Here’s a sad tale of a going out of business sale. This may be a view of California’s future.
Good News From Iraq
It looks like they’ve not only killed Uday and Qusay, but their bodies are relatively intact. They may be body doubles, but it seems unlikely to me that there would be two doubles together. In any event, they should be able to confirm with DNA.
Intact bodies means they have pictures to distribute. It might even be useful, albeit barbaric (though not for that part of the world right now), to put the corpses on display in Baghdad, at least for a couple days, to suppress Elvis-like rumors, and really put the peoples’ minds at ease.
Just one ace left in the deck…
What’s Reasonable?
Randy Barnett (subbing for Glenn at glennreynolds.com this week) has a post on reasonable gun regulations that’s worth reading, including the question of whether or not the Second Amendment allows personal nukes (read the comments in the post).
What’s Reasonable?
Randy Barnett (subbing for Glenn at glennreynolds.com this week) has a post on reasonable gun regulations that’s worth reading, including the question of whether or not the Second Amendment allows personal nukes (read the comments in the post).
What’s Reasonable?
Randy Barnett (subbing for Glenn at glennreynolds.com this week) has a post on reasonable gun regulations that’s worth reading, including the question of whether or not the Second Amendment allows personal nukes (read the comments in the post).
“Clinton Haters”
KLo over at NRO points out this story about the Clinton Presidential Library, and a proposal to have a fact-checking version of it just down the street. The people who propose to do this are referred to, of course, as “Clinton haters,” including one usage of that phrase in the headline.
I wonder if the WaPo would run an article calling Bob Graham, or Charlie Rangel, or Dennis Kucinich, or Howard Dean, or Terry McAuliffe “Bush haters”?
Apparently no one is allowed to have a negative opinion about the Clintons, or criticize them, without “hating” them (see the comments section of the post).
This is, of course, simply ad hominem, and a deceitful attempt (unfortunately, often successful) to avoid dealing with the facts. As I said in the comments section of that post, what would these people do if the word “hate” were removed from their vocabulary? Perhaps they’d actually have to have a (losing) debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of their case.
“Clinton Haters”
KLo over at NRO points out this story about the Clinton Presidential Library, and a proposal to have a fact-checking version of it just down the street. The people who propose to do this are referred to, of course, as “Clinton haters,” including one usage of that phrase in the headline.
I wonder if the WaPo would run an article calling Bob Graham, or Charlie Rangel, or Dennis Kucinich, or Howard Dean, or Terry McAuliffe “Bush haters”?
Apparently no one is allowed to have a negative opinion about the Clintons, or criticize them, without “hating” them (see the comments section of the post).
This is, of course, simply ad hominem, and a deceitful attempt (unfortunately, often successful) to avoid dealing with the facts. As I said in the comments section of that post, what would these people do if the word “hate” were removed from their vocabulary? Perhaps they’d actually have to have a (losing) debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of their case.
“Clinton Haters”
KLo over at NRO points out this story about the Clinton Presidential Library, and a proposal to have a fact-checking version of it just down the street. The people who propose to do this are referred to, of course, as “Clinton haters,” including one usage of that phrase in the headline.
I wonder if the WaPo would run an article calling Bob Graham, or Charlie Rangel, or Dennis Kucinich, or Howard Dean, or Terry McAuliffe “Bush haters”?
Apparently no one is allowed to have a negative opinion about the Clintons, or criticize them, without “hating” them (see the comments section of the post).
This is, of course, simply ad hominem, and a deceitful attempt (unfortunately, often successful) to avoid dealing with the facts. As I said in the comments section of that post, what would these people do if the word “hate” were removed from their vocabulary? Perhaps they’d actually have to have a (losing) debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of their case.
Well, I Feel Safer Now
The Secret Service is actually investigating this Michael Ramirez cartoon, as a potential threat to the president.
Only an idiot could possibly interpret that cartoon as a threat to the president. Is the Secret Service run by idiots? Have they nothing better to do?
Don’t answer that question.