Follow The Leader

People who enjoy using cliches will rejoice...

First one sheep jumped to its death. Then stunned Turkish shepherds, who had left the herd to graze while they had breakfast, watched as nearly 1,500 others followed, each leaping off the same cliff, Turkish media reported.

In the end, 450 dead animals lay on top of one another in a billowy white pile, the Aksam newspaper said. Those who jumped later were saved as the pile got higher and the fall more cushioned, Aksam reported.

"There's nothing we can do. They're all wasted," Nevzat Bayhan, a member of one of 26 families whose sheep were grazing together in the herd, was quoted as saying by Aksam.

The estimated loss to families in the town of Gevas, located in Van province in eastern Turkey, tops $100,000, a significant amount of money in a country where average GDP per head is around $2,700.

I'm missing the part where the shepherds tried to stop them. But this gives a whole new meaning to the line, "If your friend jumped off a bridge..."

The Missing Link

Loyal reader RB notes this map in The Sun, one of the Brit tabloids. The map purports to note each of the terror attacks in the world since 1993.

I guess it makes sense that the London attacks aren't listed yet. But as RB wondered... where are all the suicide bombings and attacks in Isreal? I guess they don't count.

But they do. And we need to remember that.

What A Terrible Economy

Wait a second. I thought that job creation had suffered under W. So let's explain this...

The unemployment rate dipped in June to its lowest level in nearly four years as employers expanded payrolls modestly, a sign that the nation's job market is plugging — not powering — ahead. Wall Street rallied.

The latest employment snapshot from the Labor Department on Friday supported the view of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and his colleagues that the economy is in good shape and the labor market is gradually improving despite high energy prices.

The civilian unemployment rate dropped to 5 percent in June, down a notch from 5.1 percent in May and the lowest since September 2001. The jobless rate has drifted downward after hitting 6.3 percent in June 2003, its highest point during the economic recovery.

Payroll growth, on the other hand, has been choppy from month to month. Employers added 146,000 new jobs in June, up from 104,000 in May.

"A lean, mean jobs machine this economy is not," said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisors. "But jobs are being created and the unemployment rate is falling so you really cannot complain too much."

Although economists were forecasting a more robust gain — of around 195,000 jobs — for June, their disappointment was tempered by what turned out to be better job growth in April and May. Employers added 44,000 more jobs in those two months combined than the government had previously estimated, according to revised figures released Friday.

On Wall Street, investors buoyed by the jobs news said it suggested the economy is advancing at a modest pace that won't fan inflation. The Dow Jones industrials soared 146.85 points to close at 10,449.14.

For the first half of this year, job growth has averaged 181,000 a month, close to the average 183,000 jobs created each month in 2004. "That's an amazingly steady and healthy pace," said Stuart Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group. "Is 180,000-plus jobs a month great? No. It is good and solid? Yes."

(hat tip: Instapundit) As someone who thinks fiscal policy is not as crucial to job creation as monetary policy, I'll refrain from gloating. Bush created the conditions for a good economy, thanks to the tax cuts, and Greenspan and the Fed did the heavy lifting.

But darn those tax cuts -- take a look at the deficit. If only they'd raise taxes, they'd lower that darn deficit... or, maybe not...

Rising tax payments and a growing economy may push the U.S. federal deficit down to $325 billion or lower, a 24 percent decline from the previous estimate, the Congressional Budget Office said.

The agency, in a monthly snapshot for fiscal 2005 that ends on Sept. 30, said tax payments and spending were running ahead of the year-ago pace. As a result this year's deficit ``will be significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion.''

The White House is scheduled to issue its revised estimates on tax collections, spending and the deficit on July 13. In February, White House budget director Joshua Bolten forecast a deficit of $427 billion, about 3.5 percent of the nation's gross domestic product.

"Treasury receipts have been skyrocketing since April,'' and in June "corporate receipts will lead this boon,'' said Ellen M. Beeson, an economist at the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Ltd. in New York, in an interview before the report. Her firm expects the July 13 report to forecast a 2005 deficit of $315 billion to $330 billion.

All right, enough sarcasm. But let's review -- increased revenue due to a booming economy which was stimulated in part by those tax cuts. Man, that's just a killer idea -- maybe if we can convince Congress to cut spending, we'd really be in good shape.

Guess Who I Side With Here

Let's start with a simple example of stupidity in the face of terror. Here's the left-wing dishrag's lead editorial today...

Sadly, this attack came just at a moment when there were glimmers of hope and unity. The day before, London had won the right to be host of the Olympics, that great display of international understanding and peaceful competition. And on the morning of the bombings, Prime Minister Tony Blair, President Bush and the leaders of six other rich and powerful nations were meeting in Scotland to work out a common plan to help those who live in despair in places like Africa, where poverty and disease breed resentment among those have nothing for those who have so much. That juxtaposition of hope and fear is an integral weapon of the terrorist, who seeks not only to destroy life and property but also to disrupt our lives in ways that bring more destruction.

Fear was another inescapable response - the natural fear that this kind of attack, carried out by people with no regard for their own lives or anyone else's, could happen anywhere.

That fear has already led to questions about why the British security agencies did not anticipate the attacks, why the wealthy nations have not done enough about the root causes of terrorism and why Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden continue to function after almost four years of the so-called war on terrorism.

Do these people read what they write? I love the idea that poverty breeds terrorists -- I guess Mohammed Atta and his 18 buddies, most of who were college-educated products of middle class homes, were just an anomoly. There are Americans who live in poverty, but their crimes tend not to involve killing themselves and innocents in pursuit of making a political point. Poor Americans may turn to a life of crime, but they're hardly doing it on behalf of their religious beliefs.

You know, poverty is a significant problem -- but let's take a look at the cause of that poverty. It's not rich Western nations -- it's dictatorial governments that hold their people in poverty that are the problem. Let's bring democracy to the Middle East, and maybe people who live in freedom can escape that poverty.

This stupid theory of poverty generating terrorism of course allows the Times to use the liberal hobbyhorse of "root causes." Apparently, dropping bombs in terrorist strongholds and fighting them on their own turf with a well-trained military fighting force isn't enough; we also need to address Islamo-fascist feelings of isolation and anger, probably dating back to the time of Isaac and Ishmael just to be sure.

Here's an idea. The Times should convince George Soros to spend his billions on alleviating the crippling poverty that creates all these terrorists (hey, it's still a better cause than Moveon.org). Then they can send a squad of world-class psychoanalysts to the Middle East, led by Dr. Phil and the once-ubiquitous Joyce Brothers, to get all the al-Qaeda crazies to calm down. We'll even get all the pharma companies to donate some Prozac and Paxil, to help the worst cases.

That's their method. I prefer Marines and Daisycutters.

And that brings us to the "so-called war on terrorism." If the Times wants to criticize the conduct of the War on Terror, feel free. But don't pretend that there isn't a war taking place, you so-called journalists.

By contrast, we have Christopher Hitchens' column in the Daily Mirror today...

We know very well what the "grievances" of the jihadists are.

The grievance of seeing unveiled women. The grievance of the existence, not of the State of Israel, but of the Jewish people. The grievance of the heresy of democracy, which impedes the imposition of sharia law. The grievance of a work of fiction written by an Indian living in London. The grievance of the existence of black African Muslim farmers, who won't abandon lands in Darfur. The grievance of the existence of homosexuals. The grievance of music, and of most representational art. The grievance of the existence of Hinduism. The grievance of East Timor's liberation from Indonesian rule. All of these have been proclaimed as a licence to kill infidels or apostates, or anyone who just gets in the way.

FOR a few moments yesterday, Londoners received a taste of what life is like for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, whose Muslim faith does not protect them from slaughter at the hands of those who think they are not Muslim enough, or are the wrong Muslim.

It is a big mistake to believe this is an assault on "our" values or "our" way of life. It is, rather, an assault on all civilisation. I know perfectly well there are people thinking, and even saying, that Tony Blair brought this upon us by his alliance with George Bush.

A word of advice to them: try and keep it down, will you? Or wait at least until the funerals are over. And beware of the non-sequitur: you can be as opposed to the Iraq operation as much as you like, but you can't get from that "grievance" to the detonating of explosives at rush hour on London buses and tubes.

Don't even try to connect the two. By George Galloway's logic, British squaddies in Iraq are the root cause of dead bodies at home. How can anyone bear to be so wicked and stupid? How can anyone bear to act as a megaphone for psychotic killers?

The grievances I listed above are unappeasable, one of many reasons why the jihadists will lose.

They demand the impossible - the cessation of all life in favour of prostration before a totalitarian vision. Plainly, we cannot surrender. There is no one with whom to negotiate, let alone capitulate.

We shall track down those responsible. States that shelter them will know no peace. Communities that shelter them do not take forever to discover their mistake. And their sordid love of death is as nothing compared to our love of London, which we will defend as always, and which will survive this with ease.

In case you're wondering what Saddam apologist/loyalist George Galloway said, here's the quote...

No one can condone acts of violence aimed at working people going about their daily lives. They have not been a party to, nor are they responsible for, the decisions of their government. They are entirely innocent and we condemn those who have killed or injured them.

The loss of innocent lives, whether in this country or Iraq, is precisely the result of a world that has become a less safe and peaceful place in recent years.

We have worked without rest to remove the causes of such violence from our world. We argued, as did the Security Services in this country, that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners have now paid the price of the government ignoring such warnings.

We urge the government to remove people in this country from harms way, as the Spanish government acted to remove its people from harm, by ending the occupation of Iraq and by turning its full attention to the development of a real solution to the wider conflicts in the Middle East.

Only then will the innocents here and abroad be able to enjoy a life free of the threat of needless violence.

Yes, let's all pack up and go home, because that will appease them. Appeasement's worked so well in the past, right? By the way, note the tacit encouragment in this note that attacks against Western governments are perfectly reasonable, as long as you don't attack the working class.

Since I feel sick that I just linked to a site called Socialist Worker Online (ugh), here's something fun to close up the post -- a verbal battle between Ron Reagan, Jr. and the aforementioned Hitchens. Battle may be too strong a word -- this was a massacre. The younger Reagan proves that he may have gotten his dad's looks, but he didn't get any of his good sense...

RR: Christopher, I'm not sure that I buy the idea that these attacks are a sign that we're actually winning the war on terror. I mean, how many more victories like this do we really want to endure?

CH: Well, it depends on how you think it started, sir. I mean, these movements had taken over Afghanistan, had very nearly taken over Algeria, in a extremely bloody war which actually was eventually won by Algerian society. They had sent death squads to try and kill my friend Salman Rushdie, for the offense of writing a novel in England. They had sent death squads to Austria and Germany, the Iranians had, for example, to try and kill Kurdish Muslim leaders there. If you make the mistake that I thought I heard you making just before we came on the air, of attributing rationality or a motive to this, and to say that it's about anything but itself, you make a great mistake, and you end up where you ended up, saying that the cause of terrorism is fighting against it, the root cause, I mean. Now, you even said, extraordinarily to me, that there was no terrorist problem in Iraq before 2003. Do you know nothing about the subject at all? Do you wonder how Mr. Zarqawi got there under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal?

RR: Well, I'm following the lead of the 9/11 Commission, which...

CH: Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal, the most wanted man in the world, who was sheltered in Baghdad? The man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat, was sheltered by Saddam Hussein. The man who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993 was sheltered by Saddam Hussein, and you have the nerve to say that terrorism is caused by resisting it? And by deposing governments that endorse it?

RR: No, actually, I didn't say that, Christopher.

CH: At this stage, after what happened in London yesterday?

RR: What I did say, though, was that Iraq was not a center of terrorism before we went in there, but it might be now.

CH: How can you know so little about...

RR: You can make the claim that you just made about any other country in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia.

CH: Absolutely nonsense.

RR: So do you think we ought to invade Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers from 9/11 came from, following your logic, Christopher?

CH: Uh, no. Excuse me. The hijackers may have been Saudi and Yemeni, but they were not envoys of the Saudi Arabian government, even when you said the worst...

RR: Zarqawi is not an envoy of Saddam Hussein, either.

CH: Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world. The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yassin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do?

I think there's only one way to correctly characterize this conversation, and that's by citing a scene from the Bruce Willis classic, Die Hard...

Dwayne T. Robinson: "I got a hundred people down here and they're all covered in glass."
John McClane: "Glass? Who gives a shit about glass? Who the fuck is this?"
Dwayne T. Robinson: "This is Deputy Chief of Police Dwayne T. Robinson, and I am in charge here."
John McClane: "Oh, you're in charge? Well, I got news for you, Dwayne -- from up here, it doesn't look like you're in charge of jack shit.
Dwayne T. Robinson: "Now you listen to me, you little asshole..."
John McClane: "Asshole? I'm not the one who just got butt-fucked on national TV, Dwayne."

Yippie-ki-yah, Mr. Reagan.

The Villanova Recruiting Update

We only deal with the important stuff here. Fine -- I consider this important...

Villanova's run to the Sweet 16 in March apparently has paid big dividends. Casiem Drummond, a 6-foot-10 senior-to-be at Bloomfield Tech (N.J.), made an oral commitment to the Big East school yesterday during a news conference at the ABCD basketball camp at Fairleigh Dickinson University in Teaneck, N.J.

"Villanova's success played a big part," the 275-pound Drummond said. "They're going to be a pre-ranked Final Four team, so I want to go to not only a great program with great coaches, but a great program from a basketball standpoint."

Drummond joins 6-10 Andrew Ott of Germantown Academy, 6-4 Reggie Redding of St. Joseph's Prep, and 6-9 Kraidon Woods of Pocono East (Pa.) as potential Wildcats in 2006-07.

Now, someone find me a couple of guards, and I'll be pretty happy.

But What Happens To The Beer Now?

KS and The Lord of Truth both sent me this story, which has gotten some great play in the mainstream press. I think it's pretty cool, but I'm an idiot...

James Henry Smith loved his country. He served in Vietnam and spent 25 years in the Army, Army Reserve and National Guard.

But the 55-year-old Garfield man also had love for his favorite football team, the Pittsburgh Steelers -- and that led to an unusual viewing after he died from prostate cancer this week.

Smith's family asked the Coston Funeral Home in Lincoln-Lemington to place his body not in a casket, but in a recliner that faced a television playing Steelers highlights, with a remote control in his hand.

The body was dressed in black and gold clothing -- traditional Steelers colors -- and a blanket bearing the team's logo was draped over an armrest. Sitting on a table next to the chair were a pack of cigarettes and a can of beer.

The scene was reminiscent of Steelers game days in the Smith household, according to his family.

I'm almost disappointed to note that he didn't get buried at Heinz Field. Alas, such an honor is apparently reserved only for the likes of Jimmy Hoffa.

The Stiff British Upper Lip

Obviously, it's a tragic day in London and for anyone who's not a barbarian. But the Brits will stand up, dust themselves off, and go about the business of kicking some ass. They'll just do it a bit more stoically than we Americans, and probably find humor in a few things that we don't. But that's about the only real difference -- our countries share a common heritage and set of values. And arrayed against the forces of barbarism, we're all Brits, and they're all Americans.

Ed Morrissey nails it...

On July 7, 2005, let it be known that the world united behind our British brothers and sisters as fellow members of Western Civilization under attack by the forces of tyranny and oppression. We stand with our friends who have suffered a terrible act of war on their civilian population, a cowardly and shameful act that amply demonstrates the depths of depravity of the enemies of freedom and liberty.

We are all Britons today.

Andrew Sullivan, a true blue Englishman, has an even better take, posting this note from blogger Tim Worstall...

"I have a prediction to make, that tomorrow we'll find out whether Britons are, still, in fact, Britons. Many years ago I was working in The City and there were two events that made travel into work almost impossible.

The first was a series of storms that brought down power lines, blocked train routes and so on. Not surprisingly, the place was empty the next day. Why bother to struggle through?

The other event was an IRA bomb which caused massive damage and loss of life. Trains were disrupted, travel to work the next day was horribly difficult and yet there were more people at work than on a normal day. There was no co-ordination to this, no instructions went out, but it appeared that people were crawling off their sick beds in order to be there at work the next day, thrusting their mewling and pewling infants into the arms of anyone at all so that they could be there.

Yes, we'll take an excuse for a day off, throw a sickie. But you threaten us, try to kill us? Kill and injure some of us?

Fuck you, sunshine.

We'll not be having that.

No grand demonstrations, few warlike chants, a desire for revenge, of course, but the reaction of the average man and woman in the street? Yes, you’ve tried it now bugger off. We’re not scared, no, you won’t change us. Even if we are scared, you can still bugger off." - Tim Worstall, Brit blogger.

Priceless. I love my homeland.

Finally, the following letter from the London Review sums it up nicely...

What the fuck do you think you're doing?

This is London. We've dealt with your sort before. You don't try and pull this on us.

Do you have any idea how many times our city has been attacked? Whatever you're trying to do, it's not going to work.

All you've done is end some of our lives, and ruin some more. How is that going to help you? You don't get rewarded for this kind of crap.

And if, as your MO indicates, you're an al-Qaeda group, then you're out of your tiny minds.

Because if this is a message to Tony Blair, we've got news for you. We don't much like our government ourselves, or what they do in our name. But, listen very clearly. We'll deal with that ourselves. We're London, and we've got our own way of doing things, and it doesn't involve tossing bombs around where innocent people are going about their lives.

And that's because we're better than you. Everyone is better than you. Our city works. We rather like it. And we're going to go about our lives. We're going to take care of the lives you ruined. And then we're going to work. And we're going down the pub.

So you can pack up your bombs, put them in your arseholes, and get the fuck out of our city.

That says it better than anything. Here's to you, Great Britain.

Amusing Bumper Sticker or T-Shirt Slogan We've Seen Lately

Call it a new feature. After all, if I find it entertaining, why shouldn't you... I mean, it's not like you've shown good taste by choosing to frequent this site.

Driving to work today, I saw this on the back of a Volvo sedan:

I'm Sorry, I Farted.

Yes, it's dumb. But I spent the next 30 seconds laughing.

Courting Trouble

No, I haven't blogged much about the coming Supreme Court nomination. Why waste ammunition when we're getting ready for war? Hey, that's what Chuckles Schumer thinks...

Senate Judiciary Committee member Chuck Schumer got busy plotting away on the cellphone aboard a Washington, DC-New York Amtrak -- plotting Democrat strategy for the upcoming Supreme Court battle.

Schumer promised a fight over whoever the President’s nominee was: “It's not about an individual judge… It's about how it affects the overall makeup of the court.”

The chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee was overheard on a long cellphone conversation with an unknown political ally, and the DRUDGE REPORT was there!

Schumer proudly declared: “We are contemplating how we are going to go to war over this.”

Well, the left is certainly prepping for war, as Byron York noted. This would all be pretty humorous, IF WE WEREN'T FIGHTING AN ACTUAL WAR ALREADY, WITH AMERICAN TROOPS IN HARMS' WAY.

Yes, both sides are guilty of rhetorical overkill, although I'd argue the Democrats seem far more willing to engage in apocalyptic rhetoric than the GOP. Look, I know plenty of folks are getting ready to spend cash and dish vitriol at one another over Bush's upcoming choice. Heck, I'm already upset that Alberto Gonzales is the current favorite, with President Bush defending his "friend" (as Jonah Goldberg noted, I guess John Ashcroft wasn't the President's pal, since the former AG got far more crap than Gonzales ever does). I think Gonzales would be a mistake on any number of fronts (he'd need to recuse himself from a number of upcoming cases due to his current post as Attorney General), but Tradesports has him leading the way right now, with Judge Emilio Garza of the 5th Circuit as the second choice who's no longer a darkhorse. My pick, Judge Luttig from the 4th Circuit, is the third choice but may be a better bet to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist when he departs in the near future.

Bush can and will be stubborn, and if he wants Gonzales, he may well push for him. But I'd guess that the choice is not yet certain, and the White House has to be worried about the howling from the right that will ensue if the AG gets upped to the Supreme Court. For that reason alone, I'd keep an eye on the women Justices, particularly Judge Edith Brown Clement on the 5th Circuit.

Then again, maybe it's a good idea to try nominating Ann Coulter. The confirmation hearings alone would be worth it.

Maybe He Should Buy Manchester United Instead

Loyal reader KS keeps us informed about the politics of our nation's pasttime...

George Soros is a pot-endorsing, Bush-bashing billionaire. And he wants to buy the Washington Nationals.

Surprisingly, members of Congress have taken a time-out from the people's business to squabble over the matter.

Republicans say a Soros-owned team would send the wrong message, alienate Capitol Hill and generally presage the end of days, even more than gay marriage.

Democrats counter that politics and baseball don't mix, and that lawmakers should stick to more important matters. Like blocking presidential appointments.

On the plus side, no one has invoked the Nazis, Hitler or the Holocaust. Not yet, at least.

I'm against Soros owning the Nationals, because everything he touches lately loses (thanks for stopping by, Senator Kerry). I think this is pretty petty by the GOP, but it's no more idiotic than the stupid steroid hearings Congress held a few months back. At least this time, I don't have to see Jose Canseco.

Maybe California Isn't So Bad

The Lord of Truth makes me wonder why he continues to reside in the Garden State...

The Democrats in Trenton reached a last minute state budget deal and David Rebovich, political science professor at Rider University, is quoted by the Star-Ledger as saying: “while the budget may contain some ‘frivolous’ expenses, many more help quench the ‘pent up demand’ for services in the state."

...Over the past four years the state of New Jersey has raised taxes 546 percent, more than the average state in our nation. That amounts to an additional $924 in taxes for every man, woman and child in our state. And that doesn't include local property tax increases and liabilities in the tens of billions that hang over our heads for such things as public employee pensions.

By way of comparison, for the same four year time period, Nevada with the second largest increase, saw taxes go up $508 per person. Our neighbors in New York had their taxes increase $451, Connecticut $474 and Pennsylvania just $65 per person. The average state in the country raised taxes by $143 per resident over the past four years.

The average New Jersey voter seems oblivious to the cause of the state's financial mess, Democrats catering to special interests. How many know that only about 12 percent or $3.4 billion of New Jersey’s $27.9 billion budget is spent to run the state; providing common services such as highway maintenance, state police, courts and operating the state’s sixteen departments? How many know the remaining $24.5 billion is spent ‘solving problems’ by transferring money from taxpayers to tax receivers?

There's something scary about New Jersey, and I'm not talking about big hair or syringes on the beach. I keep telling the Lord he needs to run for office and save his adopted state. I'm starting to wonder if that's possible.

Maybe He Should Talk to Geldof

Vodkapundit notes this amazing interview in the German magazine Der Spiegel with a Kenyan economics expert that needs more press. Here's an excerpt, but the whole thing should be required reading for everyone haranguing the West to do more about Africa...

SPIEGEL: Mr. Shikwati, the G8 summit at Gleneagles is about to beef up the development aid for Africa...

Shikwati: ... for God's sake, please just stop.

SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.

Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor.

SPIEGEL: Do you have an explanation for this paradox?

Shikwati: Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn't even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.

SPIEGEL: Even in a country like Kenya, people are starving to death each year. Someone has got to help them.

Shikwati: But it has to be the Kenyans themselves who help these people. When there's a drought in a region of Kenya, our corrupt politicians reflexively cry out for more help. This call then reaches the United Nations World Food Program -- which is a massive agency of apparatchiks who are in the absurd situation of, on the one hand, being dedicated to the fight against hunger while, on the other hand, being faced with unemployment were hunger actually eliminated. It's only natural that they willingly accept the plea for more help. And it's not uncommon that they demand a little more money than the respective African government originally requested. They then forward that request to their headquarters, and before long, several thousands tons of corn are shipped to Africa ...

SPIEGEL: ... corn that predominantly comes from highly-subsidized European and American farmers ...

Shikwati: ... and at some point, this corn ends up in the harbor of Mombasa. A portion of the corn often goes directly into the hands of unsrupulous politicians who then pass it on to their own tribe to boost their next election campaign. Another portion of the shipment ends up on the black market where the corn is dumped at extremely low prices. Local farmers may as well put down their hoes right away; no one can compete with the UN's World Food Program. And because the farmers go under in the face of this pressure, Kenya would have no reserves to draw on if there actually were a famine next year. It's a simple but fatal cycle.

SPIEGEL: If the World Food Program didn't do anything, the people would starve.

Shikwati: I don't think so. In such a case, the Kenyans, for a change, would be forced to initiate trade relations with Uganda or Tanzania, and buy their food there. This type of trade is vital for Africa. It would force us to improve our own infrastructure, while making national borders -- drawn by the Europeans by the way -- more permeable. It would also force us to establish laws favoring market economy.

There is hope for Africa -- and it doesn't involve having a large concert every two decades. It's good to know that others out there understand the importance of a free market to ending poverty and establishing freedom.

France's Two Century Losing Streak Continues

To quote Al Bundy, it is good to hate the French.

Apparently, the International Olympic Committee agrees -- at least, that's how it looks now that our favorite champions of surrender have seen Paris topped by London in the race for the 2012 Olympics...

London edged out Paris in the hotly contested race to host the 2012 Olympics. The British capital, which last had the games in 1948 while continental Europe was rebuilding in the aftermath of World War II, upset Paris 54-50 on the fourth ballot Wednesday.

"This is our moment," said London bid leader Sebastian Coe, a former Olympic middle-distance champion. "It's massive. It's huge. This is the biggest prize in sport."

It was also a victory laced with political significance, with Prime Minister Tony Blair getting the better of French President Jacques Chirac. Both leaders came to Singapore to lobby for the bids before flying to the G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland.

"Many people do reckon that London is the greatest city in the whole world at the moment," an exultant Blair said after hearing the result. "I couldn't bear to watch the final bit of it. It's not often in this job that you punch the air and do a little jig and embrace the person next to you."

London, which also held the games in 1908, becomes the first three-time Olympic host city.

It was a devastating defeat for Paris, which expected to win but has now lost three Olympic bids in 20 years. Paris, which hasn't staged the Olympics since 1924, also came up short for the 1992 and 2008 games.

"I'm very disappointed," French Sports Minister Jean-Francois Lamour said. "I feel there's an empty hole in front of me. I'm almost at the bottom. Why didn't they pick up our concept, our promotion, our strategy? This is a misunderstanding because I can tell you our work was the best."

Paris had been widely seen as the front-runner throughout the two-year race but struggled with the burden of being favorite and ran a cautious campaign.

The French? Cautious? I'm amazed.

Jokes aside, it's pretty clear that French President Jacques Chirac screwed up when he decided to insult the Brits this week. In case you missed it, the French President decided to make a few cracks about British food...

Jacques Chirac stirred the pot at a meeting in Russia on Sunday when he joked to Vladimir Putin and Gerhard Schröder that the British could not be trusted and worse food was only found in Finland.

The French president declared that the only thing the British have ever done for European agriculture is mad cow disease, the French daily Libération reported.

Mr Chirac then reportedly said: "You can't trust people who cook as badly as that. After Finland, it's the country with the worst food."

I'm guessing the two votes from Finland on the IOC may not have gone Chirac's way. In any case, the only way one would have enjoyed this more would have been if this was a week later and tomorrow was Bastille Day.

The Wedding Update

This wedding update is not brought to you by the Catholic Church. But they did bring me to pre-cana classes a couple weeks ago.

24 days to go...

I was intending to do a long dissertation on our Engaged Encounter Weekend, but (a) I don't have time and (b) you don't care. So let's boil it down to some key points...

1. I found the "Natural Family Planning" discussions entertaining, mostly because the good folks presenting the discussion tried desperately to make it clear that this isn't "Catholic birth control" yet also tried to pitch this as the way to avoid having nine kids. I kept thinking about Monty Python and the Meaning of Life...

Harry Blackitt: Look at them, bloody Catholics, filling the bloody world up with bloody people they can't afford to bloody feed.

Mrs. Blackitt: What are we dear?

Harry Blackitt: Protestant, and fiercely proud of it.

Mrs. Blackitt: Hmm. Well, why do they have so many children?

Harry Blackitt: Because... every time they have sexual intercourse, they have to have a baby.

Mrs. Blackitt: But it's the same with us, Harry.

Harry Blackitt: What do you mean?

Mrs. Blackitt: Well, I mean, we've got two children, and we've had sexual intercourse twice.

Harry Blackitt: That's not the point. We could have it any time we wanted.

Mrs. Blackitt: Really?

Harry Blackitt: Oh, yes, and, what's more, because we don't believe in all that Papist claptrap, we can take precautions.

Mrs. Blackitt: What, you mean... lock the door?

Harry Blackitt: No, no. I mean, because we are members of the Protestant Reformed Church, which successfully challenged the autocratic power of the Papacy in the mid-sixteenth century, we can wear little rubber devices to prevent issue.

Mrs. Blackitt: What d'you mean?

Harry Blackitt: I could, if I wanted, have sexual intercourse with you...

Mrs. Blackitt: Oh, yes, Harry.

Harry Blackitt: ...and, by wearing a rubber sheath over my old feller, I could insure... that, when I came off, you would not be impregnated.

Mrs. Blackitt: Ooh.

Harry Blackitt: That's what being a Protestant's all about. That's why it's the church for me. That's why it's the church for anyone who respects the individual and the individual's right to decide for him or herself. When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in fifteen-seventeen, he may not have realised the full significance of what he was doing, but four hundred years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas...

2. For those of you who don't know what "Natural Family Planning" refers to, don't worry about it. But if you really want to know, I know some couples who'd be happy to discuss it with you for a weekend.

3. We did have a great priest lecturing us over the weekend. On the whole, I generally enjoy the lectures and sermons I've heard from priests on the relatively rare occasions when I've been in a Church for a service or in classes in college. Maybe growing up without being forced to go to Church every Sunday actually makes me more willing to listen to what a priest says.

4. I need to agree with one thing the priest said -- when you tell someone "I love you", it's more of a question, seeking affirmation, then a statement. Then again, I've known that ever since I watched The Empire Strikes Back and Han Solo responded to Leia with "I know." Then again, the priest said he was quoting Barbra Streisand. I'm trying not to shudder.

5. By the way, the priest was younger than me. It's always a scary moment when you realize you're older than a man of God.

6. Great discussion group section with the other couples at your table, especially since we ended up with normal people at our table. It's cool to hear other couples discuss some of the same concerns about cost of living, children, juggling work and home, etc. It's also good to learn that other people's wedding planning is going far worse than yours.

7. So the discussion group ends, and they need someone to present what our table talked about. And since someone had asked me what I do for a living earlier in the day, they all nominated me to go up and speak. Great -- eight people at the table, seven of them are Catholic, and they send the Hindu up to speak on the topic of how to integrate the Church into your family life. There's a joke in there somewhere.

8. By the way, we had to drive out to the middle of nowhere for the class on two consecutive days. Yet even in the middle of Virginia, there's far too many Starbucks. Their evil needs to be contained.

9. During the introduction section, approximately 50 couples introduced themselves and told everyone when they were getting married and where. Of the 50, approximately 45 featured the male speaking, and one of the females who spoke did so because her future husband was still en route. One couple was getting married the next weekend, which prompted the guy behind me to whisper, "Is she pregnant?"

10. On the whole, I found the whole experience to be enlightening. Besides, it let me avoid work and discussion of the actual planning of the wedding for a few hours. That's always good.

An Ode to Hamilton

Richard Brookhiser published this op-ed at Opinion Journal yesterday regarding one of my favorite figures in American history, Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton's importance in building the country has received increasing recognition -- he stands on par (if not higher) than Jefferson, Adams and Franklin in import amonst the Founders. Brookheiser's piece discusses why...

When the Founders got the chance to run their own economic affairs, they stumbled. Throughout the Revolutionary War Congress lacked the power to tax the states. (It could make requisitions on them for money--i.e., beg. Robert Morris, superintendent of finance, said this was like "preaching to the dead.") Congress turned instead to fiat money and borrowing. American dollars quickly became worthless. In 1780 Congress called them in and printed new ones, worth 40 old ones; the new dollars inflated in turn. Congress got loans from France, America's ally, and from Dutch bankers who were willing to take a flier on the new nation. But once America stopped making interest payments, the loan market dried up. After the war the states, which had run up debts of their own, tried raising money in a variety of ways, from printing state paper money, to levying desperate and crushing taxes (Massachusetts' land tax provoked an armed taxpayer revolt in 1786-87, Shays's Rebellion). By the end of the decade American securities were trading at one-quarter to one-third of their face value on European money markets. The Founders, for all their personal and political daring, were on the way to founding a banana republic, though, if the U.S. had been the first one, the name would be maple republic.

... Hamilton was an autodidact. He apprenticed as a merchant's clerk in the Virgin Islands, never finished college, and sponged up economic theories and data in his spare time as a colonel on Washington's staff. When he was barely 20 he began writing letters of economic and political advice to his elders and betters. Washington had no deep understanding of economics, but he understood Hamilton's energy and gifts. When he became president under the new Constitution in 1789 he made Hamilton the first Treasury secretary.

Cleaning up the American mess had to start with political reform. The Constitution, which Washington, Hamilton and both Morrises signed, gave the United States a revenue stream by allowing Congress to tax imports and products, such as whiskey and salt. (Income taxes were unconstitutional.) This change alone began to boost the value of American securities even as Hamilton took office. Hamilton strengthened American credit further by taking over the states' debts and announcing that all creditors would be paid at a common rate. To make good on that pledge, he had to overcome congressional resistance to rewarding speculators who had bought up debt. But Hamilton knew that if the United States started picking and choosing among its creditors, its credit would go back into the outhouse.

By paying America's debts responsibly, Hamilton made American IOUs valuable. "It is a well known fact," he wrote, "that in countries in which the national debt is properly funded . . . it answers most of the purposes of money." He thus monetized a cash-strapped, backwater economy. To handle the government's funds, and to regulate the money supply, Hamilton asked Congress to charter the Bank of the United States. America would join Holland and Britain in the vanguard of the financial revolution. The Bank had to overcome the objections of Secretary of State Jefferson, and Virginia's Rep. James Madison, who thought chartering such a corporation was unconstitutional. Madison's opposition pained Hamilton, since he and Madison had worked together in the struggle to ratify the Constitution. Madison, he concluded, was a "clever man," but "very little acquainted with the world." The world recognized Hamilton's knowledge. When he stepped down as Treasury secretary in 1795, American securities were trading at 110% of face value.

Brookhiser knows his subject well, since he wrote one of the better bios on Hamilton. It's well worth reading, as is this article.

Paging A Trial Lawyer

Well, this a unique claim...

NASA's mission that sent a space probe smashing into a comet raised more than cosmic dust — it also brought a lawsuit from a Russian astrologer.

Marina Bai has sued the U.S. space agency, claiming the Deep Impact probe that punched a crater into the comet Tempel 1 late Sunday "ruins the natural balance of forces in the universe," the newspaper Izvestia reported Tuesday. A Moscow court has postponed hearings on the case until late July, the paper said.

Scientists say the crash did not significantly alter the comet's orbit around the sun and said the experiment does not pose any danger to Earth.

The probe's comet crash sent up a cloud of debris that scientists hope to examine to learn how the solar system was formed.

Bai is seeking damages totaling $300 million — the approximate equivalent of the mission's cost — for her "moral sufferings," Izvestia said, citing her lawyer Alexander Molokhov. She earlier told the paper that the experiment would "deform her horoscope."

Meanwhile, I'd like to sue the makers of the movie "Deep Impact" for making me waste a couple hours of my life. I think I have a better case.

Thanks for Playing, Ms. Pelosi

Chris Muir's Day by Day web comic strip is one of my favorite stops on the web, for obvious reasons. But his take on Nancy Pelosi's assertion that the Supreme Court is akin to God is hysterical.

Happy Independance Day

I spent most of the 4th of July working. Then again, so did the Founding Fathers on the original 4th of July, so maybe that's a good thing... although their words of wisdom are far more important and uplifting than anything I will ever pen.

Granted, for most of us Independence Day is a day, to paraphrase The Simpsons, where we get to celebrate the independence of our nation by blowing up a small part of it. And that's a good thing. But it would also be useful to remember those folks fighting to preserve that our freedom (and that of others) -- this letter printed by Powerline mentions how out troops in Iraq celebrated the 4th.

It's also worth reading the Declaration of Independence on occasions like this, and on other days as well. The gents who signed that document risked their considerable fortunes and their lives to do so -- one may question their motives, but their courage remains something to be admired. But even more admirable are the words penned by a Virginian, assisted by men from Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Connecticut. They make sense even today...

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Happy Independence Day. And Happy Birthday, America.

Another One Bites The Dust

The best kind of fireworks display took place in Saudi Arabia...

Security forces killed al-Qaida's leader in Saudi Arabia, who topped the nation's list of most-wanted militants, during a fierce gunbattle Sunday, an Interior Ministry official said.

Younis Mohammed Ibrahim al-Hayari, a Moroccan, was killed during a dawn raid by security forces on an area in the capital where suspected militants were hiding, the official was quoted by the official Saudi Press Agency as saying.

Good riddance. Keep up the good work.

Thanks for Playing, Molly

Molly Ivins, professional pundit, seems to think the GOP is too busy defining liberals as evil, unpatriotic and stupid people. Then she tries to prove the GOP's right...

Since my name is Molly Ivins and I speak for myself, I'll tell you exactly why I opposed invading Iraq: because I thought it would be bad for this country, our country, my country. I opposed the invasion out of patriotism, and that is the reason I continue to oppose it today--I think it is bad for us. I think we have created more terrorists than we faced to start with and that our good name has been sullied all over the world. I think we have alienated our allies and have killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein ever did.

(hat tip: Andrew Sullivan) Please read that last sentence, and tell me why I should take her seriously.

Good. You can't. And if liberals want to be taken seriously, they won't be like Molly Ivins.

Ms. Pelosi's Excellent Adventure

Friend of the column TK sends us the transcript of Nancy Pelosi's flat-out-amazing press conference last week regarding the Supreme Court and the Kelo decision. The next time a Democrat mocks President Bush as less-than-intelligent, I plan to ask them why Nancy Pelosi is an elected leader in their party. The President's been elected twice by the American people. Pelosi's been elected by her district to represent them, but the Democratic House members somehow decided she should represent the entire party. I'm not sure that this is what they had in mind. There's so much goofy stuff here that I need to break down the excerpts I truly enjoyed by segment.

Ms. Pelosi. Good morning. Are you getting ready for the Fourth of July weekend?
Pretty exciting time. It is my favorite national holiday, with stiff competition
from all of the others as well.

This like saying, "I love turkey. It's my favorite kind of food, with stiff competition from everything else." Does anyone other than a hack politician speak like this?

I come before you to say that unfortunately, once again, this Congress of the United States has missed opportunities to create jobs for the American people.

Unemployment's at 5% and falling, Nancy, with 3 million-plus jobs created in the last two-plus years. If they didn't do anything about this, maybe Congress should stick to inactivity, because it's working.

The job situation is one where the President is still a net loser in terms of job creation in the private sector. He has the worst record of job creation of any President since the Great Depression. Republicans again have failed to enact this highway bill which would go a long way. But there is much more that needs to be done than just from the public policy side of it. And the President's economic policies have dug us so far into a hole that will take an enormous amount of job creation to dig us out.

Seriously, can someone update her materials so she's not using 2004 campaign literature? I mean, she does know that it's 2005, right? And I'm also missing something here. Apparently, public policy won't be enough to correct the problems caused by the President's economic policies -- only an enormous amount of job creation will save the Republic. If Pelosi is saying that Congress can't legislate the creation of new jobs... is she actually admitting that the private sector will need to do the work? Nah, she's a Democrat -- she's probably planning on convening a seance or something.

The deficits continue to grow. We have a budget deficit that will be over $400 billion this year, and that is with all of the good economic projections.

But let's be sure to pass an expensive highway bill, right?

As we go into the Fourth of July, we pay reverence to our veterans. We do every day, but especially on the Fourth of July. And here we are, the President is telling us to fly the flag, and we certainly do each day, and we certainly will on the Fourth of July. But as we fly the flag, we must also fund veterans' benefits. And the sad part of this is that the veterans have had such a tough fight in this Congress and with this Administration to get what is their just due.

If Bush said this about a Democrat, he'd be accused of questioning hteir patriotism. But on the core issue, we're complaining about the deficit and still upset about lack of funding for veteran's benefits. I'm glad to hear Pelosi supports the military... but I have a sneaking suspicion that she probably protested war appropriations for Iraq at some point. I guess she likes to support our retired and injured soldiers, but not the ones in the field.

Q Ms. Pelosi, do House Democrats or Senate Democrats plan to offer their own Social Security proposal, and if so, what might it say? And if not, why not?

Ms. Pelosi. Are we going to offer our own Social Security proposal? The big issue with Social Security is solvency. Nothing that the Republicans have done has addressed the issue of solvency. And solvency of course is affected by the budget deficits, as well as the Republicans continued raid on Social Security.

The only way to address solvency is to go to the table in a bipartisan way to do that. The model was Speaker Tip O'Neill in 1983, when he joined the President of the United States, Ronald Reagan, in a bipartisan meeting to resolve the issue of solvency of Social Security. They did so in a very effective way. Social Security is solvent until the middle of this century. It will be solvent for 70 years from when they took their action. That's the way to do that.

We have been, I think, very effective in saying our plan is to save Social Security, to stop privatization, to stop the raid on Social Security, and to strengthen solvency. That is our plan.

We've been effective in saying our plan is to make sure it's solvent. Details... well, we don't have any of those. But if I wave my magic wand, all will be well.

Q Can we go back to Social Security? Are you asking your Members to do anything specific, or to step up any of their efforts in light of the fact that it seems much more definitive that there will be a bill on the floor, and there may be a vote by the end of September? Does that change your tactics at all?

Ms. Pelosi. It doesn't change our tactics because we have been on course. We have had over 900 either town meetings or press conferences across the country, and I think we have successfully inoculated the public against the perils of privatization.

Inoculated? What, is privitization a virus of some sort? I do appreciate the alliteration in the last sentence, though.

Q Later this morning, many Members of the House Republican leadership, along with John Cornyn from the Senate, are holding a news conference on eminent domain, the decision of the Supreme Court the other day, and they are going to offer legislation that would restrict it, prohibiting federal funds from being used in such a manner.

Two questions: What was your reaction to the Supreme Court decision on this topic, and what do you think about legislation to, in the minds of opponents at least, remedy or changing it?

Ms. Pelosi. As a Member of Congress, and actually all of us and anyone who holds a public office in our country, we take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Very central to that in that Constitution is the separation of powers. I believe that whatever you think about a particular decision of the Supreme Court, and I certainly have been in disagreement with them on many occasions, it is not appropriate for the Congress to say we're going to withhold funds for the Court because we don't like a decision.

Um, rewind the question, Congresswoman. I know that I express a low opinion of the mainstream media, but it helps to listen to their questions. Apparently, Cornyn's bill would seek to prevent the use of federal funds for the seizure of private property in eminent domain cases where said property would be transferred to another private property, ala the Kelo decision.

Q Not on the Court, withhold funds from the eminent domain purchases that wouldn't involve public use. I apologize if I framed the question poorly. It wouldn't be withholding federal funds from the Court, but withhold Federal funds from eminent domain type purchases that are not just involved in public good.

Ms. Pelosi. Again, without focusing on the actual decision, just to say that when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court. This is in violation of the respect for separation of church -- powers in our Constitution, church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that as well. But forgive my digression.

So the answer to your question is, I would oppose any legislation that says we would withhold funds for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court no matter how opposed I am to that decision. And I'm not saying that I'm opposed to this decision, I'm just saying in general.

The reporter actually is kind enough to act as if it's his (or her) mistake... and Pelosi still whiffs on the question (while effectively admitting that she dopesn't know anything about the case, as per her last sentence). This is worse than John Edwards trying to explain his opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act by describing legislation he would have voted for... which was identical to the Defense of Marriage Act. Edwards was just trying to act slick. Pelosi doesn't even understand the basic nature of the Court's holding.

Kelo says that the government may seize private property for use by other private parties... it doesn't say that government has to do this. I think Pelosi may have spent too much time in the sun. What's funny is that she cites the concept of seperation of powers, yet she utterly contradicts it by effectively stating that Congress' decisions to undertake particular activities that are permitted by the Constitution may be required by the Court. Yeesh.

And I have absolutely no clue what the seperation of church and state has to do with this, but maybe Ralph Neas and Barry Lynn require Democratic leaders to say the phrase at least once at every press conference.

Q Could you talk about this decision? What you think of it?

Ms. Pelosi. It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision.

Q Do you think it is appropriate for municipalities to be able to use eminent domain to take land for economic development?

Ms. Pelosi. The Supreme Court has decided, knowing the particulars of this case, that that was appropriate, and so I would support that.

Hey! A Democrat who believes in God! Granted, God appears to be a revolving set of nine people wearing black robes, but it's a start. Although perhaps she needs to rethink her objections to breaching the wall between church and state -- if the Supreme Court is God, it probably needs to disassociate itself from the government right now. Seriously, even Pelosi's staff was probably gagging at this point.

Somehow, I'm guessing that if the Supreme Court ever overturned Roe v. Wade, Pelosi may not be quite so sanguine about supporting the Court's decision and prospects for changing it.

In the last year plus, the Democrats have selected John Kerry (Presidential candidate), Harry Reid (Senate Minority Leader), Nancy Pelosi (House Minority Leader) and Howard Dean (Democratic National Committee Chairman). Jeez, it's reallyhard to tell why this party has such trouble winning elections.

Does Jeff Foxworthy Get to Light The Torch?

I need to start watching this...

Bobbing for pig feet, the mudpit belly-flop, the armpit serenade — they're all part of the Redneck Games, a series of good ole'ympic events for the ain't-so-athletic celebrating their 10th year in middle Georgia.

Started as a Southern-fried spoof of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, with a propane torch lighting a ceremonial barbecue grill, the gag games draw tourists like moths to a backyard bug-zapper.

Organizers estimate 95,000 attended the July event during its first decade in East Dublin, a rural pit stop of 2,500 residents between Macon and Savannah.

What started as a gathering of about 500 during the 1996 Olympics ballooned to 10,000 by 2001 and reached an estimated 15,000 last year. More are expected when the 10th Annual Redneck Games are held next Saturday.

"It's hard to put your finger on why it blew up to what it was," said Jeff Kidd, program director for WQZY, the country radio station that cooked up the Redneck Games as an Olympic publicity stunt.

It worked. Media coverage from MTV to London's BBC has beamed word of the games around the globe.

"We have families do their reunions around the Redneck Games. We've had weddings in the past," Kidd said. "I don't think anybody takes it that seriously. Everybody has fun with it, and that's what it's all about."

The actual events, which have changed little over the years, hew to self-deprecating stereotypes and backwoods bawdiness.

The mudpit belly-flop judges contestants on their flabby form and sonic splat as they drop gut-first into muddy water, splattering nearby spectators.

The armpit serenade rates children on their musical skills pumping air through a damp hand beneath their underarm. The 12-year-old winner in 2000 squeezed out a recognizable rendition of "Dixie."

I knew I should have honed that talent when I was a kid. As for those weddings taking place at the games... well, there's too many jokes there to discuss.

One More Excuse To Send the Iranian Government a Case of Beer

The Artist Formerly Known as Sprout was the leader amongst those sending me this outrageous tale...

A quarter-century after they were taken captive in Iran, five former American hostages say they got an unexpected reminder of their 444-day ordeal in the bearded face of Iran's new president-elect.

Watching coverage of Iran's presidential election on television dredged up 25-year-old memories that prompted four of the former hostages to exchange e-mails.

And those four realized they shared the same conclusion -- the firm belief that President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been one of their Iranian captors.

"This is the guy. There's no question about it," said former hostage Chuck Scott, a retired Army colonel who lives in Jonesboro, Georgia.

"You could make him a blond and shave his whiskers, put him in a zoot suit and I'd still spot him."

Scott and former hostages David Roeder, William J. Daugherty and Don A. Sharer told The Associated Press on Wednesday they have no doubt Ahmadinejad, 49, was one of the hostage-takers.

A fifth ex-hostage, Kevin Hermening, said he reached the same conclusion after looking at photos.

Not everyone agrees. Former hostage and retired Air Force Col. Thomas E. Schaefer said he doesn't recognize Ahmadinejad, by face or name, as one of his captors.

Several former students among the hostage-takers also said Ahmadinejad did not participate. And a close aide to Ahmadinejad denied the president-elect took part in the seizure of the embassy or in holding Americans hostage.

I'm not sure what aggravates me more. First, the fact that if this claim is true, then the CIA didn't anticipate this being a problem... or maybe they didn't even know it.

Second, that any of the hostage-takers are still alive, not imprisoned and available for comment. Can't we take a lesson from Isreal's hunting trip for the jerkweed Black September guys from 1972? I'm not expecting miracles here, but why aren't these guys on international most wanted posters?

Third, I'm glad to know CNN took the time to get a denial from hostage-taking terrorists supporting a tool of oppressive fundamentalist zealots from a dictatorial theocracy. I saw that one of these guys is now a leader of the reform movement, so maybe this isn't so bad. But still, I'm thinking the close aide to the new "President" is a less-than-credible source.

Like I said, let's airdrop some beer. And some pornography -- it's about time we let Larry Flynt prove his patriotism.

Less Filling... Tastes Great

Well, I now have a whole new respect for Belgian politicians...

A lunch meeting between a leading parliamentarian in Belgium and counterparts from Iran has been canceled because the beer-loving Belgian could not stomach a ban on alcohol.

“Even for the tolerant Herman De Croo, that was a bridge too far,” De Croo, a Dutch-speaking Liberal, told De Standaard daily on Thursday.

De Croo, president of parliament’s lower house, had been due to entertain the speaker and members of the Iranian parliament on Friday during their visit to Belgium — famous for its diversity of beer brands.

But he said lunch had been canceled because the Iranians, who as Muslims do not drink alcohol, wanted their hosts to do the same.

(hat tip: Best of the Web) I'm thinking Bush should send Iran's new President a case of beer as congratulations (more on him later). But I'm just impressed to see anyone from mainland Europe stand up to anyone from Iran.