It’s been twenty five years now, and the AP has a story of the anniversary of the Love Canal debacle. It was the event that created the insane Superfund for environmental cleanup, most of the money for which is siphoned off into lawyer’s wallets.
And of course, what the AP doesn’t mention is that it wasn’t Hooker Chemical’s fault–they just ended up being the fall guy for stupid bureaucrats.
Four marines were attacked and wounded in San Juan Capistrano. When will they learn that they’re not welcome there? We need to have elections as soon as possible, and remove the occupying forces. October 7 isn’t soon enough.
Joanna Weiss has an article in the Boston Globe about blogs and their growing influence on politics, using Oliver Willis and the Dean campaign as an example.
And wonder of wonders, there’s no mention of Instapundit.
Gennifer Flowers’ defamation lawsuit against Hillary Clinton has been reinstated.
Because they have Charlie Rangel as one of their spokesmen (sorry, no good URL):
The U.S. acted illegally when its soldiers attacked and killed Uday and Qusay Hussein, a leading Democratic congressman complained on Tuesday, before mocking the military maneuver that succeeded in eliminating the brutal duo.
“We have a law on the books that the United States should not be assassinating anybody,” Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-NY, told Fox News Channel’s “Hannity & Colmes.”
“We tried to assassinate Castro and we paid dearly for it,” the Rangel contended. “And when you personalize the war and you say you’re killing someone’s kids, then they, in turn, think they can kill somebody.”
When an incredulous Sean Hannity expressed dismay at Rangel’s comments, the Harlem Democrat shot back, “How can you get so much satisfaction that two bums have been killed? We got bums all over the world and some in the United States.”
Then Rangel mocked the U.S. military’s success in killing the two Hussein heirs, saying, “I personally don’t get any satisfaction that it takes 200,000 troops, 250,000 troops, to knock off two bums.”
Here’s my nomination for the most obtuse blog post in response to the news that Saddam’s sons are with their virgins (or not–my hope is that they’re shoveling brimstone sans air conditioning).
Read the 200+ comments as well, if you can get through it (I’m not referring to the length…)
Here’s my nomination for the most obtuse blog post in response to the news that Saddam’s sons are with their virgins (or not–my hope is that they’re shoveling brimstone sans air conditioning).
Read the 200+ comments as well, if you can get through it (I’m not referring to the length…)
Here’s my nomination for the most obtuse blog post in response to the news that Saddam’s sons are with their virgins (or not–my hope is that they’re shoveling brimstone sans air conditioning).
Read the 200+ comments as well, if you can get through it (I’m not referring to the length…)
The anti-globo morons have come up with some brilliant and practical ideas to deal with the G8’s choice of Sea Island for the next summit.
A posting by the group Food Not Bombs in Berkeley, Calif., said it may build a “a floating food warehouse and communal kitchen to serve delicious vegan meals to participants arriving at the island by kayak.”
Or perhaps protesters could take up a collection to buy one of Sea Island’s 500 “cottages,” which range in price from $1.3 million to $18 million.
“If ten-thousand people chipped in half a grand each, we could collectively own it, and then throw a REALLY BIG HOUSEWARMING PARTY,” wrote a messager using the name “mj,” who included a link to real estate listings on Sea Island’s Web site. “It’d have to be illegal to keep us off the island.”
But here’s my favorite:
One messager using the name “wispy” suggested trying to breach the island with flotilla of boats flying pirate flags and blaring composer Richard Wagner’s “Ride of the Valkyries.”
I love the smell of salt-sprayed vegans in the morning.
Yesterday, in a momentary fit of insanity, I defended Bill Clinton in an email to the Mickster.
Here’s what I wrote him:
Mickey–
You quoted Bill Clinton as saying “We need to be creating a world that we would like to live in when we’re not the biggest power on the block,” and implied that it was semantically equivalent to Howard Dean’s statement. Now, I’m normally the last person to defend Bill Clinton (or Chris “the weasel” Lehane), but I don’t see the two statements as equivalent. Like most of Mr. Clinton’s pronouncements, it is somewhat ambiguous and lawyerly.
He’s saying that we ought to build a world as though we weren’t the most powerful nation in it, even though we are. I don’t infer that he’s saying that we necessarily may not be in the future (or, of course, that he’s not saying that either–as I said, ambiguous). That is, he’s making a moral imprecation, not a practical recommendation. Sort of like the Golden Rule.
Dean’s statement was much more explicit, and therefore more attackable.
Mark this day–I’ll probably never defend Mr. Clinton again (and in fact, I don’t agree with his comment, or at least what he actually means by it, which is just more of the transnational gooiness that he and Ms. Albright gave us, and got us into this mess).
Happily, he set me straight. (Sorry, no permalink. It’s near the top now, but for archival purposes it’s the April 30 posting.)
When provided the full context, I agree that it’s clear that Mr. Clinton did mean exactly what Governor Dean said–that we will decline, and we should prepare for it. I’m relieved to know that on the rare occasion that I defend the ex-sinkmeister, that I’m wrong.