March 17, 2007

Al Gore adds a new title....

Vice President...




Environmental Advocate...


Oscar Winner...

Zinc Miner????????????????

I've got a bad feeling about this ....

No verdict yet in the Avery case.....


March 16, 2007

Zogby poll on media bias.

By Jennifer Harper
March 16, 2007

The vast majority of American voters detect the presence of political bias in the mainstream news media, according to a Zogby poll released yesterday in conjunction with the George Washington University Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet.

Sentiment is strong: 83 percent of likely voters think bias is "alive and well." Of that number, 64 percent said the press leans left, while slightly more than a quarter -- 28 percent -- said there was a conservative bias.

Naturally, there's a partisan divide, and a pronounced one. Among Republican respondents, 97 percent said the press was liberal. Two-thirds of political independents agreed with them, with less than a quarter of the independents -- 23 percent -- saying there was a conservative bias.

Democratic respondents revealed a spectrum of perceptions.

"Democrats, while much more likely to perceive a conservative bias than any other group, were not nearly as sure the media was against them as were the Republicans," the survey said.

"While Republicans were unified in their perception of left-wing media, just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed right -- and 17 percent said the bias favored the left."

Such wavering sentiment may not align with the thinking of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. In a speech Tuesday, the New York Democrat insisted that the "vast, right-wing conspiracy" -- the so-called alliance between conservative point men and journalists that once vexed her husband, former President Bill Clinton -- was fully operational.

Meanwhile, the Zogby findings also revealed a trend that may sober the enthusiasm of broadcasters, magazines and newspapers that have rushed to establish an Internet presence, complete with snappy blogs, message boards and interactive features.

"American voters remain skeptical of major news outlets diving in the blog pool -- 26 percent speculated that the reason news organizations are placing blogs on their Web sites is that 'blogs give news organizations a chance to promote a political agenda they could not promote in regular broadcasts, cablecast or publications,' " the survey stated.

The poll of 1,757 likely voters nationwide was conducted Feb. 20 to 26, and had a margin of error of two percentage points.

Other research confirms public skepticism.

"The State of the News Media 2007," a 700-page analysis released Monday by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, found that 68 percent of respondents preferred getting news from sources without "a particular point of view." Still, less than half gave positive reviews of credibility and trustworthiness in the press itself. The presence of liberal bias was cited by 28 percent, up from 19 percent in 1996.

"Perceptions of bias and the partisan divide of media, appear to be on the rise," the study said, though it also noted the rise of a new "answer culture" over the long dominant "argument culture" in the press, marking "an appeal more idiosyncratic and less ideological."

March 15, 2007

Seperated at birth?

Smell test.

So, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad has supposedly confessed to, well everything bad that has happened in the last 15 years or so.

From the transcript:

1. I was responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center Operation
2. I was responsible for the 9/11 Operation, from A to Z.
3. I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, [Wall Street Journal reporter] Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan. For those who would like to confirm, there are pictures of me on the Internet holding his head.
4. I was responsible for the Shoe Bomber Operation to down two American airplanes.
5. I was responsible for the Filka Island operation in Kuwait that killed two American soldiers.
6. I was responsible for the bombing of a nightclub in Bali, Indonesia, which was frequented by British and American nationals.
7. I was responsible for planning, training, surveying, and financing the New (or Second) Wave attacks against the following skyscrapers after 9/11: a. Library Tower, California. b. Sears Tower, Chicago, c. Plaza Bank, Washington state. d. The Empire State Building, New York City.
8. I was responsible for planning, financing, & follow-up of Operations to destroy American military vessels and oil tankers in the Straights of Hormuz, and Straights of Gibralter, and the Port of Singapore.
9. I was responsible for planning, training, surveying, and financing for the Operation to bomb and destroy the Panama Canal.
10. I was responsible for surveying and financing for the assassination of several former American Presidents, including President Carter.
11. I was responsible for surveying, planning, and financing for the bombing of suspension bridges in New York.
12. I was responsible for planning to destroy the Sears Tower by burning a few fuel or oil tanker trucks beneath it or around it.
13. I was responsible for planning, surveying, and financing for the operation to destroy Heathrow Airport, the Canary Wharf Building, and Big Ben on British soil.
14. I was responsible for planning, surveying, and financing for the destruction of many night clubs frequented by American and British citizens on Thailand soil.
15. I was responsible for surveying and financing for the destruction of the New York Stock Exchange and other financial targets after 9/11.
16. I was responsible for planning, financing, and surveying for the destruction of buildings in the Israeli city of Elat by using airplanes leaving from Saudi Arabia.
17. I was responsible for planning, surveying, and financing for the destruction of American embassies in Indonesia, Australia, and Japan.
18. I was responsible for surveying and financing for the destruction of the Israeli embassy in India, Azerbaijan, the Philippines, and Australia.
19. I was responsible for surveying and financing for the destruction of an Israeli 'El-Al' Airlines flight on Thailand soil departing from Bangkok Airport.
20. I was responsible for sending several Mujahadeen into Israel to conduct surveillance to hit several strategic targets deep in Israel.
21. I was responsible for the bombing of the hotel in Mombasa that is frequented by Jewish travelers via El-Al airlines.
22. I was responsible for launching a Russian-made SA-7 surface-to-air missile on El-Al or other Jewish airliner departing from Mombasa.
23. I was responsible for planning and surveying to hit American targets in South Korea, such as American military bases and a few night clubs frequented by American soldiers.
24. I was responsible for financial, excuse me, I was responsible for providing financial support to hit American, Jewish, and British targets in Turkey.
25. I was responsible for surveillance needed to hit nuclear power plants that generate electricity in several U.S. states.
26. I was responsible for planning, surveying, and financing to hit NATO Headquarters in Europe.
27. I was responsible for the planning and surveying needed to execute the Bojinka Operation, which was designed to down twelve American airplanes full of passengers. I personally monitored a found-trip, Manila-to-Seoul, Pan Am flight.
28. I was responsible for the assassination attempt against President Clinton during his visit to the Philippines in 1994 or 1995. . . .
29. I shared responsibility for the assassination attempt against Pope John Paul the second while he was visiting the Philippines.
30. I was responsible for the training and financing for the assassination of Pakistan's President Musharraf.
31. I was responsible for the attempt to destroy an American oil company owned by the Jewish former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, on the Island of Sumatra, Indonesia.

Here is the stinging question at the back of my mind...

Does it seem possible that one person could do all of this????? It seems more likely that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad has decided to become the fall guy for the cause so that others responsible can go on without scrutiny and scheme and plan to kill more infidels.

I've got nothing to back that up of course, it is just a feeling and the only thing that seems to make any sense.

A great idea that will never happen

From the RJT:

By state Rep. Cory Mason

Open Government. Everyone says they are for it. As Justice Brandeis put it in 1933, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant” for corruption in government. This week is Sunshine Week, where we acknowledge the virtue of open government in our democracy. Ironically, I am writing this during one part of our state government that is closed to the public: the “closed caucuses,” meetings which both political parties engage in during days the Legislature is in session.I’ve only been in office for two months, but so far, session days in the state Assembly have three steps. First we meet in the Assembly chambers, take roll, and pass well-deserved and heartfelt resolutions honoring the memory of former legislators who have died and fallen soldiers who have given their lives for their country.

Next, the Assembly adjourns to split into two groups. The Republicans go into one room and the Democrats to another. These meetings are usually “closed” shortly after we start. In other words the public, the press, legislative staff, and anyone who is not a state representative has to leave the room. This is the longest part of the session day where the respective parties review each bill that will be addressed. In these closed meetings the legislators in their respective parties devise strategy, debate the merits of the day’s bills, and employ shuttle diplomacy between the closed meetings to see if the two parties can reach consensus.

Finally, after both political parties are done meeting, the Assembly comes back to order and votes on the issues of the day. This process goes much more quickly than the closed meetings – not surprising since the real debate has already taken place behind closed doors. On Tuesday of this week, Legislators met for five hours in closed meetings before both parties were done. Our legislative activity on the floor took less than an hour with very little debate.It seems to me that if we are really committed to open government, we ought to open our respective meetings to the public.

So in recognition of Sunshine Week, I am announcing a bill that will be introduced to open these closed meetings to the bright light of public scrutiny. Some legislators argue that there are real advantages to the closed meetings: members can ask questions they are not comfortable asking in public, strategies are developed that help the parties operate more effectively, and legislators have a space to vent their frustrations and practice their speeches. However, none of the advantages to these closed meetings are a reasonable trump to the public’s right to have access to the Legislature’s entire debate.

The Legislature has agreed to have its deliberations televised by Wisconsin Eye, sort of a C-SPAN for the Wisconsin Legislature. But that investment could be a cruel hoax on citizens if the real debate occurs behind closed doors.I hope my colleagues will embrace Justice Brandies’ words about sunshine and join me in support of opening all of the Legislature’s deliberations to the public. Cory Mason is a Democratic state Representative from Racine. He took office two months ago in January, 2007

March 14, 2007

Fired! Scandal for some, not for others.

From Opinion Journal...

The Hubbell Standard

Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:01 a.m.

Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week that the Administration's decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from--gasp--the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun yesterday, blaming President Bush for "the politicization of our prosecutorial system." Oh, my.

As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we'd suggest she call herself as the first witness--and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel.

As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.
At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.
Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.

And it may be this very amateurism that explains how the current Administration has managed to turn this routine issue of replacing Presidential appointees into a political fiasco. There was nothing wrong with replacing the eight Attorneys, all of whom serve at the President's pleasure. Prosecutors deserve supervision like any other executive branch appointees.

The supposed scandal this week is that Mr. Bush had been informed last fall that some U.S. Attorneys had been less than vigorous in pursuing voter-fraud cases and that the President had made the point to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Voter fraud strikes at the heart of democratic institutions, and it was entirely appropriate for Mr. Bush--or any President--to insist that his appointees act energetically against it.

Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129 votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do.

In New Mexico, another state in which recent elections have been decided by razor thin margins, U.S. Attorney David Iglesias did establish a voter fraud task force in 2004. But it lasted all of 10 weeks before closing its doors, despite evidence of irregularities by the likes of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn. As our John Fund reported at the time, Acorn's director Matt Henderson refused to answer questions in court about whether his group had illegally made copies of voter registration cards in the run-up to the 2004 election.

As for some of the other fired Attorneys, at least one of their dismissals seemed to owe to differences with the Administration about the death penalty, another to questions about the Attorney's managerial skills. Not surprisingly, the dismissed Attorneys are insisting their dismissals were unfair, and perhaps in some cases they were. It would not be the first time in history that a dismissed employee did not take kindly to his firing, nor would it be the first in which an employer sacked the wrong person.

No question, the Justice Department and White House have botched the handling of this issue from start to finish. But what we don't have here is any serious evidence that the Administration has acted improperly or to protect some of its friends. If Democrats want to understand what a real abuse of power looks like, they can always ask the junior Senator from New York.
On another note, is Chuck Schumer really the right person to be demanding someone elses resignation over a perception of their ethics? Isn't he the guy who's staffers illegally obtained a copy of Michael Steele's credit report for political sliming purposes? Chuck, look in the mirror, you let your staffers take the fall for you and you never accepted responsibility. But then we only see corruption from the right...

VA Woes.

I'm thrilled that the sub par care for veterans at VA medical centers is finally getting some publicity. Our veterans deserve the finest care available.

But seriously, why the sudden outrage? Is the care that has been given any real secret? Is this something that people honestly did not know about?

I've been disgusted by this for years, as is everyone I have ever discussed the issue with. Previously I have worked with retirees, many of them veterans and we have discussed this at length. You want to know how bad things are, ask a veteran why it takes six months to get approval of a drug on their prescription plan.

My point is why all the outrage now?

Are people pretending to be surprised now because they deem it politically expedient? Did people really not know, or are they now just finally fed up with it?

I honestly do not know but I find the issue worthy of debate.

Frankly I'd like to know how universal health care proponents will overcome the simple fact that with the VA, Medicare and Medicaid as screwed up and as expensive as they are, how do they plan on selling a bill of goods that a single-payer plan would not be equally bad or worse?

March 13, 2007

Why liberals will never get it.

Air America's Invitation

Tweaking the Fox News Channel, the president of liberal Air America Radio this morning sent a letter to the chairmen of four state Republican parties, offering to host and broadcast the state parties' upcoming presidential debates.Agreeing to the debate “would allow Republicans to differentiate themselves from Democrats,” Air America President Mark Green wrote to the Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina Republican chairmen in a deadpan communication provided this morning to The Politico. The Nevada State Democratic Party dropped plans for Fox to broadcast an August debate after furious pressure from online activists, a move that drew attacks from Fox and the label of “Stalinist” from one Fox News commentator, Mort Kondracke. “Should you accept Air America’s offer, Republicans would both embrace free debate and stick it to Stalin at the same time,” Green wrote.

1. Fox News presents both sides of the story, the conservative point of view is not welcome on Air America, it is only ridiculed.

2. Fox News is the most popular cable news network.

3. Nobody listens to Air America.

4. Radio is not TV

Global warming expedition called off due to extreme cold.

Ya know this stuff just writes itself.

MINNEAPOLIS - A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment

"Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey," said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition.

On Monday, the pair was at Canada's Ward Hunt Island, awaiting a plane to take them to Resolute, Canada, where they were to return to Minneapolis later this week.

Bancroft, 51, became the first woman to cross the North Pole on a 1986 expedition. She and Arnesen, 53, of Oslo, Norway, were the first women to ski across Antarctica in 2001.
But the latest trek got off to a bad start. The day they set off from Ward Hunt Island, a plane landing near the women hit their gear, punching a hole in Bancroft's sled and damaging one of Arnesen's snowshoes.

They repaired the snowshoe with binding from a ski, but Atwood said the patch job created pressure on Arnesen's left foot, which led to blisters that then turned into frostbite.
Then there was the cold — quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said.

"My first reaction when they called to say there were calling it off was that they just sounded really, really cold," Atwood said.

She said Bancroft and Arnesen were applying hot water bottles to Arnesen's foot every night, but had to wake up periodically because the bottles froze.

The explorers had planned to call in regular updates to school groups by satellite phone, and had planned online posts with photographic evidence of global warming. In contrast to Bancroft's 1986 trek across the Arctic with fellow Minnesota explorer Will Steger, this time she and Arnesen were prepared to don body suits and swim through areas where polar ice has melted.
Atwood said there was some irony that a trip to call attention to global warming was scuttled in part by extreme cold temperatures.

"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."

March 12, 2007

MRQ. Government Mandated Early Spring.

Good evening peeps! And welcome to the all new and improved daylight savings time. I'm still half asleep even though I got up extra early so I could adjust to DST. Wait, that didn't make any sense...neither did some of this week's quotes. If you have any suggestions send them to me and I will do an MRQ update on Tuesday morning ;) You know, when I'm totally adjusted!

He was not cool, and therefore he must be eliminated. Brenda

The World's Oldest Profession crossing paths with the World's Second Oldest Profession (politician) and the World's Third Oldest Profession (lawyers) ... look what they all have in common. Peter


Here comes Hippy the Hypocrite Hippo!!! Dan.

Man-haters. Spinsters. Frigid. Mara

“The cops are here!” Max.

my friends call me Bubba. Clint.

Where did the hate come from? Jessica.

My guess…..never! Kate.

Putting Up The Donut Disturb Sign Mortman.

it was flying drunk. Brad.

The Albino Alligator on a bed of sewer-grown watercress was simply to die for. Tom McMahon.

To liberals, calling (the wrong people) names is the biggest crime of them all... Marcus.

Thank you sir, may I have another? Patrick.

When PETA & Siera clash...

Swedes eye fowl as power-plant fuel

UMEA, Sweden, March 10 (UPI) -- A Swedish firm's proposal to use dead chickens to generate electricity probably isn't the first thing that comes to mind in terms of alternative energy.
But Umea Energi is ready to move forward with a proposal that would use chicken carcasses from egg farms as fuel for a power-generating furnace.

Umea operates in the frozen north of Sweden and is seeking a permit to burn as many as 9,000 dead hens per year along with other combustible waste, the newspaper Västerbottens-Kuriren reports.

Company officials said they had plenty of non-poultry fuel sources and would use the carcasses as a favor to the egg ranchers. At the same time, a company spokesman noted that "chickens are just the right size" for the fuel stream.

Dems to reality, la la la la la la la la la!

Las Vegas Review Journal Editorial.


Meltdown over Fox Network co-sponsors state Democratic debate -- oh my!

Hard-core liberals can't stand the Fox News Channel. Passing a television that's tuned to the conservative favorite forces many of them to close their eyes, cover their ears and scream, "La la la la la la la la la!" Then they dash to their computers and fire off 2,500 e-mails condemning the outlet, none of which are ever read.

But liberals' aversion to Fox News has finally gone over the top. The Nevada Democratic Party had agreed to let the right-tilting network co-sponsor, of all things, an August debate in Reno between Democratic presidential candidates. Party officials were serious about drawing national attention to the state's January presidential caucus, the country's second in the 2008 nominating process. What better way for the party to reach conservative and "values" voters who might consider changing allegiances?

But the socialist, Web-addicted wing of the Democratic Party was apoplectic. The prospect of having to watch Fox News to see their own candidates would have been torture in itself. So they set the blogosphere aflame with efforts to kill the broadcast arrangement, or at least have all the candidates pull out of the event. Before Friday, the opportunistic John Edwards was the only candidate to jump on that bandwagon.

You'd think the deal called for having Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter mock the candidates between comments. No, even unfiltered, unedited, live debate between loyal Democrats couldn't be entrusted to Fox News.

The approach of outfits such as is so juvenile it's laughable. Imagine if every political organization created litmus tests for news organizations before agreeing to appear on their programming. Republicans would have boycotted PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, National Public Radio and The Associated Press decades ago.

This hyperventilation results from the fact that far-left Democrats have no comparable media outlet, nor any widespread national appeal, for their radical views in favor of heavy-handed regulation, wealth redistribution, diplomatic capitulation and economic protectionism. So they attack their rivals' messenger with a reckless barrage of rhetoric that cuts down their own allies with friendly fire.

By Friday, the Nevada Democratic Party caved in to the lunatic fringe and beganseeking a more "appropriate" television partner.

Comedy Central, perhaps?