Foxx's claims just a fundraising gimmick

By Linda Brinson, Winston-Salem Journal editorial page editor:

A reader kindly sent us a copy of a fundraising letter from Rep. Virginia Foxx that he received at his home on Sept. 20. Todd Poole, who is managing Foxx's campaign for re-election to the 5th District congressional seat, confirmed that the letter was written by Foxx and mailed out by the campaign.
The letter claims that:
1. The Journal attacks Foxx almost daily in its editorial pages.
2. The Journal will not allow her to write a letter to the editor to set the record straight.
3. The Journal will not print letters from her supporters, either.
The rest is, in essence, a standard boilerplate plea for donations. The Journal is running against her, Foxx says, so she needs more money to buy ads on radio and television. When we stopped laughing, we decided to address a few of the more misleading and erroneous of her assertions...

Virginia Foxx really screwed up with her delusional comments regarding the Iraq War "going well," and now she's paying for it in negative letters-to-the-editor sent in to the WSJ. Of course the editorial staff of the WSJ are thrilled to tears, but regardless of that fact, Foxx still said what she said. She made herself look like a delusional dumbass — or a pathetic, party line-towing shill, take your pick — and she really can't blame anybody but herself.

The sad part is that she'll still win re-election and no one even gives a sh!t who’s running against her. This week, she could probably gain new fans at the Dixie Classic Fair wearing a full clown suit and singing show tunes as long as she was at the Republican Party booth. In a district that primarily votes straight Republican, this is not surprising. I can only wonder why people are so dogmatic in their voting habits that they prefer to continue to elect complete jackasses just because they have an appropriate letter next to their name on a voting ballot. I could name other local examples, but you know them all already.

Former Rep. Mark Foley Leaves D.C. in Hurry After E-Mail Scandal

WASHINGTON — This time there were no tortured explanations, no heels dug in, no long, slow drip of revelation or fight for redemption.

Republican Rep. Mark Foley, of Florida, just up and quit after his e-mails expressing undue interest in a 16-year-old male page were exposed to the nation. Less than six weeks from a tough election for Republicans who control an already ethically tainted Congress, the more common stick-it-out approach to scandal was cast aside.

Of Turd Sandwiches and Giant Douches

While this particular episode alluded to the Kerry vs. Bush race, it applies to the 2000 race, too.

In spades. Gore is a much bigger douchebag than Kerry, although Kerry tries very hard. At first, I was having trouble with Bush as a turd sandwich, mostly because it just didn't quite say it all. But after thinking about it, it's subtle, yet oh so appropriate.

When your choice is between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, it's pretty much a toss up.

That's assuming you fall for the silly zero sum game argument used by supporters of the two factions. There were other choices and you can always abstain. I expect to be casting no more than two or three votes this year.

And in reality, our turd sandwich in the White House really stinks.

Getting worse every day. I can smell it all the way down here in Westfield.

RE: RE: GORE: CIGARETTE SMOKING 'SIGNIFICANT' CONTRIBUTOR TO GLOBAL WARMING

Algore is a significant contributor to a reduced IQ average for the entire human race.

OK. Now, let's be fair, here. Did any of you see the episode of South Park entitled "Douche and Turd"? If not, you must read the Wiki-synopsis via the link pasted below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douche_and_Turd

Those of you who voted for him in 2000: be ashamed, be very ashamed.

While this particular episode alluded to the Kerry vs. Bush race, it applies to the 2000 race, too. When your choice is between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, it's pretty much a toss up. And in reality, our turd sandwich in the White House really stinks.

A spot in the sun

Daily Mail

It looks like a speck of dust on the surface of the sun. But this spectacular picture shows the space shuttle Atlantis alongside the International Space Station (ISS) silhouetted as they orbit the earth.

The image was taken in Normandy by French astrophotographer Thierry Legault. He used a digital camera attached to a £5,000 specially kitted-out telescope.

Ex-Prez Carter: Bush has brought U.S. "international disgrace"

RENO, Nev. - Former President Carter is urging northern Nevadans to elect his son, Jack, to the Senate to help combat a Bush administration he says has brought "international disgrace" to the country.

RE: GORE: CIGARETTE SMOKING 'SIGNIFICANT' CONTRIBUTOR TO GLOBAL WARMING

Algore is a significant contributor to a reduced IQ average for the entire human race.

Those of you who voted for him in 2000: be ashamed, be very ashamed.

GORE: CIGARETTE SMOKING 'SIGNIFICANT' CONTRIBUTOR TO GLOBAL WARMING

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore warned hundreds of U.N. diplomats and staff on Thursday evening about the perils of climate change, claiming: Cigarette smoking is a "significant contributor to global warming!"

Drudge Report

Is it just me or is Gore a moron?

I did not have s.e.x. with that nomad, Osama bin Laden

It's just like old times. Bill Clinton delivers an impassioned speech, and within 24 hours the Web is bristling with documentation, establishing that nearly every sentence was a lie.

Ann Coulter

Mad About Mascot

Fox News

The University of Illinois has yet to retire "Chief Illiniwek" a year after the NCAA ripped the school for continuing to employ an Indian mascot. Now, one group of professors upset over the lack of progress is hitting the athletic department where it hurts, mailing current football and basketball recruits urging them not to attend Illinois because of its "hostile and abusive" use of Native American imagery.

The professors say potential student athletes should know that the school "refuses to commit to equality for all races and places more value on an outdated and divisive mascot than on a winning program."

A Christmas Education

Fox News

If public school teachers want to tell their students about the religious history of Christmas, it's OK with U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings.

The secretary responded to an e-mail from a teacher in Utah who was unsure about what she can say and what kinds of decorations she can use. Spellings wrote back that schools and teachers are free to celebrate the secular aspects of Christmas and may also teach about the religion and history behind the holiday.

United Nations: Pro-American or Anti-American?

Fox News

The latest FOX News poll shows a striking difference in how the political parties feel about the United Nations. Thirty percent more Republicans say the U.N. is anti-American than say it's pro-American, and 15 percent more independents believe the group is anti-U.S. than those who believe it's pro-U.S. But a plurality of Democrats — 33 percent — say the U.N. is pro-American, compared to 24 percent who say it's anti-American.

Meanwhile, President Bush may have vowed to get Usama bin Laden, but he's getting most of the blame for failing to capture the Al Qaeda leader. Thirty-two percent of those surveyed blame the Bush administration for failing to get bin Laden, while just 22 percent fault President Clinton.

Clinton Doth Protest Too Much

The ex-president's tirade on Fox News reveals a politician insisting on a legacy he doesn't deserve.

By Andrew Klavan

THERE'S NO LIMIT to what a man can do," President Reagan used to say, " … if he doesn't care who gets the credit."

Former President Clinton's motto seems to be a little different: "There's no limit to how much credit a man can get, if he doesn't care what he's actually done."

RE: RE: Giuliani Defends Clinton on 9/11 Efforts

Strother opines: "So instead, he should play politics as usual? Maybe Giuliani is choosing not to play politics and wants to simply be honest. You regularly say, 'Speak your conscience,' right? Well, good for him. Screw any primary voters who get silly about a man being honest about what he thinks."

I didn't say no such thing... The only thing I said was, "I'm sure this will go over well with a GOP primary voter." Yes, I always say, "Speak your conscience," but that doesn't mean I'm going to agree with it. You're getting testy with me and Tanya for some reason this week... Ha! :-)

Vox on the Bully Pulpit

Missing here is the fact that I have repeatedly asserted that we are NOT in a survival situation due to Islamic terrorism. That is the context in which my two anti-torture columns were written and I think BP will recognize the logic in questioning the vital need for legalized torture sought by a government that sees no problem with annually importing hundreds of thousands of Muslims and millions of aliens. Moreover, I openly mocked the idea that torture will prove of any use even if we were in a survival situation.

Given the amount of evidence amassed that the central government is working against traditional morality and personal liberty regardless of which political party is in control of it, I think BP is right to seek an answer from Sowell. I believe I have already provided one, on the other hand.

Fair enough. Dr. Sowell asserts we are in a survival situation and whatever we do is justified to survive. Vox asserts we are not in a survival situation and even if we were, torture isn't an effective weapon. So the first point of contention is really whether we are in a survival situation or not. Both have offered their thoughts on how they arrived at their assumptions. Vox (and those of us who agree with his assessment) must deal with the unfortunate logical dilemma of attempting to prove a negative.

We can offer characterizations of the jihadists as internationally inept, from a purely military point of view, but the media will still run pictures of collapsing skyscrapers, mud and dust covered firemen, and video of people jumping to their deaths to avoid burning. The fearmongers win because they have the tools to make the potential horror personal.

But beyond the point of the context in which we find ourselves, my original assertion was that the sides are talking past one another. And in doing that, each side assumes its predicate and moves on to the issue they find more important: Vox to the moral and cultural slippery slope and the ineffectiveness of torture, Dr. Sowell to the dichotomy of moral posturing versus the criticality of security and defense. My complaint is that there is little or no convincing discussion on whether or not either predicate holds. Vox offers that the probability of being killed by a jihadist is significantly less than that of being killed by a member of the United States government (or a drunk driver, I might add). Dr. Sowell offers that the jihadists have been successful at killing Americans in larger or smaller numbers, but death by a thousand cuts produces the same end result. On balance, I find both arguments equally convincing and unconvincing. That is, both arguments have some validity, but they seem to be simply talking points. I'm not faulting either Vox or Sowell for this, I'm just using them as examples of what I see to be the missing element in the whole discussion.

I don't, however, find Vox's dismissal of torture as an effective weapon completely convincing. If one consents to the predicate of a survival situation against an enemy with no scruples whatsoever, the only detriment to using torture against such an enemy is the moral downside. If some crazy is driving around Manhattan with a suitcase nuke, attaching his co-conspirators' testicles to a boat battery is possibly going to work more quickly than battalions of firemen and cops with rate meters. Arguments on the viability of suitcase nukes and whether or not any particular group of crazies can pull such a feat off are largely academic at that point. In such a situation, the only trade-off to be considered is the moral one. The balance to be struck is on the morality of using torture against that of not using it.

Dead Smart Guy Quote Of The Day

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." — Benjamin Franklin

While Americans tremble in fear of terrorist enemies, ready to abandon their principles in order to be protected, it's good to reflect on the words of dead smart guys. You may say that our own liberty is not affected by how we choose to treat terrorist prisoners, but, considering that whole 'slippery slope' concept, how soon is it 'til your own government tortures you in some form or another?

Snakes on my head! In the grass! In my home!

WILFORD, Idaho - The Hepworths knew the house would require some maintenance. But they never thought they'd need a snake charmer.

Shortly after Lyman and Jeanine Hepworth began working on a rundown property outside of town, they experienced a trauma more fit for Samuel L. Jackson's character in "Snakes on a Plane" than a pair of eastern Idaho do-it-yourselfers.

Snakes, perhaps thousands of them, fell on Lyman Hepworth's head when he opened the door to a pump house near the small house the couple planned to buy.

School strip searches

Even though student molestations seem to be reaching epidemic proportions in schools across America, the House of Representatives has approved a tough new anti-drug and anti-weapon law that would require local districts to develop search policies – including strip searches – with immunity against prosecution for teachers and staff.

Schools would have to develop policies for searching students, or face the loss of some federal funding, under the bill – HR 5295, approved by a voice vote Tuesday. It moves to the Senate, which does not have similar legislation pending at this time.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the American Federation of Teachers, the Drug Policy Alliance, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, the National Parent Teacher Association, the American Association of School Administrators and the National School Boards Association all opposed the bill saying it could invite unconstitutional searches. The National Education Association supports the legislation, according to the sponsor.

The bill was the brainchild of Rep. Geoff Davis, R-Kentucky, who said the idea was to "put a process in place so that the teachers don't have any fear of liability, but at the same time it protects the rights of the students from an unreasonable search."

The bill says only that search methods cannot be "excessively intrusive."

Joseph Farah

Thank God for the Republicans. I'll bet we're all glad they dropped that small government nonsense in favor of police-state tactics to protect us from this latest scourge of rampaging high school students. We should all be equally thankful that they are now carrying the legislative torch for the NEA. In actuality, Representative Davis should have called his bill, "The Ephebophile Protection Act of 2006."

RE: Giuliani Defends Clinton on 9/11 Efforts

Rudy's just giving everyone a taste of what his Presidency would be like. In Rudy's world, there is no right or wrong, only shades of gray.

I'm sure this will go over well with a GOP primary voter.

It won't even amount to a blip on the radar. Rudy's so good at dispensing the Kool-aid, they'll line up with their cups in their hands. All he has to do to pull the true believers into line is to invoke the spectre of the Beast in Pants Suits. Most of them would gnaw their own foot off if they were chained up to go vote against her. They won't even notice that She Who Must Not Be Named and Rudy are actually the same person.

RE: A Week's Revelations

Yep, Steve.

What every 'eye for an eye' American misses on this issue is that taking action contradicting the moral standards we appreciate as a nation is only a short-term gain. This viewpoint doesn't surprise me, though; we're becoming an increasingly short-sighted bunch.

Vox strikes me as a Conservative Idealist. I can respect that. At least on this issue, Sowell sounds like just another 'eye for an eye' conservative that I hear chattering away on a daily basis.

Vox never once offers ideas on what to do if we are indeed in a survival situation, and Dr. Sowell doesn't even attempt to address the slippery slope of casting away morality and liberty in the name of security.

Casting away morality and liberty in the name of security means the eventual death of American principles. Vox's approach may lose a battle or two, but Sowell's will eventually lose wars and makes us no better than our ideological enemies.

RE: Giuliani Defends Clinton on 9/11 Efforts

Andy: "I'm sure this will go over well with a GOP primary voter."

So instead, he should play politics as usual? Maybe Giuliani is choosing not to play politics and wants to simply be honest. You regularly say, 'Speak your conscience,' right? Well, good for him. Screw any primary voters who get silly about a man being honest about what he thinks.

Giuliani Defends Clinton on 9/11 Efforts

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani defended Bill Clinton on Wednesday over the former president's counterterrorism efforts, saying recent criticism on preventing the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks is wrong.

I'm sure this will go over well with a GOP primary voter.

Wednesday Funnies :-)

David Letterman: “Top Signs Osama Bin Laden Isn’t Really Dead”: He’s appearing in Atlantic City this weekend with Tony Danza; He’s been updating his MySpace page all week; Called Mike and the Mad Dog this afternoon to complain about the Giants; He’s captain of the Muslim team on the all new “Survivor”; Empty case of Yoo-Hoo was recently discovered in lawless border region of Afghanistan; Spotted at al-Qa’ida’s annual “Lunatic Father-Son Cookout”; During Fashion Week, he unveiled his fall line of turbans; New tape featuring Osama declaring Jihad on tainted spinach.

Jay Leno: Radical Muslims are still angry at the Pope. They say the Pope insulted a whole people and their religion. Then they went back to calling for the destruction of Israel and killing everyone. ... President Clinton is still very upset that ABC did not pull the [“Path to 9/11”]. In fact, he told them that he was thinking about changing his mind about appearing on the show “Wife Swap.” ... President Clinton lost his temper in an interview with Chris Wallace. He might not be the pleasant and polite first lady Hillary needs after all. ... Even Muslims watching the interview were saying, “Take it easy!” ... President Bush, the president of Iran and the president of Venezuela all spoke at the United Nations, and they all made a point of not listening to each other’s speeches. Where would we be if world leaders didn’t have a place where they could all get together and ignore one another? ... The leader of Hezbollah appeared in public today for the first time since the cease-fire with Israel. He told the Lebanese people, “I feel your pain.” You know, that’s Bill Clinton’s line. You can’t call us the ‘Great Satan’ and then steal all of our president’s lines. ... Liquids can now be carried on flights again. However the liquids must be bought in airport gift shops. So basically you’ll have to buy a 3 ounce bottle of hair gel for $167. You know who thought of this? The airport gift shops. ... Starbucks has announced they are not happy with the 8,600 stores they have in the United States. Now they want to increase that number to 20,000. That’s smart business planning. See, with Al Gore getting ready to run for president again, people are going to need all the caffeine they can get.

7-Eleven dropping Venezuela-backed Citgo

DALLAS - Convenience store operator 7-Eleven Inc. is dropping Venezuela-backed Citgo as its gasoline supplier at more than 2,100 locations and switching to its own brand of fuel.

Power to the people. :)

Big Business Loves Government

I keep reading that big business wants government off its back. But that's a myth. Here's the truth:

"[B]ig business and big government prosper from the perception that they are rivals instead of partners (in plunder). The history of big business is one of cooperation with big government."

That's Timothy Carney writing in a recent Cato Policy Report. He's the author of a new book, "The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money." Carney's book shows that government and business are not antagonists but allies. They've always been allies. Politicians like it that way because they get power and prestige, and businessmen like it because they get protection from competition.

There was never a time in America when big business didn't get favors from government, which means the taxpayers. Canal and railroad companies loved the big government contracts. Corruption was rampant, and work was often shoddy, but the contracts paid handsomely. The politicians prospered, too. Only taxpayers and consumers lost out.

John Stossel

A Week's Revelations

This past week has told us more than we wanted to know about ourselves and about our enemies.

There was far more controversy over remarks made by the Pope than over the violence unleashed by Muslims against people who had nothing to do with what the Pope said.

That our enemies do not understand the significance of free speech in a free society, where things that offend us can be denounced without indiscriminate violence, is bad enough. But that we ourselves seem headed further down the slippery slope of self-censorship is chilling.

Tolerance has been one of the virtues of western civilization. But virtues can be carried to extremes that turn them into vices. Toleration of intolerance is a particularly dangerous vice to which western nations are succumbing, both within their own countries and internationally.

Double standards are being wrapped in the mantle of morality. The drive to extend Geneva convention protection to terrorists who are not covered under the Geneva convention is one of a number of dangerous self-indulgences by people who seem to think that being morally one-up is the ultimate and survival is secondary.

Thomas Sowell

I was going to offer this as counterpoint to Vox Day's article, but it occurred to me that it is more exemplary of the current state of political discourse in this country. Each side talks past one another, driven by the need to pull down the winning sound bite. For example, Vox never once offers ideas on what to do if we are indeed in a survival situation, and Dr. Sowell doesn't even attempt to address the slippery slope of casting away morality and liberty in the name of security. So, while the pundits representing each team shout over one another, the political class, wearing interchangeable uniforms, slips in under cover of chaos and steals the keys to the kingdom. Joe Sixpack just waits for the next election so he can vote in the clown with the best stand-up routine, who will immediately contribute to making Joe ever more helpless and clueless.

Median home price dips for first time since '95

By Alex Markels for US News and World Report:

Nervous home sellers finally threw in the towel–and the kitchen sink–last month, lowering the prices they'll accept to sell their houses, the first time they've done so in 11 years.
Sales prices for existing homes fell by 1.7 percent from the year-ago period to $225,000, according to data released today by the National Association of Realtors. That's the biggest percentage decline since the fall of 1990, when the country was falling into a nasty recession and the housing market was reeling from a savings-and-loan scandal.

It's been rumored to happen for quite a while now, and, like all good investments, many thought the boom would never end. But, predictably, it did. There's no doubt: most everyone who has recently purchased a home is upside down in it and will be for a while. However, if you're currrently home shopping, congratulations! For the most part, you'll be able to name your price within reason, especially on those McMansions in new or recently-built suburban developments (in 'boom' neighborhoods with undeveloped infrastructure around them).

I enjoy watching the real estate market, and I've seen it locally, too. Sellers are finally giving up on getting the per-square-foot amount that their neighbors did last year (or have taken their homes off the market entirely).

Former Head of CIA bin Laden Unit Says Clinton Had 10 Chances to Get Terror Mastermind

Fox News

Bill Clinton told Chris Wallace during their interview on "FOX News Sunday" that he had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and launch a full-scale search for Usama bin Laden after the attack on the USS Cole in 2000.

But Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA effort to get bin Laden, is telling a different story. Scheuer says in The New York Daily News that plans for an invasion were never presented or discussed in his presence. And he says the only order he received following the attack on the Cole was to come up with a target list for air strikes. He also says Mr. Clinton had 10 chances to kill or capture bin Laden before 9/11, but the president did not use the information he was given.

Newsflash: Willie Nelson Smokes Weed

I think the punchline of a recent 'bits' editorial in the WSJ went something like, 'The police detected the faint smell of marijuana upon entering Willie's tour bus. That's hardly newsworthy. Detecting no scent of marijuana on Willie's bus — that's news.' Or something like that — an obvious joke, but pretty funny and true.

Funny Willie Nelson Parody :-)

This is pretty good... :-)

Stokes County School Board

We were having so much fun with hypocritical liberals, I forgot to post this.

I noticed this morning that Becky Boles is running for the school board in Stokes. I wonder if she is still pretending to be a Republican. Of course, these days, she's not all that far out of the pubbie mainstream.

I think she should get elected. The irony of having a functional illiterate serving on the school board would be just too delicious to miss.

RE: RE: 2 against 1

Tanya: If Branson wants to use his money that way, then more power to him; at least he's not going around preaching doom & gloom like Gore is. I'm talking about the environmentalists who consider oil companies, car companies, etc. evil while they do more to pollute the environment than we do.

Okay, so now you've explained your opinion. This all started with 'Liberals are such hypocrites.' It's hard to get those kind of specifics from vague generalizations.

Do you have proof that Rush was taking illegal prescription drugs while he was supporting the War on Drugs and jail time for illegal drug users?

Has his opinion on the subject changed since he found himself a potential victim of the War On Drugs and dodged jail time? I don't know, just asking.

And why would I want to listen to Air America? Boring. ("Vanilla or chocolate?" "How about vanilla and chocolate?")

I do believe you become more verbally aggressive on here when it's a post related to a conservative woman.

You believe wrong. Unexplained, vague generalizations are what irritate me, and you've misread the cause of any 'verbal aggressiveness' that I may exude.

Mr. Brenneis & Andy have brought up the fact on different occasions that you get the most agitated when there is an Ann Coulter article on here.

That's because I think Coulter is fire-breathing jackass who is unable to truly laugh at herself, her pop culture 'work,' the kooky celebrity she has become through it all, and the legions who find her words to be profound. I find her writing unconvincing and harsh; it's preaching to the choir — a pep rally of cheers for her team. Far better writers are out there, which I will acknowledge whether I agree with them or not. I couldn't care less that she's a woman.

Also, you pretty much told me to take a hike when I posted the article on the Duke rape case.

Wrong. You should probably go back and read my response. I asked you a question (which you never answered) and then shared my opinion on the never-ending 'JonBenet-ness' of this particularly pathetic example of human behavior.

You seem to lose your cool when a woman questions you.

Wrong again. How many women have you heard question me anyway? Besides, I'm about as laid back of a dude as you could find. Blame any 'lost cool' that you may read into what I type on my fingers.

I do have to admit that I find this "you're being sexist" stuff coming from you — a self-professed 'Conservative' who, according to rule, should be repelled by the idea of feminism — slightly amusing. Thoughts, Steve? Is she a victim of the government schools, too?

I don't know how many 'moderate' thinkers (you'd probably call them 'Liberals') you personally know and talk with on a regular basis. Because of that, I'm not sure of your experience in discussing matters with someone who can sit somewhere in the near-middle and see the folly and self-delusion that exists on both of the far "sides," rather than playing debate team with folks you don't know. Me, I have lots of friends from across the ideological spectrum — distributed (surprisingly) evenly — and we have a grand old time. So, what I'm saying is, if you find me to be sexist, I suggest that you get out more.

So, your wife is a conservative?

Oh, she has no time for this crap. She's busy doing what's best for her child and her family while finding cancerous tumors at work — truly important stuff like that. Since I write about fluffy topics and play music, I have time to care about silly nuance. That makes me the 'Liberal' and she the grounded one. But since I'm not exactly sure of your personal dogma involved in what's a 'Conservative,' I don't feel comfortable answering that question. But my guess is that she's not.

"True" conservatives like to practice what they preach; liberals do not.

So, you preach the virtues of driving an SUV? Tell me about those virtues.

(FYI, I drive a SUV; what do you and your wife drive, Strother?)

Glad you asked. We rotate between riding a bicycle, using public transportation, and pushing a Flintstone pedal car. To conserve plastics, we move the baby seat between bus and the pedal car, using a toddler-sized handlebar basket on the bike.
(Okay, I lied. My Scion xB is close though, huh? My wife is the evil, ozone-destroying one, who proudly drives one of those big, bad 4WD SUVs and enjoys squashing flowers along the way. But her parents live in Boone, so we got a free pass from the local tree-huggers to do so.)

RE: RE: The shadow of the torturer

Steve, I take it by your explanation that you have some specific problems with the column?

None whatever. The column is good, as most of Vox's are and I agree with the bulk of it. I'm just doubtful of his motivation and his approach.

He writes from such a narrow perspective, people who are unfamiliar with him might find comfort or pain where there is none. For example, a rabid, Bush-hating liberal might think Vox in agreement with his or her own agenda across the board. I assure you, nothing could be further from the truth. Let said liberal belabor Vox with his or her feminist leanings and the experience will be unpleasant and short. At the same time, I can just hear the mouth-breathing bushbot Kool-aid-drinkers wheezing about Vox being a pinko, liberal, weenie faggot. Let one of them accost Vox on the subject of their aversion to all things socialist, and they will think they have fallen into an intellectual right-winger's utopia.

As well, with regard to Vox's charging Hell with a squirt-gun, he tends to wax bombastic on a fine point. A few weeks ago, it was over the misuse of the term Fascist. The useful part of that whole episode was that he discussed, in detail, the dishonest way in which public education attempts to associate Nazism and Fascism ideologically. Other than that, it was an academic split hair.

The tone of his argument is overly elitist. He openly disdains those who succumb to the fear salad being sold by the Bush Administration, but he offers no alternative. He does nothing substantial to expose the red pill as a fraud. His argument is simply that fear is dangerous, especially when it causes us to abandon principle. He is completely correct, but offers nothing in the way of relief. I suspect he believes exposure to be the cure, but in that he vastly under and over estimates his audience. This is assuming he writes to offer something useful to humanity. If he writes just to see his words in print, then shame on him and shame on us for reading him.

RE: 2 against 1

I don't really have any dogs in the "Liberals are hypocrites" fight, so I don't know about the 2 against 1 thing.

I do think the environmentalists that Saunders is referring to fall in one of two categories: closet Marxists and useful idiots. I suspect Branson falls into the latter category.

We're all predictable!

Probably, but I still haven't figured out why you got in a twist over Branson's part in Saunders' essay. He really was only a minor topic.

Just throwing in a 'Conservative' to point out that they're everywhere...

No doubt. I just wanted to be on the record next time we see a post here on the BP complaining about the use of some liberal icon as a scarecrow.

...I'm sure she'd find something else to appear to be worked up about.

I didn't get a sense of worked-up-ness out of her article. I got more of a sense of wry irony. I'm not one of Debra's regular readers, but what I have read of her prior works left me with the impression that her aim is to look on liberals and their exploits in the same manner that one regards a well-known, possibly even beloved, but recalcitrant and not very bright child. Undoubtedly and understandably this is a source of much irritation for those who inhabit the domain of American liberalism.

Steve would probably tell you that 'Liberals' are in power.

Indeed he would. Very scary stuff, that.

Ah, so Ahnold is a liberal!

Well, he sure as hell ain't a conservative!

RE: 2 against 1

->So, in the meantime, those who live their lives comfortably and as usual while encouraging solutions for emerging problems can expect to be called hypocrites? I don't think that conservatism is supposed to include technological stagnation. Hopefully there aren't too many thinkers like you in R&D departments.

No, that's not what I meant. If Branson wants to use his money that way, then more power to him; at least he's not going around preaching doom & gloom like Gore is. I'm talking about the environmentalists who consider oil companies, car companies, etc. evil while they do more to pollute the environment than we do.

-> Yay for Mr. Clean. So he was a hypocrite, one who continues to support the War On Drugs and jail time for illegal drug users? Considering that he did his best to dodge the slammer, I assume that he's still a hypocrite. It would be most admirable (and understandable) if he publicly updated his opinion regarding that particular issue, but knowing how his target audience generally dislikes flip-floppers and backsliders, I doubt that he'd make that publicly known.

Do you have proof that Rush was taking illegal prescription drugs while he was supporting the War on Drugs and jail time for illegal drug users? Do you even listen to Rush? I'm assuming you listen to Rush about as much as I would consider listening to Air America. I've heard Rush say good things about the people he was in rehab with, and I've never heard him personally say "throw all druggies in jail."

-> Whoa, Nelly. Huh? It never has crossed my mind to disagree with you because you're a woman. I disagree with you because I disagree with you. Same goes for Coulter and whoever this Saunders chick is. You can rest assured that when I disagree with you, it has absolutely nothing to do with your sex. Wow, I'm surprised by that one.

I do believe you become more verbally aggressive on here when it's a post related to a conservative woman. Mr. Brenneis & Andy have brought up the fact on different occasions that you get the most agitated when there is an Ann Coulter article on here. Also, you pretty much told me to take a hike when I posted the article on the Duke rape case. You seem to lose your cool when a woman questions you.

-> But regarding independent thinking women, I'm married to one and like her more than just a bit. Hopefully that clears that one up.

So, your wife is a conservative?

-> Well, I guess that the rule illustrated today is that 'Liberals' admit that they waste gas in their Hummers, and 'Conservatives' never will (and/or don't give a damn).

"True" conservatives like to practice what they preach; liberals do not. (FYI, I drive a SUV; what do you and your wife drive, Strother?)

RE: The shadow of the torturer

Good column. Steve, I take it by your explanation that you have some specific problems with the column? Precisely what?

2 against 1

Oh, no! I've been cornered! Oh, well — one at a time.

First, Steve:

Riding to the rescue of someone from the music industry again, Strother? You're getting predictable.

We're all predictable! The origin of this thread was predictable. Tanya's 'Liberals are hypocrites' was predictable. Etc., etc. But actually, Virgin Records didn't even cross my mind; in this case I only thought about his airline. Plus, I really enjoy the sport of watching Branson — a polite British 'Trump' with better hair who isn't afraid to get his hands dirty — do his thing.

Are you still singing that song? (Limbaugh is a hypocritical addict)

Hey, Tanya's thesis was about liberal hypocrites. Just throwing in a 'Conservative' to point out that they're everywhere and smell especially rotten when damning others for the same nasty (and illegal) habits they have no problem doing in private (and until they're caught).

You should probably check this stuff out before you fire a salvo... Saunders has a long history of right-wing punditry, going back to before townhall.com existed, so your claim that she is just another ink-whore is probably specious.

Every professional writer specializes in something to get paid. It's a job, and if right-wing punditry wasn't profitable enough for her, I'm sure she'd find something else to appear to be worked up about.

Tanya:

Now, if liberals were in power, they would be scary.

Steve would probably tell you that 'Liberals' are in power. Scared now?

...if you're a tree hugger, you better be driving one of those Flintstones cars if you want me to take you seriously.

So, in the meantime, those who live their lives comfortably and as usual while encouraging solutions for emerging problems can expect to be called hypocrites? I don't think that conservatism is supposed to include technological stagnation. Hopefully there aren't too many thinkers like you in R&D departments.

Rush would be a hypocrite if he was STILL using Oxycontin. Rush should be commended for admitting to his problem and going to rehab to clean himself up.

Yay for Mr. Clean. So he was a hypocrite, one who continues to support the War On Drugs and jail time for illegal drug users? Considering that he did his best to dodge the slammer, I assume that he's still a hypocrite. It would be most admirable (and understandable) if he publicly updated his opinion regarding that particular issue, but knowing how his target audience generally dislikes flip-floppers and backsliders, I doubt that he'd make that publicly known.

I like how you like to take cheap shots at ALL conservative women; if it's not me or Ann Coulter, it's now Debra J. Saunders. You don't like independent thinking women, Strother? Are we a threat to you? If you think that's funny, then you should get a good idea about how I feel when I read some of your posts.

Whoa, Nelly. Huh? It never has crossed my mind to disagree with you because you're a woman. I disagree with you because I disagree with you. Same goes for Coulter and whoever this Saunders chick is. (If Saunders was a male, I would've probably just said, 'whoever this Saunders dude is — please don't be offended by the 'c' word). You can rest assured that when I disagree with you, it has absolutely nothing to do with your sex. Wow, I'm surprised by that one. What are you smoking over there at RJR that's making you so paranoid? No, don't tell me. But regarding independent thinking women, I'm married to one and like her more than just a bit. Hopefully that clears that one up. Maybe the 'drinks on Branson's Lear' bothered you; that was meant to address the nature of journalists (they are free drink hounds). ...I feel silly even explaining this one. Next.

It's good that you're learning something.

Ah, so Ahnold is a liberal! Well, I guess that the rule illustrated today is that 'Liberals' admit that they waste gas in their Hummers, and 'Conservatives' never will (and/or don't give a damn).

RE: Liberals, hypocrites, etc.

I don't know how excited I am to step into the middle of this, but...

Here's a self-made billionaire, Richard Branson, who wants to devote some of his own cash to a cause he believes in (and a problem he probably feels a bit responsible for contributing to, or whatever)...

Riding to the rescue of someone from the music industry again, Strother? You're getting predictable. It should be noted that Branson only plays a minor role in Saunders' thesis.

Consider, for instance, Rush Limbaugh.

Are you still singing that song? I'll keep that in mind next time you castigate someone for using the Clintons as scary liberal bogeymen for the right.

I'm not sure who Debra J. Saunders is, but...she'd probably write an article praising Sir Branson for the right fee and, of course, would gladly hop a Lear to get there for the exclusive interview, drinking all the free booze she could get on the way.

You should probably check this stuff out before you fire a salvo. Saunders doesn't write for townhall.com professionally. She writes for the San Francisco Chronicle, and her articles likely appear on townhall.com under the auspices of Creator's Syndicate, an organization that syndicates writers of all political orientations. I know townhall.com is yet another leftie bogeyman, but you should understand that their function is to gather output from the punditry of the right and not to generate it. Many of the articles that appear there were not written with townhall.com's audience in mind. Saunders has a long history of right-wing punditry, going back to before townhall.com existed, so your claim that she is just another ink-whore is probably specious.

RE: Liberals, hypocrites, etc.

Do you anxiously wait for 'Liberals' to make you mad?

Actually, I find liberals funny; they are such silly people. Now, if liberals were in power, they would be scary.

It's not hypocritical to encourage the development of alternative energy sources while continuing to live and do business in the present. Fuel companies advertise their own goals for developing cleaner fuel technologies while continuing to sell the same old gas. Are they also hypocrites, Tanya?

It would be hypocritical if they are preaching to people about how we are killing the environment if we drive SUVs and such and then they go and ride around in SUVs themselves. In other words, if you're a tree hugger, you better be driving one of those Flintstones cars if you want me to take you seriously.

But The Hypocrite Club isn't exclusive, Tanya. Consider, for instance, Rush Limbaugh. What's your excuse for him? Sneaking mouthfuls of Oxycontin during his radio show, he championed the War On Drugs and called for jail time for users. That's what you call a hypocrite. And from what I can remember of that particular fading star, he is not a liberal.

Rush would be a hypocrite if he was STILL using Oxycontin. Rush should be commended for admitting to his problem and going to rehab to clean himself up.

I'm not sure who Debra J. Saunders is, but - knowing journalist types fairly well - she'd probably write an article praising Sir Branson for the right fee and, of course, would gladly hop a Lear to get there for the exclusive interview, drinking all the free booze she could get on the way.

I like how you like to take cheap shots at ALL conservative women; if it's not me or Ann Coulter, it's now Debra J. Saunders. You don't like independent thinking women, Strother? Are we a threat to you? If you think that's funny, then you should get a good idea about how I feel when I read some of your posts.

Since her job includes writing for Townhall.com, she is to have a problem with anything resembling environmentalism. That's her job, writing for folks like you. If Branson's Virgin corporation floated her boat, she'd sing a different tune, trust me.

Heaven forbid for columnists to write articles for "folks" like us.

Yeah, yeah, I know - Ahnold is actually a liberal, too - but in sheep's clothing - right? See, I've learned a lot here on the 'ol BP.

It's good that you're learning something. It's better late than never.

Liberals, hypocrites, etc.

Tanya: 'Liberals are such hypocrites.'

You really can't win you with anti-environmentalism types, Tanya. Here's a self-made billionaire, Richard Branson, who wants to devote some of his own cash to a cause he believes in (and a problem he probably feels a bit responsible for contributing to, or whatever) — and not charge you or penalize you in doing so. And you still have to find a problem with him. Do you anxiously wait for 'Liberals' to make you mad?

It’s not hypocritical to encourage the development of alternative energy sources while continuing to live and do business in the present. Fuel companies advertise their own goals for developing cleaner fuel technologies while continuing to sell the same old gas. Are they also hypocrites, Tanya?

But The Hypocrite Club isn’t exclusive, Tanya. Consider, for instance, Rush Limbaugh. What's your excuse for him? Sneaking mouthfuls of Oxycontin during his radio show, he championed the War On Drugs and called for jail time for users. That’s what you call a hypocrite. And from what I can remember of that particular fading star, he is not a liberal.

I'm not sure who Debra J. Saunders is, but — knowing journalist types fairly well — she'd probably write an article praising Sir Branson for the right fee and, of course, would gladly hop a Lear to get there for the exclusive interview, drinking all the free booze she could get on the way. Since her job includes writing for Townhall.com, she is to have a problem with anything resembling environmentalism. That's her job, writing for folks like you. If Branson's Virgin corporation floated her boat, she'd sing a different tune, trust me.

Saunders: 'In California, Branson has a soul mate in Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.'

Yeah, yeah, I know — Ahnold is actually a liberal, too — but in sheep's clothing — right? See, I've learned a lot here on the 'ol BP.

The shadow of the torturer

Cognitive dissonance and logical contradiction are trusty indicators of inferior thought processes. It is not consistency that is the hobgoblin of small minds, after all, but ''a foolish consistency.'' Those claiming to possess large and superior minds should therefore be capable of consistencies that are not foolish.

But fear exerts a strange influence over the human mind. Fearfulness is a form of foolishness, indeed, it is one of its more powerful forms, capable of overruling reason and wisdom alike. The evil, the lazy and the intellectually corrupt make habitual use of fear in their arguments, because unfortunately, the ease with which fear can be inspired makes it an irresistably tempting instrument for politicians and commentators alike.

It has been disgusting to see the enthusiasm which conservatives supposedly adhering to concepts such as limited government, human liberty and Western civilization have been cheering the Bush administration's attempts to circumvent the limits of the Geneva Convention. Worse, they have urged it to altogether cast off the strictures of human decency and civilized behavior. They argue, with fearful lips aquiver, that if America does not assert the right of the Executive Branch to indiscriminately kill and torture, the Dread Terrorist Osama will rule from the White House as an iron-fisted Islamic dictator.

Vox Day

I had to think for a while about posting this. Vox has a tendency, as one of his regular blog commenters says, to charge Hell with a squirt gun. Since the discussion on torture seems to have devolved into a very Clintonian episode of definitions, this kind of thing can get lost in the rhetoric. Vox makes a couple of good points, though, especially the one on the use of fear by pols to keep the rabble in line. It should be noted that pols of both shirt colors are guilty of this.

RICE BOILS OVER AT BUBBA

By IAN BISHOP

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making "flatly false" claims that the Bush administration didn't lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.

Remembering the Gipper

“From a terrible war we learned that unity made us invincible;... that same unity makes us secure. We sought to bring all freedom-loving nations together in a community dedicated to the defense and preservation of our sacred values. Our alliance, forged in the crucible of war, tempered and shaped by the realities of the post-war world, has succeeded... We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free.”

Ronald Reagan

The No Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

DIRTY DIRTY POLITICS

With Democrat hopes to retake the House and Senate seemingly crumbling by the day, both Senate minority leader Harry Reid and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi have grown increasingly alarmed about the growing anti-Semitic and racist tone of their party's base, say House and Senate Democrat leadership staff.

Why Clinton "Lost His Temper"

The former president knew what he was doing.

by Bill Kristol

LET'S DO A THOUGHT experiment: Perhaps Bill Clinton, an experienced and sophisticated politician, knew what he was doing when he made big news by "losing his temper" in his interview with Chris Wallace. Perhaps Clinton's aides knew what they were doing when they publicized the interview by providing their own transcript to a left-wing website as soon as possible Friday evening, and then pre-spun reporters late Friday and Saturday. Maybe it was just damage control. Or maybe Clinton did what he wanted to do when he indignantly defended himself, blasted the Bush administration, and attacked Fox News. What could Clinton have been seeking to accomplish? Three things.

Clinton on Fox News Sunday :-)

RE: Pope Benedict, in his own words

I enjoyed reading the speech. I found it to be surprisingly unoffensive and far from what it was made out to be by more than a few journalists.

Lifestyles of Lear Jet liberals

Limousine liberals, move over. You've been out-glammed by Lear Jet liberals who burn beaucoup fossil fuels in the sky as they soar across the globe fighting global warming.

Debra J. Saunders

Liberals are such hypocrites.

Immigration vs. Migration

Really? In what way?

Both Vox Day and Mark Steyn have written at length on the thesis that what the United States sees as an immigration problem is actually a migration. Both have offered that a solution will not be forthcoming until the issue is properly identified.

How is the solution obvious?

Because, as others have noted, migration is synonymous with invasion. Meeting an invasion can only be accomplished in one of two ways from the larger perspective: you can repulse it or you can succumb to it. The trade-offs involved with repulsing it are well known, whereas there are no trade-offs in succumbing to it. Acquiescence means the death of the invaded country's society and culture, one way or the other.

To me, there really is no solution. It's just going to happen - the 'melting pot,' if you will.

I think you're missing the distinction between immigration and migration. Immigration implies assimilation, and that's where the melting pot happens. Migration is invasion and is exclusive of assimilation. The migration from our South does not have assimilation as its goal. The in-flooding Mexicans, Colombians, and others have no desire to learn English or to be otherwise assimilated into American culture and society. This is what differentiates immigration from invasion and occupation.

And since the US (overwhelmingly a Christian nation) has Christianity in common with the vast majority of those 'migrating' to our soil (who are generally Catholic Hispanics), I don't see how your example of the Muslim incursions into Europe apply here, other than the large numbers involved in the movement.

I don't know that it is accurate to call the US a "Christian" nation any more. I just saw some demographics and the similarities between North American and South American culture with respect to religion are only passing at best. In the demographics I saw, fewer than half of North Americans self-identify as religious and having an affiliation with an organized church. In the US, of those identifying themselves as religious, only 1 in 5 is Roman Catholic. In any case, there is more to the disparity between the two cultures than just religion. The differences between Latin American and North American cultures are easily as great as those between fifteenth century Moorish culture and that of Spain under Isabella and Ferdinand. Just the differences in language and economics are enough to create a cultural struggle of epic proportions.

Since religion seems to be at the core of what separates the cultures of the world, our problems will most likely be peaceful (and economically-based) in comparison.

Not at all. Associating religion with causality for cultural differences is an artifact of the rhetoric used by those who are antipathetic toward it. It comes from the same school of polemic that spawns the canard that religion is responsible for most or all of the world's wars.

What it comes down to, for the United States, is whether we are willing to recognize that the in-migration that is in progress right now will mean the eventual death of our culture. And once we recognize that fact, will we acquiesce to the nihilism of our own cultural and political left and let it die, or will we act to protect it? And if we act to protect it, will we recognize the cost and bear the burden?

Bill Clinton’s Excuses

By Byron York

“I worked hard to try and kill him,” former president Bill Clinton told Fox News Sunday. “I tried. I tried and failed.”

”Him” is Osama bin Laden. And in his interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, the former president based nearly his entire defense on one source: Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror, the book by former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke. “All I’m asking is if anybody wants to say I didn’t do enough, you read Richard Clarke’s book,” Clinton said at one point in the interview. “All you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive systematic way to try to protect the country against terror,” he said at another. “All you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s findings and you know it’s not true,” he said at yet another point. In all, Clinton mentioned Clarke’s name 11 times during the Fox interview.

But Clarke’s book does not, in fact, support Clinton’s claim. Judging by Clarke’s sympathetic account — as well as by the sympathetic accounts of other former Clinton aides like Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon — it’s not quite accurate to say that Clinton tried to kill bin Laden. Rather, he tried to convince — as opposed to, say, order — U.S. military and intelligence agencies to kill bin Laden. And when, on a number of occasions, those agencies refused to act, Clinton, the commander-in-chief, gave up.

RE: RE: Immigration or Migration?

It might interest you to know that you and Dr. Eco now find yourselves in complete agreement on this topic with Mark Steyn and Vox Day (and me, but I'm not trying to mix the company).

Really? In what way?

I don't think there is a political or law enforcement solution to the immigration issue. The solution lies in our leaders admitting that this is a migration, much like the Muslim incursions into Europe in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Once they admit this, then the solution becomes obvious.

How is the solution obvious? I'm not sure where you're headed with this, but I'm all ears.

To me, there really is no solution. It's just going to happen — the 'melting pot,' if you will. Like Eco said, immigration is controlled, and migration happens. And since the US (overwhelmingly a Christian nation) has Christianity in common with the vast majority of those 'migrating' to our soil (who are generally Catholic Hispanics), I don't see how your example of the Muslim incursions into Europe apply here, other than the large numbers involved in the movement. Since religion seems to be at the core of what separates the cultures of the world, our problems will most likely be peaceful (and economically-based) in comparison.

Of course, that's just my guess, as optimistic as it is.

Pope Benedict, in his own words

Just in case anyone is interested, here is the full text of Pope Benedict's Regensburg speech.

The section that has the Muslims so worked up is a point of exposition at the beginning of the essay. It is used to illustrate the incompatibility of unreasonable behavior with the natures of God and the soul. The thesis of the essay is on the path to faith through reason. Pope Benedict is a German intellectual and the essay shows it. It's well worth the read.

Former President Bill Clinton Defends Handling of Usama bin Laden in Combative FNC Interview

NEW YORK — Former President Bill Clinton accused Chris Wallace of carrying out "a conservative hit job" on him after the "FOX News Sunday" host asked him about his administration's handling of the growing Al Qaeda threat in an interview.

A Need to Breed

Fox News

Good news for workers in Russia's Ulyanovsk province who all got an afternoon off this week, courtesy of the local governor. The catch? He has something specific in mind for that afternoon away from the office.

With Mother Russia facing a population crisis, Governor Sergey Morozov urged residents to spend the afternoon, well, to go home and make a baby. It is part of his "Give birth to a patriot" campaign. He's also offering incentives to parents who give birth on the next Russian Independence Day ranging from a refrigerator or washing machine to a new car.

Fatwas for Sale?

Fox News

The Muslim world has erupted in religious indignation over everything from cartoons of the prophet to the pope's comments last week. But in India, which boasts the world's third largest Muslim population, that indignation can be bought for a small fee.

An Indian TV network broadcast a sting operation against several prominent Muslim clerics who were shown demanding bribes to issue religious decrees, or fatwas. Among them? Bans on the use of credit cards, sleeping in double beds, using cell phones with cameras, acting in films, donating organs, or teaching English to Muslim children. Time magazine reports one cleric even issued a fatwa against watching TV while another issued a fatwa in support of watching TV.

Dr. Eco and Atheism

Actually, Steve, it seems that Dr. Eco is not an atheist. He's most likely agnostic.

You're right, of course. I should probably have used the term, "humanist," although Dr. Eco has described himself as an atheist in earlier works and discussions with Catholic clergy. I think he probably came to the realization, as every honest person will, that atheism is a religion that requires faith to sustain.

RE: Immigration or Migration?

By now you're all probably thinking, 'Okay, Strother. Put the Eco books down.' Not yet.

Please don't. There is probably no such thing as too much Umberto Eco.

On this note, is America more accurately experiencing migration - rather than immigration...

It might interest you to know that you and Dr. Eco now find yoruselves in complete agreement on this topic with Mark Steyn and Vox Day (and me, but I'm not trying to mix the company).

I don't think there is a political or law enforcement solution to the immigration issue. The solution lies in our leaders admitting that this is a migration, much like the Muslim incursions into Europe in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Once they admit this, then the solution becomes obvious.

The unhealthy hunger for fame

From the September 29, 2006 issue of The Week magazine:

It's hardly a surprise, but a study now offers definitive proof that celebrities are the ultimate narcissists. Dr. Drew Pinsky, a physician and host of the long-running radio show Loveline, collected personality data from 200 of the celebrity guests who visited his studio, then tested them for narcissistic traits — such as the (unsupported) belief that they are smarter, more talented, or more worthy than other people. Pinsky found that male celebrities were significantly more narcissistic than average people, and female celebrities were even worse. Musicians were the least self-obsessed because their rise to fame had the most to do with actual talent, whereas reality-show stars — the least talented people in the limelight — scored highest.

"Female reality-show contestants are off the charts," Pinsky tells the Los Angeles Times. It's important not to confuse narcissism with egotism, or genuine self-love, Pinsky says. Narcissists actually have low self-esteem, due to abandonment, abuse, or other emotional traumas from their childhoods, and compensate by seeking fame. Though famous people often complain about the public never leaving them alone, Pinsky says, "their greatest fear is losing their celebrity status."

I think Pinsky's on the money here. While I don't know any reality TV stars — or really care to — I’ve known more than a few musicians, some of which are rather successful. For the commercially successful ones, any degree of celebrity they possess is simply a by-product of being good at their craft, which includes the successful marketing of their work.

RE: RE: From "Reflections On War"

Overall, I appreciate Steve's opinion on this, but I must clarify…

Steve stated: “As an atheist, Dr. Eco would decline the notion that incest taboos were divinely inspired, but he can offer no reasonable alternative to the sudden necessity for Jewish culture to record what he would term an evolutionary taboo.”

Actually, Steve, it seems that Dr. Eco is not an atheist. He's most likely agnostic. According to his book Belief or Nonbelief? — which consists of an open letter exchange with Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini — the atheist is ”a type whose psychology eludes me, because, as Kant observed, I do not see how one can not believe in God, and hold that His existence can not be proved, and then firmly believe in the nonexistence of God, holding that this can be proved.”

While many may miss the nuances, I must insist that there’s a lot separating atheism and agnosticism.

Immigration or Migration?

By now you're all probably thinking, 'Okay, Strother. Put the Eco books down.' Not yet.

I found this particular passage in the essay 'Migration, Tolerance, and the Intolerable' from Five Moral Pieces especially interesting:

”Is it possible to distinguish immigration from migration when the entire planet is becoming the territory of intersecting movements of people? I think it is possible: as I have said, immigration can be controlled politically, but like natural phenomena, migration cannot be. As long as there is immigration, peoples can hope to keep the immigrants in a ghetto, so that they do not mix with the natives. When migration occurs, there are no more ghettos, and intermarriage is uncontrollable.”

On this note, is America more accurately experiencing migration — rather than immigration — of Latin Americans to U.S. soil? While it remains to be seen if our immigration ‘problem’ can be controlled politically, it seems to me that uncontrollable “natural phenomena” as noted by Eco exists in our scenario thanks to our shared border with Mexico. Further, it seems that Hispanics are, as a whole, doing a pretty impressive job of “mix(ing) with the natives.”

RE: Women call off Colombia sex ban

I was going to ask if this was tit-for-tat for the Duke rape case article, but that would have been in very poor taste, so I won't.

But I can't help noting that these women resorted to using the only weapon they really have available to them. It is the human comedy writ large.

I think calling it noble is a little over the top. We also don't know whether that was what really stopped the feud or not. I really doubt it. I'm sure the Colombian gang leaders have a lot more on their minds than the fact that their chicas aren't putting out.

Women call off Colombia sex ban

From the BBC:

The girlfriends of gang members in one of Colombia's most violent cities have called off a sex strike aimed at ending a deadly gang feud. Women in the city of Pereira launched the "cross-legged strike" 10 days ago.
Pereira's security chief hailed the strike as a success, saying the women had shown they could win with what he described as "very noble weapons."

Clinton faults Bush for inaction on bin Laden

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former President Bill Clinton, angrily defending his efforts to capture Osama bin Laden, accused the Bush administration of doing far less to stop the al Qaeda leader before the September 11 attacks.

In a heated interview to be aired on Sunday on "Fox News Sunday," the former Democratic president defended the steps he took after al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole in 2000 and faulted "right-wingers" for their criticism of his efforts to capture Osama bin Laden.

It's either Bush's fault or the "right-wingers" fault... One can't help but laugh at Clinton.

French newspaper says Saudis believe bin Laden dead

A French newspaper published what it said was a report by the country's intelligence services that said Saudi Arabia believes Osama bin Laden died of typhoid in Pakistan this month.

France's foreign intelligence service, the DGSE, refused to confirm the substance of the report, and no immediate official reaction was forthcoming from Saudi officials Saturday.

But European and Pakistani officials tracking bin Laden's whereabouts told AFP, on condition of anonymity, that the report could not be seen as reliable.

Branson Pledges to Finance Clean Fuels

By ANDREW C. REVKIN and HEATHER TIMMONS in the NEW YORK TIMES:

Sir Richard Branson, the British magnate and adventurer, said yesterday that his personal profits from airlines and a rail company that he controls — a sum he estimated at $3 billion over the next 10 years — would be invested in developing energy sources that do not contribute to global warming. He announced the plan on the second day of the Clinton Global Initiative, a three-day meeting in Manhattan that amounts to a competitive festival of philanthropy run by former President Bill Clinton.
The money, Sir Richard said, would be invested in a host of alternative energy enterprises, including existing businesses within his Virgin Group, which consists of about 200 different companies connected in some way to Sir Richard’s sprawling corporate empire.
“Our generation has inherited an incredibly beautiful world from our parents and they from their parents,” Sir Richard said. “It is in our hands whether our children and their children inherit the same world. We must not be the generation responsible for irreversibly damaging the environment.”

RE: In defense of Tanya...

Andy said, As a contributor, Tanya can post "news, reasoned discourse, opinion and some humor."

Sure. And I'm with you on that, Andy. I agree 100%. But just I posed a question, which was, "Okay... so your point in posting this is... what?" Now I'm just waiting for an answer.

In defense of Tanya...

Strother opines:

Okay... so your point in posting this is... what? Yes, this whole story appears to be a convoluted amalgamation of bullsh*t, ignorance, and snobbish elitism. Still, I can't imagine such a scenario taking place. It's horrible, and I no longer find enjoyment in discussing it, personally.

Further, how is this 'Bully Pulpit' material, exactly? This is 'A Current Affair' worthy material (where Bill O'Reilly used to dwell - maybe he has some thoughts on it all?), but here?

Sorry, but I'm just a bit tired of all this.

As a contributor, Tanya can post "news, reasoned discourse, opinion and some humor." If you don't like what she posted, then don't read it and respond to it.

Much Too Cozy With Chavez

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

It's good to see Democrats put country above politics, as many did in repudiating Hugo Chavez's lunatic attacks on our president. But too many are still in the thug's debt and must dissociate with more than words.

Detainee Compromise is Bad News for Dems

by JOHN MCINTYRE

Judging by the reaction of the New York Times and Washington Post editorial pages, one would think that Jed Babbin's characterization of this deal as a "near-total win for the White House" is perhaps not that far away from the truth. The title of The Post's editorial ("The Abuse Can Continue") reveals just how far away they are from the average American on this issue. People on the street don't see these interrogations of terrorist suspects as "abuse" but rather what our operatives "have to do" to get the job done and to protect us from Islamic religious fanatics determined to kill as many innocent Americans as possible.

GOP Funds Ahmadinejad-Chavez Speaking Tour :)

By Scott Ott, Editor-in-Chief, ScrappleFace.com
News Fairly Unbalanced. We Report. You Decipher.

(2006-09-21) — The Republican National Committee (RNC) today offered to fund a coast-to-coast U.S. speaking tour featuring Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, in the weeks leading up to November’s Congressional elections.

The offer comes in the wake of two days of public remarks by the two foreign leaders before the United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations and U.S. news media. Their diplomatic pronouncements included…
– denying the Holocaust,
– calling the U.S. president “the devil“,
– praying at the U.N. for the return of Islam’s fabled 12th Imam,
– praising Cuban dictator Fidel Castro,
– insisting any nation has the right to develop nuclear technology,
– portraying the United States as the locus of evil in the modern world, and
– plugging Noam Chomsky’s book “Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance.”

“President Bush can talk about his national security plan and foreign policy all day long,” said an unnamed RNC spokesman, “But no one makes a more compelling case than the duo of Mahmoud and Hugo. We want to make sure every American has an opportunity to hear these important world leaders.”

The Republican source said sponsoring the pre-election Ahmadinejad-Chavez speaking tour was also a way of “reaching across the aisle to help our colleagues in the Democrat party to get their message out, so the American voter can make an informed decision.”

RE: DA: Alleged Duke Rape Took 5-10 Minutes

Okay... so your point in posting this is... what? Yes, this whole story appears to be a convoluted amalgamation of bullsh*t, ignorance, and snobbish elitism. Still, I can't imagine such a scenario taking place. It's horrible, and I no longer find enjoyment in discussing it, personally.

Further, how is this 'Bully Pulpit' material, exactly? This is 'A Current Affair' worthy material (where Bill O'Reilly used to dwell - maybe he has some thoughts on it all?), but here?

Sorry, but I'm just a bit tired of all this.

DA: Alleged Duke Rape Took 5-10 Minutes

Three Duke lacrosse players took five to 10 minutes to sexually assault a woman hired to perform as a stripper at a team party, and not the 30 minutes she originally described to investigators, a prosecutor said Friday.

"When something happens to you that is really awful, it can seem like it takes place longer than it actually takes," District Attorney Mike Nifong said.

AARON BEARD
Associated Press Writer

Are videotaped beheading covered by Geneva?

Sen. John McCain has been carrying so much water for his friends in the mainstream media that he now has to state for the record to Republican audiences: "I hold no brief for al-Qaida."

Well, that's a relief.

Ann Coulter

RE: RE: House bill to require voter ID

Illegal aliens and felons are the new demographic who will vote Democrats into office? Wow, I learn something new every day.

It's about time.

Why is this so evenly divided on the party line? Well, it's simple: because Republicans will benefit by this act and Democrats will suffer, of course. It's all about politics - not ethics, fairness, or voter fraud. It's about winning and losing via the elimination of voters without photo ID - 'illegal aliens' and 'felons' are just hot-button words of the Right - so don't fool yourself.

It's good for you to admit that Republicans will benefit from LEGAL votes and Democrats won't. In other words, you agree with my premise that Democrats need ILLEGAL votes to win.

Anyway, if we all want to improve the voting process and increase legitimate participation, let's make it possible to vote online. If I can safely enter my credit card number and buy books from Amazon or transfer funds and pay bills with Bank of America's online banking portal, why can't the federal government offer safe internet voting technology, where Americans set up a PIN, enter their social security number, and move this whole process into modern times?

I'm sure you said that in jest since how many times a year credit card numbers, banking numbers, and social security numbers get stolen ONLINE? Since you are a fellow App graduate, I know you're not THAT naive.

Of course, this would mean that more young people would vote, and it would be back to an argument between Dems and Reps, split right down the party line with the Dems touting and the Reps complaining.

Of course the Democrats will be touting online voting because it opens up our voting process to more fraud and abuse. If young people want to vote, they can go to the voting booth or get an absentee ballot like everybody else; that is if they have proof they are who they say they are.

RE: RE: House bill to require voter ID

Strother said...

Illegal aliens and felons are the new demographic who will vote Democrats into office? Wow, I learn something new every day.

But then he said...

Why is this so evenly divided on the party line? Well, it's simple: because Republicans will benefit by this act and Democrats will suffer, of course.

Der?!

So who do you (and the Democrats) think is going to try to vote without photo ID, Strother? Keep in mind that every state now requires everyone over the age of 16 to have a photo ID. Who, exactly, is being "disenfranchised" by this?

As to felons and illegal aliens being the Democrats' new constituency, apparently the Democrats believe that to be true. They are the ones pushing to allow them to vote, and not just in this incarnation. They have fronted the idea on a number of occasions and under several different guises over the last ten years.

If I can safely enter my credit card number and buy books from Amazon or transfer funds and pay bills with Bank of America's online banking portal, why can't the federal government offer safe internet voting technology, where Americans set up a PIN, enter their social security number, and move this whole process into modern times?

Can you, really? Do you know the statistics on identity theft?

In any case, you answered your own question. The Federal Government does very little right, having it implement online voting would be like putting up a huge sign saying "Commit voter fraud here." Are you also aware that there is no allowance for federal involvement in voting? If there was a sane Supreme Court in place, the Federal Election Commission as well as every bill having to do with voting would never survive a constitutional challenge. The full intent of the constitution is that voting is strictly a concern of the states. So do you really want the states of California and Florida, who have had their state-run websites hacked repeatedly, running online voting? I'm just saying...

It all goes to show that no one really cares about solutions, only winning the next election.

Well that's surely the truth!

RE: House bill to require voter ID

Is it to the point now that Democrats feel that the only chance they have at winning is to get votes from illegal aliens and felons?

Illegal aliens and felons are the new demographic who will vote Democrats into office? Wow, I learn something new every day.

Why is this so evenly divided on the party line? Well, it's simple: because Republicans will benefit by this act and Democrats will suffer, of course. It's all about politics - not ethics, fairness, or voter fraud. It's about winning and losing via the elimination of voters without photo ID - 'illegal aliens' and 'felons' are just hot-button words of the Right - so don't fool yourself.

Anyway, if we all want to improve the voting process and increase legitimate participation, let's make it possible to vote online. If I can safely enter my credit card number and buy books from Amazon or transfer funds and pay bills with Bank of America's online banking portal, why can't the federal government offer safe internet voting technology, where Americans set up a PIN, enter their social security number, and move this whole process into modern times? We're already voting electronically onsite. Sure, keep local voting spots for the old typewriter-folks, but - slowly and surely - you would surely watch those dwindle away. Of course, this would mean that more young people would vote, and it would be back to an argument between Dems and Reps, split right down the party line with the Dems touting and the Reps complaining.

It all goes to show that no one really cares about solutions, only winning the next election.

House bill to require voter ID

The House yesterday passed legislation that would require voters to show a valid photo identification in federal elections over the overwhelming objections of Democrats who compared the bill to segregation-era measures aimed at disenfranchising Southern blacks.

The Federal Election Integrity Act was approved on a nearly party-line 228-196 vote. Republicans backed the bill 224-3, with three nonvoters; Democrats opposed it 192-4, with five nonvoters. They were joined in opposition by the House's one independent member.

The bill, which faces an uncertain future in the Senate, is part of a Republican effort to complete before the November elections a package of proposals aimed at curbing illegal immigration and its effects on ordinary Americans.

The Washington Times

What's the big deal about voters having to show proof they are who they say they are? Is it to the point now that Democrats feel that the only chance they have at winning is to get votes from illegal aliens and felons?

The church dance that snowballed

Wright's book is a marvellously vivid recreation of a kind of sustained unreality...One thing it demolishes is the lazy leftist trope that the "root cause" is poverty. The penniless yak herds aren't the problem. The very first words of the very first chapter are "In a first-class stateroom on a cruise ship bound for New York . . ." It's 1948 and inside the first-class stateroom is Sayyid Qutb, the first of a grand parade of privileged middle-class Westernized Muslims for whom a mis-wired encounter with the modern world is enough to make them hot for jihad.

Mark Steyn

RE: From "Reflections On War"

As always, brilliantly reasoned. However...

Here is one of the places that Dr. Eco and I go astray. He approaches the subject from a purely humanist point of view (not surprising since he is one of the foremost humanist thinkers in the world). He also approaches the topic from within the context of what Thomas Sowell calls the "unconstrained vision."

First, the humanist aspect. Dr. Eco reasons that we develop taboos for activities that have produced demonstrably negative results. He posits an evolutionary process, giving incest as an example. The trouble is, incest may sound like a clear enough simile, given that Western culture universally finds it abhorrent. Or does it?

The European aristocracy, from the middle ages onward, was highly incestuous. Early bloodlines showed the inevitable results of rampant inbreeding: mental defectives, physical abnormalities, and a very high rate of insanity. However, moving into the seventeenth century and onward, the royal families of Europe were still highly inbred, but an understanding of how closely held the bloodlines could be had been gained. Fewer monsters were born.

But we have to back up a bit. For Western Civilization, at least, incest taboos came directly from Mosaic Law. As an atheist, Dr. Eco would decline the notion that incest taboos were divinely inspired, but he can offer no reasonable alternative to the sudden necessity for Jewish culture to record what he would term an evolutionary taboo. I'll say more on the topic of the Christian aristocracy of Europe ignoring a fundamental taboo of Judeo-Christian morality later.

So we have Dr. Eco offering incest taboo as an example for why a war taboo could or should be developed. I offer that it is an excellent example of why a war taboo would be a fruitless exercise.

Dr. Eco further offers that a taboo on war cannot simply be manufactured:

Of course, a taboo is not proclaimed: it proclaims itself... It is therefore compatible with intellectual duty and with common sense to announce the necessity for a taboo, although no one has the authority to say that a certain time is required for its coming to maturity...

This is a classic argument from Dr. Sowell's unconstrained vision. Without belaboring an explanation, the unconstrained vision contains no limits on the human intellect and posits a utopian social order through purely intellectual and rational control. All that is needed in this vision to stop wrongdoing is to rationally explain the undesirable nature of the action to the wrongdoer. In this vision, there are no trade-offs and human behavior does not proceed from incentives and disincentives. In this vision, human behavior is always based on reason and intellect alone.

Dr. Eco's argument derives from the classic context of the ruling intelligentsia, where the academy sets the social order. According to this context, all taboos are self-evident and moral authority springs from the intellectuals' simple assertions that the taboo is necessary. The unconstrained vision is purely utopian.

It is self-evident that the moral codes of Western Civilization find their sources in Mosaic Law. As well, for those who doubt the evidence, the long chain of history easily demonstrates this to be true. It is also easily demonstrated that those asserting that moral authority were just as likely to violate or ignore their own morality. It is all well to suggest a taboo on war, but to what end?

As with incest taboos, a taboo on war would just as easily be ignored when those in power found it necessary to do so. The European aristocracy believed that the source of their power was their bloodline. They believed they were beneficent and that the survival of Western Civilization depended on their retention of power. Against that dire necessity, what a small matter was procreation among first cousins, uncles and aunts with nieces and nephews, or even the occasional brother and sister. So with war, what a small matter of morality to send an army against the enemy who seeks to destroy you.

Dr. Eco argues that there is no evidence that wars produced reasonable results. From the context of the unconstrained vision, this makes sense. In that context, the only reasonable result of war is the prevention of other wars. In the years following the "age of reason," wars were fought "to end all wars." Our leaders still assert that we fight wars to attain peace. To that end, many argue we have lost the ability to fight a war effectively, and they are right. No longer are partisans united to end a clearly perceived threat. It is those who seek purpose in war, and finding none, call for its elimination who have applied pressure to the leaders of our civilization and have given the result that war has indeed become an ineffectual tool for maintaining social order.

It can be reasonably argued that the emasculation of war has actually resulted in an increased necessity for armed resolution of conflict. Modern wars are no longer fought to decisive conclusions. While Dr. Eco's assertion that wars do not achieve long-term equilibrium, it is not true that wars never end in a decisive result. As late as the last century, World War II ended the immediate threat of an evil so heinous and pervasive that it remains a nightmare for nearly every Western culture. The fact that it did not "end all wars" is an accusation formed from claims it did not make.

And so my final question to Dr. Eco is this, "If not war, then what?" From the humanist perspective, and especially within the context of the unconstrained vision, evil is not categorical. And that is what sets this context aside from empirical reality in such a blazingly obvious fashion. Suppose, for the moment, a taboo on war was successfully ingrained in our society and culture. Is it Dr. Eco's belief that taboos are never broken? Admitting that they are, then who is it that overwhelmingly is guilty of breaking the taboo? A taboo is a demarcation of moral behavior. Does Dr. Eco believe that no one ever behaves amorally? And given that some will behave amorally and make war upon the rest of us, what are we to do? Do we become martyrs to the humanists' moral code? Do we leave the world to evildoers, somehow believing that there is a reward otherwhere? What a discordant stand for a humanist to take.

One would almost wonder if Dr. Eco is beginning to accede to spirituality.

It's hard to tell a conservative from a liberal

In this era of a big-spending Republican administration, the differences between conservatives and liberals have shrunk so much, it's hard to tell who's who.

Take embryonic stem-cell research. President Bush has limited taxpayer funding of this research on right-to-life, not fiscal-conservative, grounds. He's not against all federal financing of the research, but he doesn't want to expand what's already being done. Conservatives generally support him.

Liberals oppose Bush's stance because they like funding what they favor, and they favor stem-cell research.

They often describe Bush's policy as a ban on research. That's not true. Researchers at Harvard, Vanderbilt, and other private institutions already spend millions on this work.

Clearly there's a difference between private and government financing, and someone can logically favor the first while opposing the second.

John Stossel

From "Reflections On War"

In these particular passages — transcribed directly from the essay "Reflections On War" reprinted in the book Five Moral Pieces — Umberto Eco's commentary regarding the Gulf War in 1991 is just as fresh and relevant today as it was then. The full text, as far as I know, isn't available online, but the book is worth buying just for this, the full text of the previously posted "Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt" (titled "Ur-Fascism" in the book), and three other great essays.

More wisdom from Umberto Eco:

War is no longer waged on a front between two sides... In the wars of the past, potential enemies were interned (or massacred), while compatriots who spoke in favor of the enemy's cause from enemy territory were usually hanged as soon as the war was over. But war can no longer be frontal, because of the very nature of multinational capitalism. That Iraq was armed by western industry is no accident. It falls within the logic of mature capitalism, which eludes the control of individual states. When the American government finds that the television companies are playing the enemy's game, it still thinks it is faced with a plot hatched by pro-Communist eggheads. In the same way, the television companies labor under the illusion that they are the impersonation of Humphrey Bogart, who has the corrupt gangster listen to the sound of the printing presses over the telephone as he says: "It's the press, old chum, and you can't stop it." But the logic of the news industry is that it sell news, preferably dramatic news. It is not that the media refuse to play along with war: the media are merely a pianola performing a piece previously transcribed on its roll. In modern wars, therefore, everyone has the enemy behind the lines...

To conclude that classic wars produced reasonable results — a final equilibrium — derives from a Hegelian prejudice, according to which history has a positive direction. There is no scientific (or logical) proof that the order of the Mediterranean after the Punic Wars, or that of Europe after the Napoleonic Wars, corresponded perforce with a state of equilibrium. It could have been a state of imbalance that would not have occurred had there been no war. The fact that for tens of thousands of years humanity has used warfare as a solution for states of disequilibrium has no more demonstratable value than the fact that in the same period humanity learned to resolve states of psychological imbalance by using alcohol or other equally devastating substances.

And this brings us to the notion of taboos. Moravia suggested that, since it took centuries for humanity to develop the incest taboo because of the realization that endogamy gave negative results, we have perhaps reached the point in which humanity has become aware of the need to proclaim war a taboo. Realists have replied that a taboo is not "proclaimed" by moral or intellectual decree, it is formed over millennia in the obscure recesses of the collective consciousness... Of course, a taboo is not proclaimed: it proclaims itself... It is therefore compatible with intellectual duty and with common sense to announce the necessity for a taboo, although no one has the authority to say that a certain time is required for its coming to maturity...

It is an intellectual duty to proclaim the inconceivability of war. Even if there were no alternative solutions. At most, to remind people that our century has known an excellent alternative to war, and that is "cold" war. In the end, history will have to admit that cold warfare, the source of horrors, injustices, intolerance, local conflicts, and widespread terror, has proved a very humane and mild solution in terms of casualties, and cold warfare can even boast victors and vanquished...

War cannot be justified, because — in terms of the rights of the species — it is worse than a crime. It is a waste.

Wednesday Funnies :-)

David Letterman: “Top Signs Osama bin Laden is in love with you”: He carved your initials in an infidel; Always gets the camel washed and waxed before he picks you up; Never forgets to release an Al-Jazeera video on your birthday; You say you enjoy Barry Manilow—next day he sends you Barry Manilow’s ear; Orders 1 goat milk, 2 straws; Says only thing hotter than your body is his scorching hatred for the Zionists; Get a romantic greeting card that reads, “You jihad me at ‘Hello”’; He lets you call him “Ossie”; New intelligence reports put his whereabouts at Zales.

Jay Leno: There’ve been huge protests in the Muslim world over anti-Muslim comments made by Pope Benedict. Today the pope apologized, saying he never should have gone drinking with Mel Gibson. ... The price of gas is supposed to be down to $2 per gallon by Thanksgiving. The bad news is that turkey will be $80 per pound. ... The new president of Mexico says that he wants to work with the United States to let people in Mexico work jobs that they want to in the United States. As opposed to creating new jobs in Mexico. ... Fox News is reporting that the two leading candidates for the Democratic nomination for president are Hillary Clinton and Al Gore. One wants to prevent the melting of ice bergs and the other is an ice berg. ... Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the New York Senate race has been married three times and had two kids with his chief of staff while married to another woman. For the first time a Clinton is the family values candidate. ... Al Gore says he has not ruled out another run for the Oval Office. Have you seen Al Gore lately? He is the Oval Office. ... He also hasn’t ruled out a second run for pie, a second run for cake, a second run for cookies. ... For the first time ever there is now scientific proof that air travel can increase the spread of viruses. So now we may be able to stop the spread of some things, like bird flu. Does this mean I can no longer take my chicken on board? How can I now travel with my livestock? ... Jackie Chan is upset that he is only in martial arts movies. He wants other roles. Why doesn’t he do what normal people do and run for governor?

4th option for redistricting schools available in Stokes

By Lisa R. Boone
Winston-Salem Journal

DANBURY

A fourth option for school redistricting is now on the table in Stokes County.

The county school board requested the additional option after a presentation in August on three other redistricting plans, Superintendent Larry Cartner said.

Calif. sues 6 carmakers over greenhouse gases

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California filed suit against Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp., Toyota Motor Corp. and three other carmakers on Wednesday, charging that greenhouse gases from their vehicles have cost the state millions of dollars.

State Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Northern California was the first of its kind to seek to hold manufacturers liable for the damages caused by their vehicles' emissions.

The lawsuit also names Chrysler Motors Corp., the U.S. arm of Germany's DaimlerChrysler, and the North American units of Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

Sadly, no, this isn't a parody.

At U.N., Chavez Calls Bush 'The Devil'

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez took his verbal battle with the United States to the floor of the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday, calling President Bush "the devil."

"The devil came here yesterday," Chavez said, referring to Bush's address Tuesday. "He came here talking as if he were the owner of the world."

IAN JAMES

This pisses me off. This is why I no longer buy gas from CITGO (for those of you that don't know, Venezuela owns CITGO.) Chavez even held up a Noam Chomsky book during his speech. Why we would let somebody like that enter our country is beyond me.

Big in Texas

Fox News

So many government workers in Travis County, Texas are so fat that county leaders are considering paying for stomach stapling operations. The county says 300 to 400 of its 4,100 employees are morbidly obese and are unable to lose weight through diet and exercise. The operations would cost up to $20,000 each.

The county is proposing to pay for up to 15 per year for five years to see if it will actually save money on health care, absenteeism and other costs.

Terror Breeding Ground?

Fox News

A new report has furthered the warning that prisons in the U.S. are becoming breeding grounds for Islamic terrorists. The study by George Washington University and the University of Virginia says there are not enough adequately trained Muslim counselors available to inmates who want to learn — so extremists move in and teach a radical theology.

The report says state and local authorities are too cash-strapped to prevent this, or even keep track of it. The study cited several high-profile terrorists who became radicalized while behind bars, including British shoe bomber Richard Reid.