Get Out of My Way!

The Lord of Truth notes that both Seinfeld and South Park did episodes about similar stories...

Stricken with arthritis, Connie Haller gave up strolling the streets of this mountain town. But when the 78-year-old woman learned that the government would buy her a motorized scooter, she gladly accepted. And so did her elderly friends. And their friends. And their friends.

Now, this town of 4,000 in Kentucky's coalfields is seemingly overrun with scooter riders.

Scores of scooters and motorized wheelchairs plod along busy streets to the Wal-Mart, restaurants and beauty salons. Motorists complain that they snarl traffic, and the gray-haired riders fret about the dangers of sharing the asphalt with cars and trucks.

Mayor Doug Pugh believes the government helped create the problem and should help pay for the sidewalks that would solve it.

"It would be a lot safer," Pugh said. "These aren't like little motorcycles -- they shouldn't have to be on the roads."

Paintsville officials are not sure exactly how many people in town have scooters. But Haller said she knows of at least 50 in her apartment building alone.

Oh, good. First the government creates the problem, then they create the solution. And we pay for both. God bless democracy.

The John Kerry Post of the Day

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

There are times when Republicans question John Kerry's judgment, and the outraged response of the Windsurfing Elite is complain about how the GOP is questioning John Kerry's patriotism.

And there are times when his sanity may need to be questioned, because no one's judgment should be this atrocious.

Yesterday, in the Kerry Post of the Day, I noted Kerry's comments about Iwad Allawi's address to Congress. As I put it, "it's shocking that Kerry decides to step out here and basically call out the new Prime Minister of Iraq as a tool of U.S. policy." Some might accuse me of twisting Kerry's words and misrepresenting them. I guess we could have a debate about it.

Until this piece of filth from Kerry advisor Joe Lockhart appeared in the paper today:

"Allawi's two most important messages are: `It's working, and the Iraqi people are behind it,"' said Steven Kull, director of the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes. "If he can convince the public of those two things, it is going to be very helpful to Bush."

But Kull said it was unclear whether Americans would see Allawi as a reliable source, given the continuing violence in Iraq and his vested interest in portraying events there in the most positive light.

Democrats moved quickly to fuel skepticism, denouncing Allawi's message in unusually pointed terms.

While Kerry was relatively restrained in disputing Allawi's upbeat portrayal, some of his aides suggested that the Iraqi leader was simply doing the bidding of the Bush administration, which helped arrange his appointment in June.

"The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips," said Joe Lockhart, a senior Kerry adviser.

RE-READ THAT LAST LINE. If you're not appalled, you should be.

I'm going to ignore, for now, the idiotic assertion by the L.A. Times that Kerry was "restrained." But Joe Lockhart should be fired, now. Not for the Bill Burkett-CBS memos fiasco, which he appears to have jumped into willingly. No, he should be fired for this quote. If he isn't fired, then John Kerry must agree with it... and in that case, maybe we should question his patriotism.

Look, I understand that the common perception of politicians is that they'll do anything to get elected. But I'd like to think that undermining your own nation's relationship with an ally, especially in time of war, is something you'd try to avoid. That doesn't mean you can't critique a sitting President's foreign policy -- far from it. But having one of your top aides calling the leader of another nation a "puppet" for the U.S. is beyond disgusting.

And it's not like this is an isolated incident of undermining a key ally. Charles Krauthammer's piece (if you read nothing else that I link to in this rant, read this) today discussed Kerry's campaign in a context that makes you wonder -- if he's bad-mouthing the nations that support us during his campaign, how will this help him win their help or the help of others if he's elected President? As Krauthammer noted...

Australian Prime Minister John Howard has taken great risks and much political heat for his support of America. There is a national election in Australia on Oct. 9, and the race is neck and neck between Howard and Labor Party leader Mark Latham. Latham has pledged to withdraw from Iraq.

This is a critical election not only for Australia but also for the United States. Think of the effect on America, its front-line soldiers and its coalition partners if one of its closest allies turns tail and runs.

The terrorists are well aware of this potential effect. Everyone knows about the train bombings in Madrid that succeeded in bringing down a pro-American government and led to Spain's precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. But few here noticed that this month's car bombing in Jakarta, Indonesia, was designed to have precisely the same effect.

Where was the bomb set off? At the Australian Embassy. When was it set off? Just weeks before the Australian election and just three days before the only televised debate between Howard and Latham.

The terrorists' objective is to intimidate all countries allied with America. Make them bleed and tell them this is the price they pay for being a U.S. ally. The implication is obvious: Abandon America and buy your safety.

That is what the terrorists are saying. Why is the Kerry campaign saying the same thing? "John Kerry's campaign has warned Australians that the Howard Government's support for the US in Iraq has made them a bigger target for international terrorists." So reports the Weekend Australian (Sept. 18).

Americans Overseas for Kerry is the Kerry operation for winning the crucial votes of Americans living abroad (remember the Florida recount?), including more than 100,000 who live in Australia. Its leader was interviewed Sept. 16 by The Australian's Washington correspondent, Roy Eccleston. Asked if she believed the terrorist threat to Australians was now greater because of the support for President Bush, she replied: "I would have to say that," noting that "[t]he most recent attack was on the Australian embassy in Jakarta."

She said this of her country (and of the war that Australia is helping us with in Iraq): "[W]e are endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multilateral channels." Mark Latham could not have said it better. Nor could Jemaah Islamiah, the al Qaeda affiliate that killed nine people in the Jakarta bombing.

This Kerry spokesman, undermining a key ally on the eve of a critical election, is no rogue political operative. She is the head of Americans Overseas for Kerry -- Diana Kerry, sister to John.

She is, of course, merely echoing her brother, who, at a time when allies have shown great political courage in facing down both terrorists and domestic opposition for their assistance to the United States in Iraq, calls these allies the "coalition of the coerced and the bribed."

Basically, Kerry claims he's going to bring more allies to the table in Iraq if he's elected. But he starts by bad-mouthing the friends who stood by us, by insulting them as a coalition of the coerced and the bribed. Doesn't he stop to think this is a good way to lose those allies?

Now, Kerry has a campaign spokesperson ripping the Prime Minister of Iraq, a country with which Kerry would need to conduct diplomacy and establish a relationship, "a puppet." I don't know if I totally agree with Ralph Peters' piece in the New York Post, but there's an awful lot of truth in there. Jason van Steenwyck might have put it best...

No wonder Kerry left the cookie business. The guy couldn't sell an Ice cube to a bedouin.

"I laid out a plan which will help America protect our troops," he says. "We need to bring other allies to the table."

Ok. So you want other nation's leaders to expend political capital and treasure and send their lads to risk their lives along with theirs. So why don't you act like it? Why aren't you trying to sell the deal?

Because right now you are calling the U.S. Government incompetent and arrogant. You're arguing that Iraq is sliding into chaos. You argue that thousands of terrorists are slipping across Iraq's borders and that it's become "a magnet for terrorism."

You dispatch your sister to tell Australia that supporting the United States in the war on terror puts them at greater risk than they were before.

You stand with a straight face and tell nations like the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Italy, who have each shed blood for the freedom of Iraq as part of the coalition, that they're members of "a fraudulent coalition."

You can't even be bothered to leave Ohio to speak with Allawi when he comes to the US to say "thank you." But you don't hesitate to all but brand this man--who lives in Iraq every day--a liar, and then have the chutzpah, the gall, the arrogance to tell him from afar that he's out of touch with the reality on the ground.

Dead on. As for Lockhart, Instapundit beat me to the punch in calling for his firing. He phrased it better, too, but that's not shocking. Greg Djerejian called the comments disgraceful. And Andrew Sullivan (who currently supports Kerry) adds a more devestating bit after calling the line "vile"...

This is the same Joe Lockhart who calls nutjobs in Texas at the behest of CBS. Look, Bush's war-management deserves ferocious criticism, but the notion that Kerry is fit to wage this war is getting more and more untenable as the days go by. He has sent signals that he wants to withdraw troops soon; he disses our allies; he shows contempt for a man risking his life to bring democracy to Iraq. We're in a war, senator. Fight the enemy, not our friends.

One more time -- this was the most electable candidate the Democrats had???

Put This on Ebay

More from the Lord of Truth, who notes that Janet Reno's favorite cult leader (not counting Fidel Castro, of course) has at least one prize possession he left behind, which can be yours, if the price is right...

A souped up Chevy Camaro owned by David Koresh, the slain leader of the Branch Davidian religious sect, will be sold at a Texas auction this weekend, the auctioneer said on Wednesday.

The 500-horsepower Camaro was Koresh's everyday car and has dents from an FBI tank that struck it during the April 19, 1993 raid in which he and 80 Davidians died and their Waco, Texas compound burned to the ground, said Daniel Kruse of vintage car firm Kruse International.

The 1968 model "muscle" car with a powerful 427-cubic-inch motor has the words "DAVID'S 427 GO GOD" stamped on the engine block.

"This is history," Kruse said. "This is what David Koresh was all about."

That's what David Koresh was all about? And here I thought he was a crazy religious cult leader. Man, do I feel silly.

A Noble Cause? We Hope

Buy them beer.

Based on this article, I think the site is real. But I can't vouch for it. However, if true, this is well worth it.

The John Kerry Post of the Day

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

Seriously, he was going to stay quiet today. After battling a cold, Kerry was going to keep his mouth shut today. But then Iraqi Prime Minister Iwad Allawi spoke before Congress (in a speech well worth reading), and Ketchup Boy had to respond... in a speech worthy of derision...

QUESTION: Prime Minister Allawi told Congress today that democracy was taking hold in Iraq and that the terrorists there were on the defensive. Is he living in the same fantasy land as the president?

KERRY: I think the prime minister is, obviously, contradicting his own statement of a few days ago, where he said the terrorists are pouring into the country. The prime minister and the president are here, obviously, to put their best face on the policy. But the fact is that the CIA estimates, the reporting, the ground operations and the troops all tell a different story. Yesterday I read the report of a deputy director of the Provisional Coalition Authority. He's now returned to the United States. And his report was really pretty devastating. He wrote that we are losing the peace.

Well, at least he's taking questions from the press, I guess. But it's shocking that Kerry decides to step out here and basically call out the new Prime Minister of Iraq as a tool of U.S. policy. I mean, what does he want in Iraq? Wouldn't it be smart, if not statesmanlike, to express your full support for the man who's working to ensure that elections take place? The Belgravia Dispatch nails it...

Kerry looks, er, very small today. I mean, was this statement for real? In its discombobulation, utter lack of grace (all but calling Allawi a liar--a man almost axed to death by Saddam's henchmen in the U.K. and under constant threat of assassination today), near absurdities ("Let me tell you, if the 4th Infantry Division and the diplomacy had been done (ed. note: whatever "done" means) with Turkey, you wouldn't have had a Fallujah"), pleading tone ("And ask the military leaders. Go ask the military leaders")--it reads more like a bona fide Deanian (or Goreian?) meltdown than a serious policy statement/press conference.

And am I the only one concerned that Kerry opened his remarks by proclaiming: "I want victory. I want to win." Er, shouldn't that go without saying? Why does a candidate for the U.S. Presidency even need to say that? How very odd. Of course, if he is serious about us winning--he should instead act like a statesman, head to Washington, and assure the new Iraq PM that there is a bipartisan consensus to support Iraq during its perilous path towards democracy whoever wins in November.

But no. Instead, a sour, rambling statement from the sidelines. As I said, small. Very small. I'm tempted to say he needs new advisors--but he's already gone through quite a few batches. At some point, the buck stops with the principal, no?

In the end, Kerry's basically torching the Prime Minister of Iraq's credibility so he can get elected. And he claims he would be better at foreign policy. Yeesh.

Another One Bites The Dust

Good riddance...

The Muslim cleric responsible for the practice of beheading hostages in Iraq — including two Americans this week — has been killed in a U.S. air strike, a newspaper and Islamic clerics said yesterday.

The Muslim cleric, Sheik Abu Anas Shami, 35, was killed when a missile hit the car he was traveling in on Friday in the western Baghdad suburb of Abu Ghraib, said the clerics, who have close ties to the family in Jordan. They spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The independent Jordanian newspaper Ghad quoted Shami's family as saying they were preparing a wake in the eastern Amman suburb, where Shami had lived before he went to Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion last year.

Shami, who taught that "beheading is God's justice to inflict pain and sow fear into the hearts of the infidel crusader enemy," was the spiritual mentor of Abu Musab Zarqawi. The latter is the leader of the militant group Tawhid and Jihad — Arabic for "Monotheism and Holy War."

Hope you enjoy roasting in hell, and that we can send Zarqawi to join you soon.

The Battle of the Sexes

The Lord of Truth keeps us updated on the battle of the sexes. First, the men win one...

Malaysian man shot and killed his wife after he mistook her for a monkey picking fruit in a tree behind their house, the New Straits Times said on Wednesday.

The man, 70, is being held by police for causing death through recklessness after he fired a shotgun at what he thought was a monkey in a mangosteen tree on Monday, the newspaper said.

O.J.'s got to be thinking that this guy's a lot smarter than he was. Meanwhile, the women appear to have gotten their revenge...

A man was found dead after falling from a trail in Grand Canyon National Park and landing about 500 feet below, a park spokeswoman said Monday.

Efforts to recover the man's body using a helicopter were hampered by high wind Monday and park spokeswoman Leah McGinnis said an attempt would be made Tuesday.

It was an unclear why the man fell while hiking Saturday, McGinnis said. His wife had been walking in front of him and didn't see him fall.

Authorities didn't release the man's identity because they had not yet positively identified the body Monday.

Wait one second. His wife saw him fall, and they have a dead body, but they won't ID it because they haven't positively ID'd it yet?! What, do they think there's two bodies at the bottom of the cliff?

And They Say We Don't Report on International News, Part III...

The Lord of Truth files an update on our biggest international story, the scorpion Queen...

A Malaysian woman has broken a world record by enduring 32 days enclosed in a glass box with 6,069 scorpions, suffering seven stings in the process, her sponsor claimed Tuesday.

Nur Malena Hassan, 27, will remain in the case, on display in a shopping mall in the eastern city of Kuantan, until Saturday, said Bohari Rahmat, whose biscuit company sponsored the stunt.

Late Monday, Nur Malena surpassed the previous record held by Kanchana Ketkeaw from Thailand, who spent 31 days in a glass box with 3,400 scorpions, Bohari said.

Bohari said he hadn't talked to Nur Malena since she reclaimed her record, which she first won in 2001 by living for 30 days with 2,700 scorpions.

"We don't want her to lose focus, thinking that this is enough," Bohari said. "If we can reach 36 days, it will be more difficult for someone else to beat us next time."

Don't worry, folks. We will keep following this story, until the mainstream media quits ignoring it.

The John Kerry Post of the Day

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

Each day, I think he's getting dumber.

I'm serious. In the past 24 hours, I've heard or read about Kerry saying multiple things that might qualify as the most asinine comment made by a politician in 2004 -- and we're counting Howard Dean's screams, Alan Keyes' idiocy and every word that came out Dennis Kucinich's mouth. We'll deal with the line about the draft later, after I've had time to run to Canada (jokes aside, we'll deal with it later, after I stop shaking my head at this crap).

Let's start with yesterday's press conference, where Kerry finally "met" with the press for the first time since the first week of August, when he sat down with Russert. Keep in mind, this was fifteen minutes of pontificating from behind a podium; with the exception of visiting with Letterman, Jon Stewart and Regis, Kerry hasn't seen a reporter one-on-one in 50-plus days (and I'm being unfair to Stewart and Letterman; why lump them in with dishonorable reporters like Dan Rather?). But the Democratic windbag received no tough questions, and gave us a whopper of a line...

In the 15-minute press conference, Mr. Kerry was not questioned about contacts between his spokesman, Joe Lockhart, and retired Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, a virulent Bush critic who provided documents to CBS News that were said to have shown that Mr. Bush shirked his duties with the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

The documents have been identified as fraudulent by scores of media organizations, and CBS has apologized for airing the report.

On the Iraq war, Mr. Kerry accused the president of having "misled" the American people about its costs — both in casualties and money — and "each time has chosen to move in a unilateral way without the help" of the international community, which has "made this a riskier, tougher and more expensive operation." Mr. Kerry insisted that he has "a plan to make America safer" and persuade reluctant allies, such as France, Germany and Russia, to help support Iraq's fledgling democracy.

"You have to engage, I said, in a summit; that you ought to pull those people to the table and come out with a unified agreement as to what you're going to do to send a message to those wavering Iraqis who are sitting on the fence, unsure of which way this may go," Mr. Kerry said. "And they need to see the world at our side. I believe the president has not engaged in that kind of diplomacy and summitry."

The president has charged that if Mr. Kerry had his way in the run-up to the war — waiting long enough to allow inspectors to reveal that Saddam Hussein had no stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons — the Iraqi dictator would still be in power.

Mr. Kerry disputed that argument, saying the lack of such weapons would have eroded Saddam's ability to retain control of the country.

"If you don't have weapons of mass destruction, believe me, Saddam Hussein is a very different person," Mr. Kerry said. "That's what kept him power. And I believe Saddam Hussein would not be in power."

I'm going to ignore the fact that the word "summitry" cracks me up. It sounds like the sort of word George Will would use in a column. I'm also going to pass on the fact that the press decided not to ask Kerry about the connection between his campaign and the guy who provided forged memos to CBS. We all know the media's incapable of asking Kerry a seriously critical question. (to be fair, while it's a legitimate point to make, the Washington Times does seem to take some glee in pointing this out, in a manner that I would likely criticize if the Post opted to lead a Bush story on Iraq by noting that no reporter asked him about Abu Ghraib... of course, the press may never stop obsessing over Abu Ghraib).

But look at Kerry's last statement, and the logic train he employs to get there. Kerry apparently believes that if inspectors strolled around Iraq long enough, we'd all be satisfied that Saddam didn't have WMD -- a claim I find pretty hard to believe. After all, Saddam had played cat-and-mouse with access to places with the inspectors for years, until the U.N. focused on something else long enough for Saddam to boot the inspectors. Yet apparently, this time the inspections would have been allowed to continue and would have been allowed to be extensive enough that everyone would have been satisfied. And Kerry says Bush lives in a fantasy land?

Second, apparently it was the mere threat of WMD that kept the Iraqi people enslaved to a dictator all these years. According to Kerry, they would have mounted a successful insurrection as soon as Saddam was revealed to have no WMD, because that was all they feared. It wasn't the murders, the disfigurements, the rapes, the tortures... nah, none of that stuff would have stopped the insurrection. The Iraqi Army couldn't have stopped the enraged citizens of Iraq... well, yes, they did in 1990, but this time would have been different! Perhaps John Edwards would have led the way (we haven't seen him lately, after all... maybe he's in training).

It's stupidity like this that proves that maybe Kerry should avoid speaking to the press. Wait... maybe his campaign wasn't so dumb for the last 50 days.

205 MPH????

Yes, you read that headline right. Courtesy of the Lord of Truth, check out this tale from Minnesota...

With a State Patrol airplane overhead, a motorcyclist hit the throttle and possibly set the informal record for the fastest speeding ticket in Minnesota history: 205 mph.

On Saturday afternoon, State Patrol pilot Al Loney was flying near Wabasha, in southeastern Minnesota on the Wisconsin border, watching two motorcyclists racing along U.S. Highway 61.

When one of the riders shot forward, Loney was ready with his stopwatch. He clicked it once when the motorcycle reached a white marker on the road and again a quarter-mile later. The watch read 4.39 seconds, which Loney calculated to be 205 mph.

"I was in total disbelief," Loney told the St. Paul Pioneer Press for Tuesday's editions. "I had to double-check my watch because in 27 years I'd never seen anything move that fast."

Several law enforcement sources told the newspaper that, although no official records are kept, it was probably the fastest ticket ever written in the state.

After about three-quarters of a mile, the biker slowed to about 100 mph and let the other cycle catch up. By then Loney had radioed ahead to another state trooper, who pulled the two over soon afterward.

The State Patrol officer arrested the faster rider, 20-year-old Stillwater resident Samuel Armstrong Tilley, for reckless driving, driving without a motorcycle license — and driving 140 miles per hour over the posted speed limit of 65 mph.

The Lord also noted with surprise that cops do apparently track cars from the air, which I also figured was just a trick to make us slow down. I like the fact that they apparently let the other cyclist go -- even though he had to be going pretty fast to catch up to Loney when Loney slowed to 100 mph.

The Scum Rises

The slimeball who perpetrated this attack deserves some special kind of punishment...

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A local soldier back from the war in Iraq said he was beaten at an area concert because of what was printed on his T-shirt, NBC 4's Nancy Burton reported.

Foster Barton, 19, of Grove City, received a Purple Heart for his military service in Iraq. He almost lost his leg last month after a Humvee he was riding in ran over a landmine.

Barton said he was injured again Friday night in a crowded parking lot as he was leaving the Toby Keith concert at Germain Amphitheatre. The solider was injured so badly that he can't go back to Iraq as scheduled.

"I don't remember getting hit at all, really," said Barton, a member of the 1st Calvary Division. "He hit me in the back of the head. I fell and hit the ground. I was knocked unconscious and he continued to punch and kick me on the ground."

Barton and his family said he was beat up because he was wearing an Iraqi freedom T-shirt. "It's not our fault," Barton said. "I'm just doing a job."

According to a Columbus police report, six witnesses who didn't know Barton said the person who beat him up was screaming profanities and making crude remarks about U.S. soldiers, Burton reported.

One witness, a friend of the alleged attacker, said Barton hit first. Police said they do not think that witness is credible since the six other witnesses said Barton was hit from behind.

(hat tip: NRO Online) Normally, I'd question the veracity of this tale, but six eyewitnesses is pretty hard to beat. Personally, I think they should send the attacker to Texas to serve his sentance, and have him placed in stockades in the center of different towns, with a full description of what he did, and little to no police protection. Beating up an injured soldier who's missing a leg? Yikes. And what was a gutless wonder like this doing at a Toby Keith concert anyway?

Kids say the Darndest Things

A good friend of mine e-mailed me the following yesterday. With his permission, I re-print it, with my comments to follow...

Well, the campaign rhetoric has reached my 8 year old...

Last night as my wife and I talked politics in the kitchen, my eight year old daughter apparently could tell how I plan to vote and looked up from her homework. Wide-eyed, she said "No, Dad. You have to vote against President Bush." Imagine my utter shock at this. First of all, she was paying attention to what I said. As any parent can attest, this is a rarity. It must have been because I wasn't actually talking to her and my wife's and my conversation was marginally more interesting than multiplication tables. Had I been speaking to her (such as "pick up your dirty clothes" or "no treats before dinner") she surely would not have listened, but I digress.

Admittedly, sometimes I speak too soon, too much, or too bluntly. This was no exception. I laughed, and in what I thought was a very cheerful voice I said "Of course I'm going to vote for the President." Crocodile tears. Children's tear ducts (like their heads) must be abnormally large in proportion to the rest of their bodies, but again I digress.

With a voice of concern and these huge tears streaming down her face, she looked up at me and said "But Dad, President Bush wants everyone to work an hour longer and I won't get to see you before I go to bed." Okay ... there's so much buried in this statement. I feel pangs of guilt each night as I get home late and see my children just long enough to put them to bed (on those occasions when I make it home before bedtime). Apparently, I spend so little time with them that someone, somewhere is practicing liberal indoctrination. Did I address her apparent fear of abandonment? No, I needed to know how she got such a seemingly absurd notion in her head. Where did she get this idea? From a political discussion in her third grade class. The issue, as seen through the eyes of an eight year old, is that President Bush wants everyone to spend more time working, without getting paid for it.

Now it's bedtime and instead of Dr. Seuss or Mother Goose, I have to explain the Department of Labor's new FairPay system. November 2 can't come soon enough.

What's truly sad about this is that a discussion of political issues and civics in general is something that is generally in poor shape in U.S. education today. But the idea of third graders debating Department of Labor standards strikes me as patently absurd. It's a tough issue for adults to understand and debate -- an eight year-old's limited perspective, no matter how brilliant the child, makes it almost impossible to achieve any true understanding of such an issue.

On the issue of liberal indoctrination... look, I have enough reasons why I want to send my kids to private school based simply on the quality of public schooling (of which I am a product). Frankly, I don't even know if my friend's child is in public school or not (call it a reasonable assumption at this point) or if the teacher was the one who provided the impetus for the child's belief that President Bush would make her daddy work longer hours.

But I know plenty of conservatives who wonder whether certain opinions on issues of public importance are being presented as "facts" by people in positions of authority in public schools today. Yesterday's Best of the Web contained an interesting assertion on this point...

Reader John Vecchione raises another interesting point: "Why are so many 'pro-choicers' antichoice on schools? One good reason is that only by taking the education of their children out of the hands of conservative parents and delivering it to liberal, unionized teachers can liberals hope to maintain parity. It is the conversion of these right-leaning children that the nulliparous liberals require for any continuation in power. Thus the natural intellectual alignment of pro-choice on abortion/pro-choice on schools is rarely seen."

Personally, I think the teachers argue against choice in schools out of self-interest as defined by their union, but that's a seperate issue entirely. I also wonder who uses the word "nulliparous" in an e-m,ail. But the question is more to the point of how children are taught in public schools, and whether too much of the curriculum focuses on delivering one perspective rather than another. And no, I'm not talking about creationism vs. evolution at this point. There are facts out there (such as "JFK was elected President in 1960") and then there are opinions ("JFK won because of massive voter fraud in Illinois and Texas.") Clearly, we want our kids to learn the former, and hopefully be able to debate the latter after reviewing the associated facts. But what happens when an issue is very complex, and a person in authority presents only one side (their side, as it turns out)?

I am talking about issues such as global warming, or more funding for education, or abortion. What's the point of view that's presented to the kiddies while discussing the issue? And are you required to provide your child with the opposing point of view?

I don't have an answer. But it's something anyone with kids (Johnny Goblin and Kansas, here's to you) will need to consider.

The NFL Recap, Week Two

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

It's a long week, so the recap will unveil our favorite way of recapping games, and we have way too much work on our plates to waste our time making fun of the targets du jour. There are so many -- the Redskins...Dan Rather... the Packers... Dan Rather... the Chiefs... Dan Rather...

But we're swamped, and so we'll take the easy way out... haiku recaps! Hey, everyone's back in school, and it's about the time every third grader is drafting one of these anyway. If your kids steal these, I expect a royalty.

The Dolphins really stink
Cincy wins late Sunday night
Wait... the Bengals win?

Pats win sixteenth straight
While Cards honor Pat Tillman.
A hero for all.

Colts stampede Titans
Peyton wins MVP battle
In Tennesee, too.

Jaguars nip Broncos
While scoring fewer points than
Our Ryder Cup team.

Ravens deck Pittsburgh
But Deion hurt a hamstring
Of course, no one cares.

Lions beat Houston
Detroit now two and oh, sign
of apocalypse?

Bears blast the Pack
On the frozen tundra, yet
Favre must have been sick.

Giants over Redskins
Seven turnover delight
Gibbs back to NASCAR?

Saints over the Niners
Late TD pass to win it
Almost Big Queasy.

Falcons whup up Rams
Vick dazzles even Martz this time
Are Rams overrated?

Panthers stun the Chiefs
K.C. is now oh and two,
Vermeil may now cry.

Seahawks stuff the Bucs
Chucky pulls Johnson for Simms
Texas grads snicker.

Dallas over Browns
Wow- Parcells wears a visor;
Spurrier tribute?

Raiders knock off Bills
Cold offense for Buffalo
Fits town perfectly.

Jets roll the Chargers
Pennington looks like Brady
We see contender.

Eagles stomp Vikings
McNabb beats Culpepper and
T.O. bests Moss -- hah!

Yes, that was lame, but you get what you pay for.

Eagles, Part II: A Merry Monday Night

No complaints. No time for extended comments. Just this -- we're the best team in the NFC today.

That was one sweet win. Read all about it here.

Now, let's go to Detroit.

The John Kerry Post of the Day

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

All right, so our humor-challenged King of Condiments appeared on the Late Show with David Letterman last night, in another attempt to humanize a guy who... well, to be frank, is a stiff. As I've noted before, there's nothing wrong with being a humor-challenged stiff -- it's when you try to go out of character that you get into trouble.

I didn't watch last night, for the obvious reasons (coughEaglesvictorycough), but I did see the "highlights" this morning on TV, along with Kerry's Top Ten list, which has a video clip here. But here's part of Jim Geraghty's take on it, which is admittedly biased...

...I wanted to write jokes for Kerry. Something like, "Dave, could you do me a favor? While we’re here at CBS, I meant to drop this memo off to Dan Rather. It's an e-mail from 1972."

"Boy, it is tough out here on the trail, Dave. You've seen these ads, you know, the Veteran Hamster Rescuers for Truth. They're saying I used the wrong kind of CPR on Licorice, my daughters' hamsters. But I'm not worried. I might sue them. I know a good lawyer from North Carolina."

But instead, Kerry has gone on Letterman... and basically given his stump speech!

Now he's talking about the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. The audience is dead quiet. They're listening respectfully, and Kerry's doing his policy stuff fairly well.

I'm not saying Kerry couldn't make some serious points during his appearance - but I can't see this wowing people the way Gore's lighthearted appearance did back in 1993. I realize that was a non-campaign appearance, but still...

This is a drier policy discussion than you'll find on Nightline.

UPDATE: Now he’s talking about the beheading of the American in Iraq today. It’s a topic worth discussing, but I’m not sure the Letterman show is really the right format for Kerry to lament the inability of the United Nations to deploy more than twenty-five percent of the staffers necessary to organize an election.

Now he’s citing the Iraq criticism of Chuck Hagel and Dick Lugar — and finally, the crowd reacts with wildly enthusiastic applause and boisterous cheers.

No, I’m kidding, they’re silent for that, too. They probably think Dick Lugar is a porn star’s name. When they go to commercial, it’s polite and respectful applause. The audience doesn’t hate Kerry - they just aren’t really warming up to him… or so it seems through the television screen.

UPDATE THREE: Oh, God, he’s bombing. Letterman asks him a direct question — “If you were elected in 2000, and you had the same intelligence information Bush had, would we be in Iraq right now?” Kerry is incapable of giving a yes or no answer. Turns to his “Bush rushed" stuff.

Talks about how it isn't a true multilateral coalition. Now he's into a how he wants to double the number of special forces. "I want to do better intelligence."

I'm going to have to get the full transcript. This is a stunningly bad performance. Senator, you go on Letterman, you just give Dave a straight answer and he'll love you. Leave the usual political caveats and spin at home.

To his credit, Kerry does get good applause on "I'd fire Halliburton tomorrow."

His Top Ten list is the "Top Ten Bush Tax Proposals." They're getting applause, not really laughter.

Okay, one, "Cheney can claim Bush as a dependent" is a pretty good one.

Number One: George W. Bush gets to deduct his mortgaging of our entire future.

Overall: Wow. Maybe the rest of the country will love what they saw. Maybe my taste and sense of humor is out of whack from everyone else's. But frankly, I thought this was a pretty darn bad performance. Kerry could have done himself a lot of good here, and he just came across as a bore.

I saw the Top Ten list, and it was pretty lame, although I thought the line about the Dubya-2 form was pretty good. Geraghty's missing one point -- this can't really hurt Kerry. If he's boring it just re-affirms what people think -- he's certainly not going to drop in the polls. This was a no-lose situation -- huge TV audience (outside Philly and Minnesota, anyway) and free press with a friendly interviewer. Of course, if Kerry did bomb, he just wasted another opportunity. He did do Regis & Kelly this morning, but it's too early to tell if that had any impact. The one joke they mention, about Bush wanting lifelines for the debates, may even backfire, as noted by Vodkapundit. Lowering expectations for Bush in the debates is supposed to be the GOP's job.

The problem for Kerry is that he's not a natural comedian, not in the least. For one thing, he really can't make fun of himself without making it look painful -- self-deprecating humor comes pretty naturally to most good politicians, but it's a serious strain for Kerry. Most of his humor comes at someone else's expense, typically his opponent. That plays to the base some, but not to folks who are tired of hearing jokes bashing the other guy. Kerry doesn't like to make fun of himself, because his ego seemingly gets in the way -- unlike Clinton, for example. Even Gore was good at making fun of himself, before he went crazy -- it was like the geeky guy was trying very hard to do it, but there was a weird sincerity to it. With Kerry, it's horribly strained -- the hair line might have worked for someone else, but it came out flat here. You can write Shakespeare, but if it's delivered by Pauly Shore, it will still suck.

The problem here is that Kerry, similar to his performance on the Daily Show last month, is trying too hard to be all things. He wants to be a serious, patrician candidate who's concerned about the war and deficit spending... but he also wants to be the guy at the end of the bar whom everyone likes. In short, he wants to be Frasier Crane, while also being Norm Peterson. The problem is, he's snobbier than Frasier ever was (in fact, Gore is a better fit for Frasier), and he can't be Norm if his life depended on it. So he winds up sounding like the loser whom no one wants to be with at the bar. Yes, like Cliff.

And I'm sure someone out there is busy comparing Bush to Woody. And Clinton to Sam Malone... wait, forget I started this.

Isreali Vacation?

Am I the only one who thinks Maddonna's starting to resemble Beverly d'Angelo, circa the Vacation movies?

And Now for Something Completely Different

Seriously, I have no clue what to say about this video. It's not dirty or anything... just borderline insane.

The Wedding Update

This wedding update is brought to you by the videography industry. Making money off your memories since before they invented the camcorder.

313 days to go...

So the trek continues. Believe me, I'm starting to truly appreciate why friends of mine (this one's for you, Frenchy) opted to get married in Vegas. Not only is there the prospect of receiving a free $10 in chips at the chapel, but the concomitant headaches of wedding ceremony planning are avoided.

To be fair, there's no way I should be whining. Almost all (about 99.44%) of the heavy lifting has been done by others thus far, and this will likely be the case for the days remaining before the wedding as well. At this point, I am presented options and asked for my opinion on these options, before a decision is made. Sometimes my opinion matters, or at least I'm led to believe that it matters.

Last week, as noted in the Annoying Song update, we watched the first of what might be many potential sample wedding vidoes. Great production values, but several questions popped up. First of all, why the hell does anyone allow their videographer to use their wedding video in their promotional materials? I understand this is probably part and parcel of the damn contract, but I'd pay extra not to have this happen.

Next, there are some really ugly people out there (yes, I know, I'm an expert). I think there was one groom in there who was the stunt double for Eric Stoltz in Mask. And yes, this is another reason I would resist allowing anyone to use my wedding in a promotional piece -- the fear of people throughout America using my face to scare children by playing the video.

Finally, I think my favorite wedding was the one they showed in full. Why? Because the poor bride was on crutches! What kind of sadist decides it's a good idea to use the wedding where the bride is physically disabled? Yes, I know, someone as sick as me. But this is why I'm not in charge of media companies.

Anyway, we'll hopefully have a videographer soon. Heck, maybe there will be a news crew available from CBS. In any case, stay tuned.

The John Kerry Post of the Day

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

Oh, great. Now we have his latest Iraq policy...

Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry today delivered a scathing critique of President Bush's war leadership, charging that Bush's "colossal failures of judgment" and "reckless mistakes" have weakened U.S. national security, diverted resources from the war on terrorism and mired the country in a costly conflict in Iraq with no end in sight.

In a speech at New York University that Kerry's campaign billed as a major address on his plans for Iraq, the senator from Massachusetts said the Bush administration's "stubborn incompetence" has created a mess in the country and that "a fresh start" is needed under new leadership.

He outlined four imperatives in Iraq, saying the president must obtain promised international support, "get serious about training Iraqi security forces," carry out an effective reconstruction plan and take urgent steps to guarantee the holding of elections scheduled for next year. "If the president would move in this direction . . . we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years," Kerry said.

...Kerry implicitly defended his 2002 vote to give Bush authority to use force to oust Hussein, saying any president would need that threat to act effectively. However, Kerry added, "This president misused that authority" and rushed to war based on faulty rationales without sufficient international support and without a long-term plan.

"Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way," Kerry said. "How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying to America that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer, resoundingly: no -- because a commander-in-chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe."

Let me start with the so-called four-point plan. This isn't FDR's Four Freedoms. In a nutshell, here's what Kerry's ideas boil down to:

1. Get more foreign troops into Iraq.
2. Train more of the Iraqi police and train them more effectively.
3. Carry out more effective reconstruction.
4. Make sure the elections take place on time next year.

Hmmmm.... let's see the specifics here. Are there any?

Let's start with #1. Do we know what phantom ghost countries are suddenly going to send more troops to Iraq? Perhaps the lost city of Atlantis has been holding back for just this very moment -- maybe Kerry is close friends with Aquaman or something. Personally, I'm wondering how a guy whom so many people find personally abhorrent after they get to know him well (see: the Swift Boat Vets) will be able to convince anyone to help us, but that's neither here nor there. The fact of the matter is, none of the purported great allies are sending troops, whether Bush or Kerry is elected. We're not even sure if they're capable of sending troops, since they've drawn down their military capabilities so far.

As for #2... Kerry spends time disputing the Adminstration claim of how many new Iraqi police have been trained. Forget about the numbers dispute for a second -- how exactly does Kerry propose to speed-train troops after he's elected, such that our troops go home faster? If he has a specific idea, doesn't it behoove him (and our troops, and the nation) to offer it now? What's he going to offer, a Kaplan course?

#3 and #4 represent a whole new level of guile from Ketchup Boy. What the hell does they mean? Nothing, much like his campaign. Kerry, who's supposedly nuanced enough to get into the details of everything else on the planet, doesn't offer any specifics. Apparently, I'm not the only one who notices, as the AP noted...

Kerry called on Bush to do a much better job rallying allies, training Iraqi security forces, hastening reconstruction plans and ensuring that elections are conducted on time. But his speech was thin on details, with Kerry saying Bush's miscalculations had made solutions harder to come by.

Bush cited Kerry's four-point plan and dismissed it as proposing "exactly what we're currently doing."

Seriously, there's effectively no difference in what Kerry is proposing to do from what Bush is doing in Steps 2, 3 and 4. As for Step 1, he can't even name where these new troops are coming from at this point. He won't offer details. We can only speculate why, but I can see four reasons:

1. He doesn't have any.
2. He can't make up his mind on what he would really do.
3. He doesn't have the guts to take a stand on the most important issue of the campaign, other than to say his opponent is wrong.
4. All of the above.

This guy wants to be President of the United States, yet he can't articulate a clear policy on what he would do if elected? I've been one of the people who's been criticizing Kerry for doing nothing more than criticizing Bush on Iraq, saying he needed to offer specifics on what he would do. Perhaps he needs a definition on what the word "specific" means.

Lastly, let me re-live the idiotic... no, wait, MORONIC rationale the Senator offers for voting to authorize the war, yet trying to campaign as if he opposed it. He voted to authorize the President to go to war, but he didn't mean it. If this rationale is true, he should have resigned from the Senate that day. He basically abdicated his duty to his constituents. Kerry needs to realize that a vote to authorize war is his decision on the matter of going to war. Noting changed in the run-up between Kerry's vote and the invasion -- last I checked, Saddam didn't offer to resign and become a panelist on Hollywood Squares, and he didn't comply with the U.N. resolutions in place. If Kerry wants to argue that Bush invaded Iraq in a terrible mistake, then he needs to admit that he made the same mistake in voting yes.

The fact that he can't do this underscores why he's such a terrible candidate. Right now, Joe Liberman is probably banging his head against a wall. Wesley Clark is smacking himself. Howard Dean is... well, screaming, but we all knew that. And Dick Gephardt is probably walking around Iowa asking, "What were you dumb Democrats thinking? Have you seen this idiot?"

Only one thing could be worse than Kerry the Candidate. That would be Kerry the President. I would laugh, but I'll wait until November to make sure this all really was a joke.

Another Dumb Idea from France

On the list of shockingly dumb ideas, turning over the authority to tax people around the world to an international body ranks right up there with sticking a fork into an electrical socket...

French President Jacques Chirac will put forward ideas for an international tax scheme that would help build a 50-billion-dollar war chest to fight poverty during a 55-nation conference on economic development opening Monday in New York.

Chirac will launch his initiative fortified by the conclusions of a French working group, but the idea is fiercely opposed by the United States.

The 150-page study drafted by the working group of experts is aimed at advancing efforts to reduce the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by half between now and 2015, consistent with goals the United Nations adopted in 2000.

Their document suggests that a tax could be imposed on greenhouse gas emissions as well as certain financial transactions, arms sales or multinational corporations.

Other proposed approaches raise the possibility of taxes levied on ships transiting key maritime straits, airline tickets, credit card purchases as well as an international lottery.

(Hat tip: NRO Online).

I'm not sure if the notion of a "French working group" qualifies as an oxymoron or not, but I am sure that this idea is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Providing aid to poor nations may be regarded as compassionate, but all it typically does is establish a dependancy on the handout. Only a nation mired in a welfare-state mindset would develop an idea this stupid. Of course, that description fits France perfectly.