September 2007 Archives

The View has a new token conservative to keep ratings alive.  Welcome Sherri Shepherd!  I love that a conservative, right-minded woman has a big role in TV but the conservative is always out numbered in situations like this.  At least Law and Order writers have some new fodder.  I'm happy that Sherri is making a large, well deserved paycheck and joins the ranks with Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Ann Coulter even if that comes with a hit sitcom condoning her demise.  She's an outspoken conservative, which means she must be strong enough to take whatever comes her way. 

Break out your hip waders, people. Governor Strickland's first crack at re-regulating Ohio's energy industry just hit the legislature as Senate Bill 221, and the B.S. is knee-deep and rising.

The bill's long, jargon-packed, and hard to understand, which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone familiar with government's attempts to extend its tentacles further into our lives. I know that legislation is mind-numbingly boring and makes your eyes glaze over. Believe me, I feel your pain. But if you're worried about your electricity bill going up and yet you don't want to experience the joy of rolling blackouts, you need to pay attention to this stuff.

Here's a change to Section 4928.02 of the Ohio Revised Code that jumped out at me when I skimmed the bill (deleted text is struck through, added text is in boldface type):

Sec. 4928.02. It is the policy of this state to do the following throughout this state beginning on the starting date of competitive retail electric service:

(A) Ensure the availability to consumers of adequate, reliable, safe, efficient, nondiscriminatory, and reasonably priced retail electric service;

(B) Ensure the availability of unbundled and comparable retail electric service that provides consumers with the supplier, price, terms, conditions, and quality options they elect to meet their respective needs;

(C) Ensure diversity of electricity supplies and suppliers, by giving consumers effective choices over the selection of those supplies and suppliers and by encouraging the development of distributed and small generation facilities;

(D) Encourage innovation and market access for cost-effective supply- and demand-side retail electric service including, but not limited to, demand-side management, time-differentiated pricing, and implementation of advanced metering infrastructure;

(E) Encourage cost-effective and efficient access to information regarding the operation of the transmission and distribution systems of electric utilities in order to promote both effective customer choice of retail electric service and the development of performance standards and targets for service quality for all consumers, including annual achievement reports written in plain language;

(F) Recognize the continuing emergence of competitive electricity markets through the development and implementation of flexible regulatory treatment;

(G) Ensure effective competition in the provision of retail electric service by avoiding anticompetitive subsidies flowing from a noncompetitive retail electric service to a competitive retail electric service or to a product or service other than retail electric service, and vice versa;

(H) Ensure retail electric service consumers just and reasonable rates and protection against unreasonable sales practices, market deficiencies, and market power;

(I) Preclude imbalances in knowledge and expertise among parties in a proceeding under this chapter to eliminate any appearance of disproportionate influence by any of those parties;

(J) Ensure that consumers and shareholders share the benefits of, as well as the responsibility for, electric utility investment in facilities supplying retail electric generation service;

(K) Provide coherent, transparent means of giving appropriate incentives to technologies that can adapt successfully to potential environmental mandates;

(L) Protect at-risk populations when considering the implementation of any new advanced energy technology;

(M) Encourage implementation of distributed generation across customer classes through regular review and updating of rules governing critical issues such as, but not limited to, interconnection standards, standby charges, and net metering;

(N) Facilitate the state's effectiveness in the global economy.

What's that warm and fuzzy bilge in part (H) about "just and reasonable rates", you ask? Why, that means government-imposed price controls of course. Price controls cause shortages. Are you ready for brownouts?

I have no idea what part (J) is supposed to do. Consumers already benefit from utility company investments in new power generation facilities: they get more power produced more efficiently. As for "sharing responsibility", consumers do that now by paying their electric bills, which helps to fund capital improvements by utility companies. So what new consumer "benefits" and "responsibilities" are we talking about here?

Parts (K) and (L) look like euphemistic ways of saying to utility companies: "We'll make it crystal clear that if you don't appease environmentalist wackos (including government officials), we'll hurt your business." Say hello to higher taxes and burdensome new environmental regulations. Such costs would normally be passed on to consumers in the form of higher rates, but with price controls that won't happen now. Instead, these government-imposed costs will eat into the utility companies' profits. If there's no way to recoup the losses by increasing the rates charged to consumers, the power companies can't provide enough power. Now throw in the other predictable effect of price controls on electricity: artificially high demand for power. What we'll get is a repeat of California's blackouts in 2001. Among sentient humans, this is commonly referred to as "a bad thing."

I don't understand the jargon in part (M). Can anybody translate it into plain English for me?

This is Ted Strickland's idea of "improving" the production of electricity in Ohio. God help us.

You be the judge. Sherrod Brown voted no on the Lieberman-Kyl amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Here's the text, minus the findings:

SEC. 1535. SENSE OF SENATE ON IRAN.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:

...

(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and

(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.

I wonder which part(s) Brown objected to? The amendment passed by a vote of 76-22, with Barack Obama and John McCain not voting.

Hat tip: Jill Miller Zimon at Wide Open

A fallen rock was blocking a route in Afghanstan and EOD decided to blow it up.

I hope the EOD techs had face masks on. Ugh.

Representative Betty Sutton (D-OH), my congresscritter, voted on several items on today's legislative calendar. Here's what she's been up to so far:

11:23 AM: Roll call vote 908 - voted yes
11:30 AM: Roll call vote 909 - voted yes
12:32 PM: Roll call vote 910 - did not vote
12:44 PM: Roll call vote 911 - did not vote
2:27 PM: Roll call vote 912 - voted no
2:49 PM: Roll call vote 913 - voted yes

What were those two items she didn't vote on? Roll call vote 911 was a continuing resolution to keep several government agencies and programs running for awhile longer until Congress gets around to passing the 2008 budget.

Roll call vote 910 was an amendment that read as follows (with my emphasis added):

Sec. 150. (a) Congress makes the following findings:

(1) General David H. Petraeus was confirmed by a unanimous vote of 81-0 in the Senate on January 26, 2007, to be the Commander of the Multi-National Forces-- Iraq ;

(2) General David H. Petraeus assumed command of the Multi-National Forces-- Iraq on February 10, 2007;

(3) General David H. Petraeus previously served in Operation Iraqi Freedom as the Commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command-- Iraq , as the Commander of the NATO Training Mission-- Iraq , and as Commander of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) during the first year of combat operations in Iraq ;

(4) General David H. Petraeus has received numerous awards and distinctions during his career, including the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, two awards of the Distinguished Service Medal, two awards of the Defense Superior Service Medal, four awards of the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal for valor, the State Department Superior Honor Award, the NATO Meritorious Service Medal, and the Gold Award of the Iraqi Order of the Date Palm; and

(5) The leadership of the majority party in both the House of Representatives and the Senate implored the American people and Members of Congress early in January 2007 to listen to the generals on the ground.

(b) It is the Sense of the Congress that the House of Representatives--

(1) recognizes the service of General David H. Petraeus, as well as all other members of the Armed Forces serving in good standing, in the defense of the United States and the personal sacrifices made by General Petraeus and his family, and other members of the Armed Forces and their families, to serve with distinction and honor;

(2) commits to judge the merits of the sworn testimony of General David H. Petraeus without prejudice or personal bias, including refraining from unwarranted personal attacks;

(3) condemns in the strongest possible terms the personal attacks made by the advocacy group MoveOn.org impugning the integrity and professionalism of General David H. Petraeus;

(4) honors all members of the Armed Forces and civilian personnel serving in harm's way, as well as their families; and

(5) pledges to debate any supplemental funding request or any policy decisions regarding the war in Iraq with the solemn respect and the commitment to intellectual integrity that the sacrifices of these members of the Armed Forces and civilian personnel deserve.

What was Betty Sutton doing between 11:30 AM and 2:27 PM today, and why didn't she vote? That's a heck of a long potty break.

Get it while supplies last!

Only $29.99 ... such a deal.

Hat tip: Force Majeure Farm

... and only if her audience is stupid.

Say hello to Congressman Joe Sestak.

Do you doubt the Bible's claims? I know I have reservations from time to time, and I've been conservative evangelical Christian since 1996. Case in point: any thinking person will entertain doubts about the historical reliability of the Gospels.

• Are there contradictions in the Gospels?
• Do the four Gospels have any support from archaeology?
• Does John share any or many similarities with the other three?
• Do they cohere together in a unified storyline?
• Is the Gospel of John so far different from the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke that John has little or no historical value?
• How do theology and history interact in the four Gospels?
• Can we trust them if they have a strong point of view and seek to persuade their readers or listeners?
• What is the so-called Q "gospel"?
• If it existed, what is its theology?
• Are the Gospels based on eyewitness testimony?
• If so, aren't eyewitnesses notoriously unreliable?
• How is eyewitness testimony disclosed, if it is, in the four Gospels?
• Are the eyewitnesses whose traditions that feed into the written Gospels anonymous or named?
• What is the role of the Twelve in securing the traditions about Jesus?
• What is a tradition?
• Were the traditions passed on orally or literarily (in writing)?
• Are there cultural analogies that show how they were transmitted?
• Most importantly, are the four Gospels historically reliable?
• Can we trust them, historically speaking, in addition to their theology?

Good questions, certainly. James Arlandson tackles them in turn and promises to keep going, courtesy of The American Thinker.

Laura Ingraham's "Power To The People" book tour pulled into Cleveland today. Here I am at the WHK Meet & Greet over on the East Side.

The lady radiates energy. She's on her tenth stop in this book tour, and won't get a break 'til the middle of next month. A three day break. She's gotta be tired but you sure can't tell by looking at her or listening to her. Laura's very friendly, outgoing, and charming ... the kind of person I'd enjoy hanging out with over pizza and beer. I'd love to just sit and hear her talk about the things she's done, the places she's been and the people she's met.

Laura, I hope you get a chance to work out at some point, just to vent some stress from the tour. At least go for a run, girl. You'll go batty by October otherwise. And the next time you roll through town, you and your producers drink on my tab. Never let it be said that this USCGA grad would withhold hospitality from friends of a squid like Joe (tempting though it might be).

Here's more on the author and her work.

 

The Morning Journal unloads on Sherrod Brown today for his refusal to condemn MoveOn.org's slimy "General Betray Us" ad:

It's a shame that Brown and the other 24 Democrats couldn't set partisanship aside to vote for the resolution and make a simple unanimous statement from the Senate that MoveOn was off base and wrong to place the damaging ad.

But then MoveOn is a mega-dollar supporter of Democratic election campaigns. Who else would know that better than Brown. His Senate campaign last year received more than $300,000 through MoveOn, and the group did other work to help get Brown elected.

Brown said, through an aide, that the $300,000 he got from MoveOn had nothing to do with his vote against the GOP resolution to condemn the group's Petraeus ad.

The average Ohioan should feel insulted that Brown thinks we would actually believe his denial.

Maybe he is counting on our ''suspension of disbelief'' as we watch this drama play out in the political theater of Congress. That would be cynical.

MoveOn and its ad assaulted the U.S. commander during war. That is wrong and damaging to our country. We are disappointed that Brown apparently lacked the strength and clarity to just drop politics and say MoveOn was wrong to attack our top soldier in Iraq.

Those who ''support our troops'' should do so vigorously, from the bottom ranks to the top, even if that means offending your political pals with the deep pockets.

Read the whole thing.

Yesterday our junior U.S. Senator, Sherrod Brown, voted to cut off funding for U.S. troops in Iraq. Here's the amendment he voted for (with my emphasis added):

SAFE REDEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES TROOPS FROM IRAQ.

(a) Transition of Mission.--The President shall promptly transition the mission of the United States Armed Forces in Iraq to the limited and temporary purposes set forth in subsection (d).

(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment From Iraq.--The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of members of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq who are not essential to the limited and temporary purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall be carried out in a manner that protects the safety and security of United States troops.

(c) Use of Funds.--No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after June 30, 2008.

(d) Exception for Limited and Temporary Purposes.--The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the following limited and temporary purposes:

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and affiliated international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States Government personnel and infrastructure.

(3) To provide training to members of the Iraqi Security Forces who have not been involved in sectarian violence or in attacks upon the United States Armed Forces, provided that such training does not involve members of the United States Armed Forces taking part in combat operations or being embedded with Iraqi forces.

(4) To provide training, equipment, or other materiel to members of the United States Armed Forces to ensure, maintain, or improve their safety and security.

Is this what Ohio's voters want from their junior senator?

You don't tug on Superman's cape, you don't spit into the wind, you don't pull the mask off the ol' Lone Ranger, and you don't mess around with ... God?

A legislator who filed a lawsuit against God has gotten something he might not have expected: a response.

...

State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha sued God last week, seeking a permanent injunction against the Almighty for making terroristic threats, inspiring fear and causing "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."

Chambers, a self-proclaimed agnostic who often criticizes Christians, said his filing was triggered by a federal lawsuit he considers frivolous. He said he's trying to makes the point that anybody can sue anybody.

Not so, says "God." His response argues that the defendant is immune from some earthly laws and the court lacks jurisdiction.

...

There was no contact information on the filing, although St. Michael the Archangel is listed as a witness

FYI, here's the original complaint: Ernest W. Chambers v. God

Today the U.S. Senate voted 72-25 (3 abstentions) to approve an amendment to the defense spending bill. The amendment read as follows:

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

Sherrod Brown voted "no." I'm shocked at Slippery Sherrod's silence.

Hat tip: NixGuy

--

Update: Track the buzz on the Senate's MoveOn sycophants here:

Perfect pitch.

Now that HillaryCare is published, I hope all Americans will clue into how ridiculous her plan is.  This might be fun for American Health Choices Plan proponents: an 'apple to apple comparison': HillaryCare to Wal-Mart: BIG COMPANY (big companies are good, right libs? oh, wait government doesn't qualify as a government), AVAILABLE (they will both be everywhere with long lines), AFFORDABLE, RELIABLE (consistently low prices, and lousy quality).  But then again, we all know how much liberals love Wal-Mart, so I'll have to think of a new comparison...

John Stossel explains why "universal health care" is neither free nor an improvement:

One basic problem with nationalized health care is that it makes medical services seem free. That pushes demand beyond supply. Governments deal with that by limiting what's available.

That's why the British National Health Service recently made the pathetic promise to reduce wait times for hospital care to four months.

The wait to see dentists is so long that some Brits pull their own teeth. Dental tools: pliers and vodka.

One hospital tried to save money by not changing bed sheets every day. British papers report that instead of washing them, nurses were encouraged to just turn them over.

Government rationing of health care in Canada is why when Karen Jepp was about to give birth to quadruplets last month, she was told that all the neonatal units she could go to in Canada were too crowded. She flew to Montana to have the babies.

...

Most Canadians like their free health care, but Canadian doctors tell us the system is cracking. More than a million Canadians cannot find a regular family doctor. One town holds a lottery. Once a week the town clerk gets a box out of the closet. Everyone who wants to have a family doctor puts his or her name in it. The clerk pulls out one slip to determine the winner. Others in town have to wait.

But never fear, dear American voter. HillaryCare would be, um, different. Somehow. Yeah. That's the ticket.

When a presidential candidate wants to convey the message that he's ready for the big leagues, it's hard to top an invitation to No. 10 Downing Street.

Well played, sir.

Hat tip: Pattrick Ruffini

If our politicians in Columbus can find a way to enact H.B. 314, the state medical board will be able to "limit, revoke, or suspend an individual's certificate to practice, refuse to register an individual, refuse to reinstate a certificate, or reprimand or place on probation the holder of a certificate" if that individual violates this new language in the Ohio Revised Code (emphasis added by Yours Truly):

Sec. 2317.561. In addition to the requirements in section 2317.56 of the Revised Code, if an obstetric ultrasound examination is performed at any time prior to the performance or inducement of an abortion or the physician performing or inducing the abortion determines that an ultrasound examination will be performed as part of the abortion procedure, the physician shall do both of the following prior to the performance or inducement of the abortion:

    (A) Provide the pregnant woman receiving the abortion the opportunity to view the active ultrasound image of the embryo or fetus;

    (B) Offer to provide the pregnant woman with a physical picture of the ultrasound image of the embryo or fetus.

The requirements of division (A) of this section shall be performed at no additional charge to the pregnant woman.

I looked through the Ohio Revised Code for any other mentions of the word "ultrasound" and found nothing that requires an abortionist to perform one. I'd bet that the standards of practice for an Ohio Ob/Gyn require an ultrasound before an abortion, but I'll confirm my hunch with my sister-in-law since she's an Ob/Gyn resident.

I'll check the Ohio Administrative Code in a bit.

--

Update 1: My search for the word "ultrasound" in the Ohio Administrative Code yielded 13 hits. Only the first five look like they're worth examining. More on this later.

Update 2: I found nothing in the Ohio Administrative Code about requiring Ambulatory Surgical Facilities (a term that includes abortion clinics) to do an ultrasound before performing an abortion. Unless you choose to interpret Administrative Rule 4731-18-01(A)(1) really really broadly:

4731-18-01 Standards for surgery.

(A) The surgeon of record in an operative case shall personally:

(1) Evaluate the patient sufficiently to formulate an appropriate preoperative diagnosis;

Too general to hang your hat on, in my opinion. Now it's on to the Ohio Medical Board Rules.

Update 3: I found nothing in the Ohio Medical Board Rules requiring an abortionist to perform a pre-abortion ultrasound. Now I'll try the National Abortion Federation's Clinical Policy Guidelines, which serve as the abortion industry's self-published minimum standards of care for abortion providers. I haven't found any comparable document published by any regulatory body or professional association in Ohio that would set the minimum standards of care for Ohio's abortionists. Unless someone can prove me wrong, I'm forced to conclude that Ohio abortionists are governed by the NAF's Clinical Policy Guidelines.

Frustrated by the canned response I got last time, on Friday I again asked Ohio's junior U.S. Senator, Sherrod Brown, the following three questions:

1. Will you condemn MoveOn.org's full-page ad slandering General David Petraeus as "General Betray Us" and claiming that he is "cooking the books for the White House"? See http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html
2. Are America and political Islam (a.k.a. "sharia") at war? If so, should America seek to achieve anything more than dismantling al Qaeda and capturing/killing Osama bin Laden?
3. Should America forcibly crush and discredit political Islam (a.k.a. "sharia") while preserving individual Muslims' right to worship peacefully? If so, how? If not, what will the consequences be for America?

This hit my inbox yesterday afternoon:

Thank you for letting me know your views on the advertisement placed in The New York Times by MoveOn.org.

I do not believe that General Petraeus should be the focus of blame for Americans' frustration with the situation in Iraq. The military has accomplished every goal set before it in Iraq with honor and courage. But no longer should we ask our troops to shed blood for a political and cultural battle they cannot resolve.

We do not dishonor the military by arguing for its return from Iraq. Two of the hallmarks of our country, unlike dictatorships past and present, are the vigorous debate among our citizens over the wisdom of our foreign policy and civilian control of our military forces. Every American has a responsibility to carefully evaluate the direction our country is taking and weigh in to help determine its future.

Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,
Sherrod Brown

Sorry. No banana for you, Senator.

Does anyone with two brain cells to rub together think that this qualifies as a response to my questions? Slippery Sherrod refused to condemn MoveOn.org's slimy ad, and completely ignored my questions about America's response to the threat from political Islam.

I know he desperately wants to squirm out from under this microscope, but he can't. I'm perfectly happy to be a gadfly when it comes to national defense. I'm going to keep asking these questions until he answers them directly. I'll even make it easy for him; I'll ask each one separately instead of all together in one message. That should make it harder to ignore the political Islam topic.

Stay tuned.

Welcome to the party, Fox News. Major Garrett skimmed the records at OpenSecrets.org to find political contributions from MoveOn.org and its members to Democrats in the 2006 election cycle. Here's what Garrett reported (emphasis added):

MoveOn backs candidates and asks members to send contributions on their behalf. They pass the donations on directly and handle all the paperwork.

"They're speaking for the grassroots," Ritsch said. "This is a form of bundling."

A quick tally of MoveOn-directed contributions in the 2006 election cycle, according to records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, offers a sample of the impressive size of its donations:

-- Sen. Robert Byrd, West Virginia = $834,211

-- Sen. Claire McCaskill, Missouri = $382,531

-- Sen. Jon Tester, Montana = $301,788

-- Sen. Sherrod Brown, Ohio = $287,622

-- Sen. Bob Casey, Pennsylvania = $160,780

Those contributions helped build a Senate Democratic majority as four of the five entered the Senate for the first time. McCaskill and Tester won razor-thin victories over well-funded GOP incumbents Jim Talent and Conrad Burns.

MoveOn-directed contributions also propelled several Democratic challengers to House victories, among them: Nick Lampson, Texas' 22nd District, $156,883; Tim Mahoney, Florida's 16th District, $145,334; Zack Space, Ohio's 18th District, $141,298; Michael Arcuri, New York's 24th District, $129,685; Joe Donnelly, Indiana's 2nd District, $123,035, and Tim Walz, Minnesota's 1st District, $102,657.

Major Garrett's story is an eye-opener, but he didn't dig deep enough. I did that eight days ago and found that Senator Sherrod Brown collected over $338,263 from MoveOn.org ... and that's not even counting all of those donations smaller than $1000. If you feel like adding them all up, feel free.

Have you ever wondered why Slippery Sherrod won't answer questions from constituents or radio hosts about his presumed support for MoveOn.org's slimy attacks? Now you know.

Hat tip: One Oar In The Water

If you thought the snowman was foolish, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

This appears to be genuine.

I love the New Media. And since we're talking about Hillary ...

Fred Thompson's working on his stump speech.

It'll take awhile to hone and polish it, but he'll get there soon enough.

In the meantime, what's holding up the expansion of the "Principles" section of Fred08.com? So far the only principle listed is a belief in federalism. He ought to at least lay out his principles in the areas of national defense, judicial appointments, immigration, tax cuts, spending cuts, and defending the unborn.

Part I of John Stossel's interview with Michael Moore on the topic of socialized medicine:

More at NewsBusters.

Whenever someone pines for a government-run health care system, ask them why they want to entrust medical treatment to the folks who bring us the joys of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

Hat tip: Thespis Journal

RedState illustrates MoveOn.org's defamatory defeatism with a historical parody:

Hat tip: Right Angle Blog

All in the interest of good health, of course.

On Monday I asked three questions of my Congresscritters, the liberal troika of Representative Betty Sutton (D-OH), Senator George Voinovich (R-OH), and Senator Sherrod Brown(D-MoveOn.org):

1. Will you condemn MoveOn.org's full-page ad slandering General David Petraeus as "General Betray Us" and claiming that he is "cooking the books for the White House"? See http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html
2. Are America and political Islam (a.k.a. "sharia") at war? If so, should America seek to achieve anything more than dismantling al Qaeda and capturing/killing Osama bin Laden?
3. Should America forcibly crush and discredit political Islam (a.k.a. "sharia") while preserving individual Muslims' right to worship peacefully? If so, how? If not, what will the consequences be for America?

As I predicted, Senator Sherrod Brown replied first.

Dear Mr. [omitted]:

Thank you for sharing your views on the testimony of General Petraeus and our military involvement in Iraq.

The government has lost his focus on the war on terror. I am concerned about the long term and open ended commitments proposed in the hearing, especially when our troops are in harm's way without the equipment they need. Both Republicans and Democrats posed difficult questions during the 9/10/07 and 9/11/07 hearings at which General Petraeus testified. I believe it was their solemn obligation to do so, and that General Petraeus was prepared for a candid, hard hitting and thorough inquiry.

I will continue to provide support to our troops and, work for their redeployment as soon as safely possible.

Thank you again for writing.

Sincerely,
Sherrod Brown

Can anybody make heads or tails of this? This has got to be a canned reply from some staffer. If Sherrod Brown actually wrote this, then I'm apparently being represented by an idiot. This is no reply at all, but then I'm not the only one having a hard time pinning Slippery Sherrod down.

Henry Payne has it right:

--

Update: I just sent the following message to Senator Brown's office through his web site.

On Monday I asked you to answer the following three questions:

1. Will you condemn MoveOn.org's full-page ad slandering General David Petraeus as "General Betray Us" and claiming that he is "cooking the books for the White House"? See http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html


2. Are America and political Islam (a.k.a. "sharia") at war? If so, should America seek to achieve anything more than dismantling al Qaeda and capturing/killing Osama bin Laden?


3. Should America forcibly crush and discredit political Islam (a.k.a. "sharia") while preserving individual Muslims' right to worship peacefully? If so, how? If not, what will the consequences be for America?

You sent me this canned reply:

"The government has lost his focus on the war on terror. I am concerned about the long term and open ended commitments proposed in the hearing, especially when our troops are in harm's way without the equipment they need. Both Republicans and Democrats posed difficult questions during the 9/10/07 and 9/11/07 hearings at which General Petraeus testified. I believe it was their solemn obligation to do so, and that General Petraeus was prepared for a candid, hard hitting and thorough inquiry."

You didn't even attempt to answer my questions. I'm giving you another opportunity to do so now.

Let's see what Slippery Sherrod does.

Listen to Senator Sherrod Brown (D-MoveOn) face tough questioning for a change, courtesy of WTAM's Bob Frantz. The interview wrapped up less than an hour ago. When Brown found himself cornered between MoveOn.org's slimy anti-Petraeus ad and Dennis Kucinich's anti-American grandstanding on terrorist TV, our junior Senator shifted to personal attacks on Frantz.

C'mon, Senator. You didn't see Kucinich on TV and you have no opinion on the MoveOn.org ad? How dumb do you think we are?

I'm sure this deranged little gnome thinks he's doing something admirable, but just watch this clip.

If Dennis Kucinich was actually seeking to give aid and comfort to America's enemies, how would his actions be any different from the above? Answer: they wouldn't be.

Here's the transcript.

--

Update: Some representative quotes, with my emphasis added.

The fact of the matter is we are all being weakened by continuing a war that's based on a lie. This war was based on lies. Iraq didn't have the weapons of mass destruction. It wasn't connected to 9/11. It had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda's role in 9/11. What are we there for? So I have stood up repeatedly and said: "Look, stop the war." Once the war started: "Here's the plan to get out and stop funding the war." And so we've had many opportunities now and I think it's very clear that we now have to focus on a peace plan, reach out to the world community, and that can only happen with those of us who are involved in the process meeting with people to see if there is an interest. And I'll tell you, President Assad, today, indicated a very strong interest in playing a role to help bring about stability in Iraq, and the fact of the matter is - whether the Bush administration wants to admit it or not - that President Assad is actually helping by providing a sanctuary in which Iraqi refugees can come. This is a great humanitarian crisis that's been created by this war. And Syria is one of the few countries in the world who has opened its arms to the Iraqi refugees, who have come here, with only the clothes on their back, and are looking for a way to survive. It is an extraordinary gesture on the part of the Syrian government that they would provide an opportunity for people to save their lives. And so this is something that I think needs to be recognized. And it also shows that here is a man, President Assad, who should be respected and appreciated for the role that he has played. And so it is important for the United States to take that gesture as a sign, a very powerful demonstration, of the willingness to try to achieve peace. And I think we need to move forward with that understanding.

The words of an anonymous Senator on Friday:

No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV ... The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us.

"Other groups" clearly means MoveOn.org and its despicable full-page ad. But who's the anonymous Senator? Let's look at some likely suspects ... those Senators who enjoyed MoveOn.org's largesse during the 2006 election cycle (to be updated as I dig through the FEC reports):

Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV)
    Contributions to Friends of Robert C. Byrd Committee
    $596,100 3/30/2005 (earmarked contributions)
    $186,644 3/31/2005 (earmarked contributions)
    $51,467 3/31/2005 (earmarked contributions)
    $28,200 3/31/2005 (25 earmarked contributions over $1k)

Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
$25,899 (independent expenditure)
    Contributions to Friends of Sherrod Brown
    $287,623 9/12/2006 (earmarked contributions)
    $10,281 9/18/2006 (earmarked contributions)
    $4,000 11/1/2006 (earmarked contributions)
    $4,000 9/12/2006 (4 earmarked contributions over $1k)
    $3,325 9/25/2006 (earmarked contributions)
    $2,000 9/12/2006 (earmarked contribution)
    $1,135 10/7/2006 (earmarked contributions)

Senator Jon Tester (D-MT)
$2,051 (independent expenditure)
    Contributions to Montanans for Tester
    $225,455 11/3/2006 (earmarked contributions)
    $76,333 9/18/2006 (earmarked contributions)
    $36,363 11/6/2006 (earmarked contributions)
    $11,025 9/25/2006 (earmarked contributions)
    $9,200 11/3/2006 (7 earmarked contributions over $1k)

These figures do not cover earmarked contributions under $1000. Why? There were too many to keep track of! Several hundred contributions of $5 or $10 or $50 are significant, but somebody else can run 'em all down; I do have a life. You can still get the sense that certain Senators are wholly-owned subsidiaries of MoveOn.org.

Pete Hegseth asks the Democrats in Congress "Does MoveOn.org speak for you? Do you agree with MoveOn.org? Or do you repudiate this despicable charge?" I'm going to call the Senators above and ask them the same thing, and I'll also ask each one if he or she is the anonymous coward qupoted above who expected MoveOn.org to do the dirty deed.

My favorite talk show host kicks off her latest book tour by sitting down with Michelle Malkin:

I love this lady. Buy her books!

As part of of The 2,996 Project, I'm remembering Damian Meehan, who was 32 when he died in the North Tower of the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001. The following biography was written by his family.

Growing up in a large family in Manhattan's Irish Inwood in the 1970's, gave Damian all the necessary essentials for a very happy childhood. Six older brothers, an older sister and a baby sister set the tone for a perpetual smile and a unique laugh that became a very integral part of his personality. His big brothers, Shaun, Michael, Eugene, Kevin, Chris and Paul, while always creating obstacles and torment in his daily life, grew to love, protect and admire this most gentle of siblings. His sisters Kitty and Janine just adored him from day one.

Damian's loving nature made his life a very happy experience. He was such a happy kid and people loved being around him. His easygoing personality and perpetual smile endeared him to a wide circle of friends. He attended Good Shepherd grammar school in Inwood and made many close friends there that would stay with him through life. As a child he played in Inwood Hill Park and spent his summers at the Four Green Fields. Both Inwood and the Four Green Fields, played major roles in his early and developing years, that led to friendships that were to last a lifetime.

Damian was so trustworthy, that his parents allowed him to travel by subway to attend Power Memorial High School. Unfortunately, Power closed in 1984, just after Damian's freshman year, so he decided to finish at St. Raymond's in the Bronx, where a few of his brothers also attended. Upon graduation, Damian chose SUNY New Paltz for college. Two years later, his Dad convinced him that there was more to learn at home. Damian decided to join his sister Janine at Lehman College, where he was first introduced to Janine's friend, Joann McCarthy. It was definitely love at first sight - and the rest is history. While in college, Damian worked at the Columbia Tennis Center in Inwood, along with various bartending jobs throughout the city. In August of 1993, Damian decided to try Wall Street and it was his brother-in-law, Marty Boyle, that introduced him to the wild world of finance. He worked for Dean Witter, which later became Carr Futures, and he came under the guidance and counsel of Brendan Dolan and they became fast friends for the rest of their lives.

On June 6, 1998 , at the age 29, Damian married the love of his life, Joann McCarthy at Mount St. Ursula Church. They were just a perfect couple; so much love, devotion and respect that was obvious to all. They settled in Riverdale. The following year they bought a house in Glen Rock, NJ near their friends Brendan and Stacey Dolan, and Kathy and Joe Holland.

On January 23, 2000, Damian Peter, Jr. was born - the arrival of Damian, Jr. could not have been more perfect. It was a great time in Damian's life. He loved being a father and cherished every minute spent with his son. He was so proud of little Damian and always boasted about his accomplishments. They had their own rituals. Every night, little Damian would stand on the couch and watch out the window for his "gogga-gogga" to come home from work, and if Damian got home after little Damian's bedtime, his Dad would immediately go into his room and stand over his crib and talk to him while he slept. It was an unbelievable bond.

Damian was a gifted athlete. Gaelic football was a big part of his life from a very young age; he won every under-age medal with Good Shepherd as a full back and continued at Junior and Senior grades with additional success. When Good Shepherd could no longer field a full team, Damian went to play for Donegal, along with Dave Mc Sweeney, another former Good Shepherd player. Those were great years for Damian, as he took immense pride in the fact that he was playing for his parent's native county team. He trained really hard and thoroughly enjoyed playing at this top level at Gaelic Park and internationally as part of the New York panel.
Damian also enjoyed running, even more so in the last few years, when he began competing in races with his brothers and sister, Kitty. Damian was an excellent runner, his siblings watched in awe, as he ran the toughest hills effortlessly, and always managed to have the fastest time. Damian also enjoyed golfing and did so quite often with his brothers, extended family and childhood friends from Inwood, Chris Lee and Donn McNamee.

Most of all, Damian was a "family-man", in every sense of the word. He loved going up to the Four Green Fields because it meant spending time with family and close friends and sharing many laughs. He loved playing Bingo and the card games that followed in the dance hall into the wee hours of the morning. He looked forward to participating in the basketball tournament every July 4th and Labor Day weekend. Last Labor Day weekend, Damian spent quality time with his family and friends at the Four Green Fields, and had a great weekend. Everything was perfect. Damian was always making plans for next month and for the next five years. Life was so good: health, happiness and a secure future. Little did we know that we were all enjoying the very best time of our lives. A week later, came the devastation of September 11th, leaving such so much pain, anguish, devastation and heartache that will never heal. Life will never be the same again.

In the early hours of October 2nd, Damian's brothers Michael, Eugene and Kevin brought us the tragic-yet joyful news that Damian had been recovered on Monday, October 1st with a bunch of firemen and civilians on West Street. The news was so final - we had lost our beloved Damian forever. Damian's wake at William's Funeral Home was an incredible scene, as thousands came to say goodbye to our Damian, and yet again at Good Shepherd Church on October 8th, as Father Kevin Devine led us all in a final farewell to one of the most beautiful human beings ever created. Damian now rests in peace at St. Anastasia Cemetery in Harriman, New York.

On January 13th 2002, Damian and Joann's little daughter, Madison Margaret was born and it was finally a day to rejoice. Damian Jr. is delighted with his baby sister.
We will never forget Damian and we will all make sure that his children know the type of man their father was. For all of us, our Damian was truly one of a kind.

Rest in peace, Damian. You are not forgotten.

Please visit The Damian Meehan Memorial Fund and consider making a donation to their scholarship program.

Benjamin Disraeli is reputed to have said: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." A prescient man, that Ben.

General Petraeus' execution of the troop surge in Iraq appears to be reducing U.S. deaths from hostile action. This angers the Left because it doesn't fit their "all is lost" narrative. So what's a poor Lefty to do? Why, skip past the damned lies and head right for the statistics, of course! Take a look at some of the left's statistical sleight-of-hand:

I [sic] afraid you're reading the data incorrectly.

In fact, the chart you link to shows more Americans have died every month this year than in the same month in '06.

What looks like a big drop in September is because September 07 is only through the first 9 days . . . adding the 9 more who died today brings September '07's total to 42 in the first 10 days of the month.

American deaths are clearly rising rather than falling as you conclude . . .

Oh dear. He's right. Almost every month this year was worse than the same month last year:

 

But wait a moment. Two can play that game. I like the surge, and I want to "acc ... sennnnnn ... chu-ate the positive". I'll look back all the way to 2003 when we invaded Iraq, and then I'll compare the months I want (in red below) with this year's deaths (in blue) to minimize the deaths in 2007:

 

Much better. This statistical stuff is fun!

But come to think of it, my lefty counterparts can just turn the tables on me like so (their favorite months in green and this year's deaths in yellow):

 

Are you beginning to see the problems with this little game? I've studied statistics enough to spot B.S. even when it's offered on a silver platter.

The Left's fancy figures don't really tell us anything worthwhile. When we compare August '07 to August '06, and July '07 to July '06, things look bad at first. But that's not a meaningful way to look at the data. We only compare data from the same month in successive years if we're trying to spot seasonal patterns. Think of a hotel comparing this year's spring break occupancy with last year's spring break and you'll see what I'm driving at. I don't think the seasonal approach applies here, unless our jihadist enemy migrates to cooler climes in the summer.

Our lefty pals also choose to completely ignore September through December of 2006. Now maybe I just don't get The New Democratic Math, but I don't understand why combat deaths in the last third of 2006 don't fit into the picture they're painting here. I thought we were all supposed to rend our clothes and gnash our teeth over the uselessness of every death in Chimpy Bushitlerburton's Neocon Killbot Adventure©. Silly me. I guess we can ignore the troops who died from September to December whenever liberals have some politically advantageous statistical cherry-picking to do.

Let's get serious. The troop surge reached its peak in mid-June of this year, and from May through the end of August the number of American troops killed by hostile action has been dropping steadily.

A halfway competent person looking at American combat death statistics would identify the start of a given strategy and track the trends in deaths by hostile action from that date forward. When a significant shift in strategy takes place, the halfway competent person would flag that point in time and track any changes in the trends. If combat deaths are high and growing during Strategy A, but drop after switching to Strategy B, then something worth examining has happened.

Of course a shift in strategy isn't the only variable in play here. As any statistician knows, correlation isn't always proof of causation. War is horribly messy and complex and often irrational. But we need to look for what else might have changed in Iraq from around June of '07 onward. Something (or maybe several somethings) caused American deaths to drop, and it happened right about the time that the troop surge reached its peak. Was it mere coincidence? I don't have the kind of superhuman faith required to believe that. If we can't find some other good explanation, then we have to conclude that the troop surge likely had something to do with the drop in combat deaths.

Unless we're so committed to the "all is lost" narrative that we prove Disraeli right.

... they're all pulling toward the same goal: defeat, retreat, and surrender.

That's a classy and persuasive way to argue. Bravo, CodePink, and keep it up as we head toward November '08!

With opponents like these, who needs friends?

If you'd like to hear from the front-line troops in Iraq, go browse the listings at MilBlogging.com and decide for yourself whether General Petraeus is telling the truth.

Also be sure to read the work of independent journalists embedded with the guys out on the bleeding edge: Michael Yon, Bill Roggio, Michael J. Totten, Bill Ardolino, Austin Bay, JD Johannes, and Pat Dollard. These guys are out in the thick of it, and they're not beholden to the Bush administration or to anybody else but the thousands of donors who fund their work.

--
UPDATE: Yon on Petraeus

Since the troop surge to Iraq reached full strength on June 15th, look what's happened to U.S. military deaths due to hostile action through the end of August. Click on the graph to see the full statistics:

The site that tracks these deaths, Iraq Coalition Casualties, can hardly be accused of sloppy methodology or pro-war bias.

Boy, it must suck to be an anti-Petraeus lefty when you have to explain results like these.

Here are three questions I just posed to my U.S. Representative and both of my U.S. Senators:

1. Will you condemn MoveOn.org's full-page ad slandering General David Petraeus as "General Betray Us" and claiming that he is "cooking the books for the White House"? See http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html
2. Are America and political Islam (a.k.a. "sharia") at war? If so, should America seek to achieve anything more than dismantling al Qaeda and capturing/killing Osama bin Laden?
3. Should America forcibly crush and discredit political Islam (a.k.a. "sharia") while preserving individual Muslims' right to worship peacefully? If so, how? If not, what will the consequences be for America?

I submitted each question simultaneously to Representative Betty Sutton, Senator George Voinovich, and Senator Sherrod Brown via their web sites. It'll be interesting to read their responses ... assuming that they reply, of course. Betty Sutton's not exactly a paragon of virtue when it comes to answering questions (especially the last two). George Voinovich has a habit of ignoring uncomfortable inquiries as well.

Sherrod Brown's a different story though; for all my strong disagreements with him on practically every possible issue, he's extremely responsive. When he was my Representative his office responded promptly to every question I submitted through his web site, even though my stance was clearly conservative. My hat's off to Senator Brown and his staff, and I'm confident that he'll reply promptly this time too.

The race is on. Tune in for updates.

--

Update 1: I have a hunch that Ohio's junior Senator will be reluctant to condemn today's slander, since MoveOn.org spent $25,899 to help elect Senator Brown.

Update 2: Perhaps we should ask different questions. Good point. Who is the anonymous Senator working with MoveOn.org?

Update 3: Whoa. I've been digging through MoveOn.org's finances for the 2006 election cycle, and there are some eye-popping numbers to discuss. Stay tuned for a big post.

Update 4: Here ya go. Follow the money.

Update 5: Senator Brown replied. Sort of.

Do the lefty bloggers at Plunderbund have any reaction to the despicable MoveOn.org "Betray Us" ad?

Even Rolling Stone can see it for what it is: filth. How about it, Plunderbund?

Just when you think they can't manage to shoot themselves in the foot (again), MoveOn.org runs a full page ad in the NY Times with the title "General Petraeus or General Betray Us." The gist of the ad is that Petraeus is a Bush sympathizer disconnected from the facts, before he has even uttered one word to congress. It's no wonder the american people don't take democratic politics seriously when they are represented by this bunch.

As a former member of the Armed Forces, with a spouse who is currently in Iraq fighting the good fight, this kind of crap only emboldens the enemy and undercuts our military. Take it from someone who's inside source is over there, this guy knows what he is talking about and we finally have an effective military strategy in place, even if it is 4 years late in coming (thanks to the arrogant and incompetent former SecDef). The troops on the ground have faith in the guy, too bad the politicians are more concerned with sound bites than listening to a professional military general give his assessment on how to win the war. It's time for MoveOn to move on.

You can see a copy of the ad here.

--

Puddle Pirate's addendum: Guess who got a sweetheart discount on that ad?

C-SPAN has streaming video of General David Petraeus' testimony before Congress today.

--

UPDATE: The Tank is liveblogging the circus.

Greetings online community. I am going to be blogging with my fellow co-horts here at Brainshavings as a more reasoned voice (I'm not a right-wing nut like the Pirate) for the online community. In fact, both the Pirate and the Spider Slayer like to refer to me as their "left-wing moonbat friend." I'll take that as a compliment. I'll bring a more centrist personal perspective, or as the Pirate likes to say "I'll stick my finger in the air and figure out which way the wind is blowing before I give my position." I've actually registered as both a Democrat and a Republican in the past based upon the issues, though recently I've been an Independent due to my disgust with both national parties. Let the debate begin!

A company called Freedom For Today just called me a few minutes ago and offered me software that will supposedly reduce my credit card debt and boost my credit rating. As annoying as such telemarketing calls are to begin with, this one really got under my skin.

The recorded message sounds almost like it might be coming from your bank's collections department, calling with a "final notice" that you need to act upon. Unless you overcome your alarm and surprise at hearing the phrases "credit card" and "final notice" in the same sentence, you won't realize it's not your bank on the other end of the line.

Worse still, the recording does not identify the source of the call. You have to press 1 to get a human on the line, and it takes some aggressive questioning to get the company's name. But wait. There's more.

My phone number's been on the National Do Not Call Registry since July 1st, 2005. By calling me, this telemarketer violated the Federal Trade Commission's updated Telemarketing Sales Rule. After verifying that my phone number is on the list, I filed a complaint with the FTC against Freedom For Today.

When Freedom For Today calls you, please do what I did and help keep scams like this under control. I'm a big supporter of free markets, and to ensure that our capitalist system runs smoothly the feds do need to stamp out scams like these. It's one of the few things that the federal government should do more of.

--

12:05 PM 9/11/07 Update: Unbelievable. They just called again. Time to file another complaint.

Imagine recuperating from war wounds in places like these.

Sure beats Walter Reed or Tripler. Now wouldn't it be even better if it didn't cost you a dime? Well, sit down before you fall down. That's exactly what's available to wounded warriors, thanks to some generous patriots in Palm Island, Florida:

"Beach Homes for the Brave," a new program for military veterans and those wounded while serving in support of operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom kicked off its inaugural event last weekend. This program provides the war veterans with a complimentary weekend getaway to Palm Island.

Relatives and friends of Army Staff Sgt. Lee Jones enjoy a game of soccer during 'Beach homes for the Brave' in Palm Island, Florida.

David and Holly Haynes, who own and operate Tarpon Real Estate in Cape Haze, Florida, decided to start the program to provide wounded service members with the opportunity to enjoy a stay on Palm Island.

"We wanted to personally offer something and say 'thank you,'" said Mr. Haynes.

The program includes free ferry transportation to the island, lodging in a fully furnished beachfront home, meals at the Palm Island Resort's Rum Bay Restaurant, complimentary golf carts and other resort-like privileges on the island.

Just click on the banner below to find out more. If you've been wounded and would like to spend some time on Palm Island, you can sign up online.

God bless you, David and Holly Haynes.

Hat tip: CENTCOM Insider podcast (July 20, 2007)

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

How dare they impose their antiquated morals on an upstanding young skank?

NixGuy commenter Fred O'Neill has blown the whistle on me. Drat. My Zionist overlords at Halliburton are going to be very displeased with my ineptitude.

On Wednesday afternoon, shortly after helping U.S. Central Command improve its news distribution from the war zone, I sent the following e-mail to CENTCOM's Public Affairs Office:

Your CENTCOM podcast feed at ...

[link shortened]

... is broken. You've been uploading new podcasts all the way through 31 AUG 07, but the podcast feed has nothing new after 26 JAN 07. Just go look at ...

[link shortened]

... and you'll see. Please fix this ASAP. CENTCOM needs this podcast to function if America is to win the information war against the jihadis.

Incidentally, the following feeds are also woefully outdated (perhaps dead?):

[link shortened]

[link shortened]

Yesterday afternoon, CENTCOM replied:

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. I have contacted our web masters and you should see something new within the next couple of days. Thanks again for your support.

V/R
Master Sgt. S. Crumes
Public Affairs Operations NCO
US Central Command
(813) 827-6761
DSN 312-651-6761
Cell [snipped]
Fax 813-827-2211
parkersy@centcom.mil
www.centcom.mil

CENTCOM's three dead feeds disappeared this morning, but the two good ones remained. That leads me to believe that somebody's working on the problem. Unfortunately CENTCOM's entire site dropped offline this afternoon. I'll be watching to see what happens.

The Ohio Republican Party doesn't have forever to pick someone to challenge U.S. Representative Betty Sutton (D-OH) for her seat in the 13th District. The primary election's on March 4th, 2008. That means potential candidates must file paperwork declaring their candidacy with Ohio's Secretary of State by December 1st (75 days before the primary).

Who's going to challenge the freshman incumbent? She's beatable.

Here's a sample of the jaw-grinding agony we face from listening to the voice of a President Hillary Clinton.

If Shrillary wins, you get to bathe in the sweet melody of these dulcet tones. For. Nine. More. Years.

Enjoy the fresh bloggy goodness.

Google has updated its top result for the answer to life, the universe, and everything.

Previously: Random Fred Thompson fact

And so it begins.

Gird 'em up, Fred.

I've been watching the utter inactivity developing race in Ohio's 13th District in the U.S. House of Representatives, and I haven't seen squat from the Ohio Republican Party. Democrat blogger Scott Piepho (an eminently reasonable and likable guy) wonders why the GOP is leaving Sutton unchallenged.

Hello! Earth to Bob Bennett, Alex Arshinkoff, and Kevin Coughlin! When will one of you recruit a credible challenger?

With General Petraeus' progress report on Iraq almost upon us, it's time to revisit the propaganda war (and our military's lack of success therein).

Last year Tom Blumer wondered why CENTCOM's news releases weren't showing up in key places online. I suggested solutions and followed up on Tom's excellent work. Since then, CENTCOM has taken some steps to put out some news feeds and make them available online, but their publicity effort's still woefully lacking.

Enough dilly-dallying. I dug around CENTCOM's site, found 5 feeds, and did their public affairs work for them ... and it took me all of 45 minutes.

Those five feeds are now hooked into several search engines and feed-publicizing web services, so whenever CENTCOM posts a new item, everyone will know. Google Blog Search, My Yahoo, Technorati, Bloglines, Apple's iTunes, Syndic8, FeedBlitz ... it's all covered. You can even subscribe to any feed by e-mail, if you want.

Here are the five feeds:

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Please spread the word far and wide. I'm only one voice.

--

9/6 Update: If you don't know what a "feed" is (nor why you should care) here's a one-page answer.

Never let it be said that duty in the U.S. Coast Guard is a safe proposition. Here's just one of many examples of Coasties doing dirty, hazardous, and essential work.

Incidentally, I served with CDR Rick Rodriguez back when we were junior officers on Guam, and he's a consummate professional, not to mention a genuinely good guy. It's gratifying to see the Coast Guard promote such people to positions of responsibility.

The "reality-based" Left's clearly suffering from a chronic case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Facts, logic and reason be damned. A story from an "anonymous source" on a carrier asserts that we're about to attack Iran, ergo it's too juicy to doubt. What are ya gonna believe, a ripping good yarn about eeeevil neocon conspiracies or your own lying eyes? This is Chimpy Hallibushitler we're talking about here!! He wants to DESTROY THE WORLD and lock up all progressives in GULAGS run by MERCENARIES!!!11!!

Fake but accurate, n'est ce pas?

UPDATE: What a shock. The lefty blogger at DKos just deleted his post. Coward.

--

My favorite blogging aviator Neptunus Lex cries foul over a conspiratorial post at Daily Kos alleging that America is about to attack Iran. The DKos diarist claims his information comes from an anonymous Navy officer aboard a carrier.

By the time Lex finishes debunking the anonymous source, the story has more holes than a sieve.

If you're wondering what the signal flags in Lex's post mean, here's a little help: