Homocon

Radio 630 WMAL president and general manager Chris Berry announced yesterday that midday radio personality Michael Graham would be indefinitely suspended pending an internal investigation into Graham's July 25th remarks that "Islam is a terrorist organization."

Following the second round of suicide bombings in London's transit systems, Graham began telling his listeners that Muslim leaders were complicit in terrorism since they had not said or done enough to curb extremism, an opinion that, on its surface, carries a lot of water despite the fact that it's obviously less than tactful. But since when is a lack of tact, aimed at a Liberal Pet Project of the Year, no longer tolerated from Western radio personalities? It's not as though Graham called for the streets to run with blood, or encouraged children to blow themselves up, or attempted to saw anyone's head off with a blunt machete.

WMAL has been pressured by CAIR, a radical Islam apologist organization cleverly disguised as the NAACP for Arab Americans, to discipline Graham for his opinions, even though his opinions are what WMAL apparently hired him for. Graham has this posting on his website: "First, CAIR just wanted me suspended....Now that I have been, they've taken the next step and now want me fired. Is anyone surprised? When you encourage the enemies of freedom, they always come back for more."

Graham's criticism of Islam, and Islamic leaders, is that while every non-Muslim political leader in earshot is projecting an uber-PC admiration for Islam's origins as a "Religion of Peace," actual Muslim leaders are sticking the knife right in our soft, Western ribs, and then twisting it . . . publicly.

For example: (1.)Mohammed Naseem, described as the most senior Islamic cleric in Birmingham, England, denied that Muslims were in any way responsible for the London bombings (despite video-tape and other police surveillance evidence), called Tony Blair a liar and declared that Muslims "all over the world have never heard of an organization called al Qaeda." (2.) Muslim scholars in the US and Canada issued a fatwa against terrorism, but pointedly refused to name specific organizations, such as Hamas, Al Qaeda, the Palestine Liberation Front or Fatah. They also neglected to mention known terrorist leaders by name, such as Osama Bin Laden or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- both Muslims, and both vocally strident in using Islam as a rallying cry against Western civilian targets. Without holding specific organizations and individuals responsible for the terrorism that Muslim scholars are claiming to oppose, "terrorism" becomes a mere catchword by which they can backpedal to include the Israeli army and the U.S. Military when it proves convenient to save face during Friday prayers at the local Mosque. Case in point: Britain's largest Sunni Muslim group stated, when issuing their fatwa against terrorism, "Muslims should not use atrocities being committed in Palestine and Iraq to justify attacks such as those in London" -- you see, because, really, they think the attacks in London are justified, it was just a shame that Muslim suicide bombers carried them out. (3.) Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America and main spokesman for the Fiqh Council in their highly publicized fatwa against “terrorism,” openly threatened the United States with violence if it continued its support of Israel back in 2000, and praised suicide bombers in a 1995 speech, while In 1998, Fiqh Council (you know, the same Fiqh council that just issued a fatwa against terrorism) member Sheikh Muhammad al-Hanooti, gave a speech calling for jihad against the United States and the United Kingdom, saying that “Allah will curse the Americans and British” and “Allah, the curse of Allah will become true on the infidel Jews and on the tyrannical Americans.” (4.) At a meeting of the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, the International Humanist and Ethical Union tried to call for a condemnation of suicide bombing, only to be disrupted by Islamic members of the Sub-Commission who objected to the speech as “an attack on Islam." (5.) Omar Ahmad, Co-founder of CAIR, outlines his objectives for American Islamic relations in this way: "Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

Are you getting the picture?

Michael Graham's description of Islam is controversial, but should he have been suspended from a Western media channel for criticizing Islamic leaders and their tacit support of terrorism against the West simply because of complaints from an American Muslim PR organization with several prominent members under investigation for alleged terrorist funding and ties to terrorist groups?

I think not.

Michael Graham's exact statement was this: ""Sadly, as it is constituted today, Islam IS a terrorist organization, but the good news is that the majority of Muslims--who don't support terror--can change that and take back their religion." This is the message that CAIR doesn't like, and that CAIR, (again, an organization which has prominent members under investigation for alleged ties to terrorism) wants to see suppressed.

We in the West do not live under sharia, we do not have to speak carefully about our religious institutions, and we certainly don't have to show respect to a repressive and blood soaked culture that hasn't earned it. Islam may or may not be a terrorist organization, but it's not up to CAIR and its jihad tainted membership to make that decision for the rest of us. I, for one, vote to keep loudmouths like Michael Graham on the air and in our face. It's healthy, it's challenging and it's certainly more provocative than Howard "show me your boobies oh you're smokin' hot" Stern.

ADDENDUM:
Contact information for WMAL.

Posted by at 9:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)

Loony-left White House Press Corps fossil Helen Thomas has vowed to "kill herself" if Dick Cheney runs for president in the next election.

Hmmmm . . . perhaps we should all reconsider whom we'd prefer as a 2008 Republican candidate. I mean, how often does an opportunity to do so much public good just drop unbidden into the collective lap?

Helen "I was a liberal the day I was born, and I will be until the day I die" Thomas famously quoted in 1993, to unanimous conservative derision, "A liberal bias? I don't know what a liberal bias is," yet when questioned regarding her thoughts of Condoleeza Rice, as well as the 2004 Presidential election, she screeched: "I tell you, the woman is a monster, a monster, a monster" and “My God, the man (Bush) is a fascist – a fascist, I tell you.”

Nope. No bias there.

Michelle Malkin describes Thomas as a "crusty ex-journalist-turned-White House heckler," Joseph Farah calls her "a wretch" and "a tired old battle-axe," and while I cheered when Ann Coulter outed Thomas as "that old Arab", I think my favorite description of our sweet Helen as an, uh, "journalist" is from the blog all-encompassingly.com: "She scared me. She was old, unsightly, and had that “wicked witch of the west” voice, but mostly i was afraid because I realized America (me included) was seeing its news through the biased, piss-colored lenses of Helen Thomas’ glasses . . . she was a bitter Michael Moore wanna-be carelessly spewing half-truths."

In the Clinton administration, Thomas held front and center position in the White House Press briefings in deference to her decades as a media scribbler, and arguably the high point of her self-regard was her cameo in the fatuous Hollywood political fantasy, 'Dave', where an Average Schmoe gets to be President, and wow, is he ever terrific at it, you know, cuz he cares about kids, and schools and jobs. Not like a *real* politician . . . not like you know who! Helen's shining silver-screen moment, staged during a fictional feel-good White House Press Conference, was, unfortunately for all of us in the audience, a close-up of her sagging, heavily made-up face punctuated with two beady Arafat eyes and a poisonous snarl gashed beneath the Yucca Mountain of her nose. I nearly tossed my bathtub sized popcorn into the air and screamed. What the hell was I watching -- a George A. Romero movie? Aeeiii!

But Thomas' powers have waned in recent years -- she's no longer called on first during White House briefings (thank you, Ari), and in fact sits in the back row, often ignored. She blew the wad of her remaining press cachet by defending Dan Rather when it was obvious that Rather and Company were cynical media hounds on the scent of a non-existent story, and even Slate complained of Thomas: "She ends up taking the air out of the room for intelligent criticism of the president and helps make the press corps look like a Saturday Night Live skit." Her graceless denouement (or is that forced retirement) into the Op Ed pasture finally allowed her the liberty to shed the chafing veneer of media impartiality to flaunt her true colors, and that's waaaay more of a close-up than any sane person could have ever prepared himself for.

So c'mon, Cheney -- how about it. 2008? You? Me? A Voting booth? Cuz the only sound I want to hear coming out of Helen Thomas' mouth after the next election is the howling recognition that the world has changed so far beyond her calcified ideologies that there's nothing left for her to do but keep good on her promise.

Posted by at 6:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

Reuters journalist Michelle Nichols leads off todays piece regarding the 'Beyond Kyoto' story with, "The United States, the world's top polluter . . . " -- and the rest of it simply goes downhill from there. Verifiable statistics, attributed sources and real science are nowhere to be seen; instead, her readers are served up a hodgepodge of a "fear" of floods and species extinctions, expressions of "concern" over emissions levels, plus various rehashings of statements/press releases from Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund, two organizations which exist on subsidized tax dollars and donations from a U.S. population that's continually goaded into believing that the world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth and everything Americans do is what's wrong with today's world.

While record sums of money (translation: billions of dollars) are flowing to environmental causes, with millions of guilt-ridden Americans footing the majority of the bills, the Sierra Club is scathingly referred to in back room conversations as "Club Sierra" for its penthouse martini parties and extravagant digs, and the chief executives at nine of the nation's 10 largest environmental groups (including the World Wildlife Fund) earn salaries in the six figure range and up. So is media criticism of the United States and its industrial policies really about facts, figures and a true concern for the implementation of sound ecological management policies, or does the National Audobon Society just need more "emergency" funding?

"A lot of environmental messages are simply not accurate," states Jerry Franklin, a professor of forest ecology and ecosystem science at the University of Washington. "But that's the way we sell messages in this society. We use hype, and we use those pieces of information that sustain our position." He goes on to add: "Kyoto as currently constructed wouldn’t be likely to do anything significant for us here in North America in my view . . . I find that many environmentalists are quite as prepared as timber corporations to ignore science when it doesn’t serve their particular agenda."

It looks like journalists are prepared to ignore science, too.

The Kyoto Protocol, as it's currently worded, encourages emission and production shifts from high-wage markets (read: United States, Britain and Australia) to low-wage markets (read: China, Africa, India and South America) through emission limits and the Carbon Credit scam, accelerating the growth of global concentrations of greenhouse gases by discouraging production in more technologically efficient and industrialized nations while encouraging poorer, less efficient societies to ramp up production without modern technologies in place. Unless, of course, the plan is to get the United States to feel guilty enough to donate all the industrial technology, too. I'm sure that Greenpeace would be the first to step up to the plate as the middle-man, skimming an appropriate percentage, of course -- you never know when another boat might come in handy.

“I think that everybody agrees that Kyoto is really, really hopeless in terms of delivering what the planet needs,” Peter Roderick of Friends of the Earth International told CNSNews.com. “It is woefully inadequate . . . We need huge cuts to protect the planet from climate change.” And this is precisely why the Bush Administration hasn't allowed itself to get suckered into the Kyoto Treaty, because the Bushies realize that Kyoto is just the first step in the anti-industrialists' agenda, and that there will ultimately be no satisfying the environmentalists until there are no cars, no industries, no major urban centers, no poisonous plastics, evil refrigeration units or toxic computers and we all are stuck living in eco-friendly shanties among fields of meager, unmodified wheat, drinking our recycled urine and cowering under acres of mosquito netting so as not to mistakenly swat a fly (which might disrupt nature's delicate balance). "Don't shoot the mountain lion, honey -- humans are food, too."

The National Academy of Sciences prepared a report in 2000 that explicitly stated that "we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future." Richard S. Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, goes on to say that "Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens . . . My own view, consistent with the (NAS) panel's work, is that the Kyoto Protocol would not result in a substantial reduction in global warming." He also stated that the climate is constantly changing, that change is the norm, and that "Two centuries ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was emerging from a little ice age. A millennium ago, during the Middle Ages, the same region was in a warm period. Thirty years ago, we were concerned with global cooling."

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama and one of the lead authors of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report, chimes in with his two cents: "You should approach climate models with a degree of awe and a sense of humor . . . they are not the real world." He adds: "Hurricanes are not increasing. Tornados are not increasing. Storms and droughts do not show any pattern of increasing or decreasing . . . . Variations of climate have always occurred, even when humans could not have had any impact."

*Hmph* -- guess I'll keep the SUV.

The Kyoto Treaty was rejected in the US Senate by a vote of 95 to 0 (yes, that's Zero!), so it's not like this is a bitter partisan debate in the halls of Washington (though less stringent emission control measures are presently being fought along partisan lines). The Democrats may be out to lunch on the Middle East and Karl Rove, but at least they pulled their heads out of their asses long enough to see that Kyoto was a punitive measure disguised as fluffy environmentalism. Kyoto set the U.S. guidelines for CO2 emissions to 1990 levels, while the U.S. has seen explosive growth in its economy since then. Attempting to adhere to the Kyoto requirements would cripple economic growth in this country, while forcing the U.S. to buy Carbon Credits from less developed economies in order to merely sustain itself, transferring hard earned wealth to nations whose dictators, monarchies and ruling thugs have stood firmly in the way of social, industrial and technological advance for their own people.

But they pollute less, so hooray for dictators!

In a concession to environmental concerns, and any industrialized nation that still needs clean air and clean water for its citizens is definitely going to have environmental concerns, the Bush Administration stated that the United States is looking for ways to diversify away from fossil fuels. "We're hooked on oil from the Middle East, which is a national security problem and an economic security problem," President Bush said in an interview with the Danish Broadcasting Corporation. President Bush also urged the G8 countries to shift the debate on climate change away from limits on greenhouse gas emissions and towards the development of new energy technologies that would reduce environmental harm without affecting economic growth. And according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Air and Radiation, emissions from factories and automobiles in the United States currently are less than half of what they were in 1970, even though the U.S. economy grew by almost 200 percent over the same period.

But don't tell Michelle Nichols that. It doesn't fit with her cozy "The United States is a Dirty Bully Bent on Destroying the World" theory. After all, she has those anonymous scientists with their unsourced quotes, and the environmentalists with their "fears" and "concerns", which, in her little fantasy world, trump any conclusions proffered by the National Academy of Sciences, or any other rational scientific body that's not on the payroll of The Friends of the Fluffy-Tailed Squirrel Fund. Besides, the WWF (and I don't mean the World Wrestling Federation) is convinced we're headed towards massive species extinction, so they need your money (NOW!) to help save those species, and, uhm, pay for their office suites, and the six figure executive salaries, and the glitzy Hollywood fund-raising parties, and the private jets to Washington, and those Georgetown lunches with Senators, and the drinks and dinners with donors at Tavern on the Green, and . . . oh, never mind.

Posted by at 6:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

An affectionate spelunk into the writings of chatterbox (or is that "gearbox"?) extraordinaire, Mickey Kaus.

1. "It looks like an electrogothic cab of death . . . (but) drive a (Toyota) Scion XB for a few days and you'll see other cars the way Humbert Humbert saw college girls—as repulsively over-ripe."

2. "Isn't USA Today's front page "special report" on Eric Rudolph's letters from jail, the "worry and heartache" of his mom--complete with blowups of his handwriting--making way too big a deal of him? He's another terrorist, no? Why reward him with four-color publicity about his "witty teen" past and his "introspective" present, reading Brothers Karamazov and Melville (conveniently timed two weeks before his sentencing)? ... Next: The agony of Carlos the Jackal!"

3. "The Hollywood pill du jour: Lexapro. Mothers are on it. Children are on it. ... When the whole family takes the same antidepressant, it promotes healthy bonding!"

4. "I support the idea of experimenting with gay marriage, but surely it's possible to be a non-bigot and be reluctant to immediately tinker with such a venerable social institution (even if modern monogamous marriage is itself a tinkering with the much longer-standing human tradition of polygyny)."

5. "At some point, who cares if David Geffen has $1 billion or $4 billion--except Michael Eisner? He's rich, OK? If our goal is (attainable) social equality rather than (unattainable) income equality--as I think it should be--there are more efficient, direct ways to achieve it than by raising Geffen's taxes."

6. "Did Jeff Gannon really have "access to classified documents that named Valerie Plame as a C.I.A. operative? . . . If "Gannon" did get a leak of classified documents, would that make him more of a fake reporter or more of a real reporter? Wouldn't it make him Robert Novak?"

7. "But maybe the amount of money that can be raised over the Internet from Democratic true believers is now more important than PAC money. And if you want to draw a Dean-like share of this Web loot, you have to be ruthless in bashing Bush. Not all the consequences of Internet politics are benign. ... P.S.: Note that this theory explains Barbara Boxer's behavior too. ... "

8. "I'm not saying torture or intimidation or humiliation is justified, in principle or in this case. I'm not saying the practices at Abu Ghraib weren't stupid and damaging. I'm not saying that the techniques applied to high-value detainees should be routinely applied, assembly-line style, to run-of-the-mill detainees. I'm saying you can't understand why it happened while pretending that it never worked, any more than you can understand why people get addicted to drugs while pretending that drugs are never fun. ... "

9. "I dunno--if Duncan Sheik is one of the best XM satellite channel's "core artists," do I really want to buy a $200 radio and give them $140 a year? If I need breathy wimpy over-hyped pop, I can hear it for free on Nic Harcourt's show!"

10. "To enjoy the (Mazda) 3, I found, you have to abandon any anthropomorphic notion that the car is an extension of your body, revolving around your solar plexus. You have to think, more accurately, that you are Linus, clinging to a blanket and being pulled around corners madly by Snoopy."

OFF-TOPIC:
Could all the Democratic Politicians and media bootlickers practicing their best rendition of faux outrage over Rove-Plame-Wilson-Libby-Miller-Novak Gate just shut up!

Thank you.

Posted by at 2:44 AM | Permalink

Studio heads initially passed on 'Braveheart' (thinking it would be a box-office stinkeroo), and pundits predicted 'The Passion' wouldn't make a dime while potentially ruining Gibson's star cache within the Jewish dominated power-halls of Hollywood. Both were hilariously wrong, and now Gibson's at it again, producing a summer "blockbuster" that's entirely independent, filmed in Mexico and set three thousand years in the past, utilizing an ancient Mayan language as the film's choice of dialect.

Call it Mel Gibson's 'Apocalypto' now. NRO's K.J. Lopez says, "Oh come on -- now he's just looking to do the thing everyone will say won't work."

'Apocalypto' is a Greek term which means "an unveiling" or "new beginning." The script is, apparently, some super-dooper top-secret you-reveal-it-you-die kind of thing, but is said to contain an abundance of Gibson's now signature in-your-face action and brutal violence, with Mr. Mel eschewing the likes of Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt for a cast of unknowns and/or lesser knowns for the film's protagonists, much as he did with 'The Passion'.

Gibson's bankrolling the flick himself, and while Disney has stepped up to the distribution plate, they've only been offered a rent-a-system deal where they get only a fraction of the film's profits for the use of their extensive distribution network.

"We couldn't be more excited about working again with Mel and his team," said Dick Cook, chairman of Walt Disney Studios. "This is one of the most original and unique scripts we've had the opportunity to read recently, and we plan for this to be an anchor of our summer schedule." Translation: 'Oh, please, dear frickin' god, we need to show a profit before we're all out of a job!'

A Mayan language film set three thousand years in the past as the anchor of their summer schedule? I'll be interested in seeing how that all plays out. But with the past success of 'The Passion' (the most successful 'R' rated film ever . . . even beating out Saturday Night Fever and 'Seven'), you gotta know that every single news network and entertainment show will be giving Gibson enough free advertising to save him a bundle while pushing his little movie into must-see status before a single television commercial is purchased.

While I'm not a big Mel Gibson fan, I did think 'Payback' was terrific, and despite being a dedicated atheist, I had to step back and admire Gibson's sheer creative drive and vision as he near singlehandedly produced an uber-religious theatrical event in the face of unanimous media derision. I was not surprised at the film's success, however, unlike the film snobs critics employed by most major urban newspapers. I did, after all, grow up in a devoutly Christian household, and once attended a live Passion Play when I spent a summer in Branson, Missouri in 1983. The place was packed, and everyone clearly enjoyed the spectacle unfolding before them, even though every single audience member knew how the story would end.

It wouldn't have taken a credentialed genius to look around that sold-out amphitheater and think, "Hey, there's some money to be made here," so the only surprise, really, about 'The Passion' is that somebody else in Hollywood hadn't filmed such a dramatic and bloody piece long before Gibson waltzed into the picture.

'Apocalypto', apparently, will not be religiously themed, though I do have a sneaking suspicion that the title was chosen in order to deliberately confuse the unwary. "Apocalypto? Isn't that the sequel to 'The Passion' -- you know, where Jesus comes down from heaven and kicks armageddon ass? No? Drat -- and here I already bought my ticket . . . oh well, one tanker-trunk sized popcorn, please -- and no skimping on the butter like last time, pal. "

OFF TOPIC:
And rip-snortingly funny . . .

Posted by at 1:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Can it be true? Is Senator "Sheets" Byrd endorsing Judge Roberts for the Supreme Court?

The Drudge Report links to this article, which quotes Byrd as saying, "The high court's share of the responsibility for our increasing lawlessness lies in two areas -- its zeal for bringing about precipitous social change, and its over-concern for the rights of criminals and its under-concern for the rights and safety of society." He then goes on to say, "I urged President Nixon to appoint conservative jurists to the court . . . such a return to a conservative philosophy would be the greatest single service President Nixon could perform for his country."

*blink*

I wonder if this means the honeymoon with Barbara Boxer is over (“And really, the love of my life . . . Bob Byrd"), especially considering that she believes "Judge Roberts' record raises questions about his commitment to the right to privacy, protection of the environment and other important issues" . . . ?

Issues apparently so important that she can't name them right at the moment, but I'm sure she'll get back to us as soon as her staffers have spoon-fed her the appropriate sound-bites.

But the real meat of the story is this: Robert Byrd is up for re-election next year in a state that Bush carried by 13 percentage points, despite heavy campaigning by leading Democrats. Only as recently as March of this year, Byrd was comparing the GOP and its judicial nominees to Nazi Germany, yet with polls now showing Republican Shelley Moore Capito neck and neck in the race for the Senate seat now occupied by Byrd, even though she has yet to officially announce her intention to run, Byrd is doing backflips, backstrokes and backpedals that would make Tom Daschle blush.

For Byrd to switch so dramatically, from calling the GOP and its judicial nominees akin to Hitler to praising Richard Nixon's choice of conservatives for the Supreme Court as a preamble to endorsing a Bush nominee that Pro-Choice groups, gay advocates and far-left liberals in general are feverishly attempting to demonize, is a sure indicator that Hollow Man Syndrome (HMS) has become a plague of the modern left (read the full article -- it'll astound you).

ADDENDUM:
Har!

QUOTE FOR THE DAY:
"It is ironic that the same people who faulted Ronald Reagan for looking past Pinochet fault George Bush for looking straight at Saddam and doing something about it." --bloggledygook.com

Posted by at 5:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (12)

I'm back from my trip to the blast furnace called "Las Vegas" -- it was record breaking temperatures the entire time I was there. I suppose if I were from Phoenix, Arizona, I'd think it was just another walk in the park, but I come from Seattle, where 80 degrees is considered scorching.

We were taking a drive out in Red Rock Canyon as the thermometer bubbled up to 122. It was terrific scenery, and I thought it might be fun to park the car and do some sightseeing on foot -- you know, wander down a few rocky pathways strewn with heat stunted vegetation just to see the desert landscape up close and in person, rather than merely blurting out "pretty!" as nature blurs past the window.

I was so very, very wrong. Anyone who wants to discuss the benevolence of Mother Nature can go hike themselves down a desert trail at 50 degrees Celsius. All I have to say is, thank god for modern comforts.

Of course, our boy W. had to go nominate a Supreme Court Justice while I was on vacation (the nerve!), so the 24/7 cable-chatter shows paused briefly from Natalee Holloway and focused, instead, on Judge Roberts and the form letters of far-left dissent which were shunted out immediately to every media outlet this side of Baghdad.

Because this is Homocon.com, I thought it might prove enlightening to sort through the paranoid ravings of the gay left for reactions, and here is what I found: The Advocate (the leading gay news magazine, for those unfamiliar with GBLTXPORVT politics) declares breathlessly (in their SUMMER SEX ISSUE, to boot) that "the glee of antigay activists over this pick (of Judge Roberts) is reason enough to worry", unsurprisingly neglecting to cite one single example of the so-called gleeful, antigay activists, then adding, "While Judge Roberts may not have an antigay paper trail, we need to be engaged and vocal about his nomination."

I see.

In essence, The Advocate admits that there's nothing antigay to be vocal about, but go ahead and create a lot of outraged bellowing anyway, you know, because Republicans are eeeeeee-villllllll and they're going to try to slide one right past everyone, just like they tried to do with Robert Bork, the sleazy bastards. Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Campaign (the Gay and Lesbian Animal Rights Campaign can't be far behind), dressed herself up in her best hyperbole and called the prospect of a Bush Supreme Court appointment (any Bush Supreme Court appointment, mind you, not just the one currently on offer), “chilling", the National Organization for Women declared a state of emergency (snort!) and Lambda Legal, the self-appointed guardian for the rights of gays throughout the universe (I guess), stated: "The Bush Administration has, from its inception, worked diligently to appoint to the federal bench right-wing ideologues who are well outside the judicial mainstream."

I suppose the definition of right wing ideologue depends upon whose ideologies you're using as a yardstick.

But when critics of judicial appointees by the Bush administration buttress their arguments by calling the Libertarian CATO Institute "ultra-right", then there's obviously no intention or willingness on their part to engage in a rational debate regarding substantive merits (or lack thereof) of any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court.

"President Bush has been anything but a friend to fair-minded Americans," whines Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, engaging in a cheap knockoff of analytical thought. "We must know if (Judge Roberts) support(s) Congress’s power to enact legislation that protects gay and transgender Americans from discrimination and violence."

Must we? Well, then, Joe -- I'll let you in on a little not-so-secret: gay Americans are protected from violence by already existing laws that cover everyone, laws which Judge Roberts currently upholds in his seat on the D.C. Court of Appeals. And regarding alleged discriminations of homosexuals, it's actually a matter of ongoing debate as to what constitutes real discrimination ("Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit") against gay men and women, since gays can vote, hold public office, attend most any university they can get into, apply for and receive federal loans, grants and endowments, open their own businesses, travel around the world, purchase property in any neighborhood, hold press conferences, hire the best plastic surgeons, write for newspapers, news shows, Broadway plays, television and movies (while also appearing on and in many of the same), take advantage of the justice system to right criminal wrongs, ride right on top of the bus (not to mention at the front of it) and start their own blowhard blogs (Hi, Bruce!).

I'm sure I've left something out.

Personally, I've lived all around the country -- Michigan, Arkansas, North Carolina, Colorado, Georgia, New York and Washington -- and I've never been denied or lost employment, housing, educational opportunities or invitations for social/career advancement because I'm gay, and I've been openly gay for twenty years, so it's not like I was or am hiding it from anyone. If there were a national scourge of gay discrimination running rampant throughout America (as the professional gay organizations who depend upon donations from fearful gay men and women would like everyone to believe), I would have most certainly run smack into it by now, yet somehow I've only felt safer and more secure in the United States as time has progressed and homosexuality has become just the latest cover story to boost sales for national magazines.

Does that mean that no gay person ever falls victim to discrimination of some sort? Of course not -- discrimination comes in all shapes and sizes and is leveled at pretty much any moving target (race or color; religion; national origin; sex; marital status; income; handicap; age and family status) , not just against homosexuals. But is antigay discrimination against gay men and women unusual, or is it the norm? Because if it's unusual, as I believe it is, then there's little reason for advocates of homosexuality to even enter their two bits into the SCOTUS evaluation process. A seat on the Supreme Court is about the law, the interpretation of the law and the enforcement of the rights of states to dig their own legal foundations -- it should never be about prevailing, and inevitably temporary, social deconstructions.

Pro-Choice groups, Gay groups and other single-issue voters want to know every detail of Roberts' personal opinions regarding the issues they hold dear, but Justice Roberts, as a nominee for the Supreme Court and not an applicant for a weekend baby-sitting job, should be evaluated based upon his knowledge of the Constitution, the framework of law, the legal processes that led him to the decisions he has previously reached as a judge, how he commended himself as an attorney, and his respect or disrespect for his clients, for legal precedence and for legal jurisprudence in general.

Otherwise, we're just gonna get some crazy s**t like this again, and I am not - in - the - mood (maybe Roberts should just Ginsberg everybody in the Senate and get the darn thing over with).

Posted by at 9:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Yee-haw! I got me a link on Crazy-Ass Central, and they're shocked, I tell ya -- sickened and shocked!

*snort*

That's all the validation a good little goose-stepper like me needs. Now I can go file my full report to the Emperor. Must - Report - To - Rove. Must - Betray - All - Mankind. Must - *skzzt* - Must - *fzzpht* - Must - Redecorate - Closet.

BwaaaHaHaHaHaHa!

I'm packin' my bags (Louis Vuitton, of course -- rich, gay hypocrites have to travel in style, dontcha know) and heading for D.C. (Washington, that is). If my man Santorum thinks that one self-loathing soul on the devil's payroll is dandy, then taking on yet another can only be the Dippity-Damn-Doozy!

And I'm perfect for the part.

I anxiously await my shiny medal of commendation from the NeoCon Cabal running, well, everything of course.

Transmission to Lord Rove completed. Over and Out.

Posted by at 7:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (13)

I've been in Vegas for the last several days, where upon my arrival the temperature soared into the a record breaking low 120's and my will to live evaporated every moment I stepped outside into the heat. Fortunately, remaining trapped indoors is not a hardship when the indoors is Vegas.

When choosing a hotel for the trip, I decided to try out the Wynn, Vegas mogul Steve Wynn's love song to art and commerce. Not everyone I've talked to here is an admirer of the Wynn (or Steve Wynn himself), with its upscale ambitions, urban flavored aspirations and Pan-Pacific flourishes, but I'm a big fan of its sleek architectural curves, and believe that this kind of hotel (chic, international and unabashedly adult) is exactly what Vegas needs as it continues to grow and flourish into a world-class destination (and, to me, it's a welcome relief from the Disneyesque quality of the Treasure Island, New York, New York and Paris resorts).

Beyond its art laden walls, tile-mosaic floors and sophisticated lounge-beat soundtrack pulsing throughout the shops and hallways, the main attraction of the Wynn is its many top-notch restaurants tucked about and around the central gaming floor. My favorite is Okada, a gorgeous Japanese restaurant named after Steve Wynn's business partner Kazuo Okada, and helmed by chef Takashi Yagihashi, a former James Beard Award-winner. Okada's floor to ceiling sliding glass panels frame a view of the hotel's manmade mountain, complete with a 100 foot waterfall, architecturally inspired landscaping and various koi ponds and lagoons. Dining on live and wriggling sweet shrimp, delicate slices of toro oh and glazed Kobe sirloin never looked so good, while the vast selection of sake, many of which I've never found anywhere else in the country, only added to the evening's pleasure (I highly recommend a bottle of Senshin for its clean, crisp quality).

"This building is more complex than any other structure in the history of the world," Steve Wynn boasted in a recent interview, obviously very proud of his new venture. "This place is about an experiential moment. It's about evolvement. People are going to go into places that don't exist on earth."

You can say that again. The entryway gardens are a marvel, with their hanging flowers and sculpted pathways, the open gaming center is designed to lead hotel guests and visitors on an eye-opening tour of the Wynn's leading Italian, American and Asian restaurants, and the eclectic crowd, drawn from around the world and across the country, only compliments the international aspirations of the new Wynn resort.

I've been hearing for years about how Vegas is going "adult", yet this is the first time I've ever seen physical proof of the statement. Adult means more than bars and strippers, and the art-themed, cuisine-driven character of the Wynn reminded me of New York City or Los Angeles. I was having a conversation last night with a couple who live down here, and they were expressing some delight over the new Vegas -- that the city used to be a minor Disneyland, but now, with the realization that with better all-year weather, massive performance venues and a structural variability not found anywhere else, not to mention a population of talent drawn to the promise of employment and a steady stream of tourist dollars, Las Vegas could potentially rival many of the world's major metropolitan centers for food, art and entertainment within the next five to ten years.

So you're hearing that the rest of the world hates us? Travel to Vegas and you'll see plenty of evidence that the rest of the world is still coming to visit and marvel at the sheer chutzpah of American ingenuity, and the creativity born out of chasing the dollar.

ADDENDUM:
I also recommend Red 8, a medium priced Asian bistro along the edge of the Wynn's gaming center. Their jellyfish salad and roast duck with plum sauce were terrific. Also, Daniel Boulud, NYC chef Daniel Boulud's contribution to the Wynn, a French bistro directly across from SW, another major steak house in the Wynn and named after Steve Wynn himself (or so I've heard . . . Steve Wynn, SW, makes sense) -- but SW doesn't feature a sirloin burger stuffed with foie gras that's featured on the menu at DB, so we stuck with Boulud and had a fantastic time with the staff at the bar when we ordered all the deserts on the menu just so we could try a bite out of each . . . perfect.

ADDENDUM 2:
I think my biggest question to date, despite all the glitz and glamor and shine, is, really? Hugh? Teeing up in this heat? You're crazy.

Posted by at 6:21 AM | Permalink

1. "The radical Islamists embrace Muslim casualties, as many are considered infidel for embracing Western culture and rejecting the “pure” Islam espoused by al Qaeda."

2. "Promoting dependency and irresponsible borrowing is not the way to help the poor internationally any more than these are ways of helping the poor at home. Such policies benefit the bureaucracies that administer foreign aid and enable vain people to see themselves as saviors, even when they are doing more harm than good."

3. "The only people engaging in a cover-up are the media -- the New York Times and Robert Novak. When they want this mystery solved, they'll tell us who leaked the name. Until then, they'll milk this for everything it's worth to embarrass an administration they dislike."

4. "To believe that George Bush lied about WMDs is to believe that there is a vast conspiracy to lie about WMDs that goes to the highest level of both parties & that stretches across both the pro and anti-war movements."

5. "Hollywood's box office has hit the skids, and the entertainment media are in overdrive trying to explain why. The most obvious explanation for box office malaise is consistently overlooked: Hollywood's ruling liberal elites keep going out of their way to offend half their audience."

6. Moderate Muslims around the world may have been slow on the uptake regarding traditional Western expressions of outrage against terrorism, but they're picking up the language nicely. Photo gallery here.

7. "I was a bad winner, I admit it. I've finally moved on and gracefully accepted that we won. I even took my W '04 sticker off my front door. Gloating is fun, but at some point good manners must prevail."

8. ". . . a Times poll conducted in the aftermath of the (London) bombings indicates that an overwhelming majority of the British public favours a tough approach to terrorist suspects. Almost 90 per cent of people want the police to be given new powers to arrest people suspected of planning terrorist acts, tighter immigration controls and strict baggage inspections."

9. "A study of cellphone use by motorists suggests that they aren't any better off using a headset in the car than holding the phone to their ear: They're still four times more likely to end up in a crash and injured than if they weren't using the phone."

10. Media: Bush a Terrorist; London Bombers Not.

ADDENDUM:
In a word, astonishing. I used to read the New York Times daily, poring over it for hours as I drank my coffee. I cancelled my subscription two years ago and I don't miss it a whit . . . not a whit.

Posted by at 4:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

I'm heading on a much needed break from work and the local landscape for the next week or so -- posting will be light, but I still have a few special topics I've been hoping to delve into and will be attempting to write as much as I can while on hiatus from official office duties and the attendant imprisonment in the office cubicle.

Yeah, I know -- it's a hard-knock life, but thank god, it's my hard-knock life.

While you're looking here for some kind of extended entry (I'm on vacation, don't you get it?), please check out the Susan M. Torres Fund page.

26 year old Susan Torres, pregnant with her second child and suffering from undiagnosed melanoma, collapsed on May 7th and has been declared brain dead by the doctors at Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington. Doctors told her husband, Jason Torres, that there was no hope, medically, for his wife to recover, but they could keep her alive for the child. Jason and Susan's family, though devastated by Susan's condition, made the difficult decision of keeping Susan on life support, determined to make sure that the child she was carrying will survive to be born prematurely and cared for in the hospital's pediatric ICU until healthy enough to go home with the father.

The target is mid-July, when Susan will be about 25 weeks pregnant — 15 weeks short of a full pregnancy. That's the gestation age, doctors say, where a baby can survive outside the womb, though with rather definite risks to the child. Jason's goal is for Susan and the baby to reach the 30-week mark, when such risks are greatly diminished, but the melanoma which caused so much damage to Susan may yet spread throughout the rest of Susan's body and mar the chances for her baby's survival.

"I hate seeing her on those darned (life support) machines," Jason Torres says, "and I hate using her as a husk, a carrying case, because she herself is worth so much more. But Susan really wanted this baby . . . There's not a glimmer of doubt in my mind that this is what she would have wanted."

With each passing day, the Torres' hospital bills are mounting, and insurance isn't covering a good portion of them, by $300,000 to $400,000 at last count. There are those who argue that the financial and emotional costs involved far outweigh the value of a child, but if you disagree with that assessment, and you wish to help the Torres family through this situation, then visit the link to the Susan Torres Fund for more information.

Posted by at 8:13 PM | Permalink

Doug Clifton, the editor of The Cleveland Plain Dealer, Ohio's largest daily newspaper and the 21st largest newspaper in the nation, attempted yesterday to burnish himself his own martyr's halo, but the public wasn't buying the act.

While politicians, political analysts and the average voter increasingly decry the sharply partisan nature of contemporary politics, it's the media that's been stoking the fires while breathlessly extolling on it -- but the flames have licked a bit too close for comfort in the Valerie Plame case, and journalists are now scattering like frightened 12th century villagers who've just spotted the approaching Dragon (and there's no Supreme Court on white horses charging in to the rescue).

"When you promise someone anonymity, you need to be able to keep that promise," Rick Rodriguez, president of the American Society of Newspaper Editors said last week in an interview with the Sacramento Bee, but that was before journalists came to their collective discovery that "keeping that promise" might mean going to jail, considering that refusing to reveal a source of illegally leaked information during the course of a federal investigation is considered obstruction, which cheeses your local judiciary right off.

"Take away a reporter's ability to protect a tipster's anonymity and you deny the public vital information," Mr. Clifton wrote, in his best sotto voce, one imagines. He then continues (and this is where it gets good): ""As I write this, two stories of profound importance languish in our hands . . . the public would be well-served to know them, but both are based on documents leaked to us by people who would face deep trouble for having leaked them. Publishing the stories would almost certainly lead to a leak investigation and the ultimate choice: talk or go to jail. Because talking isn't an option and jail is too high a price to pay, these two stories will go untold for now."

Oh, I see. The stories are of "profound importance" that would offer the public "vital information" -- but let's not go to jail over it, oh, heavens no! I mean, scandal sells papers, but lord, we have to draw the line somewhere, and my paycheck is waaaaay more important than delivering vital information of profound worth to the public.

Whatever.

Our boy Clifton moves on to complain that there's been little public reaction to his (drum roll, please) earth-shattering announcement that The Cleveland Plain Dealer has stifled two of its own news stories over fears of potential repercussions because of its use of unnamed sources leaking sensitive information. What he neglects to mention is any shred of a clue as to just why the public might have a vested interest in this supposedly squelched information, or, really, why anyone should get worked up in the first place over a newspaper's voluntary suppression of anonymous stories fed by corrupt sources illegally leaking sensitive materials in order to extract political revenge against their opponents.

Earth to Clifton -- the general public isn't falling for your We're Your Champions, Really! routine because the general public knows better: "Americans remain critical of the professionalism and ethics of the people and organizations that deliver the news . . . 61 percent of Americans agreed with the statement that "the falsifying or making up of stories in the American news media is a widespread problem."

I think the following, by Rosa Brooks in the Salt Lake Tribune, sums it up best: "I'm as big of fan of the First Amendment as anybody, but I don't buy the new (Judith) Miller-as-heroine story . . . if the knowledge that (journalistic sources) can't always hide behind anonymity has a ''chilling effect'' on political hacks who are eager to manipulate the media in furtherance of their vested interests, that's OK with me."

Amen, to that.

Posted by at 7:51 AM | Permalink

Answering the age-old question, "If I jumped off a cliff, would you?", nearly 1500 sheep leapt, one by one, from a cliff in Gevas, Turkey, as the town's shepherds watched in stunned disbelief. 450 of the initial jumpers died on the rocks below "in a billowy white pile," reported the Turkish Aksam newspaper, cushioning the fall for the others who followed.

Which leads us to our next story, that Organized labor is rethinking its position of automatically supporting Democrats for office. Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, said in an interview with the Associated Press, that "We can't just elect Democratic politicians and try to take back the House and take back the Senate and think that's going to change workers' lives . . . electing Democrats and taking back the House or getting rid of Tom Delay is not enough."

But not enough for what? And if they aren't going to try to take back the House, what are they going to try to take in its stead?

The AFL-CIO has seen a steady downward slide in membership and membership dues for the past 50 years. Whereas they used to represent over 30% of all private-sector workers at the height of the second Red Scare, they now represent a little more than just 12% of all U.S. workers, and even less than that in the private sector.

A 2001 article in the World Socialist Website laments that only around 9% of American workers belonged to a Union, dramatically reduced from the nearly 36% of workers back in 1953, and this was not due to recession, high unemployment, adverse economic conditions or a hostile administration in the White House, as the 90's saw the longest period of uninterrupted growth ever and the AFL-CIO established its closest ties with the Democratic Clinton administration, which it supported politically (i.e financially).

Younger hi-tech workers, and younger voters in general who are said to be skewing conservative in their politics, see no need for jumping off the cliff of Union membership, with its forced dues, stringent political ideologies and corrupt, 1984 style leadership, especially when those dues are more often paying for $450,000 a year salaries and private penthouses for Union Leaders rather than any tangible benefits for the Union members themselves (Barbara Bullock, former president of the Washington Teachers' Union, was arrested for looting the union's treasury, with assistance from Gwendolyn Hemphill, then executive director of the Democratic party in Washington, D.C. Police raided her home and found a 288-piece set of Tiffany silverware; a $57,000 silver tea set; purses by Fendi, Gucci, and Louis Vuitton; scores of shoes by Bruno Magli and Salvatore Ferragamo; mink coats; and a $13,000 plasma television . . . because the Democratic Party is about the workers, you see).

If you want to know why Democratic candidates continue to flog the worn-out and irrelevant class-warfare meme on the national political level, look no further than their spooning relations with the cash spigots of the Union leadership. But what effect would this trend towards Union support for Republican candidates have? I hardly think that Union leaders are as bent on reforming themselves and their organizations as they are on burrowing their way into the Republican party leadership with a tunnel-digger made of cash.

The Unions are in survival mode, desperately attempting to skid to a stop before their billowy white carcasses wind up on the political rocks of the Democratic Party below. And while turning to the Republicans could signal a long-overdue reform within their leadership ranks, it's just as likely that the chummy association with all that Union cash will prove lethal to the GOP, while also helping to explain the steady erosion of limited government Republicans from the national party as a whole.

Posted by at 4:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

There's really no point in talking about anything besides the bombings in London. Just after the day that Londoners celebrated their successful bid to host the 2012 Olympics, an Arab terrorist group calling themselves "The Secret Group of al Qaeda's Jihad in Europe" claimed responsibility for setting off four bombs in London's subway network and bus system, killing 33 people, injuring scores of others and bringing the G8 summit to a pause as Prime Minister Blair rushed back to London from Scotland upon receipt of the news.

In a country that's been keenly divided on support for the Iraq war, and also divided in its approach to the Israeli defense against Palestinian terror bombings, the citizenry of London are united in their horror at what has just happened in their own city (with perhaps a few coming to a dawning realization of why the Israeli's might find it prudent to build a wall between themselves and the Muslim Palestinians).

PM Blair described the attacks as "barbaric" (which is how I describe traditional Middle Eastern, uhm, culture on a daily basis, give or take a Tuesday), while Brian Paddick, deputy assistant commissioner of London police, said "We are clearly shocked but we are not surprised by what has happened," evidencing that barbarism is just about what he expected from the likes of Michael Moore's Minutemen.

London's Mayor, Ken Livingstone, stated: "Black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindus and Jews, young and old . . . (it was an) indiscriminate attempt to slaughter irrespective of any considerations for age, class, religion -- whatever."

The Islamic Human Rights Commission warned London Muslims to stay at home to avoid any violence aimed at them, yet strangely (or is that "tellingly" . . . ?) made no public condemnation of the violence of the Islamic bombers themselves.

The email address for the Islamic Human Rights Commission is info@ihrc.org, and their telephone number is (+44) 20 8904 4222. Please write or call and politely remind them that it might just possibly be more appropriate to express regret that any Islamic group has taken credit for these attacks, and that London's Muslims stand in solidarity with the rest of London's citizenry in decrying all instances of terrorism against the people whose countries and cities they share.

Because, you know, Islam is a religion of peace.

ADDENDUM:
You know the shit's really hit the fan when the Seattle PI publishes this, when only back in May they were publishing this (by the same artist, incredibly enough).

ADDENDUM 2:
Kris, over at Dummocrats, tears the terrorist apologists a new one.

ADDENDUM 3:
And speaking of terrorist apologists. Sad, sad, sad.

ADDENDUM 4:
Suspects emerge.

QUOTE OF THE MONTH:
"They did not bomb London because there is insufficient transparency in Congress about the Gitmo detainees; they bombed London because it is part of the Zionist-Crusader Conspiracy run by the sons of monkeys and pigs, who must submit or die."

Posted by at 4:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Only a few days after diplomatic blowhard Jacques Chirac publicly mocked British cuisine and agriculture in open talks with German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the French President found himself dining on a heaping plate of steaming crow (a Parisian specialty of late) as London was announced the host city for the 2012 Olympics, beating out rivals Madrid, New York, Moscow and yes, deliciously, Paris.

Over the weekend, Chirac put his ego where his sense of class should have been and tossed the stereotypical Gallic condescension left and right, insulting haggis (one of the traditional dishes of Scotland, the host country for the G8 summit), turning up his nose at northern European cuisine in general ("Finland is the worst," he sniffed) and stating that Britain's only contribution to European agriculture was Mad Cow Disease (which is actually pretty funny, but don't tell anyone I'm laughing . . . ).

“We can’t trust people who have such bad food,” Chirac was quoted as saying of the British, apparently offering a salty cream sauce as rationale for an equally curdled foreign policy that capitulates to invasion and collaborates with dictators, surrendering its own citizens to German ovens . . . perhaps this is why Chirac hesitates to criticize Schinkenbrot?

“His snide attacks on Britain expose him once and for all as a nasty, petty, racist creep,” said The Sun, Britain's best-selling newspaper, about Chirac's latest round of sneering insults towards everything not French.

But Britain enjoyed the last laugh, with members of the Olympic committee explaining their decision to award the 2012 Olympics to London rather than three time loser Paris.

"The presentation just had that little extra feel," said Senior Australian IOC member Kevan Gosper. "The British, they explained their love of the sport. It is a love affair (for the British), that was the difference. Love you can explain, but you can't sell it."

QUOTE OF THE DAY:
"Let's face it, no matter how much garlic you put on it, a snail is just a slug with a shell on its back."

Did anybody see the episode of "I Want To Be a Hilton" where one of the cast adamantly refused to eat the snails, even at the potential cost of losing his team the contest? Personally, I like hot, buttered snails, but it was still hilarious.

ADDENDUM:
GrannyTiger has a different spin on the Olympics bid, noting that Hillary Clinton, the junior Senator from New York, flew to Singapore to represent the United States and its bid for the Olympics to be held in NYC. Meanwhile, Tony Blair represented Britain and Jacques Chirac made the case for France. New York was always considered an outside chance, but still, we couldn't have sent someone a little more senior to make the pitch? Why not Condoleeza Rice, or even Giuliani?

GT also notes that the MSM is blaming Bush that NYC didn't get the nod, while Clinton would most certainly have taken all the credit if the choice had moved our way. MSNBC hilariously states: "The bid’s downfall could be more complicated, involving an international slap at George W. Bush’s unilateral attitude toward the world."

And they wonder why people trust journalists less than they do politicians . . .

WAY OFF TOPIC:
But oh my god!

Posted by at 5:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

In what has to be one of the biggest WTF moments I've ever had the misfortune to experience, the Russian courts have given the ok for a Russian astrologer to sue NASA for "upsetting the balance of the universe" by conducting their July 4th experiments on the Tempel 1 comet.

Marina Bai, a dollar-grubbing New Age Whore (doing a reasonably able Jesse Jackson impersonation), is seeking to shake down NASA for $310 million dollars for "moral damage compensation" over the Deep Impact probe, claiming that NASA's scientific investigations into the composition of the Tempel 1 comet is "an attempt against the natural life in space" while also corrupting her own sentimental memories. Ms. Bai says that when her grandfather met her grandmother, he showed her the Tempel 1 comet in the sky, which marked the start of their romance. Therefore, claims Ms. Bai, NASA has raped her memories, deformed her horoscope and gratuitously ass-spanked her spiritual life -- without even so much as a how do ya do.

A lower court in Russia threw out the case initially, ruling that the Russian courts had no jurisdiction over NASA (instead of ruling that, oh gee -- I don't know, the case has no merit?!), but a higher court has overturned that ruling and has allowed the case to proceed. Hearings are scheduled for late in July.

Meanwhile, a farmer in India is suing the North American Beef Congress (NABC) for $250 million for what he claims is the organization's blatant disregard for his spiritual and moral values through their promotion of the sacred cow as a major food source, a group of fisherman off the Isle of Crete have joined in a class action lawsuit against the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) for $600 million in compensation for the emotional duress of having their town of Elounda, with the Lagoon of Mermaids, referred to as "that sunken pond full of Manatees", and the Hualapai Indian Tribe is suing the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for $400 million plus $3 billion in emotional damages for decimating their sacred spaces and drowning all their spirit guides during construction of the Hoover Dam.

Posted by at 7:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Now that Live 8 has come and gone, it behooves us to look at what people are saying in its aftermath. I mean, this was an event that was intended to spotlight the problem of extreme poverty in Africa and pressure the upcoming G8 leaders to "do something" about it (i.e. throw more money at the problem). So what's the actual response?

1. "Westminster Council says the estimated 150 tons of rubbish generated by the Live 8 crowd would be the amount normally collected in around 10 days."

2. "What do participating musicians know about Africa?" asked Susan Outa, a student in Nairobi. "How do we know whether half of them have even visited a single African country?"

3. "Geldof and company will lay claim to the very last thing so many Africans own: our problems. And it will be terrible and evil beyond imagining for owning your problem is at the heart of what it is to be human. It is when we wrestle and suffer and triumph over our problems that we are most human, but this alas is not to be if the soul stealers on show succeed . . . If only that snot nosed boy with a Kwashiorkor-distended belly and perhaps a couple of bullet wounds knew how many people he feeds, clothes and houses in luxury. If only he knew how much aid he has given to the washed out, mediocre types who clamor to help him."

4. "So to set these unfortunate ones free of bondage, we must party hard, and sing and dance into the wee hours of the morning? Will this entertainment package really bring peace to the multitude of displaced and war-wary Africans? Will debt cancellation and aid emancipate the poverty- and disease-stricken children in Africa?"

5. "My blog received more than 100 letters of complaint about MTV and its failure to present the music with the dignity and class it deserved. I got another 50 to my personal e-mail. The commercials and mind-numbing veejays were a blight on what should have been an inspirational, informational and cultural event."

6. "Aid dollars don't eliminate poverty - integration into a global economy does . . . If the goal of Live 8 were to help people see the African continent as a place they want to visit, a place they want to open businesses in, a place they want to engage with, as opposed to a place they want to save, I'd be more likely to (view Live 8 with) hope.

7. "I share (an) ambivalence about the celebrity causes thing. Debt relief is a potentially good thing (if properly implemented). But it's a potentially good thing on its own merits, not just because Bono or Bob Geldof says so.

8. "The choice of artistes has itself not be free from controversy, with some criticising it as an attempt to revive the careers of fading stars."

9. "My message to the G8 leaders is that this is their chance to make a lot of difference in the world and to come back fulfilling their promises rather than coming back with empty promises. This is their chance to show the world politics is not just showbusiness for ugly people."

10. "Marty Gradwell from Whitby, Ontario, said he came to the Canadian gig "to rock out and enjoy the start of a warm summer." Asked what prompted the worldwide music extravaganza, he could only venture a guess. "For AIDS in Afghanistan, is it?"

And Tim Blair has an excellent post on how the problems with Africa stem not from poverty but from corruption, and that poverty is the by-product of the corruption.

QUOTE OF THE DAY:
"If all the celebrities (that were sitting in a VIP tent that was set up by Philadelphia Restaurant god -Stephen Starr -that was an exact replica of his Buddakan Restaurant which just won Best in Philly) wrote a check instead of picking up a microphone, they could probably afford to buy meds for the whole damn continent..."

OFF-TOPIC:
I didn't know this (and thanks to the Powerline guys for pointing it out): ". . . of the 26 terrorists who were listed as "most wanted" as of December 2003, 23 are dead or in captivity."

That made my day.

Posted by at 5:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)