The John Kerry Post of the Day

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

Let me say this in the clearest terms possible to Senator Ketchup, even if he turns out to be my next President:

You're pond scum.

And that's an insult to pond scum.

W. can't say it to you. He has to remain Presidential. Even Dick Cheney can't say it, and that's tough to believe.

Less than two weeks ago, we noted John Kerry's attack on Iraqi Prime Minister Ilad Allawi following his speech before Congress, which was followed by Kerry spokesslimebag Joe Lockhart calling Allawi a "puppet."

Now, we have this tale, as related at the Kerry Spot...

I hear from informed sources that McCurry has written a letter to the Weekly Standard that includes the following:

William Kristol’s editorial, “Disgraceful” (Oct. 4), lives up to its name by failing to note that Prime Minister Allawi’s “impressive speech” to Congress was likely drafted by political operatives for President Bush’s reelection campaign.

Can we count on this prime minister to honor the election results here in America if Sen. Kerry wins?

Mike McCurry

Senior Adviser, Kerry-Edwards 2004
Washington, DC

I understand the Weekly Standard has confirmed the letter is authentic, and from McCurry.

"Likely"? What is this, Dan Rather standards?

McCurry's letter is a big middle finger to the Prime Minister of Iraq, who is merely trying to keep his country stable enough to hold elections and give the Iraqi people, who have had the stuffing whipped out of them for a generation, a chance to pick their own leaders and give liberty a chance.

You can imagine the words that are appropriate for the snotty, disrespectful, and small-minded man who is advising Kerry on these matters. And to think I once respected McCurry.

No more respect necessary, for him or Kerry.

Maybe Jonah Goldberg put it best...

If this whole war was such a mistake, such a colossal blunder, based on a lie and all that, not only should John Kerry show the courage to ask once again "How do you tell the last man to die for a mistake?" but he should also promise to rectify the error. And what better, or more logically consistent, way to solve the problem Bush created? Kerry insists it was wrong to topple Saddam. Well, let's make him a Weeble instead. Bush and Saddam can walk out to the podiums and explain that his good friend merely wobbled, he didn't fall down. That would end the chaos John Kerry considers so much worse than the status quo ante. And if the murderer needs help getting back in the game, maybe the Marines can cut off a few tongues and slaughter a couple thousand Shia and Kurds until Saddam's ready for the big league again. That will calm the chaos; that will erase the crime.

Yes, yes, these are all cheap shots, low blows, unfair criticisms. I know. Good and nice liberals don't want Saddam back in power. Sweet and decent Democrats shed no tears for Uday and Qusay. These folks just care about the troops who were sent to die based on a lie. I care about the troops too. But despite John Kerry's insistence that he speaks for the American Fighting Man, some of you might consider that a sizable majority of Americans in uniform will vote for Bush, according to surveys and polls. And since the Kedwards campaign continues to tell us that men who fight and serve cannot have their judgment questioned, that should mean something. Oh, wait, I'm sorry. I forgot. Only fighting men who served for four months on the same boat with John Kerry are above reproach or recrimination. Even if you served in the next boat over, you're just a liar.

Damn, that was another cheap shot, another low blow — one more Dick Cheneyesque distortion. We soulless warmongers sometimes forget ourselves. I realize now that you forces of truth and light are nothing like me. If only Bush had justified this war in the high-flown language of liberty and justice he uses now, then you better angels of the American nature would have supported the toppling of Saddam.

Of course, Bush did exactly that. He spoke of the lantern of liberty lighting the Middle East long before the Iraqi Statue of Tyranny fell down in that Baghdad square. But he was lying then, of course. He only said that stuff to please those bloodlusting neocons who didn't care about Bush's vendetta to avenge his father and were too rich from their access to Zionist coffers to care about the Texas oil man's plot to capture the Iraqi oil fields and earn Halliburton the worst publicity any corporation has received in American history. Of course these neocons knew Bush was lying about democracy and WMDs alike, but they too didn't care that they would be found out. After all, that's a small price to pay for Mother Israel, where Jewish-American loyalties check in but don't check out.

Damn. Once again the gravity of Bush's villainy has pulled me off the trajectory of honest debate. I'm not making any sense. I'm not consistent in my "rationales." Indeed, John Kerry said it so eloquently when he noted that George W. Bush has offered 23 rationales for the war. Heaven forbid the International Grandmaster of Nuance contemplate that there could be more than a single reason to do something so simple as go to war. Let's not even contemplate that the ticket that says this administration hasn't "leveled" with the American people should have to grasp that sometimes leveling with the public requires offering more than one dumbed-down reason to do something very difficult and important.

Ah, I know. The problem isn't that Bush has offered more than one reason, it's that he's changed his reasons. That is the complaint of those who would otherwise support the war. Alas, that's not true, he's merely changed the emphasis. After all, what is he to do when he discovers there are no WMDs? Violate the "Pottery Barn rule" and simply leave a broken Iraq to fester? But let's imagine for a moment that he has "changed the rationale." Isn't that what Lincoln did when he changed the war to preserve the Union into the war to free the slaves? Isn't that what the Cold War liberals did when they changed a value-neutral stand-off into a twilight struggle between the human bondage and the last best hope of mankind?

Ah, but in the Cold War we never fought the Soviets, we merely leveled sanctions. Couldn't we have done the same to Iraq, since Saddam was no threat to America? I'm sure all of the people asking this asked it already of Bill Clinton when we toppled Slobodan Milosevic, a man who killed fewer people, threatened America less, and violated fewer U.N. sanctions than Saddam ever did.

I'm tired now. But the sad news is I could go on.

I'm not saying there are no good arguments against the war. I am saying that many of you don't care about the war. If Bill Clinton or Al Gore had conducted this war, you would be weeping joyously about Iraqi children going to school and women registering to vote. If this war had been successful rather than hard, John Kerry would be boasting today about how he supported it — much as he did every time it looked like the polls were moving in that direction. You may have forgotten Kerry's anti-Dean gloating when Saddam was captured, but many of us haven't. He would be saying the lack of WMDs are irrelevant and that Bush's lies were mistakes. And that's the point. I don't care if you hate George W. Bush; it's not like I love the guy. And I don't care if you opposed the war from day one. What disgusts me are those people who say toppling Saddam and fighting the terror war on their turf rather than ours is a mistake, not because these are bad ideas, but merely because your vanity cannot tolerate the notion that George W. Bush is right or that George W. Bush's rightness might cost John Kerry the election.

The Senator may win the election. If he does, he will suffer his own sort of hell, trying to figure out what his stance is and trying to keep all the rabid anti-Bush folks happy. And he'll be a disaster. But I'll be sad for my country, because no man this short-sighted and with such little regard for humanity should be in charge of anything, let alone our country.

Blame Canada

The Lord of Truth lets us know the important issues being tackled by our northern neighbors...

A flying squirrel named Sabrina is at the center of a fight between Canada, which wants to deport the rodent, and its owner who says the creature is harmless and has bonded to him.

Ottawa wants to send the animal back to the United States, citing a 2003 ban on importing rodents into the country after a monkeypox outbreak south of the border last year.

Naturalist Steve Patterson, who brought the squirrel across the border last June after filling out the necessary papers, said the government is simply being stubborn.

"The good the squirrel can do far outweighs the bad," he said on Wednesday. "If we could apply for refugee status, I would certainly put an application in for her, but I don't think the laws cover small, baby squirrels."

It is illegal to capture flying squirrels in Ontario, prompting Patterson to travel to Indiana to obtain the animal for educational purposes, he said.

Patterson, whose squirrel got a clean bill of health from a veterinarian, won the opening round of the court battle after a judge denied Ottawa's request to make him turn Sabrina over.

But an appeal is pending and Patterson has lined up high-profile lawyer Clayton Ruby to defend the animal.

"Granted, he's not the cheapest lawyer around but I felt that Sabrina deserved the best defense," Patterson said. "When you're fighting the federal government, you've got to have some good guns there."

The Lord is upset that Canada seems willing to take our draft-dodgers, but not our animals. I'd just be happy if they took back Celine Dion.

I Wonder if She Spelled It, "Van Go!", Part II

More on yesterday's tale of woe from Livermore, California, where my new favorite artist is apparently showing her sensitive side...

The artist who misspelled the names of famous people in world history on a large ceramic mosaic outside Livermore's new library can spell one word with ease: N-O. That's Maria Alquilar's new position on fixing the typos.

She had planned to fly to California and put the missing "n" back in Einstein and remove the extra "a" in Michelangelo, among other fixes. But after receiving a barrage of what she called "vile hate mail," Alquilar said Livermore is off her travel itinerary and there'll be no changes by her artistic hand.

"No, I will not return to Livermore for any reason," Alquilar, of Miami, told The Associated Press in an e-mail. "There seems to be so much hatred within certain people. They continuously look for a scapegoat. I guess I am the sacrificial goat."

She previously told officials in Livermore, about 40 miles east of San Francisco, that she would fix the 11 misspellings. She asked for $6,000 plus travel expenses to correct the work they paid her $40,000 to create. The city council, faced with the embarrassing prospect of leaving the typo-strewn work in front of its spanking new library, voted 3-2 to approve the expenditure.

Now it appears the fix is a no go.

Livermore Mayor Marshall Kamena and Councilwoman Lorraine Dietrich did not return calls seeking comment on what their next move would be.

Alquilar explained that it took her a lot of time and money to create the work, a brightly colored 16-foot-wide circle made up of individual tiles depicting the names and images of famous people in world history.

She noted that plenty of people from the city were on hand during the installation who could and should have seen the errant spellings, she said.

"Even though I was on my hands and knees laying the installation out, I didn't see it," she said.

The mistakes wouldn't even register with a true artisan, Alquilar said before deciding to leave the work as is.

Still no word on how she misspelled Van Gogh. Now I'll never know.

I have one word for the City Council... lawsuit. Maybe John Edwards can help out. He'll be free on November 3rd.

A Travesty

The Lord of Truth lets us know about the latest travesty that's occurred to my favorite sandwich...

The traditional Philly cheesesteak has gone precipitously upscale at one new restaurant, where the chopped steak and melted cheese standard includes goose liver and truffles -- and costs $100.

Barclay Prime owner Stephen Starr admits the haute cheesesteak is a marketing ploy for his steakhouse, which opened Tuesday. And he thinks it will sell.

"I believe you will have the rich guy in there who will say, 'Cheesesteaks for the table. And buy one for the guy over there,"' said Starr, an acclaimed restaurateur who has opened 13 eateries here since 1995.

Served with a small bottle of champagne, Barclay Prime's cheesesteak is made of sliced Kobe beef, melted Taleggio cheese, shaved truffles, sauteed foie gras, caramelized onions and heirloom shaved tomatoes on a homemade brioche roll brushed with truffle butter and squirted with homemade mustard.

Let me make something clear to Mr. Starr. The cheesesteak does not contain goose liver. It does not include friggin truffles, or foie gras. And just in case anyone from stinking Primanti Bros. is reading this, it does not include potatoes and cole slaw.

Look, I wouldn't pay $100 for a cheesteak from Pat's. But I might pay $100 to smack Mr. Starr with a bottle of Cheese Whiz between his eyes.

The John Kerry Post of the Day

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

The Senator took the day off to prep for the debate tomorrow night. So we're going back over a question from yesterday's post on the draft:

What's even worse is that Rangel and Conyers basically engage in the scaremongering campaign that basically leaves one to wonder what their point is. Senator Kerry's alleged plan for Iraq differs very little from the one being executed by the President, except when Kerry starts flip-flopping again. But if they believe the draft will be necessary to win in Iraq, won't Kerry need to reinstate it?

There's only one answer that makes sense.

Senator Ketchup plans to cut and run from Iraq.

Don't like the logic? Yesterday, Kerry acknowledged that we wouldn't get more support from other allies in Iraq. No other troops to share the load.

Yet he keeps telling people on the campaign trail that he's not sure what the Bush Administration will do if re-elected, including possibly reinstating the draft, because we can't win in Iraq without getting more troops on the ground, and that requires more allies or a draft.

And his party and his supporters have actively promoted this idea that the draft is coming back if Bush is re-elected, because we can't win without more troops, and more troops requires a draft.

Kerry won't have a draft. He insists that we need more troops on the ground to win, yet acknowledges that other countries won't be able to help. And he won't draft more troops.

Which leaves one conclusion -- he plans to cut and run and lose.

Maybe he does believe this is Vietnam after all.

And before you complain... this logic is a heck of a lot more credible than the horse manure about the draft.

Take Some Time This Weekend...

and read this piece. And then Part II.

I know plenty of people will disagree with this, even among the six or seven people who read this waste of cyberspace. But it's a well-written and persuasive argument. And hopefully, you will agree. But at least read it.

I Wonder if She Spelled It "Van Go!"

The Lord of Truth wins today's contest for proving that California still knows how to waste money better than anyone else...

You wouldn't expect to see a lot of misspelled words when you enter a public library.

That's why a California city is paying thousands of dollars to an artist so she'll correct the words she misspelled on a giant mural in the entryway of the new main library.

Eleven of the 175 words and names are misspelled, including Vincent Van Gogh, Michelangelo and Einstein.

Artist Maria Alquilar was initially paid $40,000 for the mosaic. Now, the city will pay another $6,000 plus her travel expenses from Miami for her to correct the work.

Alquilar blames city leaders for not catching what she calls "oversights."

If they pay me $2,000 grand plus first class airfare and a top hotel, I'll fix the words with a bucket of house paint and a $2.00 brush from Home Depot.

The Wedding Update

This wedding update is brought to you by ESPN. Because I'm missing the game while I'm typing this.

295 days to go.

Thanks to the Lord of Truth's efforts, we have a response from the Priestly Prince of Parliament (Lights) on the issues from Monday's Wedding Update. His response follows...

I am honored that you would come to me with such "important" religious questions.

You will find both asunder and similar terms in different texts in the Church. This weekend at my sister's wedding they used "let no one put asunder". One is not more correct than the other- asunder is the term used more in the past, while some priests today use terms people understand. I prefer the term asunder because of its definition- "1. into pieces, 2. apart in direction or position".

In the Catholic Church, the sacrament of marriage does not have to take place within the context of the Eucharist (or the full Mass). This is the decision of the bride and groom. Modern thinking on this (and my opinion) is that if the bride and groom are both Catholic then having a full Mass is a good idea- the Eucharist is the center piece or lifeblood of the Church, and having it along with the wedding ceremony truly reflects Christ as the centerpiece of the bride and groom's marriage union. For mixed marriages, usually a Mass is not chosen- priests understand that the complete celebration of the mass may make those who are not Catholic feel alienated, and take away from the primary purpose of the day- the sacrament of marriage.

btw, if you try to use your Blackberry in Church, you will find that it will mysteriously stop working.

Addendum:

I also meant to mention that the words "what God has joined together........", comes from the text of Matthew's gospel (19:6)- "Therefore, what God has joined together, man must not separate". Now many different versions exist so some may have asunder, tear apart, etc. Later translations or versions of the Bible use more inclusive and popular terms.

Basically, what he's saying is, he got to hear the word "asunder" on Saturday, and I got gypped.

Jokes aside, stay tuned for next time, when I solicit song suggestions.

The Wedding Update

This update is brought to you by the Lord of Truth. He asked for it...

297 days to go...

Our last Wedding Update featured the following...

I should take this moment to point out the failure of certain people (coughjohnnygoblincoughlordoftruthcough) to point out the passing of the 300 day countdown to the end of my single life. Of course, I'm just asking for more abuse.

Johnny Goblin had the good sense to ignore the challenge... or, just ignore the blog in general. I would say something derogatory about Comcast or Newburgh, but there's no need to get nasty.

But the Lord decided to challenge my ability to calculate the amount of time left until my wedding...

Hey, according to my countdown-o-meter, there are 328 days remaining until your big day:

Time until August 30, 2005, at
Midnight(UTC time)

328 days
7881 hours
472907 minutes
28374444 seconds

You'd think someone in the wedding party would keep track of the date. Hey, I still remember his anniversary. The Lord has already generated an impressive list of reasons for his fauz pas (and to be fair, he figured it out himself before I responded)...

And can we attribute my countdown mistake to metric time? Or perhaps the gradual slowing of the Earth's rotation? How about just blaming it on the Liberals abuse
of temporal laws?

Personally, I'm blaming John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act. With that being said, the Lord can make amends by contacting the Priestly Prince of Parliament (Lights) for an answer to the original questions I posed in the aforementioned Wedding Update.

And yes, that's his new (un)official name.

The John Kerry Post of the Day

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

The Football Fans for Truth continue their crusade...

Recently, Football Fans for Truth learned that John Kerry claimed a significant achievement: qualifying and running the Boston Marathon.

In an ESPN interview, he said, "I ran a marathon back in '80, something like that. Did the Boston Marathon."

An ESPN analysis of his athletic achievements mentions that "[he] ran the Boston Marathon in the 1970s".

In its November 2004 issue, Runner's World observes that John Kerry "[ran] the Boston Marathon in the '70s".

In April 2002, John Kerry was the starter for the Boston Marathon. The Daily Free Press reports that Senator Kerry "lamented the fact that time constraints had made it impossible for him to run in the Marathon, which he participated in 20 years ago."

In a conversation with a Iowa state senator, John Kerry said, "I remember my first Boston Marathon ... it's a great run."

In a later article, ESPN tried to nail down the exact date and reported that "there's no official record of his feat, and his campaign did not provide further details despite repeated inquiries." The November issue of Runner's World reports that "he doesn't recall his time, and no official record exists".

I'll bet that if I ever ran a marathon (insert laughter here) I'd still remember the time long after I forgot the name of my favorite childhood ballplayer.

As to more serious topics...

The Massachusetts senator has made broadening the coalition trying to stabilize Iraq a centerpiece of his campaign, but at a town hall meeting yesterday, he said he knows other countries won't trade their soldiers' lives for those of U.S. troops. "Does that mean allies are going to trade their young for our young in body bags? I know they are not. I know that," he said.

Asked about that statement later, Mr. Kerry said, "When I was referring to that, I was really talking about Germany and France and some of the countries that had been most restrained."

"Other countries are obviously more willing to accept responsibilities," he added, as he took questions from reporters in a school yard in Tipton, Iowa.

Ketchup Boy said all this the night after his running mate/Fallout Boy followed his lead and demeaned the contributions of our allies who have stood by us. No further comment is necessary, is it?

A Total Waste of Space

Whew! Good thing the House voted down that draft bill, huh? I was already gathering my stuff to head to Canada. Thank God I don't have to go... I mean, who wants to spend the next few years eating mayonaisse all the time?

Here's the tale...

The House of Representatives on Tuesday crushed a bill to reinstitute the draft as Republicans accused Democrats of raising the specter of compulsory military service to turn voters against President Bush's reelection bid.

After a bitter debate on Bush's handling of Iraq, the House killed the bill 402-2 as Republicans sought to stamp out rumors of an impending draft that have swept college campuses and the Internet, worrying young people and parents across the country.

With the presidential and congressional elections less than a month away, the White House also worked to dampen draft rumors that Republicans said have been fueled by Democrats. It threatened to veto the bill it called "both unnecessary and counterproductive."

"This campaign is a baseless and malevolent concoction of the Democrat party," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican. "It has one purpose -- to spread fear."

Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, countered that Bush's Iraq policies have so strained U.S. forces, that a draft was possible no matter how unpopular it would be.

"Guess what, we're running out of troops ... Let's not be astounded that what follows is a draft. The only problem is that you can't announce it until after the election," Conyers said."

Rep. Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat, said he offered a bill last winter to reinstitute the draft to spark debate on a system that he said placed the burden of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan on lower-income people who make up most of the volunteer U.S. military.

Rangel somehow managed to vote against his won bill, for those keeping track. He also has his facts wrong; as Doug Bandow of Cato has noted, the "notion that the military is dominated by ignorant minorities and low-class whites is both grossly offensive and a ridiculous myth... The military is quintessentially middle America."

What's even worse is that Rangel and Conyers basically engage in the scaremongering campaign that basically leaves one to wonder what their point is. Senator Kerry's alleged plan for Iraq differs very little from the one being executed by the President, except when Kerry starts flip-flopping again. But if they believe the draft will be necessary to win in Iraq, won't Kerry need to reinstate it?

Don't answer, guys. You're the perfect example of how certain legislators are a total waste of space.

The NFL Update, Week Four

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

Well, at least D.C. got a baseball team last week.

Welcome to Week Four of the NFL recap, also known as the latest Redskins fans group therapy session.

Yes, we know that Joe Gibbs returned in the off-season. Unfortunately, he did not bring the 1992 Redskins with him. That was rather obvious on Sunday, when the Skins dropped their third straight game, this time in Cleveland. Everything seemed to go wrong – even the headsets didn’t work. Coach Joe Gibbs blamed that Internet thing –apparently Dan Rather has some documents that prove it. We considered sending Redskins fans to Oprah for some counseling, but all she keeps promising to do is give them new cars. She recommended some tough criticism, but we’ll opt for snide sarcasm.

Perhaps Skins fans can take some solace from the fact that they’re not rooting for the Dolphins, who dropped to 0-4 Sunday after a 17-9 loss to the unbeaten Jets. The last time the Dolphins were 0-4, Lyndon Johnson was probably still holding up his beagle by its ears. Of course, LBJ and that beagle are long gone – but the Dolphins may be in worse shape. Things must be pretty awful in South Florida, since Tampa Bay is also 0-4 after losing a 16-13 decision to the Broncos. The Bucs, however, have plenty of experience being 0-4; they spent most of the 1980’s and early 1990’s starting the same way.

It was a bad weekend all around for folks in Florida, as the unbeaten Jaguars stumbled at home, dropping a 24-17 decision to Peyton Manning and the Colts. We’re not sure what’s more shocking – the fact that the Colts only scored 24 points, or the fact that they gave up 17. Green Bay is probably wondering why the Colts picked this week to score only 24 points, after ringing up 45 points against the Packers last week. Then again, Brett Favre is probably wondering where he is, since he suffered a concussion in the Pack’s 14-7 loss to the Giants. Favre was so confused he ran back on the field and threw a TD pass… that’s one more TD pass than the Redskins had this week.

The Redskins do own one proud distinction – they’re still the last team to defeat the Patriots over 365 days ago. The Pats tied the record for most consecutive victories at 18 with a 31-17 win over the Bills and ex-Pats QB Drew Bledsoe. Bledsoe must be wondering what he did wrong – Tom Brady is a two-time Super Bowl MVP, while Brady has to live in Buffalo. Cheer up, Drew – at least you’re not John Edwards… or a member of Bengals. Yes, the Bungles are back to their old ways, as indicated by the Steelers 28-17 win in Pittsburgh. Steelers rookie QB Ben Rothlisberger is a graduate of Miami of Ohio, and he’s probably just thrilled to be out of Ohio.

The Raiders are probably wishing they could head to Ohio to feel better after their loss in Houston. The Raiders are now 2-2 and suffering through what folks in New York and Carolina call the "Kerry Collins Experience." This means lots of interceptions, fumbles and several excuses, but at least this time he’ll be dressed in a stylish silver and black. Meanwhile, Aaron Brooks of the Saints is following the Collins example, as the Saints followed up their stirring road win over St. Louis with a deflating loss in Arizona. Yes, to the Cardinals. The Cardinals defrosted Emmitt Smith, who rushed for 127 yards and even threw a TD pass… again, that’s one more TD pass than the Redskins had this week.

To be fair to the Redskins, we should point out that this scribe’s favorite team won by "only" ten points on Sunday, as Donovan McNabb led the Eagles past the Bears 19-9. Perhaps McNabb wanted to take things easy against his hometown team – we hear he will spend his bye week doing charitable work, like assisting me with my wardrobe. Maybe he can assist the 0-4 San Francisco 49ers, by suggesting they try to do something like scoring touchdowns. The Niners fell behind 24-0 before scoring two late TDs. Then again, that’s one more point than the Redskins had on Sunday.

Even Tennessee outscored Joe Gibbs’ warriors on Sunday, and the Titans played with somebody named Billy Volek on Sunday. We’re not sure if Volek is a pseudonym – we thought it might be Danny Wuerffel in disguise, but there was no glove in sight anywhere. However, Volek did follow the proud tradition of Wuerffel by losing 38-17 in San Diego. The Chargers are now 2-2… for those wondering, this means ex-Skins coach Marty Schottenheimer has twice as many wins as Joe Gibbs. Meanwhile, the Falcons now have four wins, which is almost as many as they had last season, following a blowout win in Carolina. The defending NFC champions have my sympathy… not.

Finally, we did take a little pleasure in watching Brian Billick get his butt handed to him on national TV by Dick Vermeil. We’d say more, but we can’t think of another Redskins joke to follow up. Sorry – even we’re starting to feel bad for Coach Gibbs. We'd tell him, but we're not sure his headset is working.

The Debate Part II

Personally, I think Edwards looked like a deer in the headlights at times. Cheney was nearly perfect in deftly answering the charges of Edwards before neatly shifting to the attack and hammering Edwards and even more, Kerry. I caught Pat Caddell (former Democratic strategist) on Hannity & Colmes and he pointed out three major scores with sound bites, and all of them went to Cheney. First, he never met Edwards before tonight, even though Edwards has supposedly been a Senator for six years. OUCH. Second, right after Edwards made an impassioned spiel in favor of Isreal's right to defend themselves against suicide bombers, Cheney kicked him between the eyes by pointing out that Saddam had funded the bombers and no longer does. Hee-hee. Three, the Howard Dean point on the $87 billion was a hammer on Edwards, who seemed to have no real answer. "If they can't stand up to Howard Dean, how can they stand up to al-Qaeda?" Wow.

I thought Edwards held his own in the second part of the debate, but he should have been able to win this going away. I mean, Cheney's supposed to have a "fusion reactor" for a heart (I think I'm paraphrasing the Lord of Truth), but he looked okay, even on gay marriage. The problem was that I don't know that anyone particularly gave a damn about part II of the debate -- domestic issues in this election are like a fruit cup after the seven-course meal on foreign policy and the War on Terror. Cheney took the lead during the first half of the debate, and Edwards never re-gained his footing.

Notes... the fact correction on the $200 million was particularly fun for me. Edwards blinks too much. Man, Cheney's mean, but able to stay brief. Edwards looked like Bush in the last 30 minutes. Why are they both wearing red ties? I owe Gwen Ifill an apology -- she made Lehrer look like an idiot. Of course, I don't know where the AIDS question came from, but no one's perfect.

The take around the blogosphere is relatively consistent, with a few outliers. I caught MSNBC's post-debate coverage, where the panel voted 5-0 for Cheney tonight. Of course, their on-line poll, which was getting spammed pretty hard (480,000 votes on their poll may be more people than watched the debate on MSNBC) had Edwards at 69-31 at 11:45. But ABC's scientific poll had Cheney 43-35.

Geraghty throws out these classics:

This was the single most devastating one-sided drubbing since Lloyd Bentsen smacked Dan Quayle all around the stage in 1988.

If I ever need to sue somebody, I’ll call John Edwards.

If I ever need somebody killed - like, you know, terrorists trying to kill my family - I’ll call Dick Cheney.

Ouch. PoliPundit's D.J. Drummond is a tad rougher:

Will the family of a Veep wannabe, dark suit, dark hair, Dark Side, license # I-S-U-E-U, please come and claim the carcass?

Your junior lawyer has been trampled, pummeled, thumped, whupped, sliced, diced, julienned, fried, pureed, laughed out of the county, and has dismayed fellow slimebags across the nation.

I didn't think it was that bad. Then again, Andrew Sullivan actually said the following...

If last Thursday night's debate was an assisted suicide for president Bush, this debate - just concluded - was a car wreck. And Cheney was road-kill. There were times when it was so overwhelming a debate victory for Edwards that I had to look away.

I'm not certain he was watching the same debate. He seemed to think Cheney looked tired, but I'm missing something here, because Edwards looked exhausted at the end. CBS seemed to agree, but I think I'd believe an article in the Onion before I believe anything set up by Document Boy Dan Rather. CNN seems to think it was a draw, but for all I know, they're still covering the 2000 debate.

Here's the MSNBC panel at the end...

NBC's Tom Brokaw: "Dick Cheney Reminded Me Of George Foreman, Kind Of A Slow Gait, But A Powerful Right-Hand When He Unleashed It In A Number Of Areas As He Went After The Kerry-Edwards Ticket." (NBC's "Special Coverage," 10/5/04)

MSNBC's Ron Reagan: "This Time, I Think The Chattering Classes, And I Include All Of Us Among Them, Will Come Out On The Side Of There Was A Stature Gap There, And It Was To Cheney's Advantage." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 10/5/04)

MSNBC's Chris Matthews Calls The Debate Between Vice President Cheney The "Howitzer" And Senator John Edwards The "Water Pistol." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 10/05/04)

MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell: "I Think Dick Cheney Did Awfully Well, At, First Of All, Putting John Edwards In His Place. Saying That I Have Been Presiding Over The Senate, And I Didn't Meet You Until Tonight. Talking About His Not Having Been On The Job Was Pretty Devastating." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 10/5/04)

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough: "I Tell You, Tonight, No Doubt About It, Edwards Got Obliterated By Dick Cheney. This Is The Most Surprising Part. This Debate Actually Turned In Cheney's Direction When They Started Talking About Domestic Issues. I Thought Cheney Handled The Foreign Policy Issues Very Well." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 10/5/04)

Let's go for Friday.

More Intelligence from School Administrators

The Lord of Truth strikes again. You know, I'll bet the left-wing thought police will blame this whole thing on Ashcroft somehow.

The John Kerry Post of the Day

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

I don't know whether to laugh or cry after reading this...

Sen. John Kerry on Monday lambasted as "pathetic" scaremongering, Republican criticism of his comments during last Thursday's debate in which he said the president's decision to go to war should pass a "global test" of legitimacy.

Asked during a town hall meeting in Hampton to explain what he meant, the Massachusetts senator said, "It's almost sad; it's certainly pathetic, because all they can do is grab a little phrase and try to play a game and scare Americans."

He added, "They're misleading Americans about what I said. What I said in the sentence preceding that was, 'I will never cede America's security to any institution or any other country.' No one gets a veto over our security. No one.

"And if they were honest enough to give America the full quote, which America heard, they would know that I'm never going to allow America's security to be outsourced. That's the job of the president.

"But I can do a better job of protecting America's security because the test that I was talking about was a test of legitimacy, not just in the globe, but elsewhere.

"If you do things that are illegitimate in the eyes of the other people, it's very hard to get them to share the burden and risk with you."

Kerry said he intends to be a president who understands "that America is stronger when we are leading global alliances and when we are leading the world, and that's how we are going to do it. And that's what I meant."

Here is what Kerry said during the debate:

"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded -- and nor would I -- the right to preempt in any way necessary, to protect the United States of America," the Democrat told moderator Jim Lehrer during the debate.

"But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the, the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

Where do I start?

First of all, READ THE FREAKING TRANSCRIPT, Senator. It says, quite simply, that I won't cede the right to pre-emption --- BUT --- I won't do it unless it passes a "global test." This is a classic slip by a politician who's so in love with the sound of his voice that he forgets what he's saying. He wants to have it both ways -- cater to those of us who'd prefer that we step up aggressively and take care of threats before they attack us, as well as those who want to make sure we would have the full support of non-coerced and non-bribed countries (also known as the bastions of integrity, France and Germany) before we take any such military action. As a reader at Best of the Web pointed out, he'd like us to think he means it the other way around -- that we want the support of other nations, BUT we'll pre-empt whenever we deem it necessary. He didn't say it that way, and based on his track record, we're certain that he meant EXACTLY what he said.

Second, it's not scaremongering to point out the fact that Kerry can't and won't take decisive pre-emptive action. Scaremongering is what Kerry's been using with seniors when criticizing Bush's Social Security plan. Bush's campaign has pointed out what Kerry said about the "global test" during the debate, period, and their interpretation of the meaning of it is a reasonable one (in addition to being the meaning most people attached to it). It's not pathetic, although the response by Kerry is. Kerry's first line of attack for everything detrimental to him is to whine. Maybe he really is French.

Third, let's focus on the unintended hilarity of Kerry's explanation:

"But I can do a better job of protecting America's security because the test that I was talking about was a test of legitimacy, not just in the globe, but elsewhere."

Seriously, what planet is he on? Because now he wants to convince people who are in places other than those "in the globe." Maybe he thinks that the astronauts need to be convinced. Or perhaps he's been in contact with alien leaders... wait, maybe they're the foreign leaders who want Kerry to win!

Maybe after the election is over, we can send Kerry to the moon. He might find some people who actually like him there.

He Was Master of His Domain

The Lord of Truth checks in again, with major news for fans '80's cartoons...

Action director John Woo has been tapped to helm a new, live-action version of the 1980s toy-rific toon, He-Man and the Masters of the Universe, Fox confirms.

According to Daily Variety, Woo (Face/Off) will do double duty as producer, writer/director Adam Rifkin (Detroit Rock City) will pen the script, and Fox's Fox 2000 division will bring Eternia back to life.

All of this leaves one logical question: "Who's going to be in it?," asked John Erwin.

Erwin is the veteran actor who gave He-Man his he-manly voice in the 1980s TV series. (He also helped Morris the Cat express his finicky feline thoughts in the classic TV commercials dating back to 1969.)

...Unfortunately, there was no word yet on a potential cast.

For those not raised on 1980s television, an explanation: He-Man was a pop-culture phenomenon, ample evidence of which can be found to this day on the likes of eBay where everything from He-Man lunch boxes to He-Man adhesive bandages (sorry, "Battle Strips") tempt collectors.

The TV series chronicled the adventures of Prince Adam of Eternia who buffed up when he held a sword above his head and roared, "I have the power!," thereby turning into toondom's version of Mark McGwire, He-Man.

I have no clue whom to cast in the starring role. The Rock would be perfect, except that Prince Adam was whiter than Vanilla Ice. However, I think the Lord's suggestion of Calista Flockhart as Skeletor has promise.

One TV Series I Will NOT Watch

Look, I appreciate artistic expression. I think there's something to be said for being willing to go out on a limb and try something daring. But sometimes, I wonder what Hollywood is thinking. Check out the latest "idea" percolating at Showtime...

Cable channel Showtime is quietly at work on a new series about the personal lives of an Islamic terrorist cell in the United States, The Post has learned.

The series — to be called "The Cell" — will be told from the view points of a group of Euro pean and American con verts to Islam who are plotting terror attacks here.

Showtime says it realizes it is walking into a potential minefield by portraying terrorists sympathetically without pulling punches about their violent aims.

HBO's "The Sopranos" and "The Wire" have found success doing that with mobsters and drug dealers.

"We're trying to look into the minds of these [terrorists] and the issues driving them, beyond a black-and-white portrayal," says Showtime entertainment president Robert Greenblatt, who will decide next month whether to commit to a series.

"The leaders of the cell look like nice, normal people you would encounter in everyday life and never know were quietly putting together a power base," he says. "Our only hesitation was sensitivity to the subject matter, which was very scary. Several plot points have already come to pass."

When I first read this, I almost blew my top. That's probably too visceral a reaction. I can see these writers wanting to portray more well-rounded characters than you generally see in terrorist movies. Then again, let's ask whether Hollywood would ever touch the following scripts:

1. A series that tells the stories of Nazi death camp guards and their warden, and how they juggle their personal lives with committing horrific mass murder.

2. A series that details the lives of a Klan leader and his Klavern as they plan lynchings and bombings while fighting civil rights leaders in the 1960's.

3. A series that tells the tale of Stalin and Beriya in the USSR as they and their lieutenants conducted Star Chamber trials in the 1930's, and how it impacted their home lives.

Guess what? Hollywood wouldn't touch these stories with a ten-meter cattle prod. And I wouldn't argue with that decision. They have the right to approach these sorts of projects -- but having the right does not mean it's intelligent to exercise it.

Three years ago, in the wake of 9/11, I wrote the following as part of a long e-mail diatribe, tearing apart the idea that we need to attach humanity to terrorists:

Hey, maybe evil doesn't exist in our cultural vocabulary anymore. In our culture, we can damn near humanize anyone; try watching The Sopranos if you don't believe me (and before we start, I love the show). Tony Soprano's a bad guy who cheats on his wife, kills people and makes his living breaking the law... but he cares for his kids... but he's only trying to make a living... but he was raised in this culture... but he's relatively a good guy... but he loves his wife... but he cares about his friends when he's not killing them... but he would beat anyone who tried to order a veggie calzone (with my full support, I might add)... but... but... AND WITH ALL THOSE BUTS, YOU FORGET THE FUNDAMENTAL FACT THAT HE'S A BAD GUY. Every person has redeeming values; Hitler made the German trains run on time and created the Volkswagon. That doesn't make him human. It doesn't make him a good person.

What I forgot to say is that there's a significant difference between the Mafia and the terrorists who are trying to kill us. Perhaps it's only a difference in magnitude, but I think there's more to it than that -- the mob generally doesn't blink an eye when it kills people, but indiscriminate mass murder in the name of religion is a perverse thing that's well outside the mob worldview. I'm not saying it's off-limits to examination by a serious dramatic series in any legal sense -- Showtime and the writers of this show have the right to produce this show. Having that right doesn't make it an intelligent thing to do. And while they have the right to free speech, I have the right to protest the idiocy of their choices (not that I order Showtime anyway).

In the end, it's not something I'll watch. People can consider that small-minded or unfair, but I don't really care. They may even assert that by understanding the motivations of terrorists better, we have a better chance of stopping them. I'll leave that to the experts.

I don't need someone humanizing terrorists for me. Killing them will do just fine.

The John Kerry Post of the Day

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

Apparently, the DNC minions are stealing a page from the Harvard law professors -- they're cutting and pasting with the best of them. Check out this tale from Kerry Spot...

Richard Roeper is no fan of Bush, but he is proof that the DNC/MoveOn.org and various lefties' efforts to influence the pre- and post-debate spin has gone too far and is now looking clumsy and phony.

Last Thursday's presidential debate was still in progress when the e-mails started trickling in from citizens around the country. At 8:28 p.m. CST, Catie Tierney of Douglas, Ga., wrote: "John Kerry did an AMAZING job tonight. His arguments were valid and very well-said. I sincerely hope he wins the election this fall. He will make a far better president than Bush."

Harvey Jones chimed in: "Have you noticed Bush's body language? He seems to be blinking an awful lot. I hear this is one of the usual signs of lying."

Next up, Anne Horton Wood of Knoxville, Tenn.: "John Kerry showed the voters why he should be president, while Bush looked and sounded like a whiny little boy who has grown old, but has never grown up."

At 9:31 p.m., the trickle of e-mails turned into a hurricane.

"I am an undecided voter in Florida," wrote Andrew Monaco, "and I wanted to let you know that I think John Kerry won the debate.... Kerry was more in command of the issues and looked more presidential. The president was flustered and distracted."
Joyce Mulazzi of Suwannee, Ga.: "John Kerry proved he is a LEADER by discussing his plans for our country and discrediting President Bush's claims. George Bush proved that he is a CHEER-LEADER by . . . stating over and over again about the hard work he's done. It's not hard work lying to us, alienating us from the rest of the world, ruining our environment, and making the rich richer."

Pam Gordon, Orchard Lake, Mich.: "Kerry was the clear winner. He was poised, knowledgeable and outlined his points clearly."

Kristine Serrano, Westminster, Co.: "I am a registered independent who has decided to vote for John Kerry. President Bush looked very unprepared for the debate. Sen. Kerry . . . possessed excellent command of every issue."

The flood of "Kerry won!" messages continued all Thursday night and well into Friday — more than 500 in all.

And not one supported Bush.

Even most Bushies concede the debate was not the president's finest moment — but come on, 500 to 0? These e-mails seemed about as authentic as the missives I get from Congo dictator Mobuto Sese-Seko, asking my help in transferring his secret stash of millions.

Well, it turns out other people noticed. James Taranto at Best of the Web noted how the Bergen Record managed to print two letters employing the same phrasing as the sample letters on the DNC website. The Chicago Tribune even printed an editorial about it. Gotta love those dedicated flying monkeys of the left.

Speaking of stupidity... here's Teresa Heinz Kerry on Sunday in Pittsburgh...

The war in Iraq has cost America the respect of her allies and the United States is losing the war in Afghanistan, Heinz Kerry said at a dinner at the Sheraton Four Points in Greensburg.

"On 9/12 every single newspaper in the world said 'We are all Americans.' Today it is not the case," she said.

By sending American troops to Iraq instead of to Afghanistan, Bush permitted Osama bin Laden to escape, Heinz Kerry said.

"Osama bin Laden is Osama been lost," she said.

"The Taliban is back running Afghanistan," Heinz Kerry said.

One last time -- I DON'T CARE THAT THE REST OF THE WORLD FELT SORRY FOR US WHEN WE WERE ATTACKED. I DON'T WANT TO BE ATTACKED AGAIN. If we can do both, fine. If we can't, screw their feelings. In case you don't understand, nothing aggravates me more than this idiotic drivel by the left.

Next, the Taliban is in charge of Afghanistan? Even the left-wing dishrag is predicting a successful election on Saturday in Afghanistan. Maybe THK has her head buried in a bottle of ketchup. If she somehow becomes First Lady, I guess I'll be guaranteed some entertainment.

The Wedding Update

This wedding update is brought to you by PENNDOT. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation -- using confusing signs to insure that you can get lost anytime, anywhere in the state in which I grew up.

299 days to go.

I should take this moment to point out the failure of certain people (coughjohnnygoblincoughlordoftruthcough) to point out the passing of the 300 day countdown to the end of my single life. Of course, I'm just asking for more abuse.

The quick news is that we now have a videographer. This apparently concludes the tortuous process of having to watch other people's wedding videos. Based on input from my married friends, I'm confident that I will never watch my own wedding video as many times as I've watched the promotional pieces.

But we also attended another wedding this weekend. Serious party, gorgeous church, wonderful people, good times had by all. But a few questions, in no particular order...

1. During the ceremony, the priest says the bit about what God has joined, "let no man divide." Maybe I watched too many TV weddings when I was a kid... but I remember the phrase "let no man tear asunder" being used more often. To me, the word "asunder" is much cooler and should be used more often. So what happened to it? Can I get a ruling on this from someone? Specifically, I'd like a ruling from the only man I know who is an expert on the Pope, the inner workings of British Parliament and Parliament Lights. You know who you are.

2. Good beer in PA, as always. But house liquor... ugh. Which reminds me -- gentlemen, bring your flasks next year.

3. Mass... another ruling on this. Generally, when I attend a wedding where they conduct mass, I'm forced to spend anywhere from 15-30 minutes trying to stay awake. Is it polite for me to send e-mails from my Blackberry while everyone else is receiving Communion?

4. Entry songs for the wedding party came up as a topic. My future wife has now vetoed Shama-lama Ding-dong. Yes, I'm upset, too.

5. They apparently did the bouquet toss and garter throw. Seriously, I don't think I've seen that in six years, and I attend a lot of weddings. Then again, I missed it this time as well, since I was out at the bar (I know, you're shocked).

6. Only one real quibble with the wedding date. Both the bride and the groom went to colleges with big-time football programs... but they're getting married on a fall Saturday??? And no, this has nothing to do with my late July wedding date.

Anyway, that's about it for now. Stay tuned for the next one -- I'll announce whether I'm wearing a cummerbund or a vest. That should generate some serious traffic on the site.

The Dead Are Registered

Please note, this article about voter registration records being set fails to mention one word about fraud. But hey, we hear Kerry leads among the dead and non-existent.

Another Disadvantaged Class of People

The Lord of Truth checks in with another person needing charity...

Sandy Allen now has enough money to buy her dream van -- one big enough to accommodate the 7-foot, 7-1/4 inch frame she has as the world's tallest woman.

Less than a week after announcement of an effort to raise the $5,200 needed to buy the used van, donations have reached about $7,000, said Bonnie Shehan, a friend of Allen's.

"People from all over the country are sending money for Sandy," Shehan said Thursday.

Shehan had been Allen's unofficial chauffeur, using her minivan to drive Allen places, until the van was stolen last week. But while Allen said she was glad to leave the nursing home where she lives from time to time, Shehan's van was cramped.

I'd like to announce that I'm taking donations to buy the Lord of Truth an Escalade. No, he's not exceptionally tall, nor was his car stolen. But he's stuck living in New Jersey, for crying out loud. Won't someone take pity on him?

The John Kerry Post of the Day

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

Sorry about last Friday. No, I wasn't depressed about the debate -- I tend to think more long-term anyhow. Bush missed a chance to hammer Kerry on Thursday for about one million dumb lines. But I think the more people see of Kerry, the less they like him. I keep thinking I'll find a point at which my deep dislike of Kerry ends, but he keeps sinking lower.

Anyway, it was big news last week when the little paper in Crawford, TX, with its circulation of 425, decided to endorse Senator Condiment. We'll see if the press gives as much coverage to this editorial in the Lowell Sun, the home paper of everyone's least favorite Vietnam veteran...

Since the devastating terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, one American leader has maintained an unbending resolve to protect our homeland and interest against Islamic savages and those foreign governments appeasing them.

That leader is President Bush.

While out-of-touch U.S. politicians and world leaders have attacked President Bush's tactics, they can't question his steely commitment to keep America safe.

In the ashes of ground zero, where nearly 3,000 innocent Americans perished, President Bush vowed to find the perpetrators, in domestic cells and distant lands, and bring them to justice. He said he will do all that is humanly possible and necessary to make certain that terrorists never strike again on U.S. soil.

Can anyone deny that President Bush has not delivered? America the terrorists' No. 1 target has recovered from its tragic wounds and rebounded. It remains safe to this day.

What might a lesser leader have done, faced with the daunting task of deciding America's course against withering, partisan attacks from Democrats, media propagandists, disingenuous U.N. officials and disloyal White House operatives selling their souls for profit during a time of war?

A lesser leader might have caved in. President Bush has stood his ground.

In this year's election, the question isn't whether we are safer now than we were four years ago. We already know the answer. Sure we are and that's because of President Bush. The critical question is: Four years from now, will America be safer than it is today?

In our book, Americans have to place their trust in President Bush. He's proven to be as sturdy as a mighty oak when it comes to saying what he means, meaning what he says and acting decisively.

When it comes to the war on terror, President Bush means to keep our military strong and our country secure.

John Kerry, on the other hand, has all the attributes of the shape of water when it comes to telling us what he believes and what he'd do for America. Like incoming and outgoing tides, Kerry is content to go with the flow. In a dangerous world infested with sharks, Kerry would be chum at America's expense.

We in Massachusetts know John Kerry. He got his first taste of politics 32 years ago in the cities and towns of Greater Lowell.

In his 20 years in the U.S. Senate, Kerry, a Navy war hero, hasn't risen above the rank of seaman for his uninspiring legislative record. He's been inconsistent on major issues. First he's for the 1991 Persian Gulf War, then he opposes it. First he's for the war in Iraq, then he's against it. First he's for a strong U.S. defense, then he votes against military weapons programs. First he's for the U.S. Patriot Act, then he opposes it.

Kerry's solution to stop terrorism? He'd go to the U.N. and build a consensus. How naive. France's Jacques Chirac, Germany's Gerhard Schroeder, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and other Iraq oil-for-food scam artists don't want America to succeed. They want us brought down to their level. And more and more, Kerry sounds just like them. In a recent campaign speech, Kerry said America was in the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

No doubt John Kerry sincerely wants to serve his country, but we believe he's the wrong man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

That last line should be a Bush campaign commercial.