Getting More Absurd

Well, I can't think of a better way to make sure everyone knows this protest is a joke...

The Rev. Al Sharpton plans to join peace activist Cindy Sheehan, known as the Peace Mom, on Sunday near President Bush's Texas ranch.

Sharpton's office said Thursday he would participate in a prayer vigil Sunday with Sheehan in Crawford, Texas. Sheehan returned on Wednesday to Camp Casey, named after her 24-year-old son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, who was killed last year in Iraq.

Only one question remains -- where's Jesse Jackson?

If You're Not Offended, You Should Be

The big news about Walter Reed Medical Center this week was that it's being shut down by the base closing commission. That's big news, but perhaps some of the reporters obsessing over Cindy Sheehan should take a look at this protest story...

The Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., the current home of hundreds of wounded veterans from the war in Iraq, has been the target of weekly anti-war demonstrations since March. The protesters hold signs that read "Maimed for Lies" and "Enlist here and die for Halliburton."

The anti-war demonstrators, who obtain their protest permits from the Washington, D.C., police department, position themselves directly in front of the main entrance to the Army Medical Center, which is located in northwest D.C., about five miles from the White House.

Among the props used by the protesters are mock caskets, lined up on the sidewalk to represent the death toll in Iraq.

Code Pink Women for Peace, one of the groups backing anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford Texas, organizes the protests at Walter Reed as well.

...One anti-war protester, who would only identify himself as "Luke," told Cybercast News Service that "the price of George Bush's foreign policy can be seen right here at Walter Reed -- young men who returned from Iraq with their bodies shattered after George Bush sent them to war for a lie."

Luke accused President Bush of "exploiting American soldiers" while "oppressing the other nations of earth." The president "has killed far too many people," he added.

On Aug. 19, as the anti-war protesters chanted slogans such as "George Bush kills American soldiers," Cybercast News Service observed several wounded war veterans entering and departing the gates of Walter Reed, some with prosthetic limbs. Most of the demonstrations have been held on Friday evenings, a popular time for the family members of wounded soldiers to visit the hospital.

But the anti-war activists were unapologetic when asked whether they considered such signs as "Maimed for Lies" offensive to wounded war veterans and their families.

"I am more offended by the fact that many were maimed for life. I am more offended by the fact that they (wounded veterans) have been kept out of the news," said Kevin McCarron, a member of the anti-war group Veterans for Peace.

Kevin Pannell, who was recently treated at Walter Reed and had both legs amputated after an ambush grenade attack near Baghdad in 2004, considers the presence of the anti-war protesters in front of the hospital "distasteful."

When he was a patient at the hospital, Pannell said he initially tried to ignore the anti-war activists camped out in front of Walter Reed, until witnessing something that enraged him.

"We went by there one day and I drove by and [the anti-war protesters] had a bunch of flag-draped coffins laid out on the sidewalk. That, I thought, was probably the most distasteful thing I had ever seen. Ever," Pannell, a member of the Army's First Cavalry Division, told Cybercast News Service.

"You know that 95 percent of the guys in the hospital bed lost guys whenever they got hurt and survivors' guilt is the worst thing you can deal with," Pannell said, adding that other veterans recovering from wounds at Walter Reed share his resentment for the anti-war protesters.

"We don't like them and we don't like the fact that they can hang their signs and stuff on the fence at Walter Reed," he said. "[The wounded veterans] are there to recuperate. Once they get out in the real world, then they can start seeing that stuff (anti-war protests). I mean Walter Reed is a sheltered environment and it needs to stay that way."

McCarron said he dislikes having to resort to such controversial tactics, "but this stuff can't be hidden," he insisted. "The real cost of this war cannot be kept from the American public."

The anti-war protesters claim their presence at the hospital is necessary to publicize the arrivals of newly wounded soldiers from Iraq, who the protesters allege are being smuggled in at night by the Pentagon to avoid media scrutiny. The protesters also argue that the military hospital is the most appropriate place for the demonstrations and that the vigils are designed to ultimately help the wounded veterans.

"If I went to war and lost a leg and then found out from my hospital bed that I had been lied to, that the weapons I was sent to search for never existed, that the person who sent me to war had no plan but to exploit me, exploit the country I was sent to, I would be pretty angry," Luke told Cybercast News Service.

"I would want people to do something about it and if I couldn't get out of my bed and protest myself, I would want someone else to do it in my name," he added.

The conservative counter-demonstrators carry signs reading "Troops out when the job's done," "Thank you U.S. Armed Forces" and "Shameless Pinkos go home." Many wear the orange T-shirts reading "Club G'itmo" that are marketed by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

...At least one anti-war demonstrator conceded that standing out in front of a military hospital where wounded soldiers and their families are entering and exiting, might not be appropriate.

"Maybe there is a better place to have a protest. I am not sure," said a man holding a sign reading "Stop the War," who declined to be identified.

But Luke and the other anti-war protesters dismissed the message of the counter demonstrators. "We know most of the George Bush supporters have never spent a day in uniform, have never been closer to a battlefield than seeing it through the television screen," Luke said.

The words of the guy named Luke are a perfect example of the strident, unapologetic, self-righteous, arrogant, asinine Bush-hating Left. First, he presumes to say what he believes the veterans would want, instead of asking them, then attacks Bush supporters as people who have never seen a battlefield. Is it any wonder these morons lose elections? I know all these folks actually want press coverage, but do they think it would help their cause?

Truth be told, there's a lot of things these protesters could do with their time, like raise money for the wounded soldiers or help raise their spirits. Instead, they seek the spotlight for themselves and opt to use the soldiers to get it -- and do so while subjecting these soldiers to more pain, with macabre displays of flag-draped coffins.

Yes, they have the right to do it. But it's bastards like this who give the First Amendment a bad name.

A Good Bit of Advice

Scott Ott at Scrappleface is a true comic genius, but this bit turns serious -- and is the perfect response to Cindy Sheehan...

An internal White House memo, leaked today, indicates how President George Bush initially planned to address Cindy Sheehan's question: What "noble cause" did my son die for?

The draft memo includes suggestions from White House communications staff, followed by several paragraphs apparently handwritten by the president.

While handwriting experts from CBS News continue to pore over the document to verify its authenticity, here is the text of the president's alleged response to the grieving Mom whose protest has captured the hearts of America's journalists.

Dear Mrs. Sheehan,

You have asked me to identify the noble cause for which your son died. I have not answered you personally out of respect for the nobility of your son's sacrifice.

Being president forces me into the spotlight, but I would rather stand in the shadows of men like Casey Sheehan.

Directing national attention on my response to your protest creates a distraction from what matters. The focus of our attention, and our admiration, should rest on people like Casey Sheehan, who stand in the breach when evil threatens to break out and consume a helpless people.

Read the rest. Particularly if you are Cindy Sheehan.

E-A-G-L-E-S, Eagles!

The Eagles preseason home opener is tonight. And let's just say it's been a long time to wait...

You never know what sort of football you'll get in a preseason game. One thing seems certain, though. Tonight at the Linc, we should be in for some pretty good theater.

The last time we met like this, there was ice in the air and confetti on the ground. Grown men cried. Children were raised up on shoulders to get a better view of city history unfolding before them.

The Eagles had just beaten the Atlanta Falcons to earn a berth in the Super Bowl, and Lincoln Financial Field was V-E Day, New Year's Eve in Times Square and Mardi Gras. Donovan McNabb and Andy Reid and Terrell Owens stood on a podium in the center of the field and handed the Halas Trophy around.

That was seven months ago.

Tonight, the Eagles are scheduled to play the Cincinnati Bengals in an exhibition. The game on the field will have to compete very hard to be as compelling and dramatic as the scene in the stands.

Oh, and good news for the Phillies: This will give everyone a chance to spell out "E-A-G-L-E-S, Eagles!" at an actual Eagles game again.

Strangely, I actually want to thank the Phillies. Usually, at this point in August I'm too wired for football. I gave up on the Phils as an intense rooting interest about a decade ago, thanks to the owners, who made it obvious they didn't care about th fans. I still root for the Phils -- I live an die with the Eagles, Flyers and Sixers.

But this year, the Phils have actually succeeded in being interesting and have me willing to believe they could make the playoffs. This, along with the Flyers terrific offseason, was enough to distract me from the shenanigans of T.O. and the usual training camp injuries.

But now, I'm ready for football. And I believe, strangely enough, that this team is headed back to the Super Bowl. I can't wait to spend a February weekend in Detroit.

I Don't Think Donald Trump Will Be Hosting This Show

I guess I was wrong. Reality TV can sink lower...

Billionaire television producer John de Mol, behind the pioneer show Big Brother, will test the limits of reality TV with a program in which a woman searches for a potential sperm donor to conceive a child.

His new TV station Talpa, launched earlier this month, confirmed it will air a program called "I want your child ... and nothing else!" but gave no further details about the show due at 1830 GMT Wednesday.

"The plan is that we visit potential donors and -- of course on camera -- decide which man is most suitable," the 30-year old woman who will feature in the program said in an interview with De Telegraaf newspaper.

"Afterwards there will be artificial insemination," said the woman who was identified only as "Yessica" and who has bought a house with a room for a child.

The show is a one-off competing with four other reality TV programs, one of which follows five former prostitutes starting a cafe. The program receiving most votes from viewers Saturday, after all the shows have aired, will be turned into a series.

De Telegraaf also published an email address for men wanting to donate sperm to Yessica.

I'm wondering if anyone has a punchline for the joke that opens, "Five former prostitutes start a cafe..." As for this idea, it's only a matter of time before it shows up on Fox.

Another Reason to Dislike the French

See, I'm guessing that the French just like attacking any American, especially a Texan, who's successful...

Lance Armstrong went on the offensive Wednesday, saying it was "preposterous" for the Tour de France director to suggest the legendary cyclist "fooled" race officials and the sporting world by doping.

Comments by Tour director Jean-Marie Leblanc appeared in the French sports daily L'Equipe on Wednesday, a day after the newspaper reported that six urine samples provided by Armstrong during the first of his seven Tour championships in 1999 tested positive for the red blood cell-booster EPO.

"I actually spoke to him for about 30 minutes and he didn't say any of that stuff to me personally," Armstrong said, referring to Leblanc.

"But to say that I've fooled the fans is preposterous. I've been doing this a long time. We have not just one year of only 'B' samples; we have seven years of 'A' and 'B' samples. They've all been negative," he said during a conference call from Washington.

In his comments to L'Equipe, Leblanc sounded convinced that Armstrong was guilty of doping, saying the onus was on him to explain the newspaper's findings.

"For the first time — and these are no longer rumors, or insinuations, these are proven scientific facts — someone has shown me that in 1999, Armstrong had a banned substance called EPO in his body," Leblanc told the newspaper.

"The ball is now in his court. Why, how, by whom? He owes explanations to us and to everyone who follows the tour. Today, what L'Equipe revealed shows me that I was fooled. We were all fooled."

The Tour did not respond Wednesday to a request by The Associated Press to interview Leblanc.

The tour director was hardly the only target of Armstrong's ire Wednesday. He also questioned the validity of the science involved in testing samples that were frozen seven years ago and how those samples were handled since. He also charged officials at the suburban Paris laboratory that processed them with violating the World Anti-Doping Agency code by releasing the results to the newspaper.

"It doesn't surprise me at all that they have samples. Clearly they've tested all of my samples since then to the highest degree. But when I gave those samples," he said, referring to 1999, "there was not EPO in those samples. I guarantee that."

Fellow cyclists came to Armstrong's defense Wednesday.

"Armstrong always told me that he never used doping products," five-time winner Eddy Merckx told Le Monde newspaper. "Choosing between a journalist and Lance's word, I trust Armstrong."

L'Equipe is owned by the Amaury Group whose subsidiary, Amaury Sport Organization, organizes the Tour de France and other sporting events. The paper has often raised questions about whether Armstrong has ever used performance enhancing drugs. On Tuesday, the banner headline of its four-page report was "The Armstrong Lie."

I'd like to think that for once, a story that's too good to be true doesn't turn out to be just that. And in this case, I'm with Eddy Merckx -- considering how many times Lance was tested in his career, I don't think he could have gotten away with this if he wanted to do so.

Besides, when's the last time the French launched a successful attack on anything?

Quick, Someone Get Him Back On His Medication

Oy. Do I have to spend time dealing with Pat Robertson's latest idiocy? The latest absurdity from Robertson makes me wonder if he should be dubbed the right wing's Al Sharpton...

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson called on Monday for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling him a "terrific danger" to the United States.

Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, said on "The 700 Club" it was the United States' duty to stop Chavez from making Venezuela a "launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."

Chavez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush, accusing the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous.

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

As I noted to someone else, I'd love to see Hugo Chavez stuck in a room with a pack of rabid pit bulls and a bloody steak in his back pocket, or failing that, getting the same treatment Zed was awaiting at the end of the Gimp scene in Pulp Fiction. But having a major religious leader advocating the state-sponsored assissination of a foreign head of state... that's asinine, no matter how you slice it.

Isn't This What Dr. Phil Did With Oprah?

I'd like to think that a state medical board would have better things to do than go after a doctor who merely told his patient the truth, but apparently I'm wrong...

Dr. Terry Bennett says he tells obese patients their weight is bad for their health and their love lives, but the lecture drove one patient to complain to the state.

"I told a fat woman she was obese," Bennett says. "I tried to get her attention. I told her, 'You need to get on a program, join a group of like-minded people and peel off the weight that is going to kill you.' "

He says he wrote a letter of apology to the woman when he found out she was offended.

Her complaint, filed about a year ago, was initially investigated by a panel of the New Hampshire Board of Medicine, which recommended that Bennett be sent a confidential letter of concern. The board rejected the suggestion in December and asked the attorney general's office to investigate.

Bennett rejected that office's proposal that he attend a medical education course and acknowledge that he made a mistake.

I'd feel bad for Bennett, but I'm guessing this will make him a celebrity. He'll probably be dating Tara Reid by early September.

More on The Numbers

Hey, I get so few responses to these posts, I need to brag when I get one. With regard to the last post, Greg commented...

Maybe the NY Post gives a source for their numbers, but they flat out contradict the Pentagon's. (See http://www.dod.mil/releases/2005/nr20050810-4393.html)

The Army's Active Component met its goal for July, but the Reserves and National Guard were both off by 20%. For the year, the AC is off by 11%; the Reserves 20%, NG 23%.

Seems like either the Pentagon is wrong, or the NYP and "Power Line" are. And while I AM somewhat captivated by the bold electrical graphics at the top of the Power Line webpage, in this instance, I'm going to have to side with the five-sided funny farm.

Turns out Greg is generally right, but the shot at Powerline seems unfair (and personally, I think their graphics need work as well), since those boys corrected their post and already noted this issue in detail. Dan Rather, take a lesson...

The Fox report agrees with Peters that re-enlistments are exceeding projections, so the difference must lie in first-time enlistments. Peters says that for the Army, they are "running at 108 percent of its needs." The Fox story, on the other hand, says that "Military officials will not go into specifics about the numbers of new recruits signing up for Army duty." Odd.

With respect to Army Reserve and National Guard units, the Fox story says that re-enlistments are running at more than 100% of projections, which is consistent with Peters' theme. But, while Peters says that the Army National Guard is up to "106 percent of its requirements as of June 30," Fox says that "in total, the Army Guard has about 331,000 soldiers, 94.5 percent of its authorized strength of 350,000." Is there a difference between "authorized strength" and "requirements"? I don't know, but there should be more data out there somewhere that would resolve the inconsistencies.

SCOTT adds: NRO's Stephen Spruiell caught up with Peters today and reports that he "was most likely the victim of a bureaucratic mixup."

UPDATE: This DoD page seems to have definitive information as of the end of July--which leaves some mystery regarding the Fox story's statement that the Army doesn't release data on new recruits. Anyway the DoD numbers are consistent with the conclusion that re-enlistment is very high, while new recruitment is a little below targets. As I read the numbers, Army, Navy, Marine and Air Force recruiting (not re-enlistment) is at a combined 95% of goals with two months to go in the fiscal year. Combined recruiting for the Army National Guard and the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps Reserves is at a combined 89% of targets, also with two months to go.

So some of Peters' numbers do seem to be off, but it's hardly a deficit to give the liberals anything to crow about, especially with sky-high re-enlistment numbers in the units that are engaged in combat in Iraq.

FURTHER UPDATE: Mac Owens, a top commentator on military affairs, writes:

I did a piece for the NY Post on this issue in July. The Army has exceeded its reenlistment goals, and it has exceeded its monthly recruiting--first time enlistments--goals for the last two months, but the service will still fall short of its recruiting goals for the year by about 11,000 because of shortfalls earlier this year.

Most of the questions posed by Powerline and Intel Dump (noted by Greg) are still unanswered. I also have to wonder why, in the face of so much purported bad news in Iraq, why first-time enlistments would be up in the last two months and meet goals, after failing to do so earlier this year.

But That's Not What the Times Says!

I'm waiting on the mainstream media to report this story in detail...

Remember last spring, when the Army's recruitment efforts fell short for a few months? The media's glee would have made you confuse the New York Times and Air America.

When the Army attempted to explain that enlistments are cyclical and numbers dip at certain times of the year, the media ignored it. All that mattered was the wonderful news that the Army couldn't find enough soldiers. We were warned, in oh-so-solemn tones, that our military was headed for a train wreck.

Now, as the fiscal year nears an end, the Army's numbers look great. Especially in combat units and Iraq, soldiers are re-enlisting at record levels. And you don't hear a whisper about it from the "mainstream media."

Let's look at the numbers, which offer a different picture of patriotism than the editorial pages do.

* Every one of the Army's 10 divisions — its key combat organizations — has exceeded its re-enlistment goal for the year to date. Those with the most intense experience in Iraq have the best rates. The 1st Cavalry Division is at 136 percent of its target, the 3rd Infantry Division at 117 percent.

Among separate combat brigades, the figures are even more startling, with the 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division at 178 percent of its goal and the 3rd Brigade of the 4th Mech right behind at 174 percent of its re-enlistment target.

This is unprecedented in wartime. Even in World War II, we needed the draft. Where are the headlines?

* What about first-time enlistment rates, since that was the issue last spring? The Army is running at 108 percent of its needs. Guess not every young American despises his or her country and our president.

* The Army Reserve is a tougher sell, given that it takes men and women away from their families and careers on short notice. Well, Reserve recruitment stands at 102 percent of requirements.

* And then there's the Army National Guard. We've been told for two years that the Guard was in free-fall. Really? Guard recruitment and retention comes out to 106 percent of its requirements as of June 30. (I've even heard a rumor that Al Franken and Tim Robbins signed up — but let's wait for confirmation on that.)

(hat tip: Powerline) Well, if Franken and Robbins sign up, there's one sure way to drive down the numbers.

I don't doubt that our military is stretched thin as a result of deployments. But when the actual numbers of people enlisting are meeting and exceeding recruiting targets, it's time to put away the corresponding myth that America's military won't be able to find enough soldiers in the future.

And in 2012...

Time Magazine has already started handicapping the 2008 Presidential election race between Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain... yes, we know there hasn't been a primary yet, but why deal with those silly things where voters select candidates? Anyway, here's a snippet...

But the buzz that greets Clinton and McCain these days tells you something about what's increasingly apparent in real-world politics: the 2008 race is already taking shape, and the shape it is taking looks very much like these two potential rivals. Should McCain and Clinton each decide to make a bid--and most people around them expect it--both would become their party's instant front runner, which is not an entirely good thing. In an open field without an incumbent President or Vice President, as both parties will have for the first time in more than a half-century, it's perilous to be the one upon whom everyone else is training fire. McCain and Clinton would be running against not only a crop of other party rivals but also the perceptions and expectations that voters already have of them. "The other people running for President get to introduce themselves," says Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel, who worked as a top aide in the Clinton White House. "That's not true for her, and that's not true for McCain."

Clinton's and McCain's story lines would be set and would even have a synchronicity to them. Clinton would be declared unstoppable in her party's primary but doomed in the general election. For McCain, that bet would be made in reverse. Clinton would have the money; McCain would have the media. Each would be haunted by another President: for her, the one she is married to; for him, the one who beat him the last time he ran. And if it should come to a head-to-head race between them? It could be a close one: a recent Gallup poll showed McCain in front, 50% to 45%.

As for me, I'm with Stephen Green on his view of the race: "Should Steve shoot himself in the kneecap, or shove a flat-head screwdriver into his right eye?"

Battling Over Voting

John Fund, one of my favorite writers on politics, wrote a terrific piece yesterday regarding complaints from the far left of the Democratic Party about the supposed suppression of votes in the last few elections. Even fellow Democrats are finding these complaints tiresome...

The Voting Rights Act, whose 40th anniversary we celebrate this month, has helped minorities elect 81 sitting members of Congress and thousands of local officials. But the rally civil rights groups held in Atlanta earlier this month to push for extension of the act's key temporary provisions downplayed those gains and instead pushed wild claims that some state laws requiring an ID to vote are the functional equivalent of Jim Crow poll taxes.

Both Judge Greg Mathis, the star of a syndicated courtroom TV show, and California Rep. Barbara Lee claimed that the last two presidential elections had been "stolen." Judge Mathis told the rally Republican leaders "need to be locked up because they're all criminals and thieves." Other speakers claimed Georgia's new photo ID law would suppress poor and elderly minority voters who might lack such a document. When the bill passed the Georgia House in March, black legislators sang slave songs and one even slammed a prisoner's shackles on the desk of the sponsor.

Juan Williams, a National Public Radio correspondent and author of "Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years," is "stunned" by such vituperation. He told Fox News that it is "reacting to devils that have been slain 40 years ago." He says that "in service to having no fraud elections, I think you could say to people, go and get a legitimate ID. I don't think that's too much to ask."

...But many liberals can't be bothered with a positive agenda. A new 300-page report by the American Center for Voting Rights, a group with Republican ties, documents both examples of voter fraud as well as the flimsy nature of many charges of voter suppression. David Porter, the deputy editorial page editor of the Orlando Sentinel and an African American, says he was "bewildered" last year by reports of voter intimidation in his city that didn't pan out. John Kerry routinely accused Republicans in the 2000 election of "disenfranchising a million African Americans and stealing their votes" but provided no evidence. In that vein, a Kerry election manual advised workers that if they hadn't seen signs of intimidation they should "launch a 'pre-emptive strike'" and cry wolf anyway.

Such cynicism exasperates some Democrats. Last year, Joe Andrew, who served as Bill Clinton's chairman of the Democratic National Committee, blasted conspiracy theories that electronic voting machines, or DREs, would be used to steal votes and said "most liberals are just plain old-fashioned nuts" on the subject. He lamented that prominent Democrats "are rallying behind the anti-DRE bandwagon in a big election year because they think that this movement is good for Democrats."

Imagine -- having to show an ID to vote and the use of electronic machines to count ballots. The outrage!

I particularly like Kerry's team showing willingness to launch a pre-emptive striker on voter suppression claims. This might be Kerry's way of endorsing the doctrine of preemption.

Best Athlete Name of the Season

Our continuing feature visits the nation's capital first, where the Washington Redskins provide us with our next candidate, Adi Jimoh.

We'd also like to recognize the Pro Bowl kicker from the Miami Dolphins, Olindo Mare.

Finally, this man's a legend to all of us who follow names in sports: the incomparable Chris Fuamatu-Ma'afala, of the Jacksonville Jaguars. We think coaches opt not to cut him because they can't spell his name for the cut list.

More Amusement from Snyder

We already got plenty of amusement from Dan Snyder's other major public enterprise, the Redskins. But it's good to know he's expanding his amusement park interests...

The brash young owner of the most valuable team in pro football is teaming up with the brash young programming chief of the most dominant network in sports television.

Their goal: creating a new entertainment power, with theme-park company Six Flags Inc. as its first target.

Daniel Snyder, the 40-year-old principal owner of the National Football League's Washington Redskins, yesterday initiated a shareholder proxy contest to gain control of Oklahoma City-based Six Flags.

He has hired Mark Shapiro, 35, the executive vice president of programming and production at Walt Disney Co.'s ESPN, as chief executive of a private investment company, Red Zone LLC, that will pursue Six Flags and other entertainment properties.

Mr. Snyder is seeking to control three of seven seats on the board of Six Flags, oust the company's top management and increase his ownership stake to 34.9% from its current 11.7%.

If he follows his earlier business model with the Redskins, customers can expect disgruntled employees, higher costs for tickets and parking, merchandising of everything associated with the place ("these toilet seats brought to you by Hellman's Mayonnaise!") and Steve Spurrier running the cotton candy machine. Then again, as loyal reader NC noted, maybe Snyder just wants to sign the dancing old guy from the Six Flags commercials to play quarterback. No, we don't mean Mark Brunell -- he's already with the team.

I Missed Again!

I am so upset -- I missed out on this opportunity while stuck on my honeymoon...

FROM SULEMAN IBRAHIM.

ATTENTION PLEASE,

I am Suleman Ibrahim, personal Assistant to the Branch Manager of Bank
Of Africa(BOA) Ouagadougou Burkina Faso ,I want to inquire from you if you can
handle this transactionfor mutual benefits/life opportunity for you and me.

The transaction is about seeking your consent to present you as the next of kin/ beneficiary of the US$15 million dollars left by one of your national, who is a customer to the bank where i work.

He died in a Kenya plane crash 2003. with his family during their vacation journey

The Fund is currently in a suspense account awaiting claim, the bank made a public notice that they are ready to release this fund to any of his relatives abroad.

In that regard, i decided to seek your consent for this prospective opportunity.

Have it at the back of your mind, that the transaction does not involve any risk and does not need much engagement from you, since i am familiar with this kind of transaction being an insider. Necessary modalities will be worked out to enable us carry out the fund claim under a legitimate arrangement.

I have resolved to offer you 30% of the total fund, 10% for sundry expenses
that maybe incurred during the process of executing this transaction and 60%
percent for me.

I will give you more details about the transaction when I receive your affirmativeresponse via my email address.

Thanks and God bless.

Mr Suleman Ibrahim,

If you're out there, Suleman, please give me another chance!

Next Complaint: In 3rd Grade, He Pulled a Classmate's Pigtails

So far, the attacks on John Roberts have bordered on the absurd. From NARAL's patently false effort to paint him as a friend to abortion clinic bombers to the idiotic attacks on Roberts for fighting the absurd concept of comparable worth (see Ed Whalen's short and superb breakdown of the difference between the doctrine of equal pay and the doctrine of comparable worth), we've seen little in the way of legitimate criticism and more in the way of posturing. Hey, the New York Times apparently wants to investigate Judge Roberts' adoption of his two children -- this should provide plenty of good analysis of whether he's fit to be a justice. What the far left doesn't understand is that efforts to paint Roberts as "out of the mainstream" instead illustrate just how deranged the goofy left has become.

But our favorite attack is related to the comparable worth issue, and it comes from a memo detailed in the Washington Post...

Previously released documents, from slightly earlier in the Reagan era, when Roberts was a special assistant to Attorney General William French Smith, have established that the young lawyer was immersed in the civil rights issues of the time, including school desegregation, voting rights and bias in hiring and housing. The new batch provides the most extensive insight into Roberts's views of efforts to expand opportunity for women in the workplace and in higher education.

His remark on whether homemakers should become lawyers came in 1985 in reply to a suggestion from Linda Chavez, then the White House's director of public liaison. Chavez had proposed entering her deputy, Linda Arey, in a contest sponsored by the Clairol shampoo company to honor women who had changed their lives after age 30. Arey had been a schoolteacher who decided to change careers and went to law school.

In a July 31, 1985, memo, Roberts noted that, as an assistant dean at the University of Richmond law school before she joined the Reagan administration, Arey had "encouraged many former homemakers to enter law school and become lawyers." Roberts said in his memo that he saw no legal objection to her taking part in the Clairol contest. Then he added a personal aside: "Some might question whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good, but I suppose that is for the judges to decide."

After the White House, Arey went on to run for Congress, serve on presidential advisory committees, work as an attorney at a major law firm in the West, serve as vice president for congressional relations for a Washington lobbying firm, and was eventually appointed in 2002 as a senior associate commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. She has retired.

Roberts's comment about homemakers startled women across the ideological spectrum. Phyllis Schlafly, the president of the conservative Eagle Forum who entered law school when she was 51, said, "It kind of sounds like a smart alecky comment." She noted that Roberts was "a young bachelor and hadn't seen a whole lot of life at that point."

Schlafly said, "I knew Lyn Arey. She is a fine woman." But she added, "I don't think that disqualifies him. I think he got married to a feminist; he's learned a lot."

Kim Gandy, president of the liberal National Organization for Women, which already has opposed Roberts, reacted more harshly. "Oh. Wow. Good heavens," she said. "I find it quite shocking that a young lawyer, as he was at the time, had such Neanderthal ideas about women's place."

I don't want to play on stereotypes, but it appears these accomplished feminists (both right and left) can't understand a simple joke -- an anti-lawyer joke! Roberts is questioning whether the world really needs more lawyers. I'm guessing that very few people would fight him on this point. In fact, I'd question whether anyone who didn't get the joke should be taken seriously. At least Schlafly charcterized the line as "smart alecky"; Gandy's characterization of such a joke as "Neanderthal" demonstrates a glaring infamiliarity with the world as it exists.

If anything, Roberts is to be commended for recognizing that our shared profession isn't exactly the highest calling in the world. And in this belief, he's clearly in the mainstream.