Sorry for no blogging today. Here are some good links to follow sent to me by varioius self-promoters, blog pimps, and link whores.

Lodi terror suspect with ties to al Qaeda being deported. Unfortunately he's being deported to Pakistan. While we need one less radical imam, I'm not sure Pakistan needs one more.

Kurdish uprising against Syria. Go Kurds.

Jeff Goldstein is just a better blogger than me. Seriously. Just read this and especially this and you'll see what I mean.

Hirsi Ali, a hero to us all. (Thanks Ron)

Images from Japanese propaganda from WWII made to demoralize U.S. troops. NY Times editors reveal where they learned the craft.......

Washington Post drops sponsorship of 9/11 memorial walk for fear of the event being too political.

Q&A about new Marine Corps Special Ops Force. Kewl. (Thanks Carolyn)

The 9/11 Commission, Part 2 - Electric Boogaloo. In the future all sequels will be subtitled either Electric Bugaloo or Hunting Season, this time it's personal.

Keys to a liberal victory unveiled. Heh.

Camp Sheehan, sooooo boring.

Cindy Sheehan finally wins an award she's worthy of.

Cindy Sheehan divorce? Yup.

Carnival of Liberty VII is up.

Is the Executive Director of the ACLU the most dangerous liberal in America? I doubt it, but check it out anyway.

Bill Clinton: superhero with amazing superpowers!

Posted by: Rusty at 06:19 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 3 kb.

A friend of mine who works at a prestigious film school recently sent me a WWII cartoon produced by Warner Bros. and starring the voice of Mel Blanc. It reminded me that there was a time when Hollwyood put winning a war at the forefront of its agenda. There was a time when people like Michael Moore would not only have been booed off the Oscar stage and blacklisted--rigthfully so--but they would have also found themselves in a federal prison for incitement to treason.

Today Hollywood is either patently against our troops winning, full of moral equvication between our cause and the cause of our Islamofascist enemies, or full of bad news and defeatist messages.

The name of the film my friend sent to me is Rumors and stars the WWII anti-hero Snafu. The film may be downloaded by right-clicking this link and choosing 'save as' option, thanks to Drew at Conservative Friends. A brief synopsis of the film along with some screenshots and lessons that the Hollywood elite might learn from their glory days are posted below. I have the film in quicktime format, thanks to Bill Dauterieve, if any one would be willing to burn the bandwidth and has the server space (it's not large).

more...

Posted by: Rusty at 04:00 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 1001 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Try posting the video at putfile.com.

Posted by: Ariya at August 15, 2005 02:02 PM (noCGr)

2 its funny that you made this post Rusty...ive been seing commercials for the "Victory" war clips on tv, mostly late nite ones...just funny how they are being shown at this time, seems someone else feels just like how must of us do...that the liberals/leftists are trying so desperatly to cause the USA to loose this war, thing is we cant/must noe let them at all and any costs....and Hollywood used to pour out support films during WWII at an incredible rate to keep up the moral of both the American soldiers doing the fighting and the American civies back home to keep supporting those troops, morally and materially...what a shame that HollyWood has fallen into the sewer

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 15, 2005 02:44 PM (IJ51c)

3 oh, one more thing, i wish someone here would find out what some WWII vets feel about this whole thing...mostly how the soldiers are being treated here back home by the MSM and the liberal population...i know how my dad feels...as a WWII vet he is absolutely disgusted by people like Mickey Moore, Cindy Shennan, Kerry and many others...im would bet a million dollars that if my dad was back in his 20's he would slap the teeth right out of these clows mouths who bad mouth the US soldiers doing the bitter work of fighting in a foriegn country...these liberals/leftists who claim they support the soldiers yet go around and say the soldiers are killing children and women in Iraq, are destroying everything they find,shoot and torture Iraqi civilians and are a bunch of liars...i wont print what my dad actaully said...its not fit to print, and this comes from a 78 year old man's mouth...i would love to see a protest by WWII vets against these anti-war idiots.....what will those anti-war fools do???..hit and push down oldmen???...that would really make the American public see what scum these ant-war people really and truly are...they are the enemy

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 15, 2005 02:53 PM (IJ51c)

4 Since Thanos asked, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5059864/ It's a little over a year old and not specifically their take on how today's soldiers are being treated here at home (though you can read support for the troops), but it does discuss the current conflict. The veterans in the article make some pretty interesting arguments. One of them is that the reason you don't have the public behind the war is because there is no draft in place (and, as a result, you don't have widespread representation within the military). I don't know if I buy this, since Vietnam had the draft and the public wasn't any more unified then than it is now. Still, it's a good article if anyone's interested in reading it. The last line of the article is a pretty good one, imo.

Posted by: Venom at August 15, 2005 03:34 PM (dbxVM)

5 Things have changed a lot in 65 years. I think the change started in 1949. They were at best not sure about Korea.

Posted by: Rod Stanton at August 15, 2005 03:45 PM (03F0I)

6 Remember when Hollywood.... No, in the time I have been alive this has never been the case.

Posted by: Defense Guy at August 15, 2005 04:00 PM (jPCiN)

7 It sells Rusty. The MSM is not all about journalism any more. I think some of the people who work there are but the owners are all about $$$$$$

Posted by: Howie at August 15, 2005 04:31 PM (D3+20)

8 Hollywood was only pro-war during WW2, not so much during Korea, and anti in every war since. Actually, the American left was anti-war until Germany attacked the Soviet Union. So the left was on board with WW2, a Democratic President and allied with the Soviet Union. Hollywood turned anti-war in Vietnam during the LBJ administration, a Democratic so I believe it has more to do with ideology than politics. If Vietnam was a war against right wing, who knows. The left in America is now more aligned with the international left movement than with the US and its goals...that's a sad fact.

Posted by: Kate at August 15, 2005 05:09 PM (r32uj)

9 One big thing happened to our military immediately after WW 2. Can anyone quess what it was?

Posted by: greyrooster at August 15, 2005 07:08 PM (CBNGy)

10 I fondly remember the days when Hollywood offered us a black-and-white reflection of a far more complex reality, and cheerfully led the country to simplistic assumptions about the world so that our nation's young men would march proudly off to war in such morally unambiguous conflicts like Vietnam.

Posted by: Professor von Nostrand at August 15, 2005 07:53 PM (JVdjp)

11 Proff v N - you can kiss my ass you piece of sh---!

Posted by: Rod Stanton at August 15, 2005 09:41 PM (03F0I)

12 And now for something completely different... To answer Mr. Greyrooster, since the Second World War, the Executive Branch has simply swiped the right to declare war away from Congress, leading to a series of police actions and quasi-wars, many of which remain horribly unresolved today. Hollywood, surprisingly, actually teams up with the military so that Producers can get resources (ships, planes, base access) and the military changes scripts to attract recruits. Source: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591021820/103-4292484-1855054?v=glance The American people must always be vigilant to prevent the military from coming to dominate the economy and government of our great land. And now back to your circus...

Posted by: Collin Baber at August 15, 2005 10:16 PM (Xf0ch)

13 No, dumbass, he's talking about the integration of the Army and if you were half as smart in reality as you think you are in your fantasy world with the rainbow sky, you'd know that the President still doesn't have the power to declare war, and can't send troops on a major deployment without the approval of Congress. Congress overwhelmingly approved both the Afghan and Iraq campaigns, so STFU moron.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 15, 2005 10:53 PM (0yYS2)

14 Racist thugmaster Klanrooster! You creep - I bet it was you who ran over the crosses and flags at Crawford.

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at August 16, 2005 07:50 AM (xNiEv)

15 Goddamit! The Baloney spreading the rumor was no other than GEORGE BUSH and his PNAC FRIENDS! We bought the rumor and look what happened!!

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at August 16, 2005 07:54 AM (xNiEv)

16 Hey, rusty, if it is below 10mb, try www.putfile.com for the hosting.

Posted by: William Teach at August 16, 2005 11:13 AM (Pzlrt)

17 Rusty: We ain't seen nuthin' yet. Check out Jeff Goldstein's The Para(noid)llax View, about the treasonous tripe they're getting ready to foist. They've basically decided that Iraq is Vietnam, so they're now fully justified in pulling out all the stops to oppose it. This is gonna get real ugly. Their PR job is really pretty easy. All they have to do is keep reiterating different versions of the same lie and the natural tendency of the human mind will be to aggregate bad news and ignore good. Over time they just plan to wear down any optimism. It'll take two things to stop them: 1. An institution that provides a level-headed and straightforward assessment of the military/political situation that the public comes to trust more than MSM. 1. A positive vision about where this is all leading, presented in a way that solicits involvement and sacrifice from citizens. Once those take hold the extent and depth of the treason will become obvious and careers based on it will vanish.

Posted by: Demosophist at August 16, 2005 05:56 PM (zzime)

18 I would gladly run over Cindy's crowd of monkeys. Colin Babeler still as stupid as ever. Downing Street Moron still without pride. I have a theory about the Collin babelers and Downing Street Morons of the world. They must be miserable little people. So lonely and miserable that they wish others to join their misery. So lonely and left out by normal people that they would even cheer for American to lose this conflict. Therefore proving them right and the beautiful people wrong. The ones that left them out of all the fun must be proven wrong. Even to the point of aiding the enemy. Sick little minds, without fiends, without pride, without honor. They really need to find a bridge to jump off and save themselves the pain of being nothing. IM still the thinker. Bingo! Now, has it make a difference. That is the question?

Posted by: greyrooster at August 16, 2005 09:54 PM (CBNGy)

19 you know what they say, greyrooster...Misery loves company

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 16, 2005 10:27 PM (IJ51c)

20 We had real patriotic celeberties back then i mean clark gabel and glen ford and all those who sold war bonds all we have in hollywood today are a bunch of filthy mouthed spoiled bed wetting bunch of ungreatful wretches

Posted by: sandpiper at August 16, 2005 10:55 PM (2cLBb)

21 Yea! Remember Bob Hope. And he wasn't even born here. Christ! I just had a horrible thought. Cindy Sheehan running for governor of California. Or as vice president with Hilary (likes to watch BJs) Clinton. Sun burn too bad from yesterdays fishing trip. Charlie says put vinegar on it? I'll try anything.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 16, 2005 11:10 PM (CBNGy)

22 the last patriotic actor in this country, besides Ronald Reagan, was in my mind, John Wayne...now there was a real American patriot

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 17, 2005 09:00 AM (IJ51c)

23 Didn't think anyone would touch my question. That's the problem. Sticking the head in the sand never solves anything. Clinton proved that.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 18, 2005 10:24 PM (CBNGy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Working. I blame the man. And by the man I mean the state legislature which requires us to return to the University 1.5 weeks before the students for faculty development. Lawd knows I hate stupid politicians........

Posted by: Rusty at 02:58 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

According to CNN, residents around Bush's ranch are becoming fed up with the protesters, saying that they are blocking roadways and becoming a hazard. They have become so fed up, in fact, that 60 of them have signed a petition and turned it in to their county commission hoping to curb the number of protesters at the ranch.

Of course any attempt at controlling these nuisances has been met with cries of "what about my civil rights?" It would be nice if they would think of the civil rights of all the neighbors that they are trampling on. But as one protester told the county commission, "I would encourage the commission to weigh heavily the First Amendment rights that we have, because that's really the fundamental thing: free speech, the ability to protest, legitimate dissent in a democracy." Translated into human-speak, that means "we don't give a damn about anyone but ourselves. As long as we're getting all the attention we want, we're not going to move."

And the city council's response?

The commission will publicize the petition and advertise a public hearing, to be held in about four weeks. Then, county commissioners will vote on the ordinance.

Oddly enough, That is right after Bush plans on leaving the ranch and Sheehen has said that she will leave when Bush does.

Posted by: Drew at 02:30 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 1 kb.

James Joyner points to a critical article about the Sheehan phenomenon by Christopher Hitchens. In the article he coins an astonishingly powerful concept describing what Sheehan and others on the Left (and some on the Right) are attempting to do: "ventrilquizing the dead." I slightly disagree with The Hitch's point that Cindy has no more moral authority than anyone else, however. I don't think it outrageous to claim that Cindy Sheehan does have some moral authority that I, for instance, lack. But it seems to me that if there's such a thing as "moral standing" to comment on a war, it resides a great deal more with those who are actually serving, and especially those soldiers who have also lost friends and comrades in the fight. And it does make sense that those who pay the costs have greater moral authority that those of us who are shielded from sacrifice (by an administration that for some inexplicable reason refuses to ask very much of its citizenry). Let's be realistic.

But Cindy's moral authority hardly cancels that of everyone else, especially those with similar or greater authority, who disagree with her. Nor does it constitute "expertise," as many on the Left insist. Her expertise is singularly, even spectacularly, unimpressive. In that sense The Hitch has vastly greater authority than Cindy. And someone like Michael Yon has both moral and expert authority, as well as that special form of "expert" authority that comes directly from being on the scene: experiencial. Neither of which means that you can't disagree, but you do have a steeper hill to climb, let's face it.

more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 01:27 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 411 words, total size 3 kb.

Chad Evans and I have intercepted a DNC memo.

The memo is titled Democracy at Risk: Strategy for 2006 and 2008, Letter of Direction by DNC Chairman Howard Dean.

[...]

To keep our sources safe I shredded the originals after making electronic copies. I also attempted to flushing the shredded memo down the toilet but quickly realized that there was no evidence of my flushing the shredded memo so obviously I didn't flush the memo even though I might have.

It's quite interesting and a must read. Head on over to Conservative Thinking and see for yourself.

Posted by: Chris Short at 11:06 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

Nothing about this story is pleasant. Israeli security forces entered the main settlement of Neve Dekalim, using a bulldozer and bolt cutters to break down the gates.

From The Courier-Mail:

Around 1000 police and soldiers stormed into the settlement as hundreds of orange-clad protestors tried to block the path of several removal lorries.

Many protestors were thrown to the floor in the violent pushing and shoving as settlers, most of them youngsters, threw themselves at the wall of police barring their way.

At least a dozen youngsters were arrested, most of them dragged off screaming and kicking as the crowd howled in rage: "Jews don't evict Jews," the settlers shouted.

From ABC News Online:

The clash between the police and up to 1,000 pro-settlement protesters took place near the Kissufm entry point between Israel and Gush Katif.

Police say an Israeli army officer was injured in violent clashes which resulted in more than 500 arrests.

Local Israeli police chief Yuri Bar-Lev said another 250 protesters were forced back by his officers.

He described their behaviour as irresponsible and said it could lead to a catastrophe.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 05:53 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

1 There's been enough killing in Gaza already among the Palestinians, I'm not worried about some hilltop wackos.

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at August 16, 2005 07:52 AM (xNiEv)

2 So... Did that Vendyl Jones show the lost Ark of Covenant on TV or did he not prove he found it after all? I want to know since there's no attention at all to the darn box in Finland, eventhough some might find it interresting to see material, fake or not, of whatever supernatural or historically important thingies. And finding it seems to be a sign of apocalypse for some religious/heretic wackoes... =)

Posted by: A Finn at August 16, 2005 09:02 AM (lGolT)

3 Ah young idealistic fools.

Posted by: Howie at August 16, 2005 09:11 AM (D3+20)

4 The IDF gets it coming and going and will end up being vilified by some for eternity. That is sad because they are among the bravest and best in the world. This is a hard time emotionally for many of us. The youth are doing what normal youth do .. but you will notice there is an absence of explosive belts and remote controlled roadside bombs with this group. These people are suffering horribly and all the world does is watch through media and made idiotic comments.

Posted by: Bubbe at August 16, 2005 09:23 AM (cbAi4)

5 My heart breaks for these people, being forced to turn their home over to rabid muslim parasites. Yesterday, someone described the pull out as someone murdering your child, and then giving the killer your child's bedroom. So true. :/ LGF has a Gaza Watch photo page... http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/gazawatch.php Scrolling through the pics, yesterday, I was reduced to tears when I reached the picture of the surfers watching the waves.

Posted by: Princess Kimberley at August 16, 2005 09:48 AM (8sXP/)

6 This is just awful. My heart is heavy with sorrow for these people.

Posted by: Insomniac at August 16, 2005 09:57 AM (IEpte)

7 Given what we know about “The Religion of Peace” and it’s influence on the people of this region, does anyone think that having Israel give up ALL disputed “occupied lands” will end the territorial demands of her neighbors? I sure don’t. All they have accomplished is to move the battle lines closer to home.

Posted by: Brad at August 16, 2005 10:07 AM (6mUkl)

8 I feel bad for the settlers, and I think the pullout is a mistake. It will be used as an example that the terroristic tactics work, and far from seeing less of that in Israel, we are likely to see more. The PLO, doesn't even have enough countrol over it's own people to make any outcome other than a full resumption of violence likely. I pray I am horribly wrong.

Posted by: Defense Guy at August 16, 2005 10:44 AM (jPCiN)

9 This move will do nothing to improve Israel's global image. It's a shame because of how much these Iraelis ("settlers" is such a stupid term)have achieved there, making a scrubby, god awful piece of real estate beautiful and productive. However it does give the media a small target to focus on. Once the residents are out, the chaos and bloodshed will begin as the morally bankrupt groups fight for control. Only time will reveal how wise this move was. Bubbe is right. Everyone should take note that buses aren't being blown up and people being shot out of disagreement with government policy.

Posted by: Graeme at August 16, 2005 10:54 AM (mR3B8)

10 Anyone who has even a ghost of a clue as to how powerful and efficient the IDF is should be able to see quite clearly which side is evil in this conflict. If the Israelis were truly as hateful and genocidal towards the Palestinians as is claimed, if the Israelis hated the Palestinians as much as the Palestinians obviously hate the Joooos, the Palestinians would all have been dead long ago.

Posted by: Brian B at August 16, 2005 11:19 AM (CouWh)

11 BINGO!!!!!....Brian, you are right on target, dead on...and yet the leftists like DSM claim that the Palies are the victims, are sooooooooo helpless and oppressed by the evil Jews...what a frickin joke...watch how fast the Palies turn all that was green back into barren desert and how quick they make up any weak excuse to attack the Israelies again, and now the terrorist Palies will be even closer to targets...this pullout is a huge mistake by Sharon...yes, it will free up some troops, but they will be busy enough once the Palies start up their bs again

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 16, 2005 11:44 AM (IJ51c)

12 watch how fast the Palies turn all that was green back into barren desert Two growing seasons. Three tops.

Posted by: Brian B at August 16, 2005 12:14 PM (CouWh)

13 Rags, wretchedness, poverty and dirt...

Posted by: Princess Kimberley at August 16, 2005 04:16 PM (8sXP/)

14 One injured in violent clashes with hundreds? Ah! the media again.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 16, 2005 10:26 PM (CBNGy)

15 Give them an inch and they'll want a country.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 16, 2005 10:27 PM (CBNGy)

16 DOWNING STREET MORON: Why are you posting here? Whats the matter. Having a few technical problems at downing street memo.org? Ha, Ha, Ha, ha.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 16, 2005 11:19 PM (CBNGy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

"In their secret hiding places, while celebrating newly won fortunes with their fellow brass, these men must surely congratulate themselves with orgies of carnal pleasure as they mock the multitudes who are yet so blind as to mistake them for God's devoted servants." (Mother Sheehan)

W: Good job there, Rummy. Really pulled the wool over their eyes.
Rummy: Thanks, Boss. The fools, they think we're from Jesus.
W: Ha! You too, Cheney. Nice work.
Cheney: Gee, thanks! Can we have sex now?
Condi: Yay!

That's just pathetically weird all around. And the wording is such that it was obviously written in advance--it wasn't just a little grief-bubble slipping through. "And I am sure the President and his cabinet have orgies, too! I just know it, for lo, I am grieving, and using polysyllabic words."

Can you guys imagine the derision that would follow if some righty-type person denounced the left, and as a crowning rhetorical flourish added "and...and...I'll bet they probably have sex, too." I could at least see some sense in that, as lame as it would be, since you would then be attacking the libertine left instead of preaching to them.

The funny thing is that I found this at World Magazine's (an evangelical Christian magazine) blog, where even they are astonished by it.

Posted by: seedubya at 02:57 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 1 kb.

It's usually redundant for me to link and comment on a Mark Steyn piece; as if people out there are saying "Oh, really? You think I should read this? Mark who? Is it good or something?" Most of you probably know already that if it says Mark Steyn at the top, it's worth reading, and have probably read it already.

Well, don't miss this one on Oil-for-Food. If you're like me there's often a temptation to see a piece about OFF and think, yeah, this UN guy was this other dude's accountant's pool boy who was partners in a shell company with that guy who was supposed to inspect Qusay's pipeline...zzz...um, KOFI LIED IRAQIS DIED, right? Okay, moving on...

Don't do that this time. Steyn wraps it up nicely and here 's some of the good part all in one paragraph:

By happy coincidence, Under-Secretary-General Strong and Kojo Annan were both appointed, on the same day, to the board of a company called Air Harbour Technologies, a business registered in the Isle of Man and whose directors also included Michael Wilson, the guy under investigation for the UN office renovation contract in Geneva. It's a small world, at least at the UN. AHT was wholly owned by the son of Sheikh Yamani, the former Saudi oil minister. Yamani Jnr was putting together a $60 million oil deal with Saddam, and seemed to think the presence of UN officials and offspring on his board might help him.

Oh, and that one guy (benon Sevan) who claimed he got all that money as a gift from his elderly aunt? I didn't realize this, but his aunt isn't around to contradict him because she fell down an elevator shaft and died.

Who goes out like that? I've never actually heard of that happening, outside of Raymond Chandler nvels and as a throwaway line in The Usual Suspects. What, would it have been too subtle to have her shoot herself in the head six times with a double-barrelled shotgun?

Posted by: seedubya at 02:00 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.

Al Qaeda has claimed to have downed an Apache helicopter in Iraq and has posted a video online to bolster that claim. The video can be found here (see August 15th). Images from the video posted below.

SITE:

Today, August 13, 2005, al-Qaeda in Iraq released two claims of responsibility to a jihadist message board. In the first statement, the group announces an attack which “disabled” an Apache helicopter “in the area of al-Radwaneya in West Baghdad,” where the mujahideen claimed to have set up “an ambush.”

Posted by: Rusty at 03:31 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 2 kb.

Click for larger image.

Counterterrorism Blog contributor Evan Kohlmann has a collection of new al Qaeda posters aimed at undermining the new Iraqi constitution. Al Qaeda reminds Iraqis that they believe election centers are legitimate targets and any one voting in the constitutional referendum is abetting the apostate government. Al Qaeda also reminds people that it believes democracy is against the will of Allah. Expect an upsurge of violence targetting any one associated with the Iraqi government.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:45 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

CNN is reporting that the Iraqi constituiton has been accepted leaving two issues to be resolved by parliament. Those issues as of this AM were to what extent various regions would have local power in a federalist system. The other was to what extent Islam would be part of the new government.

Updated : CNN has full story now.

Nasar al-Rubaie, a member of the committee drafting the document, said the document would be handed over to the 275-member National Assembly late Monday for a decision on the two unresolved issues -- women's rights and self-determination. Jalaldin al-Saghir, a Shiite member of parliament, said the same thing but refused to identify the two remaining issues.

Updated again: It seems the national assembly has asked for 7 to 10 days to review this draft. If the issues are not worked out the assembly will dissolve itself and the whole thing starts all over.

The committee drafting the document had asked for an extension after it failed to reach a compromise by Monday's deadline after months of talks. The new deadline is August 22. Without the extension, the government would have dissolved, requiring new elections in December and starting the process again. Two Shiite officials told The Associated Press earlier Monday that Iraqi politicians had agreed on a draft constitution but delayed a decision on two key issues. The president's office told CNN no such deal had been reached.

Also here on ABCNEWS.

Yep fast is not always good. So now we get seven to ten more days. I've noted that in this part of the world no one agree's until the last minute. Well they've found some more minutes. I expect this will go on right up until the 22nd possibly until the early hours of the 23rd.

Posted by: Howie at 12:43 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

Donald Sensing, on Winds of Change points to the implications of some counterintuitive (for idiotarians at least) statistics documented by Strategy Page. Turns out the annual death rate in Iraq, so far in 2005, is less than half what it was under Saddam Hussein. It has dropped from over 100 deaths per 100K (not counting those who died in the Iran/Iraq war) to about 45. This is also lower than the death rate in South Africa, the only African country that keeps good statistics on the figure, and probably far less than some place like Darfur, which doesn't even figure on the idiotarian radar.

So next time someone brings up "the terrible cost of the war for Iraqis" you can say that the coalition not only brought democracy to the country, but cut the death rate in half!

(Cross-posted by Demosophist to Demosophia)

Posted by: Demosophist at 11:43 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.

Terrorists from the Mahdi Army loyal to radical Shia leader Moqtada al-Sadr have freed four hostages in Iraq from Sunni terrorists loyal to al Qaeda. One of the freed hostages was an AP photographer. BBC:

Followers of radical Iraqi Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr say they have rescued four hostages from their kidnappers hours before they were to be killed.

Members of Mr Sadr's Mehdi Army freed the four Arab hostages from "terrorist groups" holding them in Baghdad, an aide to the cleric said....

"Members of the Mehdi Army have freed some Arab and Iraqi hostages, kidnapped by terrorist groups who were planning to kill them in the coming hours," he was quoted as saying.

The freed men identified themselves to an Associated Press photographer as Syrian Hisham Salem, Lebanese Mustafa Abdul-Rassoul Hussein, dual Syrian-Lebanese citizen Atta Ibrahim and Iraqi Kurd Haji Alawi.

A spokesman for Mr Sadr, Amer Husseini, was quoted by AP as saying the men were freed on Thursday night during a raid on an apartment in the northern district of Shaab.

He did not say what happened to the kidnappers or why the men had been seized in the first place.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:38 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.

Cox and Forkum on Sheehan's antisemetic moonbattery.

Glenn is back which means no more Instapundit linkage for the Jawa. Well, it was fun while it lasted. While enjoying your Puppy Blended Protien Smoothie, why not enjoy the Religion of Peace Roundup?

News of the ROP, Tatooine, The Rebel Alliance, and Tusken Raiders:

Potential terror arrest at Canadian border. Two Muslims arrested trying with guns and ammo.

Iraq Constitution deadline approaching. Pray.

Zarqawi aide killed in Mosul, head still remains attached to body.

MILF plot against US and British interests. I said MILF.

Want to read the good news from Iraq? Then do not read this. Nothing to see here folks, move along. (via Glenn)

Terror website posts map of D.C. metro, advocates using chemical weapons there. I will be in D.C. in a couple of weeks. Scary.

Spanish authorities overlooked terror tips and intelligence that could have prevented Madrid train bombing.

Large chemical facility probably used by insurgents to make bombs.

Yes, we won the Vietnam War before lost it. Kissinger and how the Democrats snatched defeat from the mouth of victory in Vietnam. Learn this lesson well oh ye who call for immediate withdrawal. (via Steve Green).

Pakistan gives author life sentence for blasphemy.

Inspiring poetry.

How the the American Bar Association screwed up the war on terror.

Vigilantes. The good kind. Sunnis kick al Qaeda out of Ramadi.

Iran supporting new terror groups in Iraq. Not surprising.

2/3 of countries with extreme gender imbalances belong to the ROP.

Another progressive leaves the ranks of his fellow-travellers over the Left's truce with al Qaeda.

Dommestic Dhimmis
Howard Dean: Poster child of dommestic dhimmis.

David Duke endorses Cindy Sheehan.

An ode to Cindy Sheehan.

Billy Carter. Roger Clinton. Neal Bush. Cindy Sheehan. Howard Dean.

Crawford protest comics. Because INDcent Bill stopped doing it........shhhhh, we're hunting moonbats.

Cindy Sheehan. Cindy Sheehan. Cindy Sheehan!

My favorite Bill Clinton songs all on one CD? Yes!

Cindy Sheehan is Christopher Walken. That would explain why you never see both of them at the same protest.

Cindy Sheehan video. Scary.

Blog Propaganda
John Cole has this week's RINO sightings.

The Jawa Report is a Mortal Human! Jawa Report uber alles!!

Danny Carleton (aka, Jack Lewis) writes a script for the cheapest blog ad deals. The vacationing Commissar--and adopted blogfather of the Jawa-- of The Politburo Diktat takes near top honors in best deal for month to month advertising rates. Be very careful about traffic flow statistics, though. One way to fool people about traffic is to close public viewing of sitemeter statistics shortly after a spike in traffic. This fools the ecosystem into freezing site stats at an artificially high number.

Paul is boycotting Drudge until pop-up ads are removed. Heh.

Secure Liberty is one year old. Congrats.

Decision '08 has new digs. Kewl.

Basil is no nerd, but he is a geek. Star Trek convention? Dude.....

Help me Allah-ben-Kenobe...come.. back......please......

Posted by: Rusty at 09:13 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 504 words, total size 7 kb.

Don't the American people understand the danger of letting the Supreme Court become, in essence, a partisan of one side in a closely divided nation?

William Raspberry in today's Washington Post arguing the dangers of allowing Roberts to be nominated to the Supreme Court. I think what he meant to say was:

Don't the American people understand the danger of letting the Supreme Court become, in essence, a partisan of the right?

Posted by: Drew at 08:17 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

I've decided to not only touch the third rail, but to just take a stroll down it for a while. I'm sure my evolutionary detractors will be back to call me an idiot and continue to offer no proof of their lofty ideas. All I can say to them is "have at it."

Fetal Stem Cells - The New McCarthyism?

That may sound like an extraordinarily odd comparison until you stop and think about it a bit. Just as McCarthyism, fetal stem cell research started with a laudable goal. These fetal stem cells, being as-yet unformed, should be able to be coerced into any tissue in the human body. After all, thatÂ’s exactly what they do when the fetus develops. And if this is true, then we should be able to create cures for nearly anything from them.

Unfortunately, that is where the good comparisons end. As McCarthyism became a cause celebré, so has fetal stem cell research. People have jumped on the fetal stem cell research bandwagon without a hint of what’s going on behind the scenes. They’ve been told that the fetal stem cell research will be a cure-all, and they refuse to believe anything else. And again, just like with McCarthyism, detractors of this research are being labeled as fools and heretics and ostracized. If you attempt to tell the truth about this research, then you are made out as an uncaring ogre who wants to see people continue to suffer with paralysis and Parkinson’s and all manner of other ailments.

But the truth of the matter is quite simple. To date, scientists have not come up with one single cure for anything from fetal stem cells. WhatÂ’s more, some of their attempts have had disastrous results. The list of solutions created by adult stem cells continues to grow, from healing damage caused by heart disease to treating cancer victims, people who are paralyzed, arthritis sufferers and many others. And yet, the research is treated as second place by fetal stem cell proponents who insist that only by harvesting fetal stem cells can we cure anything.

The final comparison between fetal stem cell proponents and McCarthyists lies in the conclusion to the battle. During his infamous career, Joe McCarthy was not afraid to lie, slander and simply make up rumors about his opponents and detractors. There is no telling how many lives and careers he ruined by these actions. WhatÂ’s more, thereÂ’s no telling what sort of possibly permanent damage he could have done to our great nation had he been allowed to continue. Fetal stem cell proponents face the same choices today. If they continue on the same course they have, throwing money away on useless research and dismissing working solutions, they stand to bring problems every bit as bad as McCarthy to this nation and the world. ItÂ’s time that these stem cell researchers got serious about adult stem cell research so that we can really begin to cure some diseases.

Posted by: Drew at 07:57 AM | Comments (40) | Add Comment
Post contains 510 words, total size 3 kb.

1 good points, and important facts often glossed over by the generally one-sided coverage of the issue in the media. on other point i'd like to raise - if we envision a world where somehow fetal stem cells *do* become the "cure-all" for everything, what do you think that'll create? i don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to realize that it'll create a world of 2 classes of people - the wealthy who are users of fetal stem cells, striving (as all humanity always has) for immortality, and a class of poor people who are "farms" used for harvesting more fetal stem cell matter. think about that carefully and you can see that future. so that leaves me with 2 thoughts: 1. fetal stem cells have not cured anything, and even if US federal money wasn't going to the research, tons of private money and european government money WAS, IS and will CONTINUE to 2. if, somehow, fetal stem cells do end up curing a few things, are they things that might not have been cured with adult or placental stem cell matter? 3. wouldn't the cure be worse than the disease - a culture of death where poor people literally harvest their young for the distracted, disenchanged, post-modernistic, relativistic and depraved wealthy?

Posted by: BaldyTheEagle at August 15, 2005 08:09 AM (sU7ox)

2 Good commentary. I wish the debate was honest because at the core of it there are real things we need to hash out. Unfortunately, the debate centers on "Bush killed Christorpher Reeve" sorts of cheap and deceitful debate. Adult stem cell therapies are in the here and now. I know one woman whose cancer treatment was greatly helped by adult stem cell therapy. The doctors were able to use a much stronger chemotherapy because of this.

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at August 15, 2005 09:04 AM (ATby/)

3 If they continue on the same course they have, throwing money away on useless research and dismissing working solutions, they stand to bring problems every bit as bad as McCarthy to this nation and the world. Useless research eh? I'll be happy to know what qualifies you to call an entire field of research "useless." I remember back in 1899 or so, the leader of the patent office of the United States made a speech that said, "We should close the patent office because everything of importance has already been invented." [Of course, it's safe to say American invention was, in fact, in its infancy.] Developing cures for diseases in a brand-spankin'-new field of research stymied by controversy takes time. Many labs are simply trying to figure out the processes of stem cell division and how the stem cells eventually because Cell X or Cell Y because the pathways are complicated and, alone, require research before such research can be used in any sort of curative fashion. Don't be shocked and bewildered when a new field of research fails to immediately cure something. The fact that you think that alone shows your ignorance on the subject.

Posted by: Feisty at August 15, 2005 09:14 AM (EHXJh)

4 Aaaaarrgh!!! Drew, i would offer you a pithing, but it is obvious that you have already had one. check back on your "joining the debate" thread--your questions about theory of evolution were answered by points drawn from high-school curriculae. please allow me to cut you off at the knees. 1. ESCR is qualitatively different from ASCR. Embryonic stem cells are plastic and can differentiate into any sort of somatic or nervous tissue, and are relatively immortal. They are not the same. 2. The reason that there are more quantitative results from ASCR is that research is legal for federal funding. Federal funding is neccessary to develop basic research for new technology. Now, i have to go to work. Do please come up with more frivolous uninformed arguments that i can refute later.

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 15, 2005 09:30 AM (wxUTp)

5 The fact still reamins that there have been no diseases cured with "fetal" stem cells, when in fact, most of the research has produced cancerous cells. I'm not saying that they shouldn't pursue this line, so don't get me wrong. But any benefits dervived from any stem cell research has been from "adult" stem cells. I think the big controversy is that there are those who don't want their "tax" dollars to go to research of the fetal variety. They are not all saying that it should be outlawed and therein lies the problem. Proponents of the reasearch are being told that it is illegal because of the religious right when it is not illegal at all. They are woefully misinformed. And McCarthy was a zealot, but he was right about a lot of people. So it's not like the threat wasn't there. His downfall came mostly from other aspects of his campaign - unreliability and evasiveness, not to mention questionable finances. I would be more inclined to compare the anti-communism of the McCarthy era to the current anti-Islamism of today. The media is behaving in exactly the same fashion now as they did then as well.

Posted by: Oyster at August 15, 2005 09:49 AM (fl6E1)

6 "Federal funding is neccessary to develop basic research for new technology." Not in the United States it isn't. It's sometimes nice when we do fund it, but it sure isn't neccessary.

Posted by: Defense Guy at August 15, 2005 09:50 AM (jPCiN)

7 I would just like to point out that in retrospect, McCarthey was 100% right on the money, and his only fault was the he cast too broad a net in his hunt for stinking commie bastards, and thus derailed his mission.

Posted by: Imrpobulus Maximus at August 15, 2005 10:12 AM (0yYS2)

8 Ah, yes, matoko, I expected no less than the "you are an idiot" argument from you. If you actually refuted an argument, it would be a first. "Embryonic stem cells are plastic and can differentiate into any sort of somatic or nervous tissue, and are relatively immortal." And despite that, NOTHING has come from the research, except, as stated above, recreating cancer. "Federal funding is neccessary to develop basic research for new technology." Are you seriously going to tell me that private sector enterprise has NEVER developed anything? Not one single new invention without government funding? Even if we narrow it to the field of medicine, that statement is completly and totally ludicrous. The fact of the matter is that fetal stem cell researchers are clambering for federal money because they can't get private backers. And they can't get private backers because they can't produce results. "Don't be shocked and bewildered when a new field of research fails to immediately cure something." Of course when someone invented matches, people didn't continue to rub sticks together to start fires. When a field of research doesn't produce results, and another field of research alongside that (that could take the place of it) does, it doesn't make much sense to continue with the original.

Posted by: Drew at August 15, 2005 10:13 AM (Ml8z/)

9 Are we sure matoko kusanagi isn't the perfesser's twin? Sheesh. How much more pomposity can we take? Okay Mr. know-it-all-motoko, adult stem cells are plastic too. Though they may be harvested from certain tissues they are present in for the purpose of regeneration of that particular tissue, they are still plastic and may be used to regenerate cells for other tissues. Adult stem cells will even relocate themselves to sites of injury or damage, although they don't know why or how. Drew has already addressed your statement #2. Read this for Stem Cell Basics

Posted by: Oyster at August 15, 2005 12:03 PM (fl6E1)

10 "Federal funding is neccessary to develop basic research for new technology." Only because the free market has chosen to allow/demand the federal government subsidize their reasearch and is unwilling to take risks, spending their own money on research that has a lot of promise but could very well be "worthless". The fact that other countries have governments willing to subsidize such research only serves to reinforce this role of government in the minds of advocates of this research.

Posted by: h0mi at August 15, 2005 01:36 PM (zpJBl)

11 When a field of research doesn't produce results, and another field of research alongside that (that could take the place of it) does, it doesn't make much sense to continue with the original. And bravo! if adult stem cells produce more useable cures than embryonic. Let's let--get this--scientists figure out when something isn't worth researching anymore. Millions of dollars have been spent researching a cure for Alzheimers. I think since we have yet to discover a cure for Alzheimer's, it must be incurable and we should give up researching it because we'd put forth the college try for many decades and have come up with nothing useable. Sure, we've gained insight into the disease processes involved, but big whoop. Let's just call it quits ok? Why waste money on all this research that doesn't go anywhere? We should fund nursing homes instead so all the people with Alzheimer's can go there. Same with embryonic stem cells. We've been working on that for what...a decade now? A decade's a long time to be working on something and not come up with anything. Call it quits, people. Throw in the towel. It's been a whole DECADE after all! I think that AIDS is incurable too. Billions and billions of dollars spent. I think we should give up. Who's with me!?

Posted by: Feisty at August 15, 2005 02:01 PM (EHXJh)

12 You're kidding, right?

Posted by: Oyster at August 15, 2005 02:40 PM (fl6E1)

13 We haven't found something else that will cure Alzheimers or AIDS. We have found something else that will do everything that you want fetal stem cells to do. So your point on that is a little irrelevant. Sure, let scientists decide. Or more importantly, let the people who give the scientests their money decide. Just don't continue taking my money and throwing it at things that I don't agree with and aren't getting anywhere.

Posted by: Drew at August 15, 2005 03:06 PM (4jQYX)

14 Biology really really is the science of the future. The idea that we know 1% of what we will on another 100 years is misguided. Everyine thougt Jules Verne's voyage to the moon was a pipe dream until july 20 1969. Rocketry was about 100 years old at that time. Cloning wil be the same. We should not give up just because we are ignorant. Do we have a funeral every time a fertilized egg that does not attach itself to the uterine lining is flushed during menstration. No we are not even aware of it but nature knew something was wrong. This machinery is complicated it takes decades to unravel. We are arrogant to think we know even a smidgen of how this all works and fits together. Preventing polio was once thought to be impossible.

Posted by: Howie at August 15, 2005 04:01 PM (D3+20)

15 Thanks Howie. Of course, I was applying Drew's criteria for discontining of research in an entire field, that being, of course, not discovering cures for disease within a decade or so, to other research as well to show how ludicrous that criteria is. If medical research were to cease after a decade of not producing results, most if not all modern treatments wouldn't have been discovered. Properly carried-out research takes years and years to turn into treatments that can be shown to work on humans. We have no pills to cure Alzheimers after billions of dollars of research. Therefore, the pharmaceutical industry shouldn't spend money on pills anymore. No different than, "The infantile field [double entendre--get it?] of embryonic stem cell research hasn't cured anyone of anything yet; therefore, scientists should stop with embryonic stem cell research." Drew, you're simply someone that opposes it on moral grounds, which is fine and dandy. Just don't try to cloud it in some sort of "this is useless science" nonsense. You're more than welcome to oppose something on moral grounds (even though that argument is flimsy at best), and I'd appreciate your honesty in simply saying you think embryonic stem cell research is immoral and not hopeless.

Posted by: Feisty at August 15, 2005 04:43 PM (cdWsN)

16 Why you're welcome Feisty. I've got to go see what you're up to. Bummer though most of your coolest links get blocked here.

Posted by: Howie at August 15, 2005 04:52 PM (D3+20)

17 I figured the firewalls were working overtime to stop the wandering eyes of those who seek commentary that may or may not be laced with whimsical innuendo, but feel free to stop by and shower me with comments and/or compliments after you are able.

Posted by: Feisty at August 15, 2005 05:18 PM (cdWsN)

18 Wow, feisty, I'm glad to see that you know me so much better than I know myself. Let me give you a little advice. When I say something, it's because that's what I mean. Just like when I say you're a moronic little bitch, that's what I mean. Don't come up here and tell me what I mean because you'll never know unless you simply READ WHAT I SAY. Just because some scientist hand-feeds you some research doesn't mean that it's worth a shit. Why don't you try opening your eyes and thinking for yourself a bit. Heck, who knows, you might even find out something about the world around you. Since you're obviously too simple to get it the first two times, I'll say it once again. If there is competing technology that outpaces a certain technology, then there's absolutly no sense in throwing money into something that is not working. It would make just as much sense to throw more memory and a bigger hard drive into your 486. That is what I said and that is what I meant. We have no pills to cure Alzheimers after billions of dollars of research. Therefore, the pharmaceutical industry shouldn't spend money on pills anymore. No different than, "The infantile field [double entendre--get it?] of embryonic stem cell research hasn't cured anyone of anything yet; therefore, scientists should stop with embryonic stem cell research." THAT is not what I said. If that was what I meant, then I would have suggested just throwing all of the research away and not doing anything else. But if you'd bother to read any more than the parts you object to, you'd see that I'm simply advocating an alternate line of research that is producing FAR more results with FAR less money and time invensted.

Posted by: Drew at August 15, 2005 06:23 PM (HQiW4)

19 Oyster: If you keep calling Motoko Mr. I will start calling you sir. Wish I knew what all of you are talking about.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 15, 2005 07:39 PM (TBvsM)

20 oyster, you are an idiot too. Or perhaps, like drew, you simply cannot read. Okay Mr. know-it-all-motoko, adult stem cells are plastic too. Though they may be harvested from certain tissues they are present in for the purpose of regeneration of that particular tissue, they are still plastic and may be used to regenerate cells for other tissues. Adult stem cells will even relocate themselves to sites of injury or damage, although they don't know why or how. Somatic cell reprogramming, also known as dedifferentiation, is still in the research phase. There are absolutely no instances of ASCs performing as you describe. And even if science can solve dedifferentiation, the resulting lines will not be immortal. And i am a grrl, dammit!

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 15, 2005 08:16 PM (wxUTp)

21 Ah, Drew comes out with the "...you're a moronic little bitch, that's what I mean." Like I haven't heard that one before; I'm a prostitute, remember? It's gonna take a oratorical ass-whoopin' to offend me. I completely understood what you meant. You wanted us to forget about or poorly fund embryonic stem cell research because currently, as of August 15th, 2005, adult stem cell research shows more promise. You seem to think in terms of black and white, that if today research X looks the most promising, research Y shouldn't be done as if August 15th is somehow the magical day in which we decide which research is good and which isn't so good. This is, of course, as I said, ludicrous since research Y is in its infancy. Medical treatments and computers are in no ways similar, by the way. You don't have to alter a computer's DNA before it even becomes what you know as a computer in order to upgrade it. Are you really going to tell me that you don't have some sort of moral opposition to embryonic stem cell research? C'mon.

Posted by: Feisty at August 15, 2005 08:55 PM (LWLjH)

22 Future Pundit is tracking this subject. http://www.futurepundit.com/ My take on the subject is that too many people are yelling without finding out more on the subject. Bush is blocking _federal_funding_ for ONE, and ONLY ONE line of research. He is not blocking private funding, nor is he blocking federal funding for any of the many other possible lines of research. Stem cell research is in its infancy, and no one is in a position to say that Bush is blocking (part of) the funding for the most promising investigation path. If what Bush was blocking was worth getting worked up over, there would be no reason to get worked up over it because private investors would be lined up, money in hand.

Posted by: Pillep at August 15, 2005 09:15 PM (zNjIG)

23 Yes it's nice to see Drew following in the footsteps of great Americans like Anthony Comstock. Bring back the Comstock act!!!! Hey lets all get out our horse and buggy.

Posted by: Howie at August 15, 2005 09:16 PM (D3+20)

24 Drew is a frackin' Luddite.

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 15, 2005 11:02 PM (wxUTp)

25 Oh, ouch! Between Howie's rapier wit and matoko's biting commentary I just don't know how I'm going to survive. Yes, the two of them are shining examples of evoltion at work. Breed all the original thought out of people so that they can have plenty of brain space left over to echo popular opinion. Yes, I could stand here insulting them all day simply because they make it so easy. But that's not the point, is it? As the two of you and your friend feisty have nothing of value to add to the conversation and certainly no rebuttal for facts that I have presented, I shall now assume you are not worth answering and simply ignore any further spewings of rhetoric presented by you.

Posted by: Drew at August 16, 2005 05:24 AM (HQiW4)

26 Feisty: I certainly oppose embryonic stem cell research due to religious convictions. I'm not sure about Drew.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 16, 2005 08:29 AM (x+5JB)

27 drew, i have rebutted all your "facts", both on ESCR/ASCR and theory of evolution. Show me one fact that i have neglected to rebutt. Comparing ESCR to McCarthyism and proposing that theory of evolution not be taught in schools are just silly, riddickulous, outside the pale of thoughtful posting. You must be deliberately trying to provoke me.

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 16, 2005 08:31 AM (wxUTp)

28 All you've said is that adult stem cells are not "plastic" and aren't "immortal." Both of which seem to be in question. As I don't know one way or the other about that, I'd have to say that oyster has as much chance of being right about that as you. Actually, with some of your far-fetched ideas, he has much more of a chance of being right. Be that as it may, though, you've simply managed to prove my point. Just as "communist huners" of the McCarthy era used propaganda and simply shouting down their opponents, so do fetal stem cell research supporters. You have yet to answer the basic question of "If adult stem cells are working just fine, why not use them?" except that they aren't plastic and they aren't immortal. Which doesn't seem to amount to a hill of beans when the fact remains that they're doing what they're supposed to do.

Posted by: Drew at August 16, 2005 08:40 AM (Ml8z/)

29 My apologies for calling you a Mr. The difference between you and I is that I was called Mr., Sir, him, he, etc. for a while and I didn't get upset. Again, my apologies for assuming you were a man. However, I won't apologize for insuating you were pompous. Because you are. I'm not going to argue semantics with you over something we probably generally agree on. I personally have no opposition to either form of research. I'm not saying they should stop. I AM saying that the moral implications must be thought over when it comes to tax dollars. Why should those who oppose it so vehemently be forced to pay for it? I think that deserves some consideration. What I DO have opposition to is the implications of so many that embryonic stem cell research is more promising than the adult stem cell research when it in fact is not at this point. And the idea that throwing tax money at it to try to bring about that wish when there is no promise that it will be more viable is irresponsible. Even the medical journal, Lancet, that actually favors embryonic stem cell research, said there was too much sensationalism and hype. Embryonic stem cells have been, and continue to be, unwieldy. And they have been researching embryonic stem cells for twenty years, not ten. How many conditions have been successfully treated with either research? Adult stem cells - around 60 Embryonic stem cells - 0 I'll not say another word on the matter.

Posted by: Oyster at August 16, 2005 10:31 AM (fl6E1)

30 Drew I don't disgree with you that some adult stem cells have applications. The heart thing is a good example. But note that the cells used in that procedure have to be extracted from the bone marrow. So yes adult stem cells have applications when you can locate them and get to them. Also no chance of rejection. They are not even sure which cells extracted from the bone marrow are the ones that take up residence in the heart and become heart tissue to heal the scar from the heart attack. It's a shotgun approach. So even this approach has led to treatments. Fetal stem cells well I don't really like where they come from either. But Frist does have good idea. These eggs are going to be pitched anyway. The cancerous cells actually are caused by our poor knowlege of cloning and how the egg sets the DNA to be "young". South Korea is leading the field on this. I'd hate to have to see you go all the way over there for a new liver someday. So yes adult cells do have applications and more will be found. When they turn out to be useful they should be used rather than cloning. But it is also possible that cloned stem cells from donor eggs from the same female line as the patient and the patients own DNA may have applications that adult stem cells don't. One day my hope is that these cells can be extracted from the fetus before birth without damage to the fetus. Adult stem cells as well as placental stem cells have to be used for related tissues. While useful they are limited. You can't use marrow to make a liver at least not yet. Study of cloned or fetal stem cells from eggs marked for disposal might provide this answer as to how to make adult ones work in this manner. Or might prove the only possible way to produce some tissues. It's just too early. Or we can let South Korea become the next scientific leader. Jefferson had no idea why cowpox infection resulted in smallpox immunity. But maybe since we figured that out we should have left polio measels mumps rubella etc etc etc out of it. Oyster is a girl dude and yes I like Fiesty. Just because she disgrees with you is no reason to resort to name calling. Or are you talking down to the "whore". Your disrespect for the lady justifies the Comstock remark. Likewise I'm sure on the spewing. I don't see a single link for your argument just your opinion. So why are you asking for scientific rebuttal of an opinion while being intolerant of the opinions of others.

Posted by: Howie at August 16, 2005 10:57 AM (D3+20)

31 The old should protect the young and the weak. Not the other way around.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 16, 2005 11:06 AM (x+5JB)

32 Still wish I knew what all of you are talking about. YBP: I used to agree with you. Now that I'm getting old, I think the young should protect the old. Ha. Quit complaining about the name calling. We are getting better and better all the time. Anyone remember 6 months ago. Very good discussion going on here. However, I wouldn't know a stem cell if I seen one. BUT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE FRIGGIN JAWAS. What are the camel riding, goat humping raghead terrorists doing? Can we stem cell the bastard terrorists out of existence?

Posted by: greyrooster at August 16, 2005 10:46 PM (CBNGy)

33 from the instapundit: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8805408/ this is the state of the art in dedifferention. but don't get too excited yet--the fusion technique requires fusing ESCs with adult cells. And parthenogenis is essentially cloning, the oocyte is stimulated to start division mechanically without the addition of external genetic material--the resulting embryo will be an exact copy of the mother. Leon Kass is an idiot, he has obviously forgotten that we have solved the mammalian DNA imprinting problem. parthenogenis is certainly doable--turkeys sometimes reproduce that way naturally, and it is simple to do in frogs.

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 18, 2005 10:11 AM (nF0OH)

34 Oyster, good, we're both grrls--maybe Dr. Shackleford has a mud wrestling pit? By your argument tax dollars from the left should not go a war in Iraq that they do not support. and, don't ask media pundits like drew which research shows more promise--ask scientists. Real scientists want to do both. 10% of all homo sapiens over 65 express some degree of alzheimers. Half of those over 85 have it. Worldwide there are 12 million sufferers. by 2025 there will be 22 million. the US spends over 100 billion dollars per year on alzheimers now. (stats, Dr. Ramez Naam's book, More than Human pg.42) we should be working our butts off finding a cure, wherever the hell it comes from.

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 18, 2005 02:07 PM (nF0OH)

35 Oyster: add the human cost. Grandma is very ill with it. She has been "gone" for several years now. The toll on my Aunts and grandfather are well as bad or worse than the money.

Posted by: Howie at August 18, 2005 02:18 PM (D3+20)

36 oops can't forget me mum. I'm not around home much but still it sucks for me too but not to the extent it does for mum. I'tll be my turn in about 20 years if the current patter holds true great grandma went the same way, I worry about me mum. That is all I'm bummed now.

Posted by: Howie at August 18, 2005 02:22 PM (D3+20)

37 It's funny becuase I just so happen to be doing a research paper on this subject, to where I have injested much information on this topic, and I see that no matter what side most of the posters are arguing on, they really don't understand a lot of the issues with stem cell research. First you can talk about money. Money from the U.S. govt goes to assist not only business, but also colleges and universities, who are probably the biggest recipients of medical research funding when it comes to GENERAL research in a specific field. Universities often advance science, and not business. For those Universities that want to do research using fetal stem cells or embryonic stem cells from a new line other than the ones the govt. said they can use, not only is there no funding for that, but they get money removed from other research that they do. Next, adult stem cells are useful in certain ways and it others they aren't. HSCs are the stem cells that are responsible for giving a new chance to patients who have Leukemia, and it is done via a bone marrow transplant. Because these are adult stem cells, even when a good match is made for a doner, there are still issues with rejection, and many patients who receive mone marrow transplants have to take drugs the rest of their lives to deal with all of the complications caused by mone marrow transplants, and are never fully better. They are alive, and feel that is a better option that death. Adult stem cells are good when they can be harvested from a patient and reused in the same patient, but adult stems cells offer many problems. Adult stem cells are never a valid solution when the doner has a genetic defect, because the genetic defect is passed on to the new cells. Embryonic stem cells are the least differentiated stem cells, and the process of using them for medical therapy means to figure out how to trigger them through the various stages of precurser cells to arrive at a cell the body needs. The problem with using the existing lines of embryonic stem cells is that they have been deemed unsafe for medical usage, becuase of the way they were cultured. This doesn't make early scientists stupid for what they did; it simply means they figured out a way to reproduce stem cells in vitro and wanted to study them. For the person who posted who said they have been studied now for almost 20 years, I think you need to do your math again. The first time embryonic stem cells were successfully removed from a zygote was 1998. When I do the math, this comes out to 7 years. Scientists want to use adult, fetal and embryonic stem cells becuase they feel the more they learn about each, the better the chances of figuring out how to deal with the others, and this is a widely held view in the world of biology, and it is probably correct. Next, fetal stem cells, including those from cord and placenta blood HAVE been effectively used for treatment, and many biologists feel these have the greatest potential. These are more differentiated than embryonic stem cells, so it is easier to trigger them to create specific cells the body needs. They don't get rejected as easily as adult stem cells, and they HAVE been involved in producing some pretty amazing things, which have been published by Universities and scientists from around the world. It is fetal stem cells that have been used to regenerate parts of the brain and damaged heart tissue. It is also cord stem cells that cured a boy that had 5 years to live because of sickle cell. His whole blood system changed without rejection using stem cells from cord blood (60 Min II, The Holy Grail, June 5, 2002). Finally, to the person who made the idiotic comment about it being a WHOLE 10 years and still nothing! If science operated that way, we would still be in the dark ages, idiot! You know, man has been working on creating the sharpest blade for thousands of years. Do you think they have it yet?

Posted by: Spy at October 18, 2005 07:53 PM (9J5rl)

38 It's funny because I just so happen to be doing a research paper on this subject, to where I have ingested much information on this topic, and I see that no matter what side most of the posters are arguing on, they really don't understand a lot of the issues with stem cell research. First you can talk about money. Money from the U.S. govt goes to assist not only business, but also colleges and universities, who are probably the biggest recipients of medical research funding when it comes to GENERAL research in a specific field. Universities often advance science, and not business. For those Universities that want to do research using fetal stem cells or embryonic stem cells from a new line other than the ones the govt. said they can use, not only is there no funding for that, but they get money removed from other research that they do. Next, adult stem cells are useful in certain ways and it others they aren't. HSCs are the stem cells that are responsible for giving a new chance to patients who have Leukemia, and it is done via a bone marrow transplant. Because these are adult stem cells, even when a good match is made for a doner, there are still issues with rejection, and many patients who receive mone marrow transplants have to take drugs the rest of their lives to deal with all of the complications caused by mone marrow transplants, and are never fully better. They are alive, and feel that is a better option that death. Adult stem cells are good when they can be harvested from a patient and reused in the same patient, but adult stems cells offer many problems. Adult stem cells are never a valid solution when the doner has a genetic defect, because the genetic defect is passed on to the new cells. Embryonic stem cells are the least differentiated stem cells, and the process of using them for medical therapy means to figure out how to trigger them through the various stages of precurser cells to arrive at a cell the body needs. The problem with using the existing lines of embryonic stem cells is that they have been deemed unsafe for medical usage, becuase of the way they were cultured. This doesn't make early scientists stupid for what they did; it simply means they figured out a way to reproduce stem cells in vitro and wanted to study them. For the person who posted who said they have been studied now for almost 20 years, I think you need to do your math again. The first time embryonic stem cells were successfully removed from a zygote was 1998. When I do the math, this comes out to 7 years. Scientists want to use adult, fetal and embryonic stem cells becuase they feel the more they learn about each, the better the chances of figuring out how to deal with the others, and this is a widely held view in the world of biology, and it is probably correct. Next, fetal stem cells, including those from cord and placenta blood HAVE been effectively used for treatment, and many biologists feel these have the greatest potential. These are more differentiated than embryonic stem cells, so it is easier to trigger them to create specific cells the body needs. They don't get rejected as easily as adult stem cells, and they HAVE been involved in producing some pretty amazing things, which have been published by Universities and scientists from around the world. It is fetal stem cells that have been used to regenerate parts of the brain and damaged heart tissue. It is also cord stem cells that cured a boy that had 5 years to live because of sickle cell. His whole blood system changed without rejection using stem cells from cord blood (60 Min II, The Holy Grail, June 5, 2002). Finally, to the person who made the ridiculus comment about it being a WHOLE 10 years and still nothing! If science operated that way, we would still be in the dark ages! You know, man has been working on creating the sharpest blade for thousands of years. Do you think they have it yet?

Posted by: Spy at October 18, 2005 07:55 PM (9J5rl)

39 Oh, since some here have posted that stem cell research has yeilded nothing, here is an article posted on the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services website. This is another example of where this research is going. If you care to do any kind of research, you will see that there are many examples of treatments that are about to be either made available for humans, or are in the process of being tested for future treatment. http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.asp?docID=528378

Posted by: Spy at October 18, 2005 10:47 PM (9J5rl)

40 vs spy

Posted by: Howie at October 18, 2005 11:13 PM (D3+20)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

In the Clinton days, the CIA was tasked to get Bin Laden, but they always had to plan to capture him alive. As a result of lawyerly meddling, little was done:

Between 1998 and 2000, the CIA and President Bill Clinton's national security team were caught up in paralyzing policy disputes as they secretly debated the legal permissions for covert operations against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.

And in the first few days of the War in Afghanistan, Tommy Franks had Mullah Omar in his crosshairs, but then consulted his lawyer.

"My JAG"—Judge Advocate General, a legal officer—"doesn't like this, so we're not going to fire."

And now, according to the hot column everyone will be talking about in the North Bergen (NJ) News by Mike Kelly (who talked with part of the Able Danger team), lawyers stepped in once again:

Another target are Pentagon lawyers. The sleuth says he and other Able Danger team members became so concerned during the summer of 2000 that they asked their superiors in the Pentagon's special operations command for permission to approach the FBI. Their superiors approached Pentagon legal experts. Those experts turned down the request.

...

Perhaps just as alarming, even the Able Danger team understood its limits. When lawyers blocked Able Danger's request to approach the FBI, the team simply went back to its work and kept quiet - even after the 9/11 attacks occurred.

I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

Posted by: seedubya at 02:33 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.

Armstrong Williams got in a spot of trouble a while back for taking money from the Education Department. He was rightly raked over the coals for his conflict of interest but has managed to hang on to his syndicated column.

His latest is an about-face on the Iraq question. He thinks we should leave now, because there are suicide bombers there and our mission plan in 2003 was flawed. The evidence of WMD's was not strong enough. Oh, and it will strain our relationship with our allies. Yeah, woohoo, breaking news, must credit Armstrong Williams.

The column would be unremarkable were it written by a sophomore IR major for a college daily. But Williams is a conservative insider, a professional pundit, and a past supporter of the war. This could have been a devastating column. He ought to be familiar with the arguments for the war and be able to refute them convincingly. Instead he merely regurgitates liberal platitudes and fails to throw anything new out there or offer any new insight. Just became aware that there's a problem, eh? This is all it takes? Why did you support the war in the first place? Why change now?

The problem with his past transgression is that it renders his future decisions suspect as well. I wonder whether this is a ploy by Mr. Williams to rehabilitate his reputation and confirm his independence from the Bush Administration. If so, it is an extremely ill-considered gambit. He may get a brief rush of controversy, plus a few speaking engagements from the Angry Left, who'll put him on a rostrum between Cindy Sheehan and Joe Wilson, but in the long run he will alienate his remaining readers.

Not, mind you, because he dares to criticize the war effort, but rather because of his mercurial and poorly-reasoned switch in such a fundamental belief. You won't regain your conservative readership, Mr. Williams, by suddenly realizing that the Iraq War was wrong because France is mad at us now.

Posted by: seedubya at 11:59 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 345 words, total size 2 kb.

Michael Fumento has been "over there" and in a review of the series in Tech Central Station doesn't think much of Over There. Excerpt:

If "Over There" has a true military advisor, he deserves the firing squad. In the first episode a squad is pinned down while besieging a terrorist-filled mosque. The unit remains for about 36 hours with no air support, because "Air is dedicated to another area." Never mind that air cover from jets or helicopters is always available within minutes. They also request artillery, again to no avail. There's no armor. Until near the end of the siege the only guys with a mortar are the enemy.

In order to include women, two females from a transportation unit just happen to join the siege. In fact, they just happen to tag along for the rest of the series! Reality is sacrificed to the God of Diversity.

Towards the end of the show a troop transport pulls off to the side of the road, an idiot thing to do since that's where improvised explosive devices (IED) are almost always buried. Naturally they roll over a powerful IED, even though the bad guys have conveniently marked it with little white flags! A horribly wounded soldier is then evacuated in a type of chopper not used in Iraq.

Clearly this is a military that can't even tie its bootlaces and in the immortal words of Pogo: We have met the enemy and he is us.

Posted by: Demosophist at 10:58 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 450 words, total size 3 kb.