I'm sure she'll appreciate it.

On an interesting note, I see that the "Prince of Tennessee" is ranked number 663,550 on Amazon.com

I found a book titled "Medical Basis for Radiation-Accident Preparedness" that was ranked number 261,018

Yep, this man is well loved by the American people, and is a viable candidate for president in 2004.

Here is the lame Democratic Rebuttal to the GOP flashwars effort.

Ann Sumers, the Democratic candidate for an unspecified position in New Jersey, has started running a gun control add featuring...... John Allen Mohammed.
God, I hope this jumps up and bites her in the ass.

I point to this story on "US Regime Change" below. Now, in another op-ed piece on MSNBC that uses the MoveonPAC.org campaign against Bush as a jumping off point, I find out that there is no pro-war, pro-Bush voice on the internet.

The author of this piece, Rachel Elbaum, doesn't believe that there is any organized voice advocating regime change in Iraq on the internet. By "organized voice", I can only guess she means an organized campaign to fill people's e-mail inboxes with spam like that I received below.

Sayeth Rachel:

The anti-administration, anti-war presence on the Web is overwhelming. Type in any term dealing with Saddam Hussein, Iraq or regime change, and hundreds of listings will pop up � on message boards and Web sites and in news stories.
There is a pro-invasion presence on the Net, but it is much smaller and exists mainly on message boards and in chat rooms.
�It�s about getting a damn tyrant out of Iraq, a guy who sponsors terrorism and produces weapons of mass destruction,� said one posting on a current events bulletin board. �We need to [get] rid of him because he�s just a few events away from using those weapons.�
However, unlike the sophisticated mobilization of the anti-war organizations, the Internet lacks a distinct pro-Bush administration presence.

Perhaps we do need a more organized presence on the web. Since Rachel apparently discounts blogs as having any validity, we need a flashy "War Now" website, with downloadable placards and catchy slogans.

Walter Mondale now says he is sorry that he questioned Reagan's ability to function as President of the United States because of his age during the 1984 Presidential Campaign. Ronald Reagan was 73 when Mondale made the remark as the Democratic candidate for the presidency.

Walter Mondale, who just accepted the Democratic nomination to run for the Senate position vacated by Paul Wellstone's death, is 74.

Typical doublespeak.

Makes me proud to be a son of the Lone Star State. Jeff stood against the "anti-war" demonstrators in Washington, DC this week-end, holding a "Kill Saddam" sign.

This via a great website named "Mostly Wasted". Go take a look - they have some great photoshop image manipulations.

I guess Jeff Ward might be fictional, but I don't care. I want a "Kill Saddam" sign all of my very own.

UPDATE

Mostly Wasted says the Jeff Ward is "The Real Deal".

Spent Casings doubts this CNN story.

Go read his analysis, and see what you think. The strangest thing about the CNN article to me was this comment by Cpl. John Parrish of the Missouri Highway Patrol:

"We're certain this was -- although it may not seem so -- your typical traffic crash"

Hmmmm. Doesn't this sound a little bit like that Iraqi Official explaining how Saddam won 100% of the vote, with every single registered voter in the country casting a ballot?

Surely neither of these gentlemen has anything to hide, do they?

So, I head on over to the MSNBC website to read an opinion piece called "The Wellstone Effect", which posits that the Democrats may be able to ride the death of Paul Wellstone all of the way to significant gains in the upcoming elections.

About halfway down, you run into an animated add from MoveonPAC.org

Here is a shot of the"completed" add:

So, while Tedd Rall puts forth conspiracy theories in which Bush assassinates Wellstone one just has to wonder: who REALLY benefits from the death of Paul Wellstone? Hint - they were basically dancing on his grave during the memorial rally.

UPDATE:

Here's the crappy little spam e-mail I received after downloading the poster from their website:
__________________________________________________

We hope you enjoy the "Regime Change Begins at Home" poster. Working together, we can really get the word out about the importance of this election.

With your help, we can out-market the masters.

And it pretty much resembles a gallows. Emporer Misha I let's us know where he stands on a few of the issues, and then points you to the voting booth!

Note: for all of you Florida voters, the polling booth is over on the left hand side of the page. Click one and only one selection.

Unfortunately, Random Nuclear Strikes didn't manage to even get on the ballot, so I will throw my support to my ideological brethern. Let's win this one for Paul Wellstone!! No, wait, that's not right. Let's win this one for Misha I

At least Wellstone's campaign manager apologized for hijacking the memorial service for political gains.

But tell me, do you really believe his assertion that:

"It was not our intent to inject that into the service," campaign chairman Jeff Blodgett said of comments made at the Tuesday night ceremony. "I take responsibility for that and I deeply regret it."

Apparently, some local TV stations have complained that they were tricked into broadcasting (for free) a partisan political rally.

"That was never the intention," Blodgett said.

Yeah, right. Just imagine if the same thing had happened at the funeral of a far-right member of congress. Suppose a similar thing had happened at the funeral of, say, Jesse Helms. Can you imagine the screaming we would be hearing from the left. And if a eulogist at the hypothetical Helms funeral (yes, I know he's not dead) had said "It's time to put our differences aside! Let's win this one for Jesse as a testament to his legacy. You Social Democrats, forget about your ideology - help us assure the the principles Senator Helms believed in are remembered at the voting booth". Ahh, the hue and cry would be heard from pole to pole. But that is exactly what Conservatives are being asked to do for a man that is as far to the left as Helms is to the right. Acting like his death somehow elevates Wellstone to sainthood status in order to win an election is hypocritical, vile, and nauseating. Others have said a lot more on this in a more timely fashion. But re-reading the words of Wellstone's campaign finance officer, Rick Kahn, just made me angry that Wellstone's death is being exploited by his own party.

Are having trouble coping with the death of Paul Wellstone. Notice how one poster talks about having a recurring dream where she "strangles an ugly monkey in an oil field".

And here I though Hillary said that the Republicans were the nasty political party in the US.

Link via Samizdata.net

Uh-oh. Now she's pissed.

This is a cool story. It describes the discovery of a "second generation" star, containing a very small amount of heavy metals in its composition. This star should be about 12 biliion years old, just a wee bit younger than the entire universe.

Must have been really vulgar and tawdry, if it was too much for a former Pro-wrestler to stomach.

To one of the best stories I have read in a long time. It restores your belief in people (at least a little bit, that is). I got sort of teary eyed when I read it.

Go read this article by Ted Rall.

Then, go read this parody of the same article.

Then go here to read a Transterrestrial fisking of Rall's latest spew..

Via Redwood Dragon

As always, Scrappleface has an irreverant but completely correct analysis of a newsworthy event. This time, it's the behavior of the Democrats at Wellstone's funeral. Pretty nauseating.

Rachel Lucas is none too impressed, either.

The Republicans fire another salvo in the flash war started by the Democrats, when they showed George Bush pushing a minority and an old lady off a cliff.

This is a disturbing story, dealing with the silencing of a pair of Jewish scholars addressing the issue of "formal discrimination" that occurs against Jews and Christians in Muslim ruled regions of the world.

It's not surprising that there were Muslim students who disrupted the lectures, given at Georgetown University. What is surprising is that the Jewish students who organized the lectures did not defend them during the lectures, and then openly attacked them in the Georgetown University paper not once, but twice.

It seems impossible that the student organizers were unfamiliar with Bat Yeor's work, which deals with the plight of Jews and Christians living under Dhimmi laws in Muslim countries. What seems more likely is that the Jewish student organizations have chosen to distance themselves from the realities of Dhimmi practices. This type of surrender is exactly what radical Islam wants - nothing would make them happier than for us to meekly accept their vision of Jews and Christians as second class citizens. Rather than silencing Yeor, we should view her work as a cautionary tale, and be sure that we do not end up like the Jews and Christians in Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc.

As for the Jewish students at Georgetown who did such a great job kowtowing to the politically correct version of Islam - none of them would comment for the NRO story pointed to above. What a group of puling cowards.

Update:

CounterRevolutionary and Asparagirl give this a better treatment than I did.

Got this e-mail, under the heading "Liberty and Justice for All. Fisking to follow later, if there's time. Meanwhile, read it, comment on it, send its author an e-mail.

Language Of The Middle East

Charley Reese can be contacted at briarl@earthlink.net.
� 2002 by King Features Syndicate, Inc.

I have been wondering what the Russians used against the Chechen rebels. The only thing that would work that fast against that many people in such a HUGE space like a theatre is some sort of neurotoxin or nerve gas. And the fact that the death toll keeps climbing suggests that it was an agent meant to kill, not incapacitate, unless a specific antidote was given quickly. This is further suggested by the doctors who treated the hostages:

Authorities did not tell medical officials what type of gas they pumped into the theater, chief Moscow doctor Andrei Seltsovsky said.

Seltsovsky said doctors were familiar with the general category of the gas, which causes people to lose consciousness and can be used to anesthetize surgical patients, but were not told its name.

And then there's this:

One doctor expressed frustration at the lack of information.
�I saw no gunshot wounds at all. Those who died had swallowed their vomit or their tongue or their hearts had stopped,� he told the Nezavisimaya Gazeta daily.
�If only we had known beforehand! If they had told us that we would be getting large numbers who had lost consciousness or heart failure, it might have been a bit different.�

It has been suggested that this is the gas that was used, which is not specifically banned by the Chemical Warfare Convention.

Amazing how Russia will move to block the US resolution before the UN dealing with Iraq, and then do something like this, killing more of their own people than terrorists. Exactly WHERE does their moral authority come from?

Russia tries to play both sides of the table: the describe the Chechnya situation as an international terrorism problem when they want international support/sympathy. But then it turns into an internal "civil war" problem when they want to act in a unilateral fashion.

Due to a major project here at the University. Let's just say it involves installing and testing a very big piece of equipment!

OK, I have already professed my love for Rachel Lucas (in a purely platonic, blogging sort of way, of course). My affection only grows as she takes Michael Moore to task for his asinine letter. I didn't really know that Moore intended Stupid White Men to be an autobiographical title.

Michael Bellesiles, the Emory University professor accused of fabricating data for his book "Arming America", has resigned from Emory University.

Statement by Robert A. Paul, Dean of Emory University

Bellesiles Statement

Investigative Committee Report

The investigative committee was asked to evaluate Bellesile in 5 areas:

The present ad hoc Committee was asked to offer conclusions on the
following (and ONLY on the following) five questions:
1. Did Professor Bellesiles engage in "intentional fabrication or falsification of
research data" in connection with probate records from Rutland County,
Vermont?
2. Did Professor Bellesiles engage in "intentional fabrication or falsification of
research data" in connection with probate records from Providence, Rhode Island?
3. Did Professor Bellesiles engage in "intentional fabrication or falsification of
research data" in connection with probate records from the San Francisco Bay
area?
4. Did Professor Bellesiles engage in "intentional fabrication or falsification of
research data" in connection with probate records supporting the figures in Table
One to his book, "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture"?
5. Did Professor Bellesiles engage in "other serious deviations �from accepted
practices in carrying out or reporting results from research� with respect
to probate records or militia census records by:
(a) Failing to carefully document his findings;
(b) Failing to make available to others his sources, evidence, and data; or
(c) Misrepresenting evidence or the sources of evidence."

The summary of the Committee's report tells it all.

In summary, we find on Questions 1 and 2, that despite serious failures of and
carelessness in the gathering and presentation of archival records and the use of
quantitative analysis, we cannot speak of intentional fabrication or falsification. On
Question 3, we find that the strained character of Professor Bellesiles� explanation raises
questions about his veracity with respect to his account of having consulted probate
records in San Francisco County. On Question 4, dealing with the construction of the
vital Table One, we find evidence of falsification. And on Question 5, which raises the
standard of professional historical scholarship, we find that Professor Bellesiles falls
short on all three counts.

Here we have a "professional journalist" almost throwing his arm out of socket patting himself (the media) on the back for solving, rather than hindering, the Sniper Case. What a joke.

Someone from the Berkeley.edu domain visited Nukevet, stuck around for over 15 minutes, and visited multiple pages. I don't know whether to be proud, surprised, or very, very afraid.

MSNBC posits the theory that John Allen Mohammed may have been affected by "Gulf War Syndrome". Isn't anyone responsible for their own actions anymore?

Here is my theory: He is a cold-blooded, egomaniacle, murdering bastard that killed innocent people to extort money. But I'm sure some lawyer will jump all over the suggestion that poor Mr. Mohammed is a victim rather than a victimizer.

Jonah Goldberg wants to know if the Center for Hate and Extremism will modify or explain their analysis of the sniper:

"This person is kind of a wallpaper white male, a disenfranchised, disrespected man who's getting back at society."

and

"That's one of the reasons he's kept his distance from inner D.C., where he might lose his cover."

Jonah also notes that some "anti-gun" organizations seemed determined to heat up the rhetoric as much as possible:

Speaking of subcultures, various news organizations delved deeply into the sniper subculture, explaining how the mantra of "one shot, one kill" was increasingly popular among "ex-military" and "police" types. Much of this was egged on by Tom Diaz, an analyst with an antigun group called the Violence Policy Center. Mr. Diaz told the Chicago Tribune. "We do not yet know what specific firearm is being used." But "it is clear the gun industry stands ready to arm and train anyone with the fantasy of being a real live sniper."

Don't you know these "analysts" just hate the fact that the sniper turned out to be a black Muslim?

I received the following e-mail to my Nukevet account:

help???
The IslamExposed.Com website is back up after we were hacked and the former ISP booted us again (the 4th time) after they were hit with DOS attacks. The Muslim Brotherhood tried to kill me 3 times and failed, and I am back on the scene and the https://www.IslamExposed.com site will be up as long as I am alive and can pay the bills.

Max

When I first read the story, I thought it would be your typical scam (and the melodrama was laid on a little thick, even for a sucker e-mail). But, despite my misgivings, I went to the website to see what it was all about. It is a fairly sophisticated site (or at least well designed), although I didn't spend much time reading through the content.

Has anyone else heard about/interacted with these guys? What's their real story?

Posted an update to the "Moose Abuse" post. We currently have a family debate in the Nukevet bunker about whether the snipers were caught due to excellent police work, or sniper arrogance.

Update of the Update (is that legal)

Misha points us to a story that causes the "excellent police work" theory to look a little less plausible.

The Ville wonders why news dealing with the substance abuse problems of underage members of the Bush and Gore families are treated so differently by the "mainstream" media. Nope, no bias here.

A reader of this post points us to the official Iraqi response to journalists covering the {very mild} protests against the Iraqi government by people unable to locate their relatives during the prison amnesty period. Saddam's solution? Expel ALL foreign journalists, and only let them back in after enacting tough new VISA restrictions. Winning Humanitarian of the Year may turn out to be tougher than Saddam thought.

So, there has been a lot of laughter generated because of Bush's malapropisms. There is even a Bush "poem" that contains a lot of his mis-statements published in the Guardian. But suppose Gore had been elected president instead?

"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur."

"I didn't know it was a Buddhist Temple"
"I didn't know it was a Buddhist Temple"
"I didn't know it was a Buddhist Temple"
"I didn't know it was a Buddhist Temple"
"I didn't know it was a Buddhist Temple"
"I didn't know it was a Buddhist Temple"

Hmmmm, just goes to show you that anyone who speaks in public is going to fumble words, make misstatements, and occasionally look foolish, eh?

Cold Fury wonders if the Russians will be held to the same standards as the US when they inevitably move to deal with their Chechen rebels. I'm predicting not.

Here's a story about an attack that was stopped when the attackee shot and killed the attacker. I'm sure the story will receive national attention as yet another case where gun ownership saved the day!

So he must be smart. Right? Well no, actually, it doesn't work that way at all. Go read Daniel's column calling Bush a homicidal maniac. Then drop him an e-mail to let him know what you think of his opinion.

Then go out and get yourself a wort chiller. Trust me, it is the best $25 you will ever spend (although you could make one for considerably less with materials available at home depot).

If you don't know what a wort is, and can't imagine why one might need to be chilled, then nevermind.

If this guy, John Allen Mohammed, is the sniper (along with his stepson, Lee Malvo), then I hope they are convicted and given the death penalty. And I think it only fitting that they die by firing squad (preferably made up of the worst shots chosen out of the victim's families).

PejmanPundit points us to a rather interesting decription of the mood surrounding the Iraqi "amnesty" program.

You have to read all of the way to the end to see this passage:

Once the prison gates collapsed, the mood changed. Seeing watchtowers abandoned and the prison guards standing passively by or actively supporting them as they charged into the cell blocks, the crowd seemed to realize that they were experiencing, if only briefly, a new Iraq, where the people, not the government, was sovereign. Chants of "Down Bush! Down Sharon!" referring to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel, faded. In one cell block, a guard smiled broadly at an American photographer, raised his thumb, and said, "Bush! Bush!" Elsewhere, guards offered an English word almost never heard in Iraq. "Free!" they said. "Free!"

Will the left at least admit that Bush's sabre rattling was responsible for getting these people out of jail? Or will they continue to demonize Bush while lauding Saddam for his great humanitarian act? I know which one I think will happen, and it doesn't include any Bush praising activity.

Does a little myth exploding over at Sgt. Stryker's place. Watch out for landmines.

OK, so not as bad as the Arizona DJ who asked the recently widowed Flynn Kile, whose husband was a pitcher for St. Louis, if she had a date for the Diamondbacks-Cards playoff game, but still sort of creepy. Maybe it really is just a coincidence, or maybe not.

This story certainly doesn't give me any more faith in the Office of Homeland Security's ability to handle ANY kind of terrorism. And not to be mean, but it seems to me that Chief Moose is in WAAAAYYYY over his head.

UPDATE:

My wife has taken me to task for abusing the Moose, and wonders if he didn't do everything exactly right. I guess I'm prone to believe that they caught the snipers because of their arrogance rather than because of outstanding police work. But in the end, all that matters is that they caught these psycho bastards.

Although she still has some concerns about MSNBC's disclaimer that some may find the content of Little Green Footballs "hateful and racist".

This guy from Arkansas.

I just got a Google search for " Differences German American Rottweiler". Now I realize that Emporer Misha I could handle this query better than I, but I did want to try and help our Googling friend out. I offer these photos to demonstrate the differences between the German and American varieties of this fine beast (at least as far as commitment to stopping Islamic fanaticism is concerned).

German Rottweiler (interestingly enough, also a hand puppet).

American Rottweiler.

I hope this has been a useful demonstration.

Added an update to the Democratic Underground post.

Not that someone tried to cripple the internet, but that they tried and nobody noticed (except the watchdog organizations who get paid to notice such things, that is). How dare someone try and mess with Al Gore's invention!

Go read this. And then ask yourself: what would the people of Iraq REALLY say if Saddam didn't control the media so tightly (and if there weren't people in the media willing to be shills for the Iraqi spin).

One of the best bits:

To us, the Islamic revolution has failed. The system, in its entirely, is the problem; no Band-Aid reform will fix it. Iran's 23-year-old theocracy is as incapable of granting freedom and human rights as was the Soviet Union. No politician associated with the Islamic Republic is acceptable to us. There are no reformers in the clerical government. Our real reformers are among the 600,000 languishing in prison, or the hundreds of candidates who are disqualified in each election for believing in human rights or secularism. Do not sell out our freedom because of Khatami's meaningless double talk and irrelevant rhetoric. He is simply a smiling face of an ugly regime.

Hey, maybe the left will now agree that Bush was justified in including a nuclear North Korea and Iran in his Axis of Evil. Of course, Iraq will only be included after a few thousand more people that the left actually cares about die in a terrorist attack. By using "cares about" I am of course excluding Kurds, Israelis, and "average" Americans who get murdered by terrorists acts. If we could just get Saddam to threaten a redwood grove in California or a spotted owl in Washington, I'm sure the left would let us include Iraq in the Axis.

Chides the media for including the 2 homicide bombers of a commuter bus in Israel in the tally of people who died in the attack. It's not that MMM doesn't believe that the suicide bombers are dead, just that they have forfieted any right to be called people.

Apparently they feel the need to censor their message boards. Pretty amazing, considering all of the whining and howling about the "stifling of dissent" we have been hearing from the left recently.

Go read the entire diatribe over at Cold Fury. And then marvel at the continued implosion of the Democratic Party.

Meanwhile, over at Misha's place, the Emporers Augustus and Caligula also weigh in on the censorship issue (having finished their earlier discourse on the soul of the left), with input from a few of their newfound friends!

UPDATE:

Go meet Robin Goodfellow, who apparently has the distinction of being one of the first banned from the Democratic Underground message boards. Then read some of Robin's heretical posts.

This entire mindset of the left is amazing: If you don't agree with what they believe, no matter how anti-American the rhetoric might be, then you are a censoring stifler of dissent. But if they don't agree with what you believe, they have no problem silencing you completely. What hypocrits.

Is a wee bit peeved at the Democratic Underground, specifically their "Top 10 Conservative Idiots" list.

If so, this pamphlet from the UK's Crime Reaction Emergency Team Initiative Networks (CRETINS), discussing self defense options for UK citizens might come in handy!

(Yes, I know it's a joke. And a pretty damn funny one).

Never let it be said that the Saudis don't apply their version of justice equally (well, at least equally for the non-Saudi prince population, that is)

As I've mentioned before, I believe it is possible to criticize Israeli policies without being anti-Semitic. But I also said that I thought that many of those criticizing Israel ARE anti-Semites. Andrew Sullivan says it a whole bunch better. Go read him.

I found this story about the death of a tree-sitter in California. I really have mixed feelings about the events the story describes. Obviously, the young man felt that he was doing something worthwhile. But to have a 21 year old fall out of a tree and die seems like the pinnacle of folly to me. But at least he only put himself at risk, unlike some activists who spike trees, often resulting in injury to loggers.

As you know if you have read my site for long, Little Green Footballs is one of my "daily read" blogs. Some on the left have decided that LGF is a hate site, presumably because some commentors leave bigoted remarks in response to some of the posts. Meryl Yourish comes to the rescue, and does an admirable job making the case that some lefty sites deserve the "hate site" designation far more than LGF's does.

Bush took all kinds of flak for including North Korea in his "Axis of Evil" speech. But now it turns out that North Korea has completely ignored a pledge it made in 1994, and has developed nuclear capabilities. But now, North Korea is ready to resolve the issue "through dialogue". They lied to us once, but now we are supposed to sit down and negotiate with them again. And show them trust based on what? Their exemplary record?

Of course, the left that lambasted Bush for calling North Korea "evil" has remained pretty much silent. I say pretty much silent because there have been a few Bush detractors who have suggested that the only reason North Korea has nukes is BECAUSE Bush called them evil. You know, they got their feelings hurt, and entered an accelerated R&D; phase to develop, build, and implement a nuclear program in the 10 or so months since the "Axis" speech. Note to Saddam apologists: it takes years to design and deploy a nuclear arsenal - North Korea just took the opportunity to prove that perhaps Bush and his advisors knew what they were talking about after all.

Well, if not, Saudi is close enough.

Let's see, most of the hijackers (15/19) we from Saudi Arabia. Now we learn that the financial backing of al Qaeda is much narrower than we thought. In fact, it appears as if there are 12 main financial benefactors of al Qaeda, MOST OF THEM SAUDI ARABIAN.

What a joke. I can't even begin to comprehend why these guys are getting special treatment from the US. Actually, I can. The anti-war group is always bleating about the invasion of Iraq being about ooooiiiiiiilllllll. That seems fairly nonsensical and simplistic to me. But I have no problem believing that we let these suicide bomber rewarding, al Qaeda funding Islamic extremists play us for chumps because of oil.

And to all of these people screaming about the "American Empire": If we wanted Iraq's oil so badly, why didn't we take it in 1991? Why didn't we just stay in Kuwait? Why don't we just march into Saudi Arabia? If our primary motivation is to create Empire America, then why haven�t we done it? Does anyone doubt that we could if we really, really wanted to? The simple fact of the matter is that we only used military force after a terrorist attack killed thousands of innocent civilians. And it was an attack by a group that thought that being an American Taxpayer makes you a legitimate target. If al Qaeda had left us alone, we would have left them alone. And Iraq, too. But al Qaeda showed us that complacency and a false sense of security are a recipe for disaster. They showed us that allowing terrorists to scheme and plot and plan unabated may result in the murder of innocents on our own soil.

As the old playground saying goes: fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Sitting back and letting Iraq continue on its merry way is sheer folly, and a mistake of the gravest magnitude.

But there is always time for pointing:

Go read Jonah.

The teaser:

A similar dynamic is at work in Europe. Much of Europe has developed a political culture that tends to see talk as the answer to every problem, because talking is the only option readily available to them. A threat of force from Belgium, for instance, conjures the image of a pasty bureaucrat reaching for an empty holster.

Then go read Charles.

If this seems like legal quibbling to you, don't blame me. I believe that the entire notion of "U.N. authority" is nonsense in the first place. But for those who feel that the United States may not defend itself without reference to some piece of U.N. paper, the paper is there. The case is clear -- even State Department lawyers should be able to make it.

Observe and comment on a discussion regarding the "soul" of the left. You will kick yourself later if you don't head over to the Rottie's and read the entire thing.

And I will use it to wish you all a happy Saturday! Spent the day tooling around Houston with my folks, and now we are going out to dinner with my sister and her husband.

Best achievement of the day - bought a present for my nephew. Also went to a horse show, where my wife pointed out all of the $10-40,000 horses she would like to have.

Because your grasp on current events and military history is pretty shakey. Alan Hale, co-discoverer of Comet Hale-Bopp, pens an open letter to "Mr." Bush in the Iranian. Go read it, and then take advantage of the e-mail link provided at the end.

Thanks to the Ville for the pointer to this numbnut spoor.

Off to visit my family. Back on Monday, with some possible spotty posting over the week-end.

Then go read this. And this.

Anti-idiotarian Manifesto

Thanks to Misha for the pointer

UPDATE

NZ Bear adds an addendum to the manifesto

Of stupid entertainers without clue, that is.

Here is a revoltinglittle opinion piece by Harrelson in the Guardian.

Go take a look at it, and you can read statements by Harrelson like:

And now my government is creating its second war in less than a year. No; war requires two combatants, so I should say "its second bombing campaign".

Apparently Woody doesn't consider what happened at the WTC an act of war, and perceives that we just went in and bombed Afghanistan for no good reason.

This is a racist and imperialist war. The warmongers who stole the White House (you call them "hawks", but I would never disparage such a fine bird) have hijacked a nation's grief and turned it into a perpetual war on any non-white country they choose to describe as terrorist.

Again, I guess the fact that these "non-white" countries are actually engaged in terrorism against us doesn't enter into the equation at all. Typical attempt to turn this into a racist argument, rather than deal with the actual facts of the case.

In a country that lauds its freedom of speech, a word of dissent can cost you your job.

Here, Woody is referring to Bill Maher. And perhaps there is a ring of truth to it, or perhaps Disney just saw it as a chance to pull the plug on a slumping show. But again, nowhere does the term "freedom of speech" suggest that you also enjoy "freedom from consequences" from private citizens or companies. From the government or public spaces, yes. From private concerns, no way. Nowhere does the constitution guarantee that you won't lose your job (or get punched in the nose) if you say something hateful or stupid or inflammatory that your boss disagrees with. This is just another example of the far left whining because their views aren't popular with the mainstream.

And, just in case you doubt how far to the left ol' Woody is, I offer his answer to what he would do in Bush's shoes:

Easy: I'd honour Kyoto. Join the world court. I'd stop subsidising earth rapers like Monsanto, Dupont and Exxon. I'd shut down the nuclear power plants. So I already have $200bn saved from corporate welfare. I'd save another $100bn by stopping the war on non-corporate drugs. And I'd cut the defence budget in half so they'd have to get by on a measly $200bn a year. I've already saved half a trillion bucks by saying no to polluters and warmongers.

Then I'd give $300bn back to the taxpayers. I'd take the rest and pay the people teaching our children what they deserve. I'd put $100bn into alternative fuels and renewable energy. I'd revive the Chemurgy movement, which made the farmer the root of the economy, and make paper and fuel from wheat straw, rice straw and hemp. Not only would I attend, I'd sponsor the next Earth Summit. And, of course, I'd give myself a fat raise.

I really try to keep my language PG rated on this site. But when I watch another "American" bash the US from the safety another country, all I can feel is contempt. You hate the US so much, Harrelson? Well, all I can say is "fuck you, asshole". That and, "please don't bother to come back". And here I thought the stupidity of his character on "Cheers" was just an act.

Or he will find himself the target of some "extreme" Islamic group. Unfortunately, the message Al-Qaradawi is trying to deliver is being drowned out by the barbarous acts committed in the name of Islam.

John Hawkins has a very helpful voter translation guide if you are having difficulty deciphering the results of the recent Iraqi election.

For the notice and kind words. We are most pleased with our neighbors in the "appreciated but underread" section of the blogosphere!

But, RNS very quietly had its 2,000th unique visitor this week, so I am taking the entire staff out for burgers and a beer!

I leave it up to you to identify these men and decide who deserves which title:

If this story is true, I wonder if it will be enough for people to understand that the Sauds are protecting (and financing) terror against the US. Not only are they not our friends, but they are our enemies.

This time, it has to do with the attempt to re-elect Paul Wellstone (D-Minn) to the Senate. Although to be fair, it's actually the Socialist Democrats who are attempting to take advantage of the fact that Minnesota allows same day registration. The plan is to bus lots of non-Minnesotans into the state, register them the day of the election, and try and insure that Wellstone gets re-elected.

Certainly the Democratic party, which was outraged at the defeat of Cynthia McKinney and the fact that a Republican cross-over played a part in that defeat (although let's not forget the J-E-W-S and the H-I-N-D-U-S), will be horrified to know that there is a plan afoot to bus non-residents into a state to try and influence the outcome of an election. Oh, wait, this kind of activity will help elect a Democrat, so nevermind.

Looks like more and more evidence is pointing to the Jemaah Islamiah "extremist organization" (to borrow a phrase from CNN) as the perpetrators of the Bali atrocity. It also looks like this group has strong ties to al Qaeda.

Tell me again why sitting back and pretending like everything is going to be OK is such a good idea?

Never Forget

Pretty impressive record for Hussein. He got 100% of the vote, and ALL 11,445,638 of the eligible voters cast ballots. You usually only see numbers like that in Democrat controlled precincts here in the US.

How about this quote from an Iraqi official:

"Someone who does not know the Iraqi people, he will not believe this percentage, but it is real. Whether it looks that way to someone or not," he said. "We don't have opposition in Iraq. They are situated in northern Iraq. Inside Iraq, there is no opposition.

Now apply this same rhetoric to the WMD debate: "To someone who does not know the Iraqi people, he will not believe that we have no WMD, but we don't. Whether it looks that way or not". "Inside Iraq, there are no WMDs".

However, the statement about "inside Iraq, the is no opposition" is probably factually correct if you add the phrase "because we killed them all" to the end of it.

Where we have an armed woman, using a legally purchased and licensed handgun, to fend off a serial rapist who was using a stolen rifle in the commission of his crime.

How much more graphically can the stupidity of the anti-gun lobbies "gun bans prevent crimes" position be demonstrated?

I have no idea about the authenticity of this letter, but it seems to pretty much sum up a lot of American's feelings.

________________________________

I sat in a movie theater watching "Schindler's List," asked myself, "Why didn't the Jews fight back?"

Now I know why.

I sat in a movie theater, watching "Pearl Harbor" and asked myself, "Why weren't we prepared?"

Now I know why.

Civilized people cannot fathom, much less predict, the actions of evil people.

On September 11, dozens of capable airplane passengers allowed themselves to be overpowered by a handful of poorly armed terrorists because they did not comprehend the depth of hatred that motivated their captors.

On September 11, thousands of innocent people were murdered because too many Americans naively reject the reality that some nations are dedicated to the dominance of others. Many political pundits, pacifists and media personnel want us to forget the carnage. They say we must focus on the bravery of the rescuers and ignore the cowardice of the killers. They implore us to understand the motivation of the perpetrators. Major television stations have announced they will assist the healing process by not replaying devastating footage of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers.

I will not be manipulated.

I will not pretend to understand.

I will not forget.

I will not forget the liberal media who abused freedom of the press to kick our country when it was vulnerable and hurting.

I will not forget that CBS anchor Dan Rather preceded President Bush's address to the nation with the snide remark, "No matter how you feel about him, he is still our president."

I will not forget that ABC TV anchor Peter Jennings questioned President Bush's motives for not returning immediately to Washington, DC and commented, "We're all pretty skeptical and cynical about Washington."

And I will not forget that ABC's Mark Halperin warned if reporters weren't informed of every little detail of this war, they aren't "likely -- nor should they be expected -- to show deference."

I will not isolate myself from my fellow Americans by pretending an attack on the USS Cole in Yemen was not an attack on the United States of America.

I will not forget the Clinton administration equipped Islamic terrorists and their supporters with the world's most sophisticated telecommunications equipment and encryption technology, thereby compromising America's ability to trace terrorist radio, cell phone, land lines, faxes and modem communications.

I will not be appeased with pointless, quick retaliatory strikes like those perfected by the previous administration.

I will not be comforted by "feel-good, do nothing" regulations like the silly "Have your bags been under your control?" question at the airport.

I will not be influenced by so called,"antiwar demonstrators" who exploit the right of expression to chant anti-American obscenities.

I will not forget the moral victory handed the North Vietnamese by American war protesters who reviled and spat upon the returning soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines.

I will not be softened by the wishful thinking of pacifists who chose reassurance over reality.

I will embrace the wise words of Prime Minister Tony Blair who told Labor Party conference, "They have no moral inhibition on the slaughter of the innocent. If they could have murdered not 7,000 but 70,000, does anyone doubt they would have done so and rejoiced in it?"

"There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror. Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must!"

I will force myself to:

- hear the weeping
- feel the helplessness
- imagine the terror
- sense the panic
- smell the burning flesh
- experience the loss
- remember the hatred.

I sat in a movie theater, watching "Private Ryan" and asked myself, "Where did they find the courage?"

Now I know.

We have no choice. Living without liberty is not living.

-- Ed Evans, MGySgt., USMC (Ret.)
Not as lean, Not as mean, But still a Marine.

WBW offers the latest in pacifist fashion:

Not to be outdone, Random Nuclear Strikes offers its own line of high fashion:

Pick up yours today!!

Tim is keeping us well informed on the Bali situation. Rather than have me paraphrase it, just go read it for yourself. Some heart wrenching stories, and one young lady who thinks that, even though her fiancee was killed in the blast, the worst thing Australia could do now is back down.

The namesake of the Shropshire Challenge has responded (finally) to Dr. Weevil's offer of free airfare for anyone willing to put their convictions where their mouth is, and travel to Iraq to serve as a human shield. The Shropshire Slasher had 5 weeks to come up with a response to the challenge, and the best he can do is "I'll go if you pay me enough money". Not content with the first class tickets, Phil claims it will take $23,000 to make it worth his while (including $10,000 to pay the fine for US citizens traveling to Iraq). Since the fine would only be levied if Phil returns to the US after successful service in the human shields brigade, I'm not so sure that is really a big issue. Phil also says he needs $5,000 for bribes, bribes, bribes - in order to get past Iraqi border guards, I suppose. However, I think Phil will get the red carpet treatment once the Iraqi Government finds out they have another American willing to come to Baghdad and blast Bush while supporting Saddam. Hell, probably first class accommodations and honored guest treatment - right up until it's time to actually be a shield, that is. McDermott, Bonior, et al were able to get to Baghdad and be big TV stars, so I'm sure a willing shill for Saddam would be able to get into the country with no problems at all.

Finally, Phil says he wants to make at least as much as his hero, Ted Rall, for going to Iraq. Phil places this value at $8,000. Now, it seems to me that this is war profiteering, something that the folks over at WBW have been screeching about since this whole thing began. Surely Phil isn't suggesting that he should somehow profit from going to Iraq and following his conscience, right?

So, if we take out the $10,000 for a fine that will never be levied, $5,000 for bribes that won't be necessary, and the $8,000 for the war profiteering that I�m sure Phil would not want to be associated with, that $23,000 figure comes down to - $0. And Dr. Weevil has had more than that for quite a long time.

Tim Blair wonders how long it will take for one of his countrymen to pen an article detailing how the Bali attack is all, really, Australia's fault. Tim even asks a bit of a rhetorical question, since we all know it is not a matter of "if" such an article will be written, but "when". Tim posits that "when" is less than 12 hours away.

Professor Bunyip, another Aussie, is also less than impressed with the Sydney Morning Herald's "Letters to the Editor written by Pewling Cowards" section I referenced below. He even provides you with a helpful e-mail address if you would like to share your thoughts with some of the Australian Islamo-apologists.

It looks like the Bali blast is the work of Islamic extremists, possibly connected to al-Qaeda. The question becomes, why target so many non-American civilians? I think Clayton Cramer has it exactly right: these guys will target anyone who does not agree with them, and believe that their "mission from God" will allow them to prevail. Clayton's analysis and solution sound right to me:

Wake up. There is something terribly sick going on in the Islamic world--a dangerous movement that deludes itself that its moral purity (murdering non-combatants) makes it immune from our moral resolve and technological superiority. This group of fanatics need to be informed that they are incorrect. An example needs to be made of brutal thugs like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden--an example that will remind people throughout the world that brutality and savagery will be dealt with accordingly.

Some in Australia are currently bemoaning the fact that their Prime Minister has put them at risk by engaging in war rhetoric to curry favor with the Bush administration. Lots of crying and wailing about how they aren't safe now that Bush has angered the Islamofascists. Note to Australian Whiners - even taking a fairly strong stance against war with Iraq didn't stop al Qaeda from targeting the French - so why should you be any different? Note this statement from the "spokesman" of the group that attacked the French ship:

�We would have preferred to hit a US frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels.�

Gee, sounds like a policy of "don't bother them and they won't bother us" didn't work so well after all, eh? Stick your collective heads in the sand at your own peril. These guys won't stop until they either implement their version of Islamic law across the globe, or someone forcibly intervenes.

Surely the UN will have some comment about this story.

Again, I say fine. Iraq can maintain the right to cease cooperating if they deem the US is "influencing" the inspections. And the US can maintain the right to attack if they deem Iraq is "influencing" the inspections.

Time to stop the dancing, and just get on with it.

Now I'm going fishing. For real this time.

Literally!!

See you guys Monday

One of my least favorite of all commentators, points to reasons to avoid war with Iraq, a confrontation he describes as a "murderously foolhardy adventure led by our unelected and wholly unqualified fratboy/chickenhawk President". Let's take a look at some of them.

First, this story in the Houston Chronicle, which claims that:

While President Bush marshals congressional and international support for invading Iraq, a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war.

Sounds pretty disturbing, just who ARE these people, and how much credence should we give their views? Well, there's the rub, because:

"Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books," said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

No one who was interviewed disagreed.

Ahhhh, so analysts at the "working level" of the intelligence community, who won't go on the record. And we found a dozen other people, also off the record, who agreed with the initial "analyst". In other words, we found 12 people who expressed misgivings about the war, but wouldn't let us tell you who they are, or why you should care about their analysis.

Then there's this swill by Robert Scheer. Just look at the list of past articles he's written on the subject and you understand that the only evidence he will accept as a reason to remove Saddam is right after the nuke with "made in Iraq" on it explodes in Washington DC.

Ahhh, and then we have the Guardian's contribution to the debate. You know, the UK paper that published pieces blasting Bush's speech before it was even delivered? The thing that strikes me the most about this piece is who it chooses to quote (and who it chooses to ignore). Let's see, who are the dignitaries the Guardian consulted: well, there's

Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA's former head of counter-intelligence.
David Albright, a physicist and former UN weapons inspector
Bob Baer, a former CIA agent
A department of energy specialist.
A source familiar with the September 11 investigation
Stephen Baker, a retired US navy rear admiral

Well, with a crew like that, how can you not believe the Guardian? Of course, they also throw a little Machiavelli in there, namely:

"CIA assessments are being put aside by the defense department in favor of intelligence they are getting from various Iraqi exiles," he said. "Machiavelli warned princes against listening to exiles. Well, that is what is happening now."

I guess the Guardian doesn't feel as if all of the "formers" and "retireds" they interviewed are a little bit like exiles; out of the loop, and possibly with a grudge to share.

How about this Salon entry, which states:

Sept. 11 and wars of the world
Osama and Saddam pose real threats, but the Bush administration may be too incompetent -- and too arrogant -- to stop them.

I'm not even sure what to say about this. I guess the way Bush and his military advisors completely bungled Afghanistan left a bad taste in this guy's mouth. But wait, you might say, Bush and Co. didn't bungle Afghanistan. To that, all I can reply is "Exactly".

And the Washinton Post's entry, quoting yet another retired military officer. Although to be fair, this article is the most objective of the lot. Basically Zinni, the retired military advisor, says that he thinks Saddam is containable "for the moment" and that there are other priorities "right now". Heady stuff indeed.

This story, about a couple of JFK aids who disagree with Bush's "preemptive strike" interpretation of the Cuban missile crisis seems pretty much on the level (gee, another objective story from the Washington Post). They disagree with the way Bush is interpreting JFK's words, they helped craft those words, so perhaps they know what they are talking about. Let's hope we never have to deal with a nuclear armed Saddam to find out if JFK's strategy was the right one, or not.

I only have 2 words for this Altercation entry on why we shouldn't trust Bush: Kristof and New York Times (OK, actually 4 words, but you get my drift). Go read it if you want to.

This New York Times Editorial seems pretty innocuous as well. The author points out that we need to tread carefully, explore all of our options with unconditional inspections before we go to war, and be prepared to help Iraq post-Saddam. Well, duh.

As for Alterman's final anti-war argument, I refuse to link to the Nation. If you want to read it, then go find it yourself. Hint, the author describes himself as a "Europhile" that is delighted that "German Chancellor Gerhard Schrader and other European statesmen continue to express such doubts" about the wisdom of engaging Iraq.

Wow, Eric. Your overwhelming intelligence against war with Iraq, provided by former spies and has-been military men and speechwriters ,along with a little Europhile vilification of Bush certainly makes a strong argument for sitting back and letting Hussein continue on his merry way. But if it's all the same to you, I'll pass. Maybe because of things like this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and especially this make me think I want to go ahead and remove Saddam from power.

Amazing the sites you see when you get up early, haul your boat for 3 hours, and run in the dark hoping you don't hit anything JUST so you can be at your best spot before the sun comes up.

Nifty little search template implemented, a core package of the Moveable Type 2.5 upgrade. Not too terribly difficult, although I have the "basic" package installed now. Maybe some alternative template activity later in the week.

Click here to see its face. Extra points if you're the first to put a name to the visage.

I have never thought much about Oprah Winfrey, primarily because I am not a daytime TV kind of guy, I guess. I have always had respect for her "reading initiative" efforts, and thought she was pretty benign in the world of celebrity politics. I was very impressed with her performance in "The Color Purple", so she wins my vote over Barbra Streisand on acting merits alone.

However, apparently a recent show of hers dealt with the Iraqi invasion, and she was strong and unwavering in her support of removing Saddam Hussein. I didn't see the show (have never seen the show), and this info comes from Instapundit.

Can anybody that did see the show (maybe 1 of my 3 regular readers watches daytime TV) give me a bit more info?

I guess that Belafonte will be trotted out to call her a "house negro" any moment now.

But apparently for some reasons besides the fact that he deserves it. How about this statement from the committee chairman:

"It should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken," Gunnar Berge, chairman of the Nobel committee, said in Norwegian. "It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States."

This, of course, from the same committee that wanted to revoke Ariel Sharon's award, while lauding itself for giving the prize to Arafat.

The secretive, five-member committee made its decision last week after months of deliberations as it sought the right message for a world still dazed by the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the war on terrorism that followed and concern about a possible U.S. military strike against Iraq.

So the message they manage to come up with is what, exactly? That Jimmy Carter deserves it, but we also feel as if we have the right to criticize the current administration because we disagree with them? So much for objectivity.

I wouldn't be surprised if next year's winner is Osama bin Laden, for "having the courage to fight against the tyrannical America, and trying to bring the religion of peace, Islam, to all of the people of the world".

Note to Nobel prize committee: Piss off

Thanks to Tim Blair for the pointer.

UPDATE

Instapundit has a nice roundup of some recent Nobel Prize winner activities.

Upgrade was a breeze! I made things more complicated than they needed to be by deciding to implement MySQL at the same time, but in the end everything was cool.

And Webmistress Rachel taught me: Always back up your templates and export your posts BEFORE you start playing around with the code!

By turning the other cheek. Isn't it interesting how the "liberal Democrat" Belafonte chose to attack Powell's politics by using a racial reference, and the "warmonger" Powell chose to just ignore it like the childish tantrum it was?

Hopefully this worked!

This time an upgrade to MT 2.5

I hope it goes smoothly!

Makes a September 11th resolution. I think it's a good one, well worth emulating.

And now accusing Bush of wanting to be Emporer of America.

We all know this is patently ridiculous, of course, since we have sworn fealty to Emporer Misha I.

Some nice observations from McDermott, who apparently proves that men really ARE from Mars:

"This president is trying to bring to himself all the power to become an emperor � to create Empire America," he said.

See already mentioned problem with this hypothesis. Man, is Emporer Misha is going to be pissed.

"And what we are dealing with right now in this country is whether we are having a kind of bloodless, silent coup or not,"

Er, aren't coups typically used to overthrow the people in power? Can those in power actually participate in a silent, bloodless coup against themselves? And, if Bush's coup against Bush is successful, isn't that what McDermott wants? Or, is McDermott saying that HE is involved in a silent, bloodless coup attempt against Bush? If this is the case, isn't trying to overthrow the lawful government of the US sort of, um, treason?

"One of the dilemmas we've had since 9/11 is that this country has been continuously terrorized by the government," McDermott said. "Every week they announce a new threat. 'Today is a code orange.' 'Today is a code red.'

Now, I'm not in a big fan of the "color coded terror alerts" by any stretch of the imagination, but this is major league hyperbole. Is McDermott saying that the government is using their alerts just to terrorize the citizens of the US? I suppose the shootings in the DC area and the al-Qaeda cells arrested in Oregon and New York are just more Bush administration terrorism. What loaded speech: continuously terrorized by the government.

"Granted it was an awful day. It was a heinous act. Nobody has anything but horror over what happened that day.

"But the message to draw from that day is not that we should suddenly go to war with the whole world, which is what the president is saying."

Ahhhh, what sanctimonious drivel. This administration has gone out of its way to build a coalition and garner support for what it believes is the appropriate action to keep this country safe. And Baghdad Jim discounts all of that in 1 sentence, and accuses Bush of trying to start World War III. And don't you love how there is a "but" after "granted it was an awful day"?

"It is the oldest game in the book," he said. "They found this war very convenient to obscure people's views about what is happening domestically."

Now this is a smart move by McDermott. May as well adopt Schroeder's party line now. Who knows, maybe he can get a job as Germany's Minister of Anti-Americanism if he gets booted out of office in the US.

"We knew there was no point in getting into a situation where we're shaking hands and smiling with somebody we don't really think is doing the right thing by the country or the world, and we knew that message would get to him."

And what message would that be? That there are some people in the US willing to be cheap shills for any Government, no matter how brutally repressive it might be, if they get to take potshots at America (oh, excuse me, at a Republican Governed America, that is).

And the most telling part of the entire article?

Inside the crowd was heavily in favor of McDermott's view. When opponents took a microphone to talk, they were shouted at and told to get to their question. Supporters, though, were able to talk uninterrupted and give anti-war speeches.

Typical. Disagree with a liberal and it is suppression of consent. If a liberal disagrees with you, then any tactic or hateful speech is OK.

UPDATE:

I wonder how comfortable McDermott feels being on the same page as this guy?

The "actor as arbiter of truth and social commentator" frenzy hasn't run its course, it seems. Now we have Harry Belafonte essentially calling Colin Powell an "Uncle Tom", presumably because Powell takes a position about war with Iraq that runs contrary to Belafonte's. Why is it that "liberals" tend to attack anyone that disagrees with them in the most hateful speech possible?

See my position on entertainers as moral compasses below, and act accordingly.

Here we have an attempt to explain the "psychopathology" of GWB, offered by Carol Wolman, MD.

Read it all the way to the ridiculous end, and notice that we have yet another "liberal" comparing our President to Hitler:

Dubya may be identifying with an archetype (as Hitler did with the ubermensch)--something out of Revelations, perhaps, whereby he sees himself as an instrument of God's will to bring about Armageddon.

As always, Counterpunch is good for a laugh. Problem is, I'm sure they (including Carol Wolman, MD) are totally serious.

So things may look a little weird for a while. Be patient and talk amongst yourselves about the President's speech last night.

A little publicity, that is.

Thanks to Samizdata for their self-described "dubious honor" of permanent linkage, and to Right Wing News for their "Website of the Day" designation. Can fame and fortune be far behind?

The same way Saddam does. Everyone yells about us acting "unilaterally", while standing back and watching Saddam do just that. UN resolutions get passed, Saddam allows us to look places he is comfortable we will find nothing, meanwhile refusing to allow inspections in his "palaces". Now, the UN and the rest of the world seems fine with this, and encourages the US to "cooperate with" Saddam under these rules of engagement.

I say fine. We will abide by the UN resolutions everywhere Saddam does. Anyplace he unilaterally chooses NOT to allow inspections, we should be able to unilaterally choose to bomb into rubble, and be applauded by the UN for our "sort of compliance" with the all powerful UN resolution. The UN is happy that their previous "inspections" got rid of ~80-90% of Saddam's weapons. Therefore, they should be equally happy if we leave 80-90% of Iraq unbombed into rubble.

This should make everyone happy: the UN gets to feel "relevant", Saddam can continue his rope-a-dope if he chooses, and the US can be SURE anyplace where Saddam chooses to block inspections isn't a clandestine WMD factory.

And if Saddam chooses to go to war the first time we level a "palace"? Well, surely the UN will condemn him in the harshest possible language for acting unilaterally when the US was complying with the relevant UN resolutions to the same extent Iraq has for the last 11 years.

Manuscript's away. Now the review process starts, which can either be very gratifying or very discouraging. Only time will tell which this will be.

Mark Steyn.

My favorite observation:

Just as a matter of interest, how many countries does George W. Bush have to have on board before America ceases to be acting �unilaterally�? So far, there�s Australia, Spain, Italy, the Czech Republic, Qatar, Turkey.... Romania has offered the use of its airspace to attack Iraq. The Americo-Romanian Coalition Against Iraq has more members than most multilateral organisations. But no matter how multilateral it gets, it doesn�t count unless it�s sanctioned by the UN. If France feels the need to invade the Ivory Coast, that can be done unilaterally. But, when it�s America, you gotta get a warrant from the global magistrate.

Read it all.

Beau Duran, a DJ based in Phoenix, called up the widow of St. Louis pitcher Darryl Kile, who died of a cardiac ailment on June 22nd, 2002. His death was sudden, unexpected, and traumatic. However this asshole calls up Flynn Kile only a few months after her husband's death to tell her that she's "hot" and to ask if she has a date for the game.

And what does he get for being such an insensitive jerk? One week suspension. And read the mealy mouthed "official statement" about the station's "misjudgement".

"We would like to extend a most sincere apology to everyone who was offended by an error in judgment which was not intended to be hurtful or malicious in any way. This was not intended to be a ratings stunt nor was it premeditated. We are truly amazed at how this turned into a media circus and we deeply regret the turmoil that this has caused people all over the country.

"Beau Duran would like to personally apologize to the following for the unnecessary grief that this media mishap created: Flynn Kile and her family, Tony La Russa and the entire St. Louis Cardinals baseball organization, major league baseball and all the people of St. Louis and Phoenix and all listeners of 98 KUPD."

All I can say to this is: bullshit. It WAS premeditated, it was a ratings stunt, and what else could it be but hurtful and malicious to call up a young woman who's husband died most unexpectedly just 4 months ago and make fun of her? This guy should be fired, and it's time for us to stop apologizing for these "shock jock" types.

Here's the KUPD website. Not surprisingly, there's no comment section or comment information. However, the "response for our misjudgement" missive does contain an e-mail addess: KUPD Opinion.

Use it to drop them a line.

Or so says John Hawkins over at Right Wing News. Take a look at the offerings, and be sure your family is well vaccinated against this type of lunacy.

The creepiest of the lot is Bartcop. Sure is a good thing they live in a country that allows free speech, eh?

Cynthia McKinney is trying to get her election results overturned on the basis that she was defeated by a cross-over vote of Republicans. Since Georgia has an open primary system, I'm not sure that she has any leg to stand on. But of course, having the law on one's side (or lack thereof) has never stopped the Democrats before. And with their success in New Jersey, this kind of thing is only going to get worse, not better.

Poor Cynthia. First it was the J-E-W-S. Then the H-I-N-D-U-S. If her salvo against the dirty old Republicans fails, then I guess the next target for her shrill conspiracy laden excuses for defeat will be B-I-G-F-O-O-T.

Albeit belatedly.

Can be found here. This is a great retort to the DNC's "social insecurity" flash animation of GWB pushing old people off a cliff.

As a little primer for my post below, this is how I stand on some of "the issues":

I am not a religious person
I am pro-choice
I don't have a problem with alternative lifestyles
I am pro-gun
I believe in the death penalty, but also believe there are some practical concerns with its implementation
I believe it is possible to criticize Israel without being an anti-semite
I believe that many people who criticize Israel ARE anti-semites
I believe most NGO's have been hijacked by a lunatic fringe
I believe it is crazy to allow thousands of people to starve in sub-saharan Africa because some people, usually well fed and living in comfort, are "against" genetically engineered foods
I don't want all of my tax dollars going to social programs
I don't have a problem with defense spending
I think Israel has a right to exist
I think Palestine has a right to exist (already WOULD exist if the Palestinians had competent leadership)
I think the "occupied territories" are really the "disputed territories" - start a war, get your butt kicked, too bad
I am for stem cell research
I am for cloning for medical purposes
I think arguments based on moral equivalence are vacuous and dishonest
I prefer red wine to white
I like Tacos
I think Saddam Hussein needs to be removed from power in Iraq
I think the US, just like EVERY OTHER SOVEREIGN COUNTRY, has the right to act in its own interests
I think Bonior, McDermott, and Thompson are traitors - not because they disagree with Bush, but because they went to Iraq to do it
I typically side with Republican candidates, but am turned off primarily by the hard right religious influence in the party
I resent being called a "greedy capitalist" because I went to school, got an education, worked hard, make a decent salary, and believe that I should get to keep some of that money for my family
I think entertainers who believe they are the "moral compass" for "average Americans" are to be ridiculed and ostracized
I think your opinion is just as important as my opinion, and would ask that you return the favor
I think that whichever opinion has the most proponents should carry the day
I believe that cold pizza is a perfectly good breakfast alternative

This is a nice essay that describes a lot of the reasons I started RNS. Currently, the left is crying about the "stifling of dissent" they feel they suffer when Americans react angrily (or incredulously) to some of the "blame America First" rhetoric that they were so eager to spread around after 9/11. All I can say is - welcome to the way most of us expressing conservative opinions have felt for a long time. My blog started out purely as a venue for me to voice my beliefs and concerns in the face of what I felt was an overwhelming bias by "the mainstream media" against the things I held dear. And judging from the number of "right of center" blogs out there, I suspect I'm not the only one. The other thing I have learned is that the "mainstream media" is really not so mainstream - and the fact that we are beginning to realize that causes them a great deal of angst. It seems to irritate some in big media that we have the audacity to think for ourselves, analyze and critique for ourselves, and, most of all, SPEAK for ourselves. Especially since our voice is frequently diametrically opposed to what the "professionals" deem the correct point of view.

Use inflammatory speech; don't be surprised if people's emotions get inflamed. If you publicly sympathize with a group that murdered 3,000 people because they had the audacity to be taxpayers in the good old USA, then don't be surprised if the rest of us taxpayers tell you politely (or not) but firmly to get stuffed. What the left is really crying about is the fact that their views aren't popular, and aren't supported by the majority of "average" Americans.

Yes, we have all heard the "stupid" American jokes that are so popular amongst the intelligentsia and the "elite' of Europe. And the mocking cries of "cowboy" and "bully" and "arrogant" when we needed support, not hollow criticism. We've watched while a former ally made anti-Americanism a cornerstone of his re-election campaign, a campaign that was successful. But "stupid" or not, this is our country and our culture and our people that were murdered, and it has never been our way to run and hide from danger. It infuriates me to no end that some people want to turn us into a politically correct nation of followers and cowards. Watching elected officials like McDermott and Bonior and Thompson stand in Iraq and criticize our government and provide propaganda to Saddam Hussein, while trying to convince us that they are providing service to the American People, is an ugly sight. Quite simply, they are aiding and abetting the enemy, and I for one will never forget that. McDermott and Thompson are supposed to be "untouchable" in their districts. I suppose we shall see if that is the case. Certainly politicians count on voters having short lived memories, but this kind of asinine stupidity calls for a concerted effort to be sure the voters DON'T forget where this trio chose to throw their allegiance and support. And, if by some miracle they do lose their bid for re-election, I'm sure those on the left will cry once again about the stifling of dissent. I, however, will applaud it as a job well done by people that feel as I do: that you ridicule and deride and attack us at your own peril. Failure to follow this basic prescription by the previous administration set the foundation for the attacks of September 11th, by giving the impression that we were weak and impotent and unable to act in a decisive manner. This is a mistake we should never make again.

So, pro-Palestinian protestors using violence to shut down Netanyahu is perfectly OK in Canada, but literature defending the right of Israel to exist can be confiscated as "hate speech"?

To be fair, a decision from the Canadian customs agency is still pending. But I wonder how many pro-Palestinian pamphlets they have felt the need to evaluate, and how many have been kept out of the country because of the hate speech statute quoted?

Let me see if I have it right: If it's anti-Israel, then it's an acceptable expression of free speech, even if violent action is involved. If it's pro-Israel , then it's possibly hate speech and needs to be banned? Now the pamphlet described certainly talks about Arafat, the PLO, and the history of the region in an unflattering light. But not in an UNTRUTHFUL unflattering light.

Sounds like our Canadian friends better spend a little less time worrying about the erosion of "our" civil liberties, and pay attention to what's happening in their own yard for a while.

And how is a pamphlet arguing the moral right of Israel to exist hate speech under any definition of the term? Unless you reach the only conclusion possible: any mention of an entity called Israel is hateful to Palestinians, and must be avoided.

And show an animated cartoon of Bush pushing a senior citizen off a cliff in a wheelchair.

I wonder if they would have thought that a little flash movie of Clinton getting a hummer in the oval office would have been equally as funny?

Here's a link to the actual flash animation at Democrats.org

VOTE for him!!

Hmmmmmm, Random Nuclear Strikes has been getting a fair bit of traffic from *.mil addresses. The most recent is DISA.MIL

I wonder if it's the name Random Nuclear Strikes, or if it's the fact that we have recently been promoted to the rank of Major of the Dept. of Hegemony by Force by Emperor Misha I?

Can stop me from telling you that the Rottie has moved! Go see the new digs at www.nicedoggie.net.
Update your bookmarks accordingly. And if you go visit, don't show up empty handed. Bring a nice gift to welcome him to the world of the un-blogspot!

Well, no power (notebook battery saves the day). Looks like we were lucky, all in all. The winds right now are WAY scary. Lots of big branches down, and a couple of big trees also went over. Sounds like a big time power outage, so don't know when I'll be back on line. Go read the good stuff for me!

Go find it. Hint: Scrappleface is a good place to start.

Posting via dial up, and the rain really messes up my data connection.

So see you guys later. While I'm AFK, go read about the decision of the NJ supreme court to allow the Democrats to replace the Torch on the ballot for the upcoming election. Why do we even bother to have rules?

This, of course, from the party that was taught by it's leader to say things like "it depends on what your definition of "is", is".

And they sound more traitorous than ever. They are over there appeasing Saddam as a public service to us? Baloney. I hope the home states of these bozos remember their words and actions when they are due for re-election. And how useful are these platitudes?

Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington and David Bonior of Michigan, both Vietnam War-era veterans, also said at a news conference that they felt obligated to inform Americans of the risks they faced by going to war with Iraq.

McDermott said he was stunned by "the extent to which the Iraqi people are ready to fight house-to-house." He asked whether the United States should "be taking on this country all by itself when the Arab world is now seething with recruits for Osama bin Laden."

This is fear-mongering, plain and simple. I think the comparisons to Lord Haw-Haw discussed below are exactly right. Sanctimonious assholes.

Has the Democrats down cold. Go read it.

The obligatory teaser:

Faction A (the David Bonior option) is openly anti-war despite the party's best efforts to turn off their microphones. (Congressman Bonior appeared on TV live from Baghdad yesterday.)

Faction F (the Jay Rockefeller option) thinks the priority right now should be to sit around holding inquiries into why the government ignored what it knew about al-Qaeda until they killed thousands of Americans. To Senator Rockefeller, it's vital that we now ignore what we know about Saddam so that we can get on with the important work of investigating the stuff we ignored last time round.

It gets better.

As the Rottie might say: "Free Ice Cream might be limited the next few days".

This picture should explain it all.

Yep, Babs has a new installation in her truth archive, this time dealing with her Shakespearean Faux Paus. As expected, this time an unnamed friend takes the fall for the shrill one's blunder.

Babs tries to bolster her rapidly dissipating illusions of importance and intelligence by providing us with some quotes from Teddy Roosevelt:

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile."

"Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

Now, apparently this is meant to lend some support to her "I Hate Bush" tizzy fits, or at least demonstrate to her adoring public that she is actually able to get SOMETHING that sounds smart posted/spoken/faxed without completely bungling it. It appears as if Babs has chosen to ignore the bits about "praise him when he does right". But of course, the only thing GWB could have done that was "right enough" to deserve praise from the Streisands and the Baldwins of the world would have been to concede the election to the cruise missile firing, camel murdering, internet creating Gorebot. But even if GWB had conceded, there would have been no praising: just gloating and name-calling and aspersions.

Keep talking Babs. The elections are only a few short weeks away.

Another Republican basher who doesn't bother to fact check his material. This time in a nationally syndicated political cartoon!

No need to discredit the left, they are doing an admirable job all by themselves.

This image from the weather channel makes me even more nervous about Lili's intentions for the state of Louisiana.

View image

This is the stangest e-mail RNS has ever received. I'm not sure what language it is even written in. Anyone have any ideas? I'm not supplying the sender's name, since I don't know what the actual content of the message is. I googled a couple of random words from the message, and ended up at some Turkish websites.

________________________________________________________
nerelerde ineklen ya inek hanim?
aradim aradim yoksunuz, kampusde ot galmadi...hep beraber gulelim arkdashlar! hehehehe anlaycagin ben suan cok feci sikilmish durumdayim..dedim arayim seni gonusalim ama yokdun...duydun ya bir kasirga daha beklenir...buyuk ihtimal persembe gecesi gelecekmish...ve direk louisiana tam haritanin ortasinda en guclu yerindeymish , yassadik allem var... benim da gelcek haftaya psikoloji sinavim var da simdiden basladim calishmaya cunku sinifda adami dinlemedigim icin koskocama kitabi okumak zorundayim..bir haftada anacak okurum...bugune daOR odevim vardi, onu sagsalim uyksuz galmadan cok sukur teslim ettim.. ya canim, ha sana aslinda baska haberlerim var...dediydim ya sana araycayim ucak acentelerini, aradim bugun...bir alp`i birda mehmedin verdigini aradim, ikisida ayni fiyati verdi..son aradigim mehmedin acentasiydi, ondan yer ayirttim gendime..sonra mehemdida aradim, oda aradi yer ayirtti..seni aradim arayasin sen yokdun evde...yarin ara.. ama soyle bir durum soz konusuki, cuma gidersak 200 dolar neredeysa daha az vereceyik..ben cumaya ayirttim yerimi ama emin deilim cumartesi sinavim varsa geri araycayim da pazartesine akdarayim..mehmetda ayni sekilde..senin cumartesi sinavim var bilirim..sen pazartesine ayirdacan..bu arada guzel bir firsat vardi ama maalesef yerler dolmush..yani turk havayollari dir suanda en ucuz...veriyorum telefonunu yarin ara...ve soyle simge ozsuer sizden yer ayirtmish...benda o grubdanim de cunku grup indirimi yapacaklar dediler 18006992858..merit traveldir...mehemt abinin verdigi numaradir...suan sadece yer ayirtiyoruz.....daha arasdirmaya devam edecegiz...ok? hade sana iyi calishmalar.. opuldun simsimsimsimsimsimsimsim

The Punk Kittens made me laugh. From Whacking Day, whose motto is "did you bring the pre-whacked snakes". Not my job to interpret, just to report.

OK, I wanna do a Rachel style rant. Complete. With. Punctuated. Words. And. Stuff.

I forgot to mention the fact that Babs the spelling bee champion delivered fake Shakespeare quotes at this week-ends democratic fundraiser.

Forever unrepentant (and convinced of her moral superiority in all matters), Babs responds to the embarrassing event by claiming:

"But it doesn't detract from the fact that the words themselves are powerful and true and beautifully written," she said. "Whoever wrote this is damn talented and he should be writing his own play."

Now the internet hoax she quoted is not particularly well done, and anyone who struggled through Shakespeare in a literature course (yes, Advanced Literature: Shakespeare SOUNDED like a good idea for 3 credits as an undergrad) would immediately recognize that it is not the Bard's work (or even a very good approximation of the written word from the 1500's). Here is the Streisand quoted text:

'Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.'�"

Here's a little hint: if you can cut and paste an alleged Shakespeare quote into a program with a spellchecker and not get even one word tagged, it ain't original. Try it for yourself: spellcheck the above "quote", and then check the actual examples I helpfully provide below. See my point, Sparky?

But, little Babs was so eager to find a historical reference that supported her world view of GWB that they didn't even bother to FACT CHECK the quote before she delivered it at a fundraiser. And I'm sure it will all be someone else's fault, just like that "junior level staffer" who is supposedly responsible for the Gephardt [sic] memo. Screw that, Babs. At some point in time, the self appointed denouncer of all things Republican needs to step up and take personal credit for being sloppy, stupid, and/or so rabid to make a point that the truth doesn't matter. I vote for the trifecta of lying lazy moron, but that's just me.

Just for comparison, here is a bit of actual prose from the Bard's Julius Caesar:

The gods do this in shame of cowardice:
Caesar should be a beast without a heart,
If he should stay at home to-day for fear.
No, Caesar shall not: danger knows full well
That Caesar is more dangerous than he:
We are two lions litter'd in one day,
And I the elder and more terrible:
And Caesar shall go forth.

And a bit more:

The cause is in my will: I will not come;
That is enough to satisfy the senate.
But for your private satisfaction,
Because I love you, I will let you know:
Calpurnia here, my wife, stays me at home:
She dreamt to-night she saw my statua,
Which, like a fountain with an hundred spouts,
Did run pure blood: and many lusty Romans
Came smiling, and did bathe their hands in it:
And these does she apply for warnings, and portents,
And evils imminent; and on her knee
Hath begg'd that I will stay at home to-day.

Do YOU see any resemblance between what Shakespeare wrote, and the internet hoaxster's attempt? It just seems to me that such an ACCOMPLISHED ACTRESS AND SELF DETERMINED IMPORTANT PERSON as Babs should have studied the Bard as she perfected her craft. Perfected. Her. Craft. {<-- note Rachel-esque use of advanced editing techniques. ed)

Oh goodness, RNS made a bit of a funny. Because perfecting the role of shrill harpy and self appointed spokesperson of all she deems good and hysterical blatherer for the good old Democratic days of yore does not really require that one know anything at all about the Bard. If Babs was actually trying to be an serious or talented actress, then the Shakespeare stuff might have come in handy. But since it seems she never aspired for (or certainly never achieved) any of that acting stuff, no harm no foul.

The Democrats love to make fun of GWB's IQ. Well, how about we hear a little commentary on how Babs apparently has the IQ of slime mold, and the integrity and moral rectitude to match? Actually, I may be giving slime mold a bad rap here. I know it's not very smart, but it may have all kinds of integrity and moral rectitude. But for the sake of this argument, let's assume it doesn't.

Babs has promised to address the latest Faux Paus in her next "TRUTH ALERT". As I said, look for it to cast blame elsewhere (if it ever appears at all, that is).

Remember, Rachel, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Please don't hurt me.
{this is a parody of a Rachel style rant, and should not be confused with an actual Rachel style rant, which can only be found at RachelLucas.com. Any resemblance of this Rachel style rant to any other Rachel style rant, living or dead, is purely coincidental. That does not change the fact that Barbara Streisand is a blithering idiot, ed}

Update!

Instapundit tried to warn her. REALLY he did. Glenn's comment:

This is a good service, though my first thought was "antiwar quote from Julius Caesar?" I mean, who would fall for that? Oh, right.

Is especially funny, considering who DID fall for it. Life is good.

Apparently Rachel Lucas is none too impressed with the TRUTH ALERT posted over at Streisand's satin and rose-encrusted vomitorium. I really hope I never give Rachel a reason to rant about RNS.

Lord Haw Haw, as you may recall, was a British citizen who Hitler tagged to broadcast German Propaganda to the UK during WWII. George Will thinks he has identified a new generation of Haw Haws in the Democratic party. Democrats McDermott and Bonoir have done a fine job acting as Saddam apologists, and contributed mightily to the general public's(read: average American) perception that the Democratic party is completely out of touch with reality (of course Al Gore and Tom Daschle have done a bit to help that perception along).

Some great quotes from the article:

[from McDermott] "I think you have to take the Iraqis on their value -- at their face value." And: "I think the president would mislead the American people."

So, Saddam is to be taken at face value, but our own president is to be doubted. Is this dissent, or sedition?

The good stuff from Will:

McDermott and Bonior are two specimens of what Lenin, referring to Westerners who denied the existence of Lenin's police-state terror, called "useful idiots." Perhaps Iraqi officials, knowing fathomless gullibility when they see it -- they have dealt with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan -- actually said such things.

and:

McDermott's and Bonior's espousal of Saddam Hussein's line, and of Gore's subtext (and Barbra Streisand's libretto), signals the recrudescence of the dogmatic distrust of U.S. power that virtually disqualified the Democratic Party from presidential politics for a generation. It gives the benefits of all doubts to America's enemies and reduces policy debates to accusations about the motives of Americans who would project U.S. power in the world.

Go read the entire thing.

Isidore actually did not cause us much difficulty here in Baton Rouge. Lili has me a lot more worried. It looks like the predictions are for her to strengthen in the gulf, with winds in excess of 120mph. I worry that she will turn more north-northeast once she clears Cuba. Time to stock up on batteries and the like!

The UN and Iraq have reached an accord (although still described as "tentative"?) on weapons inspection. One only hopes that someone asked the US what they thought about this "accord".

Saddam must have things hidden so deep in hardened bunkers that he is sure that UN inspectors will never find anything amiss.

Add Jessica Lange to the latest list of has-beens who believe their opinions actually matter. Any coincidence that all of these "Bush Haters" have found their voice again, right before the November elections? I don't think so. What a spewing little puke. Some choice quotes from the Scoop piece:

�I HATE BUSH. I despise him and his entire administration � not only because of its international policy, but also the national,� Lange told the audience, according to various reports coming from Spain.
�It makes me feel ashamed to come from the United States � it is humiliating.�

�Bush stole the elections and since then we have all been suffering the consequences,� Lange told the enthusiastic crowd.
Although Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg have recently spoken out in support of Bush�s proposed attack on Iraq, Lange joins a growing list of stars who have questioned or condemned it, including Barbra Streisand, Susan Sarandon and Alec Baldwin. Lange�s spokeswoman had no further comment.

Maybe she and Alex Balwin can find a nice little place in Germany for a permanent residence. And please take Barbra "I was a spelling bee champion" Streisand and Susan Sarandon with you. Adding Sarandon to the deportees saddens me, since I have always admired her as an actress. But I think bashing the President under some misconception that, just because you are an "entertainer" (and in Streisand's case we need to use the definition of entertainer very, very loosely), you have some special insight into what is "best" for America is laughable. Especially since NONE of these people either knows or cares what it is like to be an "average" American.

And note to Jessica: If you are embarrassed to be an American, I will happily help you pack and move to and get citizenship in whatever country you choose. By the way, that ashamed thing runs both ways. I also feel a deep sense of shame that you are an American.

UPDATE:

Re-read Jessica's quote, and notice that she never actually identifies herself as an "American". She just says she is ashamed to be from the United States. Undoubtedly a deliberate choice of words, since all of the hoity-toity celebrities have always thought that is was more sophisticated to be European than American. Oh, and to be proud to be an American and have some sense of patriotism is just tres gauche. I guess her choice of words is appropriate, however, since I don't think there is any way someone would mistake Jessica and her ilk for Americans anyway.

Go here or ESPECIALLY here for nice lists of anti-American "entertainers".