ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Friday, November 03, 2006

It's the Economy Stupid, Part II

Part I of "It's the Economy Stupid" here.

BREAKING:
The Unemployment rate for the month of October is now at 4.4%. (That's 0.2% higher than Clinton's record low 4.2%. )

The unemployment rate fell in October to 4.4 percent from 4.6 percent in September. It was the lowest unemployment rate since 4.3 percent in May 2001 and was likely to fan concerns that labor markets are growing tight and could contribute to inflation pressures.

Average hourly earnings rose 0.4 percent to $16.91 - higher than the 0.3 percent that analysts had anticipated - while the average work week edged up to 33.9 hours from 33.8. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 3.9 percent, the department said.

I won't hold my breath for the NYTimes to write its breathless praise for Bush's management of the economy.

Some news apparently isn't fit to print.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

The New York Times' November Suprise

H/T Drudge

Message that the New York Times wishes to convey with this article - days before the mid-term Congressional elections:

Those idiotic GOP Congressmen and right-wingers in the Bush Administration and the blogosphere helped Iran by getting the CIA to publicly disclose Iraq's information regarding its WMD programs.

Here's how I responded to the story as I read it:
I thought Saddam's WMD programs consisted only of rubber-bands, chewing gum, and duct tape. I mean, Saddam wasn't a threat to us and just wasn't interested in WMDs, right?

It's nice to know that the New York Times has decided to simply become an official organ of the Democratic Party. It'll be hilarious when the GOP keeps both chambers of Congress on Tuesday. In addition to laughing at the card-carrying Dems and Leftists who will lose on Tuesday, we can also laugh at the NYTimes.

Jim Geraghty of NRO had the same reaction as me:

I'm sorry, did the New York Times just put on the front page that IRAQ HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND WAS PLOTTING TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB?

What? Wait a minute. The entire mantra of the war critics has been "no WMDs, no WMDs, no threat, no threat", for the past three years solid. Now we're being told that the Bush administration erred by making public information that could help any nation build an atomic bomb.

Let's go back and clarify: IRAQ HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS PLANS SO ADVANCED AND DETAILED THAT ANY COUNTRY COULD HAVE USED THEM.

Michelle Malkin is noting that this is the Pot calling the Kettle black, given the amount of classified information that appears in the NYTimes' pages day after day.

Here is Captain's Quarters' take
.... is the NYTimes operating in an environment in which it doesn't understand? I mean, surely they know that there are thousands of bloggers and experts that have actually read the disclosures.
This is apparently the Times' November surprise, but it's a surprising one indeed. The Times has just authenticated the entire collection of memos, some of which give very detailed accounts of Iraqi ties to terrorist organizations. Just this past Monday, I posted a memo which showed that the Saddam regime actively coordinated with Palestinian terrorists in the PFLP as well as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. On September 20th, I reposted a translation of an IIS memo written four days after 9/11 that worried the US would discover Iraq's ties to Osama bin Laden.

It doesn't end there with the Times, either. In a revelation buried far beneath the jump, the Times acknowledges that the UN also believed Saddam to be nearing development of nuclear weapons:
Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

European diplomats said this week that some of those nuclear documents on the Web site were identical to the ones presented to the United Nations Security Council in late 2002, as America got ready to invade Iraq. But unlike those on the Web site, the papers given to the Security Council had been extensively edited, to remove sensitive information on unconventional arms.

That appears to indicate that by invading in 2003, we followed the best intelligence of the UN inspectors to head off the development of an Iraqi nuke. This intelligence put Saddam far ahead of Iran in the nuclear pursuit, and made it much more urgent to take some definitive action against Saddam before he could build and deploy it. And bear in mind that this intelligence came from the UN, and not from the United States. The inspectors themselves developed it, and they meant to keep it secret. The FMSO site blew their cover, and they're very unhappy about it.

Here is the take from JVeritas, who is one of the bloggers that has been tirelessly translating the documents and posting them online in English:
What is important in this whole issue is that the New York Times has ridiculed these documents all along and never payed attention to them including the very important documents that show Saddam regime never stopped its programs related to WMD including nuclear programs. These documents were translated and posted here on FR.

On the subject of nuclear program, I translated and posted a document last month dated January 2001 that shows with a shadow of doubt that Saddam was personally involved with his nuclear scientist to re-build the nuclear program. In this document it states that Saddam personally approved his Iraqi Atomic Energy Agency to re-use nuclear equipments that include something called “Degussa Furnaces” that were used in the previous and prohibited Iraq nuclear program. These furnaces can be used to melt uranium and other nuclear related activities. The Degussa Vacuum furnaces were supplied to Iraq in the 1980’s by a German firm (Degussa AG based in Frankfurt Germany) and these furnaces later on became the subject of investigations of the German firm in the early 1990’s where the company claimed that they did not know that Iraq would have used them in its nuclear program.

The New York Times had an article in 1998 titled “An Iraqi Defector Warns of Iraq's Nuclear Weapons Research” where the Degussa furnaces were mentioned as part of “previous” Iraq nuclear program and the controversy surrounding the sale of these furnaces and the investigations later on(link: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sanders/214/other/news/iraqi_defector.html ). The irony is that this is not only a New York Times article but also it was written by JUDITH MILLER and JAMES RISEN once of the worst accusers (liars) that the Bush administration lied about Iraq WMD. Where are you Scott Shane????

heh...

And finally, here is StopTheACLU's take:
Saddam Closer To Bomb Than Anyone Thought
by Oak Leaf on 11-02-06 @ 10:34 pm Filed under War On Terror, News

The New Yorks times confirms that in 2002 Saddam Hussein’s “scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away:”
Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.
Had the United States not eliminated this threat, today we would be facing a nuclear armed Iraq and possibly a nuclear armed Iran. Well, there is your talking point Tony Snow.

Classic.

As I mention above, it just seems that the NYTimes doesn't understand that they're outclassed on this one. They think they can get away with this crap.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Media backs up Kerry, Maybe he was right?

Gateway Pundit has the goods on ABC.

They ran a headline "Kerry's Botched Iraq Joke: Maybe He Was Right?" It's a puff piece defending Kerry.

Lots more at Gateway Pundit.

On the "joke". How is the joke funny? Even if it was about Bush? After all, Kerry voted FOR the war, at least before he voted againts funding it. Bush, the intelligence agencies, other foreign nations, they all "did their homework". I'm assuming Kerry, "did his homework" as well before voting for it.

And to all the folks, saying that Kerry has apologized, and why even talk about this since he's not running for president anymore, etc. Remember, that Kerry along with Kennedy, are high-ranking members of the Democratic Senate. A vote for a Democratic senate candidate in Missouri, IS a vote for Kerry. Do you think Kerry will shut up and go wind-surfing if the Democrats control the house? No, he'll be chairing a Senate Committee.

Keep that in mind, when you vote November 2nd.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Show-Me State's Amendment 2

Powerful article in NRO today about Missouri's Cloning Stem Cell Initiative:

Red Flags Over Missouri
Amendment 2 is not about hope.

By James Kelly

Because I hope to walk again and for others not to suffer needlessly, I ask the people of Missouri to vote “No” on Amendment 2 next Tuesday .

“Missouri’s Amendment 2 has nothing to do with human cloning, right?” asked David Jones, a St. Louis native who explained to me that he and his girlfriend only want to understand this amendment so they can “do the right thing.”

I met Mr. Jones at dusk a few nights ago while pushing my wheelchair through a nature preserve outside Colorado Springs. As I approached the top of a long climb to a local attraction called the “Balancing Rock,” a friendly voice called from the gloom, “Can I give you a hand?”

When David learned of my activism in stem-cell issues, he complained: “We don’t know what to believe in Missouri. Everything we hear seems to say the opposite thing.”

David and the people of Missouri should be confused — they’re being badly misled by experts who know what buttons to push to control the public. Nor is this the first time I’ve encountered exploitive hype in the Show Me State.

I first became involved in stem-cell issues when I read in 2002 that actor Christopher Reeve had been misled into making scientifically false and misleading statements to the U.S. Senate in support of embryonic-stem-cell and human-cloning research — statements that Reeve twice attributed to an embryonic-stem-cell scientist who was then at the Washington University of St. Louis. Until that time I had supported embryonic-stem-cell research.

However, Reeve’s testimony on March 5, 2002, concerning spinal-cord injury, stem cells, and human cloning, cast the embryonic-stem-cell and human-cloning debates in a totally different light.

What if crucial time and money were wasted to needlessly develop replacement cells from embryonic sources? (This is exactly what is happening.)

What if the Senate and the public believed that replacement cells could be safe for medical use only if produced through cloning (which Reeve had been led to believe)?

What if similar misrepresentations were taking place regarding other areas of science and regarding other medical conditions (which I soon discovered were occurring)?

For me, the “stem cells and cloning” debates suddenly became far more complex than “religion versus cures.” Because my medical condition was being used to mislead the Senate, I felt that I had been used and betrayed.

Missouri’s Amendment 2, which will be decided in November’s election, has everything to do with cloning. Contrary to its wording, which claims to ban human cloning, Amendment 2 creates a constitutional “right” in Missouri for scientists to create human embryos through cloning — a process called “Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer” or SCNT in the amendment — then to destroy the embryos for their cells. This process, SCNT, was the same process used to create Dolly the sheep.

Supporters of Amendment 2 claim the amendment bans “human cloning” because it would make it illegal to implant a cloned embryo in a woman’s womb. In other words, if the people of Missouri vote in favor of Amendment 2, they’ll in effect be agreeing that embryos created through cloning with human genetic material are not “human” provided they’re not implanted in women. Moreover, the amendment has no provisions against growing human clones in artificial wombs, which scientists hope to produce in the future.

The supposed purpose of Amendment 2 is to promote and protect “life saving” treatments and cures. Rather than supporting this contention, overwhelming scientific evidence clearly reveals the reverse — that diverting colossal resources for decades to unravel complex problems linked to embryonic stem cells and human cloning will considerably delay research into real causes for medical hope.

Virtually everything the people of Missouri have been told about embryonic stem-cells and human cloning in support of Amendment 2 has been distortions or lies. A real ban on human cloning would read like this: “It is illegal in the state of Missouri to transfer human genetic material from any cell other than sperm into an egg for the purpose of creating an embryo.”

Instead, Amendment 2 confuses the public by proclaiming to ban what it actually sanctions — what it hopes to turn into a constitutional right. This by itself should warn the public that something is badly amiss.

Amendment 2, if passed, will create a safe harbor for human cloning in America’s Heartland. More than that, it will insure that the public pays for both the creation and destruction of human embryos produced by cloning for the sake of research careers, biotech patents, industry growth, and pharmaceutical profits — all at the expense of practical research that could lead to affordable cures.

I urge the people of Missouri to consider the wisdom of using disease and disability as pretexts for industry growth. Those opposed to Amendment 2 on moral grounds believe, with just cause, that sickness and disability are being used as pretexts for exploiting human prenatal life. From where I’m sitting, embryonic, fetal, and human-cloning research is far more likely to offer long-range funding benefits to researchers than medical benefits to patients. In fact, I believe that the push in these directions by research-related industries will exploit us all.

As I said, because I hope to walk again and for others not to suffer needlessly, I ask the people of Missouri to vote “No” on Amendment 2 on Election Day.

— James Kelly, who was paralyzed in a 1997 auto accident, Kelly directs the Cures1st Foundation, Inc., which promotes the effective use of public and nonprofit research resources.

My first objection to Amendment 2 is that it's silly to have a carve-out in the MO Constitution for a scientific procedure.

My second objection is that the proponents of embryonic stem cell research have been completely disingenuous about the text of the amendment, disingenuous about the motives of its opponents, disingenuous about the promising scientific progress that is already occurring with adult stem cells, and disingenuous about the potential benefits from embryonic research, including their shameless ploy of using victims of every imaginable human illness and affliction to say that Amendment 2 will save or improve their lives.

I'm surprised that they haven't resorted to saying that Amendment 2 will help eliminate deaths and injuries of US troops in Iraq and elminate Iran & North Korean nuclear weapons programs. (uh-oh, here comes a new ad!!!)

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Sy Hersh Pulls a Kerry

Seymour Hersch didn't want to be outdone by the former Democratic presidential candidate and decided that he wanted to also eliminate any remaining respect that people have for the press.

So, he packed his bags and headed up north to Montreal to attack the US and our troops in the field:

[...]
"I will tell you – there has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq.”
The message from the Northeastern Liberal Elites?

The US Military: Stupid, Ruthless and Ultra-violent War Criminals - Reminiscent of Genghis Khan

or something like that.

And the Media is amazed - AMAZED - that when people hear Kerry's words, they immediately think he means what he's saying.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Bombshell in MD

Jay Bryant has this article at RealClearPolitics about the importance of an endorsement for Michael Steele:

The Most Important Senate Race
By Jay Bryant

Yesterday, a group of African-American Democrats from Prince George's County, Maryland, endorsed Republican Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele, a fellow black, for the U.S. Senate. It might be the most important political development in the country this week.

Control of the Senate appears to hinge on the results in one or two contests. There are no states in which Republicans have appeared likely to pick up a seat, although New Jersey remains a possibility. If Steele could manage an upset in the race for the seat of retiring Democratic Senator Paul Sarbanes, it could be the difference-maker. And Steele is undeniably close. The current RealClearPolitics poll average shows him trailing by 5.3 percentage points, and, in the words of University of Maryland political scientist Ron Walters, yesterday's endorsements are "going to go through the black community like a rocket. It's going to be the talk of the county, the state, maybe even the nation."

Tipping the balance in the Senate is only one of the two reasons Steele's campaign is the most important in the country this year, but before we look at the other reason, let's discuss the importance of yesterday's endorsements.

Prince George's County is a huge, majority-black area east of Washington, D.C. With a total population of just under 850,000, it's the second-largest jurisdiction in the state, with some 225,000 more people than the city of Baltimore. As you would expect given its ethnic makeup, it's a Democratic stronghold. In 2002, the ticket of Governor Bob Ehrlich and Steele won statewide by four percentage points (52-48), but lost in Prince George's by fifty-three percentage points (76-23).

So why a high-powered leadership would group from Prince George's break ranks with their party and support Steele? (And they are high-powered. Their leader is a two-term former County Executive, Wayne Curry, arguably the most popular politician in the county. Five others are members of the County Council. Another, Major Riddick, was the top aide to former Governor Parris Glendening. Also on hand were one of the Democrats' top fundraisers, several prominent businessmen and other community leaders.)

Part of it is that Steele is a Prince Georgian. The county leaders know him, like him and respect him. But that alone wouldn't be nearly enough to cause them to break ranks with their party in a critical election.

What it's really all about is that blacks in Maryland have begun to realize that they've been being snookered by the white-dominated Democratic Party all these years. As Riddick put it, "They've been showing us a pie, but we never get a slice."

Voting statistics aren't kept by race, of course; they call it a "secret ballot" after all. But if you work out the math, you can pretty easily demonstrate that something like half of all Maryland Democratic voters are black. Half!

What have Maryland blacks gotten for their loyalty to the party? Virtually nothing. Oh, sure, they get representatives to legislative offices in districts where they have the overwhelming majority. Occasionally they get to be Mayor of Baltimore - although the current mayor is white, and running for Governor, something no black mayor could even seriously consider.

Indeed, in the entire history of the state of Maryland, exactly one person of African-American heritage has been elected to any statewide office. His name is Michael Steele.

If the state were a corporation, it'd be hauled up before the EEOC. And remember, in most years nomination by the Democrats is tantamount to election. Ehrlich is only the second Republican Governor of Maryland. If there's racism, including a past pattern of racism, it falls entirely on the Democratic doorstep. And the trend hasn't stopped; Steele's white opponent, Congressman Ben Cardin, is white, and virtually the entire Democratic establishment in the state backed him in his successful primary race against former Congressmen Kweisi Mfume. Blacks were told, in effect, not yet, and many of them are understandably asking, "How long, O Lord, how long?"


Because Maryland has such a large black population, at 29.1% almost two and a half times the national average of 12.4%, the fact that blacks have been shut out of real leadership in the party is particularly egregious. But it's true throughout the country.

That's the other reason Steele's election is so critical, to Republicans and black voters. In the entire history of the United States, only five African Americans have served in the Senate: three Republicans and two Democrats. And in these post-civil rights times, it is only fitting to ask why the party for whose candidates 90% of black voters regularly cast their ballots has not done better. Indeed, if you believe in affirmative action, as Democrats say they do, then there should be ten or eleven black Democratic Senators at any given time these days. Whereas in fact there has never been more than one.

Michael Steele's election as Lieutenant Governor of Maryland served to awaken black voters in that state to the fact that they were second-class citizens within their own party, and many of them are determined to send the party a message by voting for Steele this year. If he gets something like 25% of the black vote, he will probably win, and some polls showed him with that many even before the endorsement by Curry, et. al.

The awakening that followed Steele's election four years ago in Maryland will become national if he becomes a United States Senator.

Oliver "Twinkie-Meister" Willis confidently predicts that Maryland's African-Americans will still pull the lever for the Dem.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Pelosi Voters Stand Behind John Kerry

Here's what the Bay area constituents of our next Speaker of the House think about John Kerry's insulting remarks:

Should Kerry apologize?

Read the story that prompted this column

Vernon BurtonVernon Burton, San Leandro
For what? Telling the truth? If a few more so-called leaders started telling the truth about Iraq, maybe we could save some of those lives that are being thrown away for nothing.



Cynthia BournellisCynthia Bournellis, San Jose
When I heard Kerry's comment, I knew that it was not an insult to the troops but rather a dig to the Bush administration. However, I think Kerry should explain what he meant and apologize to the troops for any misunderstanding.



Janice Hough Janice Hough, Palo Alto
Kerry has already said he made a mistake. But hey, if the man was capable of competently telling jokes, he might have been elected president.



Jette Swan Jette Swan, San Francisco
No. I spoke to a former enlisted man about this story. He's livid -- at Bush. He says there's no need to apologize to the real veterans, because that's who Kerry was talking to in the first place -- and they understand him.



Amy Altschul Amy Altschul, Oakland
Why should a person apologize for telling the truth? The truth is, for those who are not educated, the military is one of their only outlets. This does not mean the people are stupid, it means they are uneducated. Their lack of education often means the military, which currently means Iraq.



Steve Ginthum Steve Ginthum, Sebastopol
His claimed attempt at humor was certainly insulting to our soldiers, and for that, he must apologize. He needs to hire a new writer, and then learn to deliver a line without stooping to the level of the right-wing name-callers.



Jo-Anna Pippen Jo-Anna Pippen, Albany
Kerry stated the obvious -- that if Bush had done his homework on the culture and history of the region, maybe we wouldn't be stuck there. The Republicans have nothing left to run on, so they mischaracterized Kerry's statement as an insult to the troops. The only things that Bush gets an "A" in are spin and hyperbole. He's managed an "F" in planning, execution and follow-up, and that has cost thousands of lives. Who really should be apologizing here?



Marc Huestis Marc Huestis, San Francisco
Stupid comment. Apologize and go away for a week. Keep the focus on Bush.




Miriam Rosenau Miriam Rosenau, Berkeley
No way. Since when are you supposed to apologize for telling the truth?




Richard Brinton Richard Brinton, Salinas
It would be a step in the right direction if Kerry would apologize for being a spineless worm when it comes to confronting the bloody war-mongers in the White House. He actually doesn't have the heart or the will to challenge Bush on his war crimes and corruption.



Jim Fong Jim Fong, Foster City
Kerry doesn't have to apologize -- he served in Viet Nam. Bush, on the other hand, has never served. He ought to suit up in his military uniform and lead our soldiers on the ground in Iraq. I would be very impressed.

When I first read this, I thought it was a parody from The Onion... one of their American Voices segments.

wow... those right-wing nutjobs that are calling for Kerry to apologize are really out of bounds, eh?

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Next RNC Ad

The RNC had better be shooting this right now... just take this American Legion statement and ask Mr. Morin to say it on camera:

"As a constituent of Senator Kerry's I am disappointed. As leader of The American Legion, I am outraged," said National Commander Paul A. Morin. "A generation ago, Sen. Kerry slandered his comrades in Vietnam by saying that they were rapists and murderers. It wasn't true then and his warped view of today's heroes isn't true now."

While addressing a group of college students at a campaign rally in Pasadena, CA., Monday, Kerry suggested that they receive an education or "if you don't, you'll get stuck in Iraq."

"While The American Legion shares the senator's appreciation for education, the troops in Iraq represent the most sophisticated, technologically superior military that the world has ever seen," Morin said. "I think there is a thing or two that they could teach most college professors and campus elitists about the way the world works.

"And while we are on the topic of education, why doesn't the senator and his comrades in Congress improve the GI Bill so all of today's military members - reserves and guard included - can achieve the educational aspirations that the senator so highly values?" Morin said. "The senator's false and outrageous attack was over-the-top and he should apologize now."

Ok... so, should we start an ARC pool? Two answers required and place your bets in the comments.

First - Number of days before John Kerry apologizes for his remark.

Second - Which will happen first, John Kerry apologizing or John Kerry releasing his military records?

***UPDATE***
Given Kerry's lackluster performance at Yale, perhaps he meant to say the following:
"You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck as the junior Senator from a state like Massachussetts."

*** UPDATE 2 ***
Excellent Post over at the GatewayPundit, including this picture from our hilarious soldiers on the front lines of the War On Terror:


Apparently, they're no fan of President Kerry*.

* - Sure, he didn't win the popular vote or the electoral college, but it was because Rove had all of those gay marriage amendments and that corrupt bastard in Ohio Ken Blackwell who put Chimpy W. McBushitler over the top.... by stealing 120,000 votes.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Oh how I miss the 2004 presidential elections...

How much fun must it be to be on the Kerry staff? I mean, can you imagine how many antacids you had to take when Kerry said this today?

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."

Oh brother. And this guy thinks he can be president?

Allah calls it a meltdown, and has a clip of Bennett basically saying this is the end of the Kerry Presidential run in 2008 (has it even started yet?) I disagree with this part though:
All in all, though, surprisingly shrewd. The nutroots will be wanking to this for days, and since he can’t run to the right of Hillary or Obama, this at least gives him a shot to outflank Gore on the left in ‘08. Whereupon he’ll be promptly torpedoed in the primaries.

Imagine how much the nutroots are going to scream when Kerry comes out and apologizes? And he's got to apologize, or the remaining week before the election is going to be about how the Dem's belittle the troops. It's going to be in every politician's talking point between now and election day. If he doesn't apologize, the rest of the Democratic party will be shown to be agreeing with him by their silence.

Did the Architect use his mind ray to get Kerry to insert his foot in his mouth? You know I can't comment on ongoing operations...... But let me just say, what better example could you find to bring the national security issue front and center, and highlight the northeast liberals of the party, especially important in those "Blue Dog" races?

The always pithy, Gateway Pundit weighs in as well with lots of links and lots of info.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Osama Speaks

Mark Goldblatt at NRO channels Osama Bin Laden on this Halloween day. Read it... hilarious and pointed.

Here's an excerpt, but read the whole thing:

[...]
You think I wanted a war in Iraq? No way, Jose! I was perfectly happy with the way things were going. You know, I knock down a couple of your skyscrapers, you topple the Taliban. Shot for shot. I mean, that’s only fair. By rights, it was my move again — ooh, I was cooking up a doozey! But then the bloodthirsty mongrel Bush decides to take out Saddam.

What sense does that make?

Now, suddenly, I’ve got to drop what I’m doing and send my first stringers into Iraq. Hey, you think IEDs grow on trees? And don’t get me started on the price of car bombs. You’ve got explosives to buy, bomb makers to pay, vehicles to acquire — you know the insurance rates on rentals in Fallujah? The cheapest part of the entire operation is the martyr. Even so, you know how many martyrs blow themselves up for every one we actually get on the road? Manpower’s never the problem though. We could run the entire shebang with just Palestinians for ten years.


The point is, every dollar I have to spend in Iraq is a dollar I can’t spend . . . well, never mind. The point is that Iraq is lose-lose. You want out. I want out. But Bush, the pharaoh of this age, wants to “stay the course.” Is that an answer? Stay the course. Stay the course. C’mon, who writes his material? I hear Democratic members of Congress mocking him, I see protesters in the street calling him a war criminal, I read the New York Times, and I think to myself that sanity might at last prevail in the United States.
[...]


Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!!!

No, this isn't some Jeff Gannon or Mark Foley related post... this is to highlight the following ad about Claire McCaskill.

H/T to Jim Hoft (aka GatewayPundit)



Year after year, the Dems are portrayed as the vanquishers of the little guy... yet, the most wealthy group of people in the Senate are Democrats, not Republicans.

As highlighted in Peter Schweitzer in his book, Do As I Say, Not As I Do, the libs are full of hypocrisy when it comes to their personal financial dealings. Here's the Book Description from Amazon.com:

Prominent liberals support a whole litany of policies and principles: progressive taxes, affirmative action, greater regulation of corporations, raising the inheritance tax, strict environmental regulations, children’s rights, consumer rights, and more. But do they actually live by these beliefs? Peter Schweizer decided to investigate the private lives of politicians like the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, the Kennedys, and Ralph Nader; commentators Michael Moore, Al Franken, Noam Chomsky, and Cornel West; entertainers or philanthropists Barbra Streisand and George Soros. Using publicly-available real estate records, IRS returns, court depositions, and their own published statements, he sought to examine whether they lived by the principles they so forcefully advocate.

What he found was a long list of contradictions. Many of these proponents of organized labor had developed various methods to sidestep paying union wages or avoid employing unions altogether. They were also adept at avoiding taxes; invested heavily in corporations they had denounced; took advantage of foreign tax credits to use non-American labor overseas; espoused environmental causes while opposing those that might affect their own property rights; hid their investments in trusts to avoid paying estate tax; denounced oil companies but quietly owned them.

Schweizer’s conclusion is simple: liberalism in the end forces its adherents to become hypocrites. They adopt one pose in public, but when it comes to what matters most in their own lives–their property, their privacy, and their children--they jettison their liberal principles and adopt conservative ones. If these ideas don’t work for the very individuals who promote them, Schweizer asks, how can they work for the country?

Recommended reading... oh, and come next Tuesday, the Rovian Conspiracy compels you to Just Say No to Claire!

;-)

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Monday, October 30, 2006

Income, Spending Rise - Women, Minorities Hurt Most

At least, that's what I would expect the headline of this story to be...

Income, spending rose solidly in September
Mon Oct 30, 2006 3:19 PM ET

By David Lawder

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. consumers, helped by bigger paychecks and lower gasoline prices, boosted their spending last month, according to a government report that may counter fears of a sharp economic slowdown.

The Commerce Department said on Monday that personal income rose by 0.5 percent in September, ahead of analysts' forecasts for a 0.3 percent gain. The August figure revised upward to 0.4 percent.

Taking out inflation and taxes, real disposable income rose at its fastest pace in a year in September at 0.8 percent, helping to pad consumer spending at a time when concerns are growing about the economic impact of the housing slump.

The growth in income coincided with falling gasoline prices, which pushed down headline consumer prices by 0.3 percent in September.

The report "was positive in almost every major dimension that is critical for the sustainability of the business expansion," said Brian Bethune, U.S. economist for Global Insight Inc. in Lexington, Massachusetts.

Of course, this is still the worst economy since Herbert Hoover... or something like that.

And with the horrific unemployment rate of 4.7% nationwide, it's amazing that people are not rioting and overthrowing Chimpy W. McBushitler's Reign of Terror.

HALLIBURTON!!!

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

St Louis Is Number One!!!

Yes, in baseball... but this post is about our crime rate...

St. Louis Ranked Most Dangerous City
Oct 30 12:08 AM US/Eastern

By CHRISTOPHER LEONARD
Associated Press Writer

ST. LOUIS

Just days after the St. Louis Cardinals won the top honor in Major League Baseball, their hometown jumped to first place on a list no one wants to lead: the most dangerous cities in the United States.

This Midwestern city has long been in the upper tiers of the annual ranking of the nation's safest and most dangerous cities, compiled by Morgan Quitno Press. Violent crime surged nearly 20 percent there from 2004 to last year, when the rate of such crimes rose much faster in the Midwest than in the rest of nation, according to FBI figures released in June.

"It's just sad the way this city is," resident Sam Dawson said. "On the news you hear killings, someone's been shot."

The ranking, being released Monday, came as the city was still celebrating Friday's World Series victory at the new Busch Stadium. St. Louis has been spending millions of dollars on urban renewal even as the crime rate climbs.

Mayor Francis Slay did not return calls to his office seeking comment Sunday.

Scott Morgan, president of Morgan Quitno Press, a private research and publishing company specializing in state and city reference books, said he was not surprised to see St. Louis top the list, since it has been among the 10 most dangerous cities for years.

Morgan said the study looks at crime only within St. Louis city limits, with a population of about 330,000. It doesn't take into account the suburbs in St. Louis County, which has roughly 980,000 residents.

The safest city in 2005 was Brick, N.J., population about 78,000, followed by Amherst, N.Y., and Mission Viejo, Calif. The second most dangerous city was Detroit, followed by Flint, Mich., and Compton, Calif.

Cities are ranked based on more than just their crime rate, Morgan said. Individual crimes such as rape or burglary are measured separately, compared to national averages and then compiled to give a city its ranking. Crimes are weighted based on their danger to people.

The national FBI figures released in June showed the murder rate in St. Louis jumped 16 percent from 2004 to 2005, compared with 4.8 percent nationally. The overall violent crime rate increased nearly 20 percent, compared with 2.5 percent nationally.

While crime increased in all regions last year, the 5.7 percent rise in the 12 Midwestern states was at least three times higher than any other region, according to the FBI.

Visiting St. Louis on Thursday, FBI director Robert Mueller said it was too early to tell why some types of crime were rising faster in the Midwest.
[...]

Good to see that we're better than Detroit in more than just baseball.... we've also got more violent crime! Yeah!!!

Now, the scary thing is that this study didn't take into account the crime rate in East St. Louis, which is probably a more dangerous place than Fallujah, Iraq. Claims to fame for East St. Louis are drugs, prostitution, strip clubs, and voter fraud.

All I have to say is that while St Louis' downtown renovation is a good thing, without handling the rise in violent crime, it'll all be for naught. Fighting crime isn't rocket science. The Broken Window theory has been proven true time and time again. And St Louis' problem with violent gangs battling over a square block of abandoned and burned out buildings can be resolved quickly. This article in the Riverfront Times from August is very instructive into the problems that St Louis is facing regarding gangs, especially as you read the excuses about the people involved in violent crime.

It'll take the courage of our convinctions to admit that violent criminals who are in prison rarely have a repeat offense.

Oh, and that World Series thing? Turns out that the ratings weren't that great, despite the fact that the games this year were always pretty competitive. However, the reason for this is that fewer and fewer people are watching network television - which, in the final analysis, is a good thing.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Sunday, October 29, 2006

Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Regarding the Stem Cell Research kerfluffles that are breaking out across the land, I have to say that as more information about the ballot initiatives are known by the electorate, the less favorable the initiatives are viewed.

My big beef with Amendment 2 in MO is why in the heck does Stem Cell Research belong in our state constitution? I know there's all kinds of other b.s. in there, but seriously... when in comes to Constitutional Amendments, my gut reaction is "No." And I think other voters in the Show-Me state have a similar feeling...

But, wanted to post on the back & forth between the ads from each camp. First came Michael J. Fox saying that Talent wants him dead, dead, dead. Effective...

And here's a parody of that message from the Political Pitbull which I thought was hilarious:


Next up came Cardinal's ace Jeff Suppan, former Ram and SuperBowl MVP Kurt Warner, KC Royals player Mike Sweeney, and Jesus. I just have to say that when it comes to Missouri, these folks trump Alex P. Keaton any day.



And now, Michael Steele has come out with this ad, which is very effective.


However, if I'm to correctly understand the nature of our politics today, we've now entered the stage where each campaign is a battle over who has more diseases. Is that right? Can someone clear that up for me?

As far as Embryonic Stem Cell Research goes, the claims of its supporters are pretty bogus. Besides attacking opponents as neanderthals who want sick people and puppies to die, the proponents have claimed that with the help of embryonic stem cell research:

  1. Christopher Reeves would've walked
  2. Diabetes will be eradicated
  3. burn-victims will have new skin
  4. Cancer will be a thing of the past
  5. Multiple Sclerosis will be eradicated
  6. Parkinson's will be cured
  7. Alzheimer's will be cured
  8. Irritable Bowel Syndrome will be eradicated
  9. your checkbook will be balanced automatically each month
  10. Pigs will sprout wings and fly within the next 2 years
Just saying...

And the other idiotic reason thrown out there by proponents is that withouth Amendment 2 in MO, the people of the state of Missouri will be left behind when it comes to cures resulting from embryonic stem cell research. As if we are a fricken island and if the state of Illinois develops some cure, they'll withhold it from Missourians. We must have our own multi-billion dollar embryonic stem cell research program or we'll be left behind.


We cannot have an embyronic stem cell research gap!!!

***ARC: Brian Adds ***
Let me also highlight the gap in Michael J Fox's understanding (apparently because he hasn't read it!) of the amendment. Fox confuses the issue by stating that the embryo's that are being researched are "thrown away" from IVF. Embryonic stem cells used for research in this manner however are prone to genetic anomolies, which complicates the research process for cures.

But amendment 2 specifically targets something called Somatic Cell Nuclear transfer. This is the same process used to clone Dolly the sheep.

In simplified terms, an unfertilized egg would be harvested from a female, and its nucleus removed leaving the egg shell. Then a donor cell is removed from the body of another individual (non-egg, non sperm or somatic cell), and its nucleus removed and implanted into the empty egg cell. After some stimulation, the now combined cell develops (divides and reproduces) into a blastocyst, the early form of an embryo with around 100 cells. This blastocyst would then be used for research. One advantage of this method is that the resulting blastocyst has the same DNA as the original doner of the somatic cell making it effective for cure research.

To many, this would seem the exact same thing as cloning. Creating new life, identical to the host, solely for the purpose of doing research on it.

See HotAir and StopTheACLU for more coverage.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Steyn

Mark Steyn has been all over, promoting his new book, America Alone which I wholeheartedly endorse and recommend. (Thanks to ARC:Brian for the gift!). It is quite a read - frightening and a must read for any liberal who doesn't understand what we're up against.

Mark was interviewed on Friday by Michelle Malkin over at HotAir.com. Here is part one and part two.

Mark's column in today's Chicago Sun-Times is excellent. Here's an excerpt, but read the whole thing:

"We need to be on the offense all the time," said the president. I pointed out that, when the military are obviously on offense -- liberating Afghanistan, toppling Saddam -- the American people are behind them. But that it's hard to see where the offense is in what to most TV viewers has dwindled down to a thankless semi-colonial policing operation with no end in sight. How about a bit more offense? Syria's been subverting Iraq for three years. Why not return the favor?

"We are on the offense," he insisted, sounding sometimes as frustrated as us columnists that so much of the wider momentum had become (in Charles Krauthammer's words) "mired in diplomacy." Still, it was a different conversation than most Bush encounters with the media-political class. I happened to be plugging my book on a local radio show this week just as a Minnesota "conservative" (ish) Democrat joined the herd of stampeding donkeys explaining why they were now disowning their vote in favor of the Iraq war. What a sorry sight. It's not a question of whether you're "for" or "against" a war. Once you're in it, the choice is to win it or lose it. And, if you're arguing for what will look to most of the world like the latter option, you better understand what the consequences are. In this case, it would, in effect, end the American moment.

Does that bother people? Bush said something, en passant, that I brooded on all the way home. Asked about poll numbers, he said that 25 percent of the population are always against the war -- any war.

That sounds about right. And it's a bit disturbing. To be sure, if Canadian storm troopers were swarming across the 49th Parallel or Bahamian warships were firing off the coast of Florida, some of that 25 percent might change their mind, though it might be a bit late by then. But, as America's highly unlikely to be facing that kind of war in the foreseeable future, that 25 percent's objection to the only wars on offer is rather unnerving.

The invaluable Brussels Journal recently translated an interview with the writer Oscar van den Boogaard from the Belgian paper De Standaard. A Dutch gay "humanist" (which is pretty much the trifecta of Eurocool), van den Boogaard was reflecting on the accelerating Islamification of the Continent and concluding that the jig was up for the Europe he loved. "I am not a warrior, but who is?" he shrugged. "I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it."

Too many of us are only good at enjoying freedom. That war-is-never-the-answer 25 percent are in essence saying that there's nothing about America worth fighting for, and that, ultimately, the continuation of their society is a bet on the kindness of strangers -- on the goodnaturedness of Kim Jong Il and the mullahs and al-Qaida and what the president called "al-Qaida lookalikes and al-Qaida wannabes" and whatever nuclear combination thereof comes down the pike. Some of us don't reckon that's a good bet, and think America's arms-are-for-hugging crowd need to get real. Van den Boogaard's arms are likely to be doing rather less of their preferred form of hugging in the European twilight.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler