Big Deal
Glib & Superficial's staff feline denies that this is a big deal, insisting that he (or any cat, for that matter) can do this any time he wants to. Having made that observation, he fell asleep.
"Every gross brained idiot is suffered to come into print." ~ Thomas Nash (1592)
"The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."
--Archilochus
Glenn Reynolds:
"Heh."
Barack Obama:
"Impossible to transcend."
Albert A. Gore, Jr.:"An incontinent brute."
Rev. Jeremiah Wright:"God damn the Gentleman Farmer."
Friends of GF's Sons:"Is that really your dad?"
Kickball Girl:"Keeping 'em alive until 7:45."
Hired Hand:"I think . . . we forgot the pheasant."
A public Christmas festival is no place for the Christmas story, the city says. Officials have asked organizers of a downtown Christmas festival, the German Christkindlmarket, to reconsider using a movie studio as a sponsor because it is worried ads for its film "The Nativity Story" might offend non-Christians.As usual, please note that there is no indication that any person actually has been "offended," or even has lodged a protective Notice of Anticipatory Intent to Take Offense. Of course, the reasonableness of any such hypothetical claim is not a factor.
"No," agreed Bishop Kate. "It's probably the opposite. We encourage people to pay attention to the stewardship of the earth and not use more than their portion."Oh, my.
Now, that may or may not be a great idea, but it's nothing to do with Christianity, only for eco-cultists like Al Gore. If Bishop Kate were an Episcogorian, a member of the Alglican Communion, an elder of the Church of Latter-Day Chads, this would be an unremarkable statement. But, even in their vigorous embrace of gay bishoprics and all the rest, I don't recall the Episcopalians formally embracing the strategy that worked out so swell for the Shakers and enshrining a disapproval of reproduction at the heart of their doctrine.
An icosidodecahedron is a polyhedron with twenty triangular faces and twelve pentagonal faces. An icosidodecahedron has 30 identical vertices, with two triangles and two pentagons meeting at each, and 60 identical edges, each separating a triangle from a pentagon. As such it is one of the Archimedean solids and more particularly, one of the quasi-regular polyhedra.And, oh yes, this one is origami. No, really.
The Salt Lake Tribune reports that Governor Mitt Romney's great-grandfather had multiple wives and two great-great grandfathers had 10 wives each. The article allows that Romney "is a confirmed monogamist of nearly four decades and polygamy has been absent from his family going back two generations." While some might note the upside of generously sharing those handsome Romney genes in the past, current history is noteworthy. Should Mitt Romney join a 2008 race that included John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich and George Allen, the only guy in the GOP field with only one wife would be the Mormon.
(2006-11-20) — According to a newly pre-released secret Pentagon document, the U.S. military is considering three options for dealing with the situation in Iraq, dubbed ‘Go Public, Go Home and Go Mecca.’
The unnamed Pentagon official in charge of leaking national security secrets to the Washington Post said it’s possible that the U.S. could adopt some combination of the three.
He summarized the strategy options as follows:
1. Go Public: Consistently leak top-secret Pentagon strategy deliberations to the news media as a way of neutralizing the unfair “element of surprise”, and of building trust by being more transparent with the enemy.
2. Go Home: Remove the only reason for terrorism by bringing all U.S. troops back home, and also allowing all U.S.-trained Iraqi troops to emigrate to the U.S.
3. Go Mecca: Deal “head on” with the heart of the conflict, by amending the U.S. Constitution to bring it into compliance with Islamic Sharia law.
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry insisted on Sunday his "botched joke" about President Bush's Iraq policy would not undermine a possible White House campaign in 2008.We think he's probably right.
LONDON - Premature babies born before 22 weeks gestation should not be given intensive care treatment to keep them alive, according to a report released in Britain on Wednesday.Refreshing, is it not, that parents are still to be consulted after 23 weeks, and left to make the decision as to whether to provide medical treatment or not.
Despite medical advances in prolonging life, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics said the chances of an infant surviving after less than 22 weeks in the womb are very slim and that they often develop severe disabilities.
In guidelines issued to help doctors and parents make difficult decisions about the care of extremely premature infants, the report recommended parents of babies born after 23 should be consulted and have the final say in whether intensive care is given to their baby.
Teel is really a freshman, and now has still lost only one game since he started for his high school team. Every week, the opposition concentrates on Rice & Leonard, and dare Teel to win the game. Before last night, opposing defenses weren't entirely successful. Last night Teel, Rice & Leonard won the game, with Rutgers able to put Louisville in the unenvieable position of having to guess which one of them would come at them at any particular time. Teel's stats were better than those of the much-touted (now) whathisname [Brohm] from Louisville.Let's see about that:
Season Shot is made of tightly packed seasoning bound by a fully biodegradable food product. The seasoning is actually injected into the bird on impact seasoning the meat from the inside out. When the bird is cooked the seasoning pellets melt into the meat spreading the flavor to the entire bird. Forget worrying about shot breaking your teeth and start wondering about which flavor shot to use!You might read the above and ask, "IMPACT?!?! What impact?" That would be the impact of the shell, full of seasoning, that you've fired from your shotgun. At your turkey. Or, one presumes, anything else you'd like to flavor.
How about a loophole-closing, rate-flattening 1986-style tax reform from the new Congress? It would be a lobbyist nightmare, and a repudiation of the Clinton administration's zillions of tax credits for good behavior (extended by the Bushies). But if I squint really hard I can see it happening. Charles Schumer is talking the right way: "I don't think we want taxes to move higher at all; the kinds of things we're talking about easily funded about rearranging federal priorities making sure that some of the shelters are closed -- the offshore shelters and things like that. But the Democrats are against increasing taxes. We want to become more fiscally responsible."
After six years of belligerent partisanship, the president would do well to change course dramatically in his final two years. In this, Mr. Bush has a good role model: Gov. George W. Bush of Texas, who managed to work across party lines to achieve results. Granted, Democrats in Congress aren't the same as Democrats in Texas, but the new congressional Democrats share a common interest with the president in demonstrating an ability to overcome bickering to achieve results. There's opportunity on issues ranging from immigration and climate change to entitlement reform and education.Yeah, sounds about right.
As for Iraq, the president and his party need to be mindful of the passionate voter discontent with the war. Some Democratic candidates advocated prompt withdrawal, which we believe would be perilous to U.S. and Iraqi interests, but many were pressing for adjustment, not the "cut and run" of Mr. Bush's caricature. The president's lofty campaign rhetoric is bearing decreasing resemblance to the grim reality in Iraq. With the election over, he needs to show more flexibility and deftness to address the deteriorating situation.
SIX YEARS OF nearly unbroken one-party rule have not been healthy for the country. The apparent Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives yesterday is a good thing. Republicans won control of the House in 1994 promising a change from Washington business as usual. Instead, entrenched by gerrymandered redistricting into what they envisioned would be a permanent majority, Republicans slid toward lax oversight, unbridled partisanship and rampant sleaziness, if not outright corruption. Voters yesterday expressed their anger at President Bush and their frustration with the war in Iraq, as well as their disgust with the arrogant misbehavior of House Republicans. Though we regret the loss of some of the most talented Republican moderates, the GOP deserved to lose its majority.
Less clear is that Democrats deserved to win -- or that they would have done so absent Republican missteps. The Democrats won the House, and, as of this writing, at least narrowed the GOP majority in the Senate, but not because voters necessarily agreed with their program. How many voters, we wonder, could name even one of the Democrats' vaunted "Six for '06" legislative proposals? As they prepare to wield power, Democrats don't have capital from voters; at most, they enjoy a line of credit.
The Democrats said: “Had enough?”
The Republicans said: “It could be worse!”
The voters said: “Let’s find out.”
You know, I want to tell him that I'm really sorry that he's in the position that he's in. You know, what this proves is we're all human. We all are sinners, but when you are in a position of authority and a role model for millions of people, you really need to practice what you preach.To your humble and obedient servant, a trial attorney for 30 years, Jones' accusations, and Haggard's progression from denial, to elaborate hyper-specific denial, to partial admission, and so on, suggests that the prostitute is telling something very close to the truth. It is very sad for Haggard's family and his congregation.
For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me, but to do that which is good is not. For the good which I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I practice.And then:
Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death?Give me a call when you get to that question, because I've got Good News for you.
Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who said they hoped to “leverage the Internet” to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.While the Times appears to be trying to spin this story as showing some mistake by the Bush administration, it would seem to put an end to the mantra of the Times and its friends that the war was a mistake from the beginning, inasmuch as no weapons of mass destruction had been located. How perfect that the Times should find them.
But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.
Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials. A spokesman for the director of national intelligence said access to the site had been suspended “pending a review to ensure its content is appropriate for public viewing.”
I think the Times editors are counting on this being spun as a "Boy, did Bush screw up" meme; the problem is, to do it, they have to knock down the "there was no threat in Iraq" meme, once and for all. Because obviously, Saddam could have sold this information to anybody, any other state, or any well-funded terrorist group that had publicly pledged to kill millions of Americans and had expressed interest in nuclear arms. You know, like, oh... al-Qaeda.[UPDATE - 10:00 a.m.] Mark Levin:
The New York Times just tore the heart out of the antiwar argument, and they are apparently completely oblivous to it.
The antiwar crowd is going to have to argue that the information somehow wasn't dangerous in the hands of Saddam Hussein, but was dangerous posted on the Internet. It doesn't work. It can't be both no threat to America and yet also somehow a threat to America once it's in the hands of Iran. Game, set, and match.
So, the New York Times reports on its front page today that Saddam Hussein had the necessary information and expertise to build nuclear weapons as far back as pre-1991, and that the information is so damning even now that posting it on a public website fifteen years later could assist other regimes, including Iran, in building such weapons.[UPDATE - 10:20]The unhinged left is reacting oddly.
The Times has just confirmed two things: 1. President Bush was right when he said that Hussein was a threat to the world because, among other things, he would continue to pursue weapons of mass destruction; and 2. congressional Republicans were right in demanding a more aggressive and thorough effort by the Pentagon to interpret the enormous number of documents captured from the Iraqi regime.
The Times's emphasis on "Republicans" demanding the release of these documents and the administration's posting them on a public website was an obvious attempt by the newspaper to cause some kind of eleventh-hour Republican embarrassment. The Times had hoped the weekend before the election would be spent debating the handling of this information rather than its existence and substance. But it was wrong. This is a stunning find that confirms a primary basis for the president ordering the military to remove Hussein from power. This finding also strikes a blow to the Democrat mantra that the president lied to get us into the war with Iraq.
The Democrats and their partners in the liberal media demand to know what the president plans to do to stop Iran and North Korea from securing nuclear weapons. Yet, when he did, in fact, stop Iraq from getting those same weapons, he is loudly denounced for it.
Judging from some of the delighted emails I'm getting, I need to warn people not to get too carried away -- this doesn't say that Saddam would have had a bomb in 2004. But it does say that he had all the knowledge needed to have a bomb in short order. And as we know he was looking to reconstitute his program once sanctions were ended -- and that sanctions were breaking down in 2003 -- that's pretty significant. However, perhaps even more significant, given that we knew most of the above already, is that the NYT apparently regards the documents that bloggers have been translating for months as reliable, which means that reports of Iraqi intelligence's relations with Osama bin Laden, and "friendly" Western press agencies, are presumably also reliable.
Bono, the lead singer of the band U2 is famous throughout the entertainment industry for being more than just a little self-righteous.
While playing a U2 concert in Glasgow, Scotland, Bono asked the audience for total silence, and to light the small candle each concert goer was given at the gate.
In that outdoor venue, illuminated by the soft, gentle and flickering light of tens of thousands small candles and in total silence, Bono slowly started to clap his hands.
Every few seconds, Bono would clap his hands.
As the large audience listened in total silence, Bono put his lips to the microphone and whispered breathlessly: "Every time I clap my hands, a child in Africa dies."
From the silence, emerged a strong and steady, if somewhat somewhat tipsy voice, with a broad Scottish accent that bellowed:
"Well then, quit clapping your hands, you bleedin' idiot!"
If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they're crazy. This is the classic G.O.P. playbook. I’m sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.I don't think Kerry meant to insult the troops. I think we have another example of a rich liberal Democrat who's so divorced from the universe in which the rest of us live that he has no idea what he sounds like to real people.
I’m not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq. It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have.
The people who owe our troops an apology are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it. These Republicans are afraid to debate veterans who live and breathe the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor.
Bottom line, these Republicans want to debate straw men because they’re afraid to debate real men. And this time it won’t work because we’re going to stay in their face with the truth and deny them even a sliver of light for their distortions. No Democrat will be bullied by an administration that has a cut and run policy in Afghanistan and a stand still and lose strategy in Iraq.
My own hunch — echoed by many readers — is that Kerry's just a Vietnam-era fossil who thinks the old nostrums about the draft and the underprivileged still apply. That's the language he's comfortable with. That's the tradition he comes from. And that's the sort of rhetoric that comes naturally to him. He's hardly alone in perpetuating the Vietnam paradigm, but he seems uniquely gifted at sounding like a moron when he does. A lot of Kerry supporters never really understood why a "war hero" didn't win more support from military folks. The simple fact was that most military folks saw him as part of the anti-war tradition. And his service notwithstanding, that's the only reason anybody ever heard of him. So when he tried to claim credit for fighting in a war he called a war-crime, most military types saw through it as rank opportunism.So remember. When you vote next week, you have a real choice. You can either pick the President's party -- warts and all -- or you can pick the party of the morons who decided that John Kerry should be the President of the United States.
I don't think Kerry meant to insult America's military (which doesn't mean he didn't insult them). What he doesn't realize is that his reflexive Vietnam era talking points get him into trouble because — this just in — this isn't the Vietnam era. The more you think about it, the more Kerry represents almost everything wrong with the Democratic Party.