this recently, but I suppose it's time (hat tip to PoliPundit, who was the first person I saw using the term Rathergate).

The last few nights, Dan Rather and his minions have put forth anemic defenses as the walls have come tumbling down around them. The classic response was from Jonathan Klein of CBS News, who said the following on Fox News on Friday night, "Bloggers have no checks and balances . . . [it's] a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas." The arrogance of the statement aside, it's triggered vast hilarity among the bloggers of the world. Not to mention some smugness.

RatherBiased does a good job rounding up the news from the last week, as does Instapundit, Powerline, Patterico, JustOneMinute and KerrySpot (particularly here and here, with responses to Rather's televised defenses so far). The New York Post even pointed out that CBS may have trouble with another recent story, one with even more implications (hat tip: Powerline, again). Tony Blankley and Michelle Malkin do a nice job of crowing for the blogosphere. CBS has even triggered some new products from Microsoft (hat tip: VodkaPundit).

Even the MSM (mainstream media) has come around, with ABC revealing the tale of the experts CBS didn't mention. This follows the excellent article by Michael Dobbs and Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post this week. Now editorials are appearing in liberal hand-wringing outlets like the L.A. Times. Even the forger portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio in "Catch Me if You Can" is making fun of the boys at Black Rock: "If my forgeries looked as bad as the CBS documents, it would have been, 'Catch Me In Two Days.'" Even Rather's colleagues, like Bob Schieffer, want an explanation.

Today, CBS will supposedly have an announcement. I'm hoping it's Dan Rather's resignation. But that's not the endpoint for discussion here. Forget the liberal-conservative thing; this is, in the end, a generational issue.

I was talking with a friend the other day who mentioned that he raised the issue with his parents, who are decidedly to the left of him (and me, which isn't very difficult, since President Bush is to the left of me). Neither of them felt very comfortable with the topic and almost were offended by the fact that they had to have this discussion.

To a lot of people, folks like Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings are trusted friends; they're the guys you invite into your home every evening to tell you what's happening in the world. You grew accustomed to them and believed what they told you -- mostly because no one had ever proven them to be wrong. You trust them because you and your parents also trusted guys like Cronkite, Brinkley, Huntley and Reynolds, and before them your folks trusted Edward R. Murrow, because he was reporting from London during the Blitz during WWII.

None of those names mean a damn thing to my generation.

Maybe that's sad, but it's also refreshing. My generation grew up with cable TV and the advent of 700 channels, with news available every half-hour, with specialty channels to report on sports news, weather news, entertainment news, whatever we wanted. Then along came the Internet, which allowed us to broaden our horizons without relying on the traditional gatekeepers. We no longer view one voice, or two or three at most, as authoritiative. Hell, we view no voice as authoritative, unless it can back it up. The arrogance of the media elite is entertaining, but it's also instructive. Lileks put it best last week:

But I think the number of people who regard the evening news as straight truth delivered by disinterested observers, can be numbered in the high dozens. Blogs haven’t toppled old media. The foundations of Old Media were rotten already. The new media came along at the right time. Put it this way: you’ve see films of old buildings detonated by precision demolitionists. First you see the puffs of smoke – then the building just hangs there for a second, even though every column that held it up has been severed. We’ve been living in that second for years, waiting for the next frame. Well, here it is. Roll tape. Down she goes. And when the dust settles we will be right back where we were 100 years ago, with dozens of fiercely competitive media outlets throwing elbows to earn your pennies.

That's about right, except for the high dozens part. I'm guessing there are still plenty of older folks who view the words of Rather, Jennings and Brokaw as gospel, because they've always been gospel. Rather may still perceive his environment as the same, but it's not. He's a media dinosaur -- his claims and statements will not be accepted as the truth without being examined, and he's not ready for that world. One wonders if his colleagues at ABC and NBC recognized this issue before or do so now; my guess is that many do. I'm guessing the younger reporters in particular know better than to run with a questionable story, with the fact-checking that goes on today outside their house -- Steven Glass may not have lasted one week at the New Republic in today's environment.

Network news still has its audience -- but the fragment of the audience that hangs on its every word and accepts it as truth is growing older and shrinking every day. Rather's defense thus far -- to rely on his credibility and reputation, and the credibility and reputation of CBS News -- probably would have worked in another time and place. But now, it's a competitive marketplace, where the rest of the MSM, while it cringes at what this does to its credibility, has to report the story or get left in the dust by the Pajamahadeen on the Internet. What's funny is that Rather impugned the critics as partisans, while mounting a half-hearted defense against the criticism itself. If it doesn't remind you of the Kerry campaign's response to the Swift Boat Vets, it should. If the story was intended to help Kerry and hurt Bush, we doubt it's done either -- no one's paying attention to either guy, which benefits the leader in the race. And the DNC's attempt to flog the memo story in the face of the contradictory evidence has made Terry McAulliffe into a bigger joke that he already was, but that's neither here nor there.

In the end, the network news will never be the influence it once was. Some folks probably will wax nostalgic about that and see it as a terrible development. From here, it just looks like a bright new day -- one where the quality of Dan Rather's reporting is examined as closely as that of anyone else. And that's the way it is, and should be.

The NFL Recap, Week One

I do these at work as part of my duties as Sports Czar, so why not share with the greater public?

The NFL finally returned this week, to the vast relief of those tired of gambling on other sporting events, such as baseball, golf and who will make the dumbest speech at a political convention. Not that we would ever promote gambling, of course. And if you don’t believe us, we have Dan Rather here to vouch for us.

Heck, the NFL was so anxious to return that the Pats and Colts kicked things off early on Thursday in Foxboro. The Pats won their 16th straight game (counting playoffs) by beating the Colts, although it may be more appropriate to note that the Colts again beat themselves, turning the ball over twice inside the five-yard line. On some D.C. area driving range, Steve Spurrier was cheering, since the Ol’ Ball Coach was the last man to defeat the Patriots.

The NFL returned a day early to Miami as well, as the Dolphins and Titans squared off on Saturday to avoid Hurricane Ivan, a game that was not telecast nationally until Sunday. Dolphins fans probably wish the game had not been telecast locally, as the Dolphins fell to Tennessee 17-7. On the plus side, Ricky Williams was hired as a delivery boy by Pizza Hut, which solves both his employment problem and what to do when he gets the munchies.

In Washington, the return of the NFL season meant the return of Joe Gibbs, Lord and Savior of D.C. sports. We hear the Wizards want to hire Gibbs as well – who cares if he doesn’t know anything about basketball? None of the Wizards executives know anything about basketball, either. Gibbs’ return was a happy one, as the denizens of Fed Ex Field departed happy following the home team’s 16-10 win. It’s probably considered poor taste to point out the fact that the Redskins opened each of the last two seasons with victories as well. So, of course, I can’t refrain from doing just that.

Meanwhile, other teams celebrated the opening of the season in unusual ways. For example, Detroit celebrated its first road win in over two seasons by knocking off Chicago 20-16. In an even more shocking development, San Diego opened the season by winning, period, knocking off Houston 27-20, which ended Houston’s franchise perfect record of 2-0 on opening day. San Diego coach Marty Schottenheimer celebrated the opening day win by hiring seven more members of his family. We also saw perhaps the most unusual stat line in history in Pittsburgh, where Jerome Bettis rushed five times for one yard… and three touchdowns in a 24-21 win over the Raiders. Bettis averaged less than a foot a carry, yet scored more fantasy points than players like Clinton Portis and Brian Westbrook. This makes about as much sense as Dan Rather's defense.

Speaking of Westbrook, he was part of a dominant offensive performance in Philadelphia, where the Eagles stomped on the Giants 31-17. We’re not sure who had the worst weekend, but it’s down to Dan Rather’s handwriting expert or the Giants defense, which allowed Terrell Owens to score three TDs and strike several unique poses in the end zone. Owens wasn’t the only one putting on a signature performance – Jacksonville rookie Ernest Wilfork made a sensational catch in the back of the end zone on the final play of the game to defeat the Bills 13-10, on a play that was reviewed for so long winter officially started in Buffalo. 60 Minutes also reviewed the play, and discovered that Gerald Ford never really played at Michigan.

At least the Jets salvaged some honor for New York and New Jersey sports teams by outscoring Cincinnati 31-24, as seventy-year Curtis Martin led the attack by rushing for 196 yards. Unlike previous seasons, beating Cincinnati now qualifies as an impressive victory. Ohio did get one victory, as the Browns stunned Baltimore 20-3; good thing the Ravens employ offensive genius Brian Billick, or they might never have gotten that field goal.

Another offensive genius, Rams coach Mike Martz, saw his team stumble past Arizona 17-10; Martz’s offense may not be as impressive as the one employed by St. Louis’ baseball team. In the same game, graybeard Emmitt Smith put down the Geritol bottle long enough to score his 156th career rushing touchdown for the Cardinals. Meanwhile, his former team, the Dallas Cowboys (a.k.a. the epitome of sports evil), lost to Minnesota as Dante Culpepper hooked up with Randy Moss twice on the way to five TD passes. Moss now has ten TD catches in five games against Dallas, all victories – in our eyes, this clearly qualifies Moss as an American hero.

Meanwhile, KC started out this season the same way it ended last season – giving up a ton of points, this time to Denver, as the Broncos romped 34-24. Kansas City coach Dick Vermeil cried in the post-game press conference, but he explained that he was crying because he had to go back to Kansas City. The Chiefs at least lost on the road – New Orleans fell at home, dropping one to Seattle, 21-7. Then again, they get to live in New Orleans, at least until it washes away with Ivan this week.

Two other games took placed this week, but we’re too lazy to report on them. Actually, we’re not sure anyone watched Atlanta hold off San Francisco 21-19; in fact, we hear Dan Rather was hiding in the stands at 3Com Park. As for the Monday Night game, we take little pleasure in watching Carolina lose again, 24-14 to Brett Favre and Green Bay. Actually, we take a lot of pleasure in watching Carolina lose. Were the Panthers to go 0-16, we think the world would be a better place. No, I’m not a bitter Eagles fan – not at all.

Stay tuned for Week 2 -- when we do the games in haiku!

Catherine Bach, Where Are You?

If she sings the theme song, I'm really going to be aggravated. But if TV Guide has it right, then Nick Lechey might wind up playing Cooter...

It's official: Jessica Simpson has landed the role of Daisy Duke in Warner Bros.' upcoming big-screen remake of The Dukes of Hazzard. As reported last week, Johnny Knoxville and Seann William Scott will star as Bo and Luke.

Apparently Jessica beat out Britney Spears, Mandy Moore and Jessica Biel. No comment on why Kelly Clarkson wasn't up for the job.

Dan Rather Probably Thinks I Should Respond

What's really sad is that they sent the e-mail to me and GOT THE LAST NAME WRONG.

Abidjan,
Cote d'Ivoire.
West Africa
14/09/2004

MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING

Dear Friend,

My name is Mr. Martins Camara, a Banker and accountant with BIAO BANK
Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire. I am the personal accounts manager to ENGR.
MORRIS PAIT, a National of your country, who used to work with an oil
servicing company here in Cote Ivoire.

My client, his wife, and their three children were involved in the ill
fated Kenya Airways crash in the coasts of Abidjan in January 2000 in
which all passengers on board died. Since then I have made several
inquiries to your embassy to locate any of my clients direct or extended
relatives but has been unsuccessful.
After several unsuccessful attempts, I decided to trace his last name
over the internet,to see if I could locate any member of his family
hence I contacted you.

Of particular interest is this huge deposit with our bank here in,where
the deceased has an account valued at about ($9.5 million US
dollars).They have issued me a notice to provide the next of kin or the bank will
declare the account unservisable and unclaimed fund thereby converting
the fund to the bank's treasury.

Since I have been unsuccessful in locating the direct relatives for
over last 2 years now, I will seek your consent to present you as the next
of kin of the deceased since you have the same last names, so that the
proceeds of this account valued at ($9.5million US dollars) can be
released to you and then you and I can share the money.

All I require is your honest cooperation to enable us see this deal
through. I guarantee that this will be executed under all legitimate
arrangement that will protect you from any breach of the law.

If you can handle this with me reach me now via email. Should you
agree to work with me to realizing this goal, kindly reconfirm your full
name, contact addresses inluding phone and fax numbers and your date of
birth.

Anticipating your urgent return message regarding this matter.

Regards,

Martins Camara.

The John Kerry Post of the Day

My latest discovery about my favorite cheese-eating surrendermonkey-looking Ketchup King cum Presidential candidate:

The Washington Post's Dana Milbank, who generally spends most of his time trying to find positive things to say about Ketchup Boy, notes some disturbing poll numbers for Omlet, Price of Massachusetts (hat tip: Instapundit)...

In last week's Washington Post-ABC News Poll, John F. Kerry was viewed favorably by 36 percent of registered voters, down 18 points over the past six months. But just how low Kerry's standing has fallen cannot be appreciated fully without comparing his standing with that of other household names in Gallup polls over the years. Kerry finds himself in a dead heat with Martha Stewart and Joseph McCarthy, and behind Herbert Hoover -- although he narrowly beats O.J. Simpson.

Michael Jordan: 83 (2000)
Tony Blair: 76 (2003)
Pope John Paul II: 73 (2003)
Democratic Party: 54 (2004)
John Ashcroft: 49 (2003)
Michael Dukakis: 47 (1988)
Prince Charles: 45 (2003)
Herbert Hoover: 43 (1944)
Jesse Jackson: 38 (2003)
Vladimir Putin: 38 (2003)
John Kerry: 36 (2004)
Martha Stewart: 36 (2004)
Joseph McCarthy: 35 (1954)
Rush Limbaugh: 34 (2003)
Pete Rose: 34 (2004)
O.J. Simpson: 29 (1995)
Osama bin Laden: 1 (2001)

I'm already aggravated that Kerry's beating Pete Rose. C'mon, Charlie Hustle!

What, No F'in Ziti?

The Lord of Truth sends along this piece, which allows us to pontificate on one of the things we hate most in life -- mandatory tips at restaurants. It turns out that businesses can pursue you legally for these gratuities...

Humberto A. Taveras put his money where his mouth is and ended up arrested, accused of leaving an inadequate tip at a restaurant.

Taveras, 41, faces a misdemeanor charge of theft of services after he and his fellow diners argued with Soprano's Italian and American Grill managers over the legality of requiring an 18 percent tip for large parties.

"They chased us down like a bunch of criminals," Taveras said. "It killed our weekend."

Taveras and eight others had pizza at the restaurant in this resort village Sunday night. He said they weren't completely satisfied with the food and left a tip of under 10 percent. Taveras said they also were not told of a mandatory 18 percent gratuity for parties of six or more and did not see notice of it on their menus.

Restaurant owner Joe Soprano said all the menus have the notice, and the waitress informed the group. He said he did not choose to pursue charges because of the money, but because Taveras' group was obnoxious.

Okay, let's start with noting that most places that have such a policy just add the tip to the bill; I'm assuming Sopranos does the same. In that case, it's a little tough to see how these guys figured they could walk out without paying the full tab, although it's something I've always wanted to try (and kudos to them for doing so). Of course, I'm guessing that they were, in fact, jerks, because I really don't see a restaurant owner pursuing such a small amount.

But to be honest, this is total crap. What's obnoxious is the policy of automatically adding an 18% tip. Why only add it for parties for parties of six or more? Why not just add an 18% gratuity for every meal? Yeah, I know, large parties are more likely to stiff the waiter or waitress on the tip, because the cost of the meal generally expands as the party gets larger. Guess what? Life's tough. Just because other parties are cheapskates does not mean that I should be forced to add a gratuity that my waiter or waitress did not earn.

And by the way... when the hell did 18% become standard? When I was a kid, I swear the typical tip was only 10%. At some point prior to when I began paying for meals at restaurants, it became 15%. Now it's 18%, and some places charge 20%. It presumably helps justify restaurants opting to pay their wait staff such low hourly wages. But it's still absurd, and idiotic to boot. A tip, from what I was taught as a kid, was not simply offered for adequate service, but was offered in gratitude for good service. Now we just tip everyone, whether the service was good or not.

I know this comes off as terribly anal, but I don't care. And no, I've never worked as a waiter or a waitress, but this does not mean I don't appreciate that they have a tough job. I don't particularly mind paying a waiter or waitress 15-20%; point in fact, I regularly do it. But I have the disposable income that allows me that luxury -- not everyone has this option. And unless you receive good service, rather than merely adequate service, why should you pay 15-20% as a tip?

It's fine if you do it because you want to do so -- in fact, that's perfectly acceptable. But a mandatory tip defies common sense. If your waitress spills the soup all over one of the guests, are you still going to be charged 18%? Or if the waiter fails to get you a diet soda after three requests, do you still have to pay? I guess if your food is crappy, you still pay for it. But you shouldn't automatically have to pay extra for something that's technically considered part of the cost of the meal.

Of course, I don't think I'd ever choose to walk out on the bill at a place called "Sopranos." There's too much of a chance you'll end up in a landfill somewhere.

Eagles, Part I: Beating Up the Wimps from New York

Aaah, sweet football. How we missed it.

It had been approximately 239 days since I'd watched the Eagles play a game that mattered, back on January 18th of this year. And we don't talk about that game, except to wish ever-lasting torment on former Panthers LB Greg Favors, whose late hit on McNabb effectively rendered our QB useless.

But yesterday was a day to dream.

Look, I'm not delusional about this. The Giants stink -- their defense is less credible than Dan Rather. I'm reasonably certain that the Eagles, with or without Terrell Owens, would have beaten the Giants to a bloody pulp yesterday. There are very few truly bad teams in the NFL right now -- the Giants, despite a surfeit of talent, are one of them.

But watching T.O. romp through the Giants secondary yesterday was a revelation. Andy Reid's offense does work, something that was proven by the Birds' late-season charge last year, when they averaged 28 points in the final six regular season games, only to see Brian Westbrook disappear with a torn tricep in the finale. It works even better when you have a talent on the field named Terrell Owens, someone who makes the rest of the players ont he field even better.

Want proof? Todd Pinkston actually performed like a quality #2 receiver yesterday, including one fabulous over-the-shoulder catch of a 53-yard bomb. Westbrook slashed through open holes all over the field, and Freddie Mitchell made more tough grabs over the middle. Tight ends Chad Lewis and L. J. Smith combined for nine catches, 108 yards, and a touchdown.

Of course, the big star was T.O. himself, with three touchdown catches among his team high eight catches. For any old-school Eagles fans, this was the first time we'd seen a Pro Bowl caliber receiver wearing our colors since Irving Fryer's late-career renaissance ended. Hell, it was the first time we'd really seen a game-changing superstar at receiver since the early years of Mike Quick.

And yes, we lost another key player (Shawn Andrews) to injury for the season, but there's nothing we can do about it. We also have a run defense that looks like shredded cheddar, but we'll need to give Jim Johnson a week to work with these guys, since many of them saw their first real action together after an injury-riddled preseason. For now, take heart in the quality work from the supposed weak links at corner, Sheldon Brown and Lito Sheppard, who played a damn good game.

And frankly, nothing matters more than simply getting the win, and they did that yesterday. This team needs to win in January, and it's now built to do that on offense. They have kinks to work out, but they also need to win to get to the postseason. Reid's teams generally start slow, but then pick up the pace by midseason. Generally, finishing the first half of the season at or above .500 means a division title. All that is a little tougher, since the Redskins appear to be tougher compeition than the Cowboys were a year ago, and the Eagles' run D still is a work in progress. But the schedule this season provides few tests, and most of those are at home. If the Eagles are halfway decent on defense by midseason, they will win another division title.

As for yesterday, bask in the knowledge that the first game often means little, as Eagles fans are well aware after the last three years. The last game means a hell of a lot more. Now that we've managed to win the first game of the season, we fans can dream about winning the last one as well.

Hasta la Vista, Sickos

The Lord of Truth sends along this story, which demonstrates that the Terminator has continued to pick up essential points about politics. Here, he takes on an issue which no one will dispute...

Having sex with corpses is now officially illegal in California after Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill barring necrophilia, a spokeswoman says.

The new legislation marks the culmination of a two-year drive to outlaw necrophilia in the state and will help prosecutors who have been stymied by the lack of an official ban on the practice, according to experts.

Politically, this is like launching a campaign against teenage alcoholism. No one in their right mind opposes this law, although the Lord does make a rather pointed reference to how the new law may impact Barbara Walters' marriage. But Arnold even chooses an area in which he might be accorded some deference -- who knows more about dead bodies than a movie actor who's probably killed at least a 1,000 people on the big screen?

Jokes aside, how disturbing is the fact that prosecutors have to deal with enough crimes of this type that they need such a law?

The John Kerry Post of the Day

My latest discovery about my favorite cheese-eating surrendermonkey-looking Ketchup King cum Presidential candidate:

Due to blogging difficulties, there was no post about our ribbon-tossing Botox Brahmin on Friday. But we'll try and make up for it, with two today.

And it's not like there isn't a wealth of material from the Kerry campaign. Here's a direct quote from Long John Silver's interview with Time Magazine...

TIME: One question that has left the President at a loss for words is whether he has had regrets. Do you?

KERRY: I've made mistakes, and I've done things that I regret, sure. I regret voting for Justice Scalia. I regret that any of us put faith in what the President said about how he would take America to war.

You know, I've got at least one friend who is really aggravated with President Bush on his failure to come up with a good answer to a similar question at his April 13th press conference. Bush's inability to answer the question, in my opinion, stems from the fact that he's not a real good liar, and he was struggling because he was asked, "What's your biggest mistake since 9/11?" Personally, I think Bush was trying to find a way to choose among those actions he considers mistakes, and classify one as worse than the other. I know there are friends of mine who just think Bush is too arrogant and self-righteous to admit to an error, and I'll respectfully disagree.

Let's say Bush had answered that question by saying, "I signed McCain-Feingold, and I regret that. I regret not being firmer on judicial filibusters by those obstructionist Democrats in the Senate." Now that would be a political answer, but not necessarily an honest one. And he would have been rightly hammered for it.

Now look at Kerry's answer to a similar question. This is a guy who came home from Vietnam and accused his fellow soldiers of committing atrocities, and claimed to have committed a number of atrocities himself. This is a guy who's apparently so ashamed of his Senate voting record on intelligence and defense issues that he won't defend the record, instead whining that the other side is engaged in negative campaigning when they bring up his votign record. This is a guy who voted against the $87 billion appropriation to our troops in Iraq, after he voted for the war.

And yet the first thing he mentions as a specific regret is voting to put Antonin Scalia on the bench?

If I'm a Democrat right now, my buggest regret is nominating John F. Kerry.