Barbra Streisand is just a little bit peeved that her misspelling laden memo has become a laughingstock. She's even issued a "TRUTH ALERT" to help set the record straight. Go read it, and puke. This is the most monumental display of delusions of grandeur you will ever encounter. Earth to Babs: you are a washed up entertainer who the democrats listen to only because you give them lots of money. Your opinion is worth no more (or less) than any other American's opinion. Whining about how the media is suppressing the real issues, after you supported our last president through thick and thin, gives you a credibility rating of exactly zero.

Then there's her "statements" section, where she reminisces about how great things were before the evil Republicans regained the white house. Reading it proves one thing: Barbra Streisand is a brain dead bimbo who somehow thinks we should care what she thinks about foreign policy, domestic affairs, or even what we had for lunch today. Go read her new words to "The Way We Were". Then maybe drop her a note or 2 (although I'm sure any criticism of Babs is wiped away before the diva ever sees it). There is, of course, no public comments section on Bab's website.

Let's add Randy Moss to the list. Here is a guy that believes he is God's gift to football, has never won anything, and continually screws up. But, according to Moss, it is always someone else's fault. He is doing his best to be a good guy, but the unfair and capricious nature of the universe keeps interfering with his best efforts. Moss epitomizes everything bad about today's athletes. Even if he ever does win anything, he will still be a loser.

Note to Randy: The best receiver in the NFL wouldn't first show up his quaterback, and then drop 3 easy touchdown passes like a certain someone did last night in a nationally televised game.

But there's always time for Ted Rall bashing. The Comics Journal has an excellent critique of Teddy-boy's work, and it's done in a thoughtful and professional way.

Update:

Instapundit points us to a discussion where Rall paints himself the victem.

As I have an IACUC protocol due, as well as spending most of the day getting my figures printed out in "publication quality" format. While I'm gone, talk about Toricelli stepping aside, or the fact that the hole in the ozone is smaller than its been since 1988, DESPITE the US refusal to sign the Kyoto accords.

So now we have a couple of Democrats over in Iraq, sympathizing with Saddam and essentially calling Bush untrustworthy. So much for that "we all stick together in time of crisis" thing. How about "aiding and abetting the enemy"? But not to worry, I'm sure Daschle will be scheduling some face time with these 2, to discuss the "evils" of politicizing the war. First Gore, then Daschle, then Gore again, and now Bonoir and McDermott. How much more damage can the democratic party do to itself?? The answer is, I hope, "LOTS". But any more and I almost feel greedy.

Update

Trent Lott responds to the Democratic morons above here.

Should be interesting to watch the Dems spin this one in the coming weeks. And here is a picture of our 2 Saddam apologists:

And what handsome boys they are. So tell me again, why are they in Iraq and why are they supporting Saddam? Hopefully they are there to sign up for the Saddam Hussein Human Shields Martyrs Brigade.

I was just over at Warblogger Watch, where this is apparently the latest argument for why we shouldn't invade Iraq. It seems as if the argument is that we are preparing for a pre-emptive strike against a foe not only before he can threaten us directly, but in fact before he has even thought about attacking us. Now, if we were planning on invading Holland, I could see this being an argument. But Iraq? Who has invaded 3 neighboring countries and tried to assassinate Bush Sr.? And where was the Uranium mentioned below going?

Now, I have lurked at WBW quite a bit, and posted a few times. Today, for the first time, I noticed their slogan (right below the hidden faced terrorist guy who is apparently their mascot), which reads:

Ideas are also weapons

In that case, these guys are definitley going into battle unarmed.

Update

"Bob Smith", over at WBW, takes exception to this post. For reasons known only to Bob, he chooses to ignore the comments section here at RNS and instead makes his comments in this post over at the Rotties place. Sayeth Bob:

Yeah, real smart guy, that Nuclear Strikes. Didn't even notice that the post was a joke! Moron. About the same IQ as the Dog(shit).

Note to Bob: I certainly know who Monty Python are, and I recognize that the post Amir Butler cut and pasted to WBW was a joke in its original incarnation. However, the attempt to use the joke as an analogy for the current Iraqi situation is not only not funny, it is not original and incredibly lame. THIS is what my "unarmed" comment refers to.

The problem with WBW is that it is impossible to seperate the shrill, conspiracy theory laden tripe that is intended as serious from the shrill, conspiracy theory laden tripe that is intended as a joke. IN that scenario, one is left with only 2 options: treat everything as serious, or treat everything as a joke. Go take a look around and see what you decide: WBW as serious commentary, or laughingstock?

I tried to go to both of the websites "Bob Smith" lists, to offer my comments in person. Since neither site seems to exist (another anti-warblogger that won't use his real name or provide real contact info? How strange), I added my comments over at the Rottie's place, and put an update here.

Update Redux:

Bob Smith, still preferring the Rottie's comment board over RNS, offers this rebuttal to several posts asking for some type of coherent statement from same:

I smell some more brain farts this morning. Since they are particularily pungent, I can't help but wonder what you ate last night: 7-11 burritos or the latest bullshit from Bush?

Bob Smith

Wow, what witty repartee. With contributors like Bob, it's easy to see why people go to WBW not to be informed, but to laugh. As I read somewhere the other day, "this guy has to stand in a meat locker to be able to claim that his IQ is room temperature".

Then why are Turkish officials confiscating weapons grade uranium from smugglers?
Pull our troops out of Germany, redeploy them in Poland and Turkey, and stop Saddam before he nukes Israel or the US. But of course, this still won't be enough for Kennedy and Daschle to decide we need to act. Kennedy will dismiss this just as he has dismissed everything else: as "unconvincing evidence".

I do eagerly await Mr. Gore's next speech, though. I'm sure, of course, that this will all be turned into an obvious plant by the US: the whole thing is a set-up, and the smugglers are really US operatives who wanted to get caught in order to bolster the US war effort.

David Warren offers a compelling analysis of the corner Herr Schroeder has painted himself into. And I think he is exactly right. We have allies in Europe that would welcome us with open arms, so why stay where we are not wanted? Except we really ARE wanted in Germany, or at least the amount of money our military pours into the local economy is. Not to mention the money Germany would have to spend on defense, if our "defensive force" packs up and relocates (how does Poland sound?).

Make an example of Schroeder: show the world that we are no longer willing to be punching bags for anti-American rhetoric while simultaneously being the ones to provide the safety of military might to the very people doing the bashing. Wonder how Schroeder will repay every cent of the flood reparations he promised AND increase German military spending to make up for the huge hole left where we despicable Hitler-like Americans used to be?

If he does, he knows that Charles Krauthammer is none too impressed with his most recent offering. It starts with:

The tone of the speech is best reflected in Gore's contemptuous dismissal of the U.S. victory in Afghanistan as "defeating a fifth-rate military power." If the Taliban were a fifth-rate military power, why didn't the Clinton-Gore administration destroy it and spare us Sept. 11?

and builds from there. One wonders if Gore even realizes (he certainly does not care) that one of the big reasons we are in our current situation is because of the massive failures of the Clinton/Gore presidency to deal with al Qaeda during the early 90's?

And the results aren't pretty.

But it does drive home the point that you don't need long range ballistic missles to attack the US with nukes or biologics. As American Realpolitik suggests, "read it and weep".

So stupid it's patently offensive! At least, that's what Mean Mr. Mustard says. I was going to paraphrase, but go read the whole thing for yourself. Then go over to Warblogger Watch and decide if he's right. If you should decide that you disagree with Mean Mr. Mustard, then go over to Antiwar.com and join up, you should fit right in.

Making fun of things like this any day now.

Actually, it's fairly remarkable that this is the first suicide reported in the men and women who really suffered the most trauma on 9/11. Sounds like a lot of things were going on in this guys life to cause him sorrow, and he finally reached his breaking point.

But, if Rall can do cartoons about the widows of 9/11, and make fun of Daniel Pearl's pregnant wife following his murder by Pakistani based fanatics, then I'm sure he'll have no trouble coming up with a few laughs over this story.

Been trying to get the Google API to work for my site. I'm just not enough of a programmer to understand this stuff easily. I think my best bet is to wait until Moveable Type version 2.5 comes out, with the packaged MT-search option (and no, I couldn't get that to work either, thank you very much)

So Daschle is whining about what mean old George Bush said about the Democrats. And stamping his feet and demanding an apology. Meanwhile, staunch members of the Democratic party, none other than Masschusettes' own Teddy Kennedy, is trying to delay any vote on the Iraq resolution until next year. And WHY is he trying to delay the vote? Because stalling makes it safer for American troops if we finally do go into Iraq? Because Saddam is more likely to have a change of heart about killing us during the Christmas Season? How about because they want to get past this November's elections before they have to vote on something most Americans are going to be vitally interested in: whether we go in a get rid of Saddam once and for all. Other than Jackie O., I have always thought the Kennedy clan was a collection of inbred mutant morons. Teddy certainly has not dissuaded me from that view. Among the Kennedy gems in his speech:

�Let me say it plainly: I not only concede, but I am convinced that President Bush believes genuinely in the course he urges upon us,� Kennedy said. �And let me say with the same plainness: Those who agree with that course have an equal obligation to resist any temptation to convert patriotism into politics.�

Apparently, however, those who disagree with Bush on the war are under no such obligation. If you need proof of this, just refer back to either of Gore's last 2 speeches.

�It is possible to love America while concluding that is not now wise to go to war. The standard that should guide us is especially clear when lives are on the line: We must ask what is right for country and not party.�

Couldn't agree more. So tell me again why waiting until next year is such a good idea? I honestly want to know what waiting will accomplish, other than giving Saddam time to get more dangerous and better armed.

�it is an open secret in Washington that the nation�s uniformed military leadership is skeptical about the wisdom of war with Iraq.�

Ahhhh, the convenient open secret. That way you can make any allegation you want, while not supplying us with any names. It's open, so everyone knows it's true. But it's also a secret, so I won't tell you any more than that.

War with Iraq�could swell the ranks of al-Qaida sympathizers and trigger an escalation in terrorist attacks.�

Gee, so it's much better to sit and do nothing while we wait for Saddam to try out his new intermediate range missles on say, Israel.

�I have heard no persuasive evidence that Saddam is on the threshold of acquiring the nuclear weapons he has sought for more than 20 years, and the administration has offered no persuasive evidence that Saddam would transfer chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction to al- Qaida or any other terrorist organization,�

Of course, he had to run around Washington with his fingers in his ears yelling "neenerneenerneener!! I can't hear you! I can't hear you!" to keep from hearing this evidence, but anything's possible if you bury your head deep enough in the sand (anatomical reference to head burying deleted by the ass censors). The only good news in the report falls under the headline:

SOME DEMOCRATS BACK BUSH
Afterward, one high-ranking House Democrat, deputy whip Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, told reporters, �We stand today with President Bush, not as Democrats or as Republicans, but as Americans who share the president�s belief that it�s time once and for all to stop Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.�
Another Democrat who favors prompt congressional action on a use-of-force resolution, Rep. Howard Berman of California, told the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call that, �People should not put their heads in the sand anymore.� He said gaining support from other nations for action against Saddam �will happen a lot easier if we authorize the president to take quick action.�

One can only wonder how much more political it can get.........

No, not in blaming the Jews for defeat, but for claiming that Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks and either failed to act on warnings, or chose to ignore them. Now, this is a little bit different than McKinney's "Bush let 9/11 happen because it was profitable for his cronies" rhetoric, but not by much. And how about this statement:

"What's going on nationally, with the attack on civil liberties, with American citizens in some cases just disappearing without right to counsel, without access to a lawyer � I think that is disgraceful," Mr. Gore said.

No, Al, what's disgraceful here is your obvious politicization of this issue, the very thing that your buddy Daschle is having such a hissy fit about with regards to GWB. And tell me, Mr. Gore, can you please provide a list of these American citizens that have just disappeared? Or have they disappeared so completely that we aren't even able to recognize that they ever even existed (outside the clouded and confused confines of your mind, that is).

I am even more convinced than ever that divine intervention decided the outcome of the 2000 Presidential election. I can't even imagine what kind of mess we would be in if Gore were our president now.

Update:

Rachel Lucas points us to this article, which describes much of the finger pointing post 9/11 as "the most perfect exercise in 20/20 hindsite". Hey Al, if we get to use the way back machine to assign blame, then how come you and Bill didn't do something to avert 9/11 your own selves?

Al Gore is suffering from his own unique brand of "intelligence failure", a fact which becomes more obvious every time he opens his mouth.

And you might find that the Israeli military has lost some of its patience. I mentioned a while back that the rules of engagement might be changing, and that the only possible outcome for the Palestinians if that happens is a BAD one.

More slight of hand by Mr. Gore can be found at Pseudopsalms, a neat little addition to blogdom. Don't you bet politicians wish that Al Gore HADN'T invented the internet, so it wouldn't be so easy for us to fact check their statements? People may have short memories, but the Nexus doesn't.

The academic inquiry into the conduct of Michael Bellesiles, the Emory history professor accused of fabricating data in support of his "guns were rare in early America" thesis as presented in his book Arming America, has entered a phase of appeal. This does not bode well for Bellesiles, as explained in this History News Network article. Hint: The words "Bellesiles", "is", and "toast" all appear in the same sentence.

Was over seeing what Rachel Lucas might have to say today, and came across a pointer to a "silent Fisking". It's pretty amazing. Go have a look, and see the phrase "a picture is worth 1,000 words" in action.

Michael Kelly is not too impressed with Mr. Gore's speech bashing President Bush. The last paragraph sums it up:

Probably the purest example of the Gore style -- equal parts mendacity, viciousness and smarm -- occurred when Gore expressed his concern (his deep, heartfelt concern) over "the doubts many have expressed about the role that politics might be playing in the calculations of some in the administration." And then added: "I have not raised those doubts, but many have."

What a moment! What a speech! What a man! What a disgrace.

Go read the entire column. As I've said before: if Gore were our president, we would have fired off a couple of cruise missles, killed a few camels, and then surrendered to the Taleban because the war was unwinnable. It seems to be a race among democrats to see who can do the most damage to their own party.

There have been cries of censorship from the left, much lamenting about the suppression of dissent. Note to morons: making stupid anti-US statements that most Americans don't agree with, and then getting told that you are an anti-American idiot that we don't agree with is NOT stifling dissent. It is having to pay the price for unpopular views. You want to say "the US deserved what it got on September 11th because we are a bunch of oil mongering baby killers", be my guest. But don't be surprised when a nice little old Church going lady from Chicago, who never mongered or raped anything, tells you to shut the fuck up.

I made this point somewhere in the old Radio blog, but Mean Mr. Mustard says it pretty well, too. Plus, Mustard is blogging from deep in the heart of idiotarian country, beeeeyuuuutiful Berkely. Don't blow his cover, but do go over and give him a read. As always, the Rottie shows you the way.

Well, he doesn't REALLY wrestle a pig. But his takedown of the one attempt to seriously answer the Shropshire Challenge is a thing of beauty. And the namesake of the challenge remains curiously silent.......

Heading right for New Orleans. It will probably be, at best, a category I hurricane when landfall occurs. The University is closed tomorrow, however. And no fishing in the salt marsh for at least the next few days.

Hopefully this is a very good thing! I should know more in the next week or so.

You know, the Montreal based pinnacle of higher education that allowed a planned speech by Benjamin Netanyahu to be cancelled by rioting anti-Israel protestors?

Well, seeing as how the student government of Concordia had, with university sanction, published an official student handbook titled "Uprising", one can perhaps begin to understand the protestor's apparent belief that violent aggression is a perfectly acceptable way to squash speech you don't want to hear.

The handbook vaporized from the university website as soon as it was linked by Instapundit. But the Sound and the Fury has a cached version for you to view!

Is really pissed at Bush. She thinks that it is a scandal that Bush had the audacity to speak out against Schroder's government. Apparently the anti-Bush and anti-American statements by Schroder and his cabinet shouldn't even enter into the equation.

She asks:

So again the question - why did George W. Bush interfere into a democratic election? And why did he wait just until after the flood, when the chances for SPD started to get better??

What a whiner. First, GWB didn't interfere with a democratic election, but stated a preference for one party that supported the US against another party that had made anti-US rhetoric a cornerstone of its platform. Interfering with an election would entail funneling dollars to the opposition campaign, stopping people from voting, etc. And why did he wait until after the flood? Well, the primary reason is because that is when Schroder realised he was in trouble, and stepped up his US-bashing.

Same old double standard. Other countries can be as critical as they want of the US, say whatever they want about our current president, but by god we better not offer even a little bit of criticism of them. Go add a comment or two, if you're so inclined.

So, Herr Schroder won the German election. And fired 2 cabinet members to show how contrite he is about bashing the US and Bush. Problem is, he may actually have to deal with the bad blood he created between the US and Germany when he said whatever it took to get elected. In the end, this guys is as big a weasel as any US politician.

As you can tell, this is a newly designed blogsite. I decided to give Moveable Type a tryout, and so far like it a lot. It has some nice features, and putting images on your site is much easier than it was using Radio Userland. Hopefully I will be able to migrate all of the old posts to this site, although I have been having some trouble importing them.

I hope to resume regular bloggage tomorrow!

Hopefully Saddam won't be able to do THIS