Congress, in its infinite wisdom(cough choke gasp), has passed a law and the president has signed it making it against federal law to annoy people over the internet anonymously. Holy cow that means everything on the internet is now against the law! Also it has special consequences here at the Jawa. I guess Rusty must have the other Co-Bloggers post all that “annoy a terrorist” stuff? It also means that 99% of our comments are now “unlawful”. Don’t forget to email your congressman and the President. Just be slightly more than bothersome, slightly less than annoying and yourself. Whatever the hell that means.

News.com :In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)

Does this mean posts like this or that or here or there or maybe this one are now unlawful?

The article tries to blame Republicans (Sen. Arlen Specter for one) but I also see Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose), and Jerrold Nadler are sponsors as well. This garbage was attached to a “violence against women” bill. Just another reason why I support the idea that a bill should be about what the bill is about. Too often pork and crap like this is put with critical bills because they can’t stand alone. It’s time to put a stop to that and also if a judge doesn’t strike this down PDQ I’ll be surprised.

Hope I didnÂ’t annoy anyone. Oh well WTF IÂ’m me, so screw you hippie!

Also see Ace of Spades HQ.

Posted by: Howie at 12:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.

The sturmtruppers of the only real terrorist nation make Iraqi women cry.

That's an update to my earlier post.

In unrelated news, welcome back Rusty, you're just in time to mark the real Grim Milestone that the media will surely fail to note:

UPDATE:

The AP is reporting that the first surgery was successful.

Posted by: Vinnie at 12:50 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

Radio New Zealand reports that a French engineer held for more than a month was freed when his captors encountered a Coalition checkpoint:

Bernard Planche was released by his captors near Abu Ghraib prison, west of Baghdad, and is with the U.S. military.

Iraqi police say it appeared the captors were trying to move Mr Planche from one area to another when they encountered a joint U.S. and Iraqi army checkpoint.

They then bundled him out of their car and escaped.

A little known militant group called the "Surveillance for the Sake of Iraq Brigade" is believed to have been behind the kidnapping.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:39 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

Scroll through the site. I'll be posting three weeks worth of stuff today. Yes, I'm that good.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:43 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Welcome back Rusty...

Posted by: Dustyvet at January 08, 2006 05:57 PM (M7kiy)

2 Where the F- have you been? You don't call! You don't Write! What is a Filthy man to think(sob...sniff...dab dab.) Thank God for Howie. I LOVE YOU MAAAAN!

Posted by: Filthy Allah at January 08, 2006 09:29 PM (uxn8Q)

3 Where the F- have you been? You don't call! You don't Write! What is a Filthy man to think(sob...sniff...dab dab.) Thank God for Howie. I LOVE YOU MAAAAN!

Posted by: Filthy Allah at January 08, 2006 10:29 PM (Fd0fS)

4 Filthy will now post three weeks worth of comments as well. ;-)

Posted by: Oyster at January 09, 2006 06:25 AM (YudAC)

5 Rusty was gone?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 09, 2006 09:24 AM (0yYS2)

6 Filthy I agree he lets us worry and worry. Ya reckon he does his mom that way too?

Posted by: Howie at January 09, 2006 09:35 AM (D3+20)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Bryan S. and I were on our way to Stone Mountain on Thursday afternoon and I asked Bryan to find us some talk radio to kill some time. It must have been somewhere between 3-4 p.m. local time. Being unfamilliar with Atlanta radio, Bryan found the local Air America affiliate. Big mistake.

The host (some one filling in for Randi Rhodes?) was going on-and-on about what a brave peacemaker Ariel Sharon was. Then, out of nowhere, he inserts a question that went something like this:

"Some might wonder if they did this to Ariel Sharon for the same reason they did the same thing to Yassir Arafat?"

Get it? This is one of those "I didn't accuse any one of trying to murder Sharon, I only asked the question", thus, absolving himself from all responsibility of making the accusation.

Remember to wear your tin-foil helmut while you listen!

Posted by: Rusty at 11:21 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't get the Abramoff "scandall". Seriously.

I've been on vacation for a few weeks, so the only news I've been paying attention to is a bit here and there from TV and radio. Because of this, I'm assuming that I'm about as informed as the average American on the Abramoff scandal right now. That is, I know that there is this guy named Jack Abramoff, that he has been indicted for some reason or another, that he has admitted to guilt, and that he has been a major contributor to the Republican party and a minor contributor to the Democratic party.

From this, the MSM has been running story after story raising 'questions' about those associated with Abramoff. The 'questions' mainly revolve around those who received campaign contributions from Abramoff and his Native American backers. The stories seem to focus on the 'fall out' from the Abramoff scandal rather than the scandal itself. In fact, I know next to nothing about the scandal itself, but I know an awful lot about the 'fall out' from it.

Can somebody please refer me to a good story that will explain the actual crimes committed rather than the 'fall out' from the crimes? I've been way out of the loop, so an MSM story or a blog post would be good. Seriously, I haven't seen a single news story on TV or heard one on the radio that actually explains what crimes Abramoff committed. None.

Editors at MSM outlets have been derelict in their duties--or worse. Imagine if CNN had done weeks and weeks of stories on the "fall out" from the 9/11 attacks, but ran nothing on the attacks themselves. Tonight on Anderson Cooper 360, a roundtable discussion on the Bush Administration's reaction to the al Qaeda attacks. What does this mean to the electoral prospects of the Republican Party?

The only thing I know about the Abramoff case is that he seems to have pled guilty to crimes that are in no way connected with illegal campaign contributions. I only know that because the only substantive discussion of the actual crimes came in a 15 second blurb by Tom DeLay in which he mentioned this. Of course, the news story on Fox in which I saw the bulrb wasn't about the substance of what DeLay mentioned, but about whether or not DeLay would be forced to step down because he had taken free trips paid by Abramoff. DeLay claimed that Abramoff had pled guilty to some scam completely unrelated to campaign finance. Is this tru?

If Abramoff's crimes were unrelated to illegal campaign finance contributions, then what, exactly, is the scandal? Seriously? Is this a simple guilt-by-association type of scandal? So large campaign-donors that turns out to be fellons taints all of those who they give money to? If so, I wonder if Martha Stewart gave money to any politician?

There seems to be some kind of 'scandal' going on here, but for the likes of me I don't seem to see one. The only scandal I see here is poor reporting, coupled with overblown headlines, poured on top of shallow interviews with politicians masquerading as 'tough questions'. I don't get it.

--------

I'm going to spend the afternoon going through e-mail and checking out recent blog posts here and elsewhere. I'll addend this post as I find interersting or relevant articles/posts.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:16 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 586 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Well, it turns out that I get a Comment Submission Error and the Alterne+ dot org site with the summary is questionable. I have tried to post this message several times but have been rejected. Try searching the .org site for ...story/29827.... I hope this helps you.

Posted by: Dale at January 08, 2006 05:52 PM (Dujiz)

2 Well, he admitted to BRIBING the Chairman of the House Administration Committee, Bob Ney (Republican-Ohio). There's a lot more that's going to come out--he's now a cooperating witness.

Posted by: Geek, Esq. at January 08, 2006 06:47 PM (oNxRU)

3 I'm in the same boat as you. I read the initial indictment about SunCruz and couldn't detect the underlying crime. Mail and Wire fraud are nebulous crimes. The actual transmissions don't even have to be fraudulent. The Information about the Indian Casino deal seems to be, in part, about Abramoff overcharging the tribe. Given the amount of money that the tribes saved--or made--as a result of Abramoff, I don't see a crime. Geek, where in the plea deal does it say he admitted to bribing Ney? http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abramoff/abr10406plea.pdf The job of a lobbyist is to gain influence with legislators and to persuade them that their client's position is the right one. I don't see how it can be proved that Ney was bribed. I also don't trust Federal Prosecutors.

Posted by: Sue Bob at January 08, 2006 07:13 PM (cskP4)

4 Please don't quote me, but I seem to remember hearing something about the creation of fake Corporations, and using them for fraudulent billing.

Posted by: dave at January 08, 2006 08:11 PM (CcXvt)

5 I guess Libs are under the impression this makes any difference.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 08, 2006 08:24 PM (8e/V4)

6 Corruption seems to be the new cornerstone of the Republican Party. Abramoff is hardly the only corrupt republican to get caught or caught up in corruption/ethics scandals, or investigations lately - google - cunningham, pombo, ney, noe, scanlon, delay, doolittle, rove, libby, this list could go on for pages and it will. Tha's the Republican Culture of Corruption and Cronyism.

Posted by: steve at January 08, 2006 08:57 PM (6hT/C)

7 Hope you get up to speed soon. It's breathtaking. I've been blogging Abramoff for over a year now. Where've you been? Check out Mohammad Atta being on Abramoff's Sun Cruz gambling boat, and check out the murder of Abramoff's partner, Gus Boulis. For sure the Florida prosecutor will be questioning Abramoff and the other surviving partner Kidan soon.

Posted by: Maezeppa at January 08, 2006 09:15 PM (AsrJM)

8 Three federal counts: Conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud stemming from Capitol Hill influence peddling on behalf of Indian gaming clients.

Posted by: Drew at January 08, 2006 10:53 PM (oxMjD)

9 I saw the McLaughlin Report this morning and it convinced me that there's something pretty rotten here. For one thing, there was apparently a murder involving people that Abramoff had hired to protect from from the person murdered. Maybe there's an explanation, but it looks dark indeed. But more to the point, the speed with which the Republican leadership has managed to produce this level of corruption is staggering, since it took the Dems roughly 50 years to achieve the same level of corruption. My point isn't that Republicans are more vulnerable to corruption, but that something is seriously wrong with "the system." I have no doubt that Dems will succumb just as quickly (or even more quickly) if they come to power. It may simply be that Qutb was right, that there's a "horrible schizophrenia" at the core of western liberalism. It may also be that we can overcome it. (I think we can.) But so far, we haven't even begun. The "ownership society" is, I think, the "way out." But someone had better start taking that seriously pretty soon, or we're really screwed. I feel almost transcendentally angry, and it's not about Michael Moore. Abramoff was one of the people that I'd have trusted implicitly. I was simply gullible, and kind of stupid. His ilk ought never to have been trusted.

Posted by: Demosophist at January 08, 2006 11:42 PM (iObV6)

10 So, do the Indians get their money back or what? How much money are we talking about here? With all this influence peddlin' - did the Indians get their money's worth? - or did they simply get screwed again?

Posted by: hondo at January 09, 2006 12:05 AM (3aakz)

11 indeed, that is why I said not to quote me I was half listening while reading, and I thought they had said something in regards to him setting up Corporations, and using those Corporations to bill clients for services that he did not perform [fake billing?]. My bad.

Posted by: dave at January 09, 2006 12:15 AM (CcXvt)

12 It appears in the plea agreement that he only pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud and wire fraud. That's not the same thing as being convicted of influence peddling. The Government hasn't proven bribery or cheating the Indians and they have dismissed all such charges. Wire and mail fraud are pretty malleable charges. The actual transmissions don't actually have to be fraudulant. They just have to be tied to transactions the government says are fraudulent. This is another instance of a man being convicted (albeit through a plea) without the underlying crime being proved.

Posted by: Sue Bob at January 09, 2006 07:49 AM (cskP4)

13 Demophist, What I read in the Weekly Standard article I linked above, was that at a meeting between Kidan and Boulis (Abramoff was not there), Boulis became angry and allegedly stabbed Kidan in the neck with a pen or pencil. Kidan is the person who hired people to protect him from Boulis, not Abramoff. I'm just trying to parse through all this to see exactly what Abramoff is actually tied to. The MSM is terrible at that.

Posted by: Sue Bob at January 09, 2006 08:42 AM (cskP4)

14 US News & World Report had an informing article on this late last year. Not sure of the exact date but I honestly hadn't heard of any of it till I read their article. Personally I tired of the Dems complaining when you look at their rolls of who took money and how much. Both sides are dirty, period. I'm all for term limits, no long term benefits, and make it where they have to come home and go to work thru the year. It would stream-line the gov't, save tons of money and cut out much of the corruption that is rampant today with the current system.

Posted by: Debby at January 09, 2006 08:43 AM (DbBZu)

15 The scandal is that every sonofabitch in Congress is bought and paid for, regardless of party affiliation, and always have been, always will be. It's really a shame that the plane that crashed in Shanksville didn't make it to the Capitol building, and find every lowlife crapweasel Congrescritter inside; the damned jihadis trying to do us a favor by taking out Congress, though they thought they were hurting us. Just think, no more Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry, et al. They almost saved us that day, but the passengers stopped them in an act of bravery that in retrospect was misguided.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 09, 2006 09:32 AM (0yYS2)

16 Doh! Typo alert:"the damned jihadis trying to do us a favor" should read "the damned jihadis tried to do us a favor"

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 09, 2006 10:25 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

It used to be that it took over 50 years in power for one of the major political parties to become so corrupt that they had to be replaced, and during that time the opposition was compelled to actually learn something of benefit to the culture in order to deserve the mantle. But the Abramoff scandal comes barely ten years after the Republicans finally achieved power in Congress... and even that wasn't absolute. Even as late as 2000 the Democrats were competitive, and even now Democrats have a slight edge in party registration. Yet, the Republicans have managed to manifest one of the most profound corruption scandals in US history and the democrats will have to re-assume control of congress without having introduced a single new idea in 50 years, and during an era in which most Americans simply don't trust them (with good reason) with the security of the nation.

A year ago I would have said that the Democrats were on the verge of extinction as a party, and that by 2008 the future would involve a single-party "unity" government that would eventually spilt into two competing factions, both of Republican origin. Moreover, I don't regard the failure of the Republicans as a misreading of history. They have failed. As far as the economy is concerned they've simply demurred, barely even bothering to pay lip service to some good ideas (originally introduced by a Democrat, Patrick Moynihan). There really is no such thing as the "ownership society" you know, nor is there likely to be within our lifetime. And not only have they done nothing to diminish the deficit, they've done nothing to so much as recognize the primary challenge. For all the good they've done, they might as well have been Democrats.

While it's true that most of the new ideas in governance have come from Republican think tanks, they haven't even addressed the central issue: the comparative nonproductivity of US labor compared to a combination of technological capital and offshore labor. So we now have a situation, in the midst of what appears to be a genuine war (and not, as Michael Moore would have us believe, a "war mirage") where we'll be compelled to switch from one barely competent party, to another decidedly incompetent party, simply because we have no other options. The "engine of competitiveness" has simply not worked and both parties are out-to-lunch. We are sorely bereft of leaders, and of ideas... with an implacable enemy looking down our throats, cocked and ready. Anyone inclined to rejoice had better think again. And there's really no reason to believe we're at the bottom of the curve, either. While the Chinese are scaling up their human potential, we're scaling down. While they're investing we're divesting.

I, for one, am unsure. It's hard for me to even imagine a place for myself, let alone a bright future. I have some ideas, but haven't sold any, let alone myself. Like many in my generation I'm grievously underemployed, and my impression of the thirty-something generation that's currently ready to assume power is that they're impressed by superficial appearance but have not a clue what "substance" means. They're even more vain and distracted than my own generation, if that's possible. They amount to the equivalent of what R.B. Fuller once described as "Industrial Designers" who, if they were tasked with building a ship, would produce a sinking raft of toilet plumbing and wallpaper designs floating down the Hudson to the sea. For the most part they're rather mean-spirited and ignorant brats who will be compelled to learn 40 years of life in 10 just to survive, and who have been handicapped with an unserious attitude about serious things. They'll end up killing most of us before our time.

But you know, I don't really mean that... I'm just saying it for dramatic effect.

Sure I am.

(Cross-posted to Demosophia)

Posted by: Demosophist at 08:28 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 660 words, total size 4 kb.

I have well over 500 unread e-mails. If it was important, please e-mail me again.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:07 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

Can Georgia bloggers party or what? Let me thank Zonker from Thunder and Roses for organizing the Atlanta blog-meet while I was in town. Good times were had by all.

Until the Jan. 5th meeting in Atlanta, I was under the impression that those Rocky Mountain bloggers were the biggest party animals in the blogosphere. Overblown accounts of drunken orgies by Jeff Goldstein and Steve Green left me with that ill-informed impression.

These guys are serious about meeting other bloggers and were the first bloggers to leave me with the impression that they had 'real' relationships with each other that go beyond the occasional post-pimpage or e-mail. The three bloggers from Georgia had all been to larger blog-meets. From their many stories of excess, I'd suggest going to any and all blog-meets put together by Georgia bloggers.

Denny from Grouchy Old Cripple was there. He was grouchy. He was old. He was a cripple. He was a blast. I've never met someone who actually seem to enjoy wine more. Except maybe for this one wine-o, and that was a long time ago. His account of the meet is here.

Key, from Key Issues, was as lovely as she was interesting. Key seems keen on knowing my real identity. Because she was such a sport, here is the post that reveals all. Super-sikret message to Key: about that blog idea of yours, let me know how I can help.

Zonker, from Thunder and Roses, put the whole thing together. It was quite shocking to learn that this tattooed mullet-head actually drove a Honda Civic rather than the 1987 Z-28 Camaro that I was expecting. Thanks for putting it all together Zonker and for the ride back to the hotel.

Besides myself, there were two other non-Georgia bloggers at Jawapalooza, Atlanta. Chris from Signifying Nothing was totally cool and has his account here. Bryan S. from Argue with Signposts was decent enough to hang out with me all day and then to post this picture of every one--including me! Oh, and Bryan, you left your tie in my car!

Next Jawapalooza events: Chicago, April 13th or 14th. London, sometime between May 14th - 20th. E-mail me for details.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:00 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 3 kb.

1 It was great to meet you, Rusty. You'll definitely have to make one of the full-blown Jawja blogfests. Bring a spare liver, though.

Posted by: zonker at January 08, 2006 11:48 PM (/y7q3)

2 I got to meet Jawa Man! And feed 'im a salad! Thanks for the kind words, hon. I look forward to the day that we'll be on a first name basis.

Posted by: Key at January 09, 2006 11:28 AM (ngdyO)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I'm back. Miss me?

Posted by: Rusty at 03:00 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

Whatever it was itÂ’s done now I get to play catch up.

A DemocratÂ’s loyalty $27, this clip priceless!

Via Mudville Gazette : Yes sir my name is Mark Seavey and I just want to thank you for coming up here. Until about a month ago I was Sgt Mark Seavey infantry squad leader, I returned from Afghanistan. My question to you, (applause)

"Like yourself I dropped out of college two years ago to volunteer to go to Afghanistan, and I went and I came back. If I didn't have a herniated disk now I would volunteer to go to Iraq in a second with my troops, three of which have already volunteered to go to Iraq. I keep hearing you say how you talk to the troops and the troops are demoralized, and I really resent that characterization. (applause) The morale of the troops that I talk to is phenomenal, which is why my troops are volunteering to go back, despite the hardships they had to endure in Afghanistan.

"And Congressman Moran, 200 of your constituents just returned from Afghanistan. We never got a letter from you; we never got a visit from you. You didn't come to our homecoming. The only thing we got from any of our elected officials was one letter from the governor of this state thanking us for our service in Iraq, when we were in Afghanistan. That's reprehensible. I don't know who you two are talking to but the morale of the troops is very high."

Iran reaps what it sows. Yes now Al-Qaeda has taken twelve Iranians Hostage. It just seems to me that Iran supports Islamic Jihad right? Just once maybe the Middle East might look at the general support of terrorism to achieve goals that leads to the rise of groups like Al-Qaeda. But no got to blame America. I guess killing all those Al-Qaeda and Taliban is “aiding them”. Well it’s the kind of aid they need in my book.

Foxnews: The Americans use such groups against Iran since they could not directly approach Iran," the Islamic Republic News Agency quoted Iran's Interior Minister Mostafa Pourmohammadi as saying... ..."The kidnappers are under the influence of the Taliban," .

But there is more.

Foxnews : Don't you think that continuation of genocide by expelling Jews from Europe was one of their aims in creating a regime of occupiers of Al-Quds (Jerusalem)?" the official Islamic Republic News agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying (last)Sunday. "Isn't that an important question?"

First of all thatÂ’s just nutty secondly just how did the Jews end up in Europe to start with. Is that not in important question? Again the root source of the problem lies with the Near East but there they go again. Not that Muslims really care all that much anyway.

Funny how this statement From Al-Zawahiri was not released just after the two numbnuts blew up last week.

Asshole Via CNN : “today I congratulate everyone for the victory in Iraq. You remember, my dear Muslim brethren, what I told you more than a year ago, that the U.S. troops will pull out of Iraq. It was only a matter of time.”

Yeah Asshole, if you consider murdering 140 Muslim innocents to get at 11 of our men victory. Oh and you forgot to thank Jack Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and other antiwar Democrats, how rude. We are kicking Al-Qaeda's ass and every time they try it only multiplies the number of those who hate them. They see us as week because thatÂ’s how they perceive you sir. DonÂ’t work to make that that reality.

Al-Jazeera helps out wife of Hostage.

The wife of Norman Kember, a British hostage held in Iraq with three other Western peace activists since November, has appealed through Aljazeera to his captors for his release.

Yes Al-Jazeera has been quite a big help this week. If you are a terrorist and you need to communicate that is. Please, tell us who chose the release time on that tape from Al-Qaeda #2? (we all know what #2 means)

Actually I hope for the release of Norman Kember and the others ASAP. If the terrorists have an ounce of humanity they will release him immediately.

Dusting crops ainÂ’t like flying through hyper-space kid!

Scottsman: The US air force has expressed an interest in the idea and scientists working for the American Department of Energy - which has a device known as the Z Machine that could generate the kind of magnetic fields required to drive the engine - say they may carry out a test if the theory withstands further scrutiny.

IÂ’m sorry that was totally unrelated to anything. Jawa Tradition.

Posted by: Howie at 11:35 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 781 words, total size 5 kb.

Oh, go ahead and call me an intolerant Islamophobe, I could give less than a turd. I find this bottom-of-the-story paragraph quite telling:

About 2 million pilgrims from around the world were expected to perform the rites of the hajj. About 60,000 troops are at the ready to ensure everything runs smoothly. More than 2,000 pilgrims have died at the hajj since 1987.

Unlike, say, the Vatican, or the Temple Mount, no non-Muslim is allowed to step foot inside of Mecca.

If this is the Religion Of Peace, why are 60,000 troops needed to keep order for the hajj?

You are more than welcome to compare this to the number of NYPD used to keep order in Times Square on New Year's Eve, or the number of police used to keep order at the Vatican for the Christmas Mass.

But keep in mind that all manner of faiths, creeds, nationalities, colors, yada yada yada are welcome in Times Square and the Vatican, and Israel.

Seems to me that the real Islamophobes just happen to be Muslims.

Posted by: Vinnie at 02:04 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.

The AP-Ipsos Poll making the mainstream media rounds claims that a majority of Americans want the administration to obtain warrants for all "eavesdropping":

WASHINGTON - A majority of Americans want the Bush administration to get court approval before eavesdropping on people inside the United States, even if those calls might involve suspected terrorists, an AP-Ipsos poll shows.

Party affiliation is a factor, too. Almost three-fourths of Democrats and one-third of Republicans want to require court warrants.

REGISTERED
VOTERS
Strongly Republican .......................... 13
Moderately Republican ..................... 27
Definitely Independent/neither........... 8
Moderately Democrat........................ 32
Strongly Democrat ............................ 20
Refused/not sure............................. -
Total Republican ............................ 40
Total Democrat ............................... 52

So why did AP-Ipsos choose to magnify that split by 300% in their poll? Three guesses, and the first two don't count.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 01:20 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Er, to give lil' ernie a new factoid to screech about?

Posted by: hondo at January 08, 2006 01:53 AM (3aakz)

2 AP and Pew measure party ID very differently. Both methods are defensible but you cannot compare the results the way you have. There was much discussion of party ID measurement before the 2004 elections; check the archives at mysterypollster.com for details.

Posted by: Joe Incognito at January 08, 2006 09:58 AM (Yw+ky)

3 So, Joe Incognito, what you're saying is that Ipsos makes a reasonable claim that only 40% of the electorate is Republican compared to 52% Democrat? I disagree. Btw, AP is the news agency; Ipsos does the polls. Therefore, you "cannot compare" AP and Pew the way you have done.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 08, 2006 10:29 AM (RHG+K)

4 Exactly, Joe Incog, that is the reason we had the networks refusing to call states like No. Carolina for Bush when he had a double digit lead. It was obviously done in an attempt to influence the election in favor of the Democrats. What we needed immediately after the election was an investigation into the pollsters and their methods. I see they are still using their same flawed methods in an attempt to influence public opinion. Of course, they think that reporting the news is no longer their job, but facilitation, now brother, that is what the media is here for. Now we have a media that has entered the realm of Stalinism. And once they embark on their Stalinist adventure, they should not be surprised by the reception they receive from the American people.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 08, 2006 01:24 PM (rUyw4)

5 Maybe they did it to counter-act the results of last week's Rasmussen Poll: http://mediamatters.org/items/200601030004

Posted by: Drew at January 08, 2006 04:17 PM (UHKaK)

6 Yeah, Dave, Media Matters has a worldwide reputation for objectivity. I would certainly believe anything I read there.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 08, 2006 05:39 PM (rUyw4)

7 Kinda like that untarnished cradle of objectivity, the DPB

Posted by: Drew at January 08, 2006 06:02 PM (oxMjD)

8 I don't pretend to be objective, Drew. I'm not an oh-so-fashionable citizen of the world. I'm on America's side.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 08, 2006 11:23 PM (RHG+K)

9 Understood and appreciated.

Posted by: Drew at January 08, 2006 11:38 PM (oxMjD)

10 This is just manufactured outrage. It's an artifact of their coding scheme and the nuances of how people will respond when asked about party identification, which of course is not 1:1 with what they do in the voting booth.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 11, 2006 11:47 AM (CG5Pe)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Sen. Barack Obama on Saturday said the United States will not be successful in Iraq unless the political landscape better represents the country's minorities.

I keep writing something and then erasing it and writing something else. Then I erase it. So I'll sum my thoughts up with one word:

Idiot.

If you read the whole article, note the minority that is noticeably absent from Monsewer Obama's list.

I'll say one thing, the last thing a fledgling democracy needs is exported American liberal stupidity like affirmative action.

Posted by: Vinnie at 12:09 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.

(Orange County, California) Following up on previous reports (here and here), former teacher and prominent child molester, Sarah Bench-Salorio (photos), was sentenced to six years in prison after pleading guilty to 29 counts of lewd conduct with three schoolboys.

From NBC4.tv:

In pronouncing sentence, Orange County Superior Court Judge Richard Toohey said Sarah Bench-Salorio, 29, had violated the trust parents put in teachers.

"One thing the court cannot escape as it relates to this matter ... is it involved the violation of trust ... the defendant being a teacher in the school system," Toohey said.

The judge said parents "expect there will be appropriate conduct" when they put their children in school.

"I realize there is no excuse for what I did," Bench-Salorio said Friday.

Bench-Salorio, an English teacher, entered her guilty plea Sept. 28 and could have been sentenced to a term between three and six years. She would have faced up to 64 years in prison had she gone to trial, defense attorney Allan Stokke said.

According to evidence at a hearing, Bench-Salorio molested three boys ranging in age from 12 to 14.

We must also remember that one boy "estimated the number of times he and his teacher had sex by the condoms in a box that he went through -- 22 of them, he said -- and added that sometimes no condom was used." Bench-Salorio experienced no momentary lapse of judgment. She was engaged in the seduction and long-term, serial sexual molestation of children. The victims' parents called her a "pedophile and sexual predator." I agree.

Given all the circumstances, is six years reasonable punishment? I don't think so. Not even close. Bench-Salorio should be looking at double or triple that amount or more.

Nonetheless, her attorney, Allan Stokke is planning on wheelbarrowing a buttload of boo-hoos on the judge to get her sentence reduced. He'll say the married mother of three foster children is bipolar and suffers from depression and he will present doctor's reports and "all kinds of information" from "various people to show her absolutely excellent background."

What happens next is anyone's guess. Will the judge reduce the sentence? Maybe. It's a California judge in a California court.

Companion post at Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 06:58 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 421 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Could you imagine what sentence I, a 40-something male teacher, would get if I did something like this with female students? Or male students, for that matter.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at January 08, 2006 10:38 PM (iy7Eg)

2 Hmmn. I think it's very interesting that you haven't heard anything in the media from the boys involved. I wonder if they feel victimized, or if this was consensual. If they feel no harm, and they do not feel victimized, six years is far too harsh a sentence. J

Posted by: Jordan at January 08, 2006 10:55 PM (kTN4S)

3 Jordan, by law an underage child cannot be "consensual". Feeling "no harm" or not "feeling victimized" has no merit on child rape.

Posted by: Son Of The Godfather at January 09, 2006 05:57 AM (maXzk)

4 Sara made mistakes in her life, and we cannot let it go unpunished. Does she deserve 6 years NO. She needs to be sentenced to a program where she can get the help she needs. I think it runs far deeper then we will ever know. Maybee look to her parents, and what happend to her as a child. Who can ever tell, but Sara is a good person, and has done 2 year almost in OCJ, I think she should be in a program where she can get the help she deserves, instead of set to prison where she will learn nothing, and have no responsability for her actions, in prison you only lose time, and DONOT get the help that as a human being you should recieve.

Posted by: PC OCJ 01 at January 09, 2006 03:13 PM (D+Me0)

5 Yes, "BY LAW" no minor may be consensual. I think that's pretty stupid. What exactly happens.. .what epiphany occurs on your 18th birthday? I know there's no easy answer to this (and I'm playing devil's advocate a bit , but I think that it's somewhat silly to arbitrarily set an age. I just think it's interesting that the world is drawn to these "newsporn" stories... but we never get to hear from the "victim". I think it's because we want to impose an innocence on them that may or may not be there. And we're afraid to hear the truth. J

Posted by: Jordan at January 09, 2006 11:48 PM (kTN4S)

6 I think she just went into the wrong line of work.

Posted by: Cindy at February 23, 2006 11:32 AM (sMpRz)

7 No matter what anyone thinks, the boys were victims. They were underage and the teacher is in a position of authority over them. You might consider now what are parents or society to think if our morals and values are no longer upheld or respected. It's a shame that our society has anyone who pursues children to satisfy their deviant sexual behavior. What puzzles me is how many view a female predator differently from a male one. This woman got 6 years because she should have known better first of all, and secondly she was an authority figure. She is NOT a victim herself. I agree she may have underlying conditions which lead to her deviant behavior, but it was also her responsibility to seek help when she first realized her thoughts towards the young boys was more than acceptable friendly. We can't feel more sorry for her because she is female. A male or female should be given the same punishment for the same crime. I see some have also questioned why 18 year old is the age that society has chosen to use as the magic age children become adults. This was the most logical age based on mental development of MOST, not all. Maybe it's not the best age to choose, but society needs to set an age for many legal reasons. Some states say as young as 16. But, in order to give children the best chance at being ready to face lives in society as adults that line the sand is drawn at 18 years old as being the age an child is mentally capable of making a reasonable, educated decision for themselves. Consider just how ready is a 14 year old to make a decision that will affect them long term like having a child ??? I think most of us when we're young understand that what we thought we knew at that age.. when we got older we understood things in a different light. So, yes, those boys were victims and they may not realize it until later in life. The fact that the one boy told her parents of the incident says something to that effect. Nobody forced him to talk. Just my 2 cents worth. She got what she deserved...and it probably should be been more considering it was 3 boys.

Posted by: Bob at March 16, 2006 12:45 PM (zz9te)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Terrorists have kidnapped a female American journalist and killed her Iraqi translator:

Scotsman—According to Mohamadawi, the translator told police before he died that she had been kidnapped and that they had been heading to meet Adnan al-Dulaimi, head of the Sunni Arab Iraqi Accordance Front who lives in the Adel neighbourhood - dominated by Sunni Arabs and considered one of toughest in Baghdad.

According to Samir Najim, a guard at al-Dulaimi's office, three armed men in a red Opel car intercepted the journalist's car and shot the translator before taking her in their car and driving away. ...

The journalist's name hasn't been revealed.

Cross-posted at OpinionBug.com

Update (1/7/2005 12:16pm):

The identity of the kidnapped woman remains unconfirmed, but two sources indicate she is Jill Carroll, a correspondent of the Christian Science Monitor:

Sources:

Euro News [ Euro News has removed all references to Jill Carroll ]
Kuwait News Agency (KUNA)
La Repubblica

Hat tip: Free Republic

Update (1/9/2005 3:58pm):

The Sunday Times Online had a story yesterday in which they said Al-Qaeda had released a statement claiming responsibility for her kidnapping:

Times Online—Attempts were being made last night to locate an American journalist who was kidnapped in Baghdad yesterday after a meeting with a senior Sunni politician. Her Iraqi translator was killed, writes Ali Rifat.

Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the kidnapping in a statement posted on the internet. ...

Jill, we're praying for your safe return.

Posted by: OpinionBug at 07:33 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

Matt Drudge Report is reporting that Senate Democrats are planning a final, scorched-earth attack against Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito:

Democrats hope to tie Alito to Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP).

Alito will testify that he joined CAP as a protest over Princeton policy that would not allow the ROTC on campus.

THE DRUDGE REPORT has obtained a Summer 1982 article from CAP’s PROSPECT magazine titled “Smearing The Class Of 1957” that key Senate Democrats believe could thwart his nomination!

In the article written by then PROSPECT editor Frederick Foote, Foote writes: “The facts show that, for whatever reasons, whites today are more intelligent than blacks.”

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:21 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

From the Edmonton Journal:

Canada's forests may actually worsen global warming rather than cool the planet, says a controversial study by a Stanford University physicist and environmental scientist.

Trees soak up massive amounts of energy from the sun. Much of this, he argues, is gradually released in the form of heat, especially in dark evergreen forests in the north, but also in temperate forests.

Unlike tropical forests, Canadian forests don't release much cooling moisture.

His computer model indicates that this warming influence is more powerful than the cooling job that forests do when they soak up carbon dioxide.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 02:24 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.

Reports are circulating that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has died. Certainly he is very ill and he may very well be brain dead. Reports of favorable brain scans are for bleeding only.

World Tribune : Sharon was declared dead by physicians at Jerusalem's Hadassah Hospital before 1 p.m. Israeli time [6 a.m. EST]. Authorities have already been notified of the death, and a government announcement was expected to be issued over the next hour.... Â… A computed tomography scan taken on Friday morning showed little to no brain activity in Sharon. At that point, Sharon's son, Omri, called aides and senior officials to the hospital to prepare for an announcement of the prime minister's death.

Hat Tip : Filthy and Jay at Stop the ACLU who put it best.

If he isnÂ’t dead, he is at deathÂ’s doorway.

Also Michelle Malkin has updates and a roundup of Sharon Related links.

No major MSM source so far has confirmed this. But considering the complications Mr. Sharon has suffered the last 24 hours I feel it is likely that he may indeed pass on.

CBC's Adrienne Arsenault reports the following :

The CBC's Adrienne Arsenault, who has outside the hospital awaiting word of Sharon's condition, said there is intense interest in his prognosis, and some incorrect information is circulating. "There have been many rumours over the past 24 hours that Sharon had, in fact, actually died or was on life support," she said.

Developing....

Mere Rhetoric has more

Another doctor they got on the phone: "... despite this good news, the damage is undoubtedly extensive..."

Updated: Mr Sharon has indeed survived and is showing some response to pain. Demosophist adds that sever strokes can be survived. I agree My grandfather had two in a row and althouhg it took two years he did recover very well. So it's possible Mr. Sharon will do OK. But it''s a long hard road back and only time will tell.

Posted by: Howie at 10:35 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 325 words, total size 3 kb.

There's a new development in the Lodi terror case.

From SacBee.com:

U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. ruled that the Lodi properties proposed as collateral and the owners of the properties do not offer adequate assurance that Umer Hayat will not flee to his native Pakistan.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 04:30 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.