Funmurphys: the Blog

Hamdan Vs. Rumsfeld Decision

The Supreme Court has ruled that the United States can't try al-Qaida prisoners with the planned special military tribunals because as constituted certain provisions of those tribunals conflict with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and with treaty provisions of the Geneva Convention.

You can read the full text of the decision here, along with commentary here.

What the decision doesn't mean is that the detainies are about to be released, nor does it mean that they can't be tried - they just can't be tried by the special military tribunals that were set up. As to what effect this has in the overall war on Terror, I guess that depends on how many people this effects. Are there many new prisoners transferred to Gitmo? Will instead they be kept in Iraq and Afganistan instead, and will this cause fewer prisoners to be taken as soldiers wonder "what's the point"?

So at this point the court ruling looks like we can hold these people as ordinary POWs until the end of the war -- which technically will never end since the odds of us ever signing a peace treaty with al-Qaeda are practically nil (from both sides, I might add). So we have the odd outcome that we can impose a sentance of life imprisonment without parole (the highest penalty in may countries) without any trial whatsoever, yet we can't impose any lesser penalty without going through courts neither designed nor equipped to handle their special cases.

Was the case wrongly decided? Well, that all depends, doesn't it. There are times, like these, when law and policy become so intermixed that it's hard to separate one from the other. So let's just examine what we want out of trials: The guilty punished, the innocent freed, both accomplished in the minimum time required. Would that have been accomplished with the special tribunals? Would Federal or Courts Martia do a better or worse job?

So what's the real problem with the ruling? Like all matters of the law, it doesn't take into account reality. The problem is, we are dealing with an enemy like no other in the sense that we are not fighting a war against another nation, another government. It has the organization of a crime syndicate with the aims of a government or national movement. We are fighting against a different kind of organization, but we are trying to apply the rules set up to fight old style enemies. Now I don't think we need to throw everything out the window and start over, because our aims haven't changed, just the circumstances. And so I think the special tribunals represented a good faith effort to deliver justice under new circumstances, circumstances that older courts probably will have a hard time with.

The problem is what standard of proof, what rules of evidence are we going to use. In war time, we empower young men to make snap decisions about life and death with oversight that takes into account the difficult nature of such decisions. We provide them with ROE - Rules of Engagement- that they are to be guided by in making such decisions. Those ROE vary depending on the exact circumstances of any deployment. The ROE that normal courts operate under never vary. And for good reason - which is why it's better to set up something new that can make a change to a new reality, than have existing courts try to deal with cases they are ill equipped to handle.

.. And Love Global Warming

I'm going to buy me a nice big straw hat, lots of sunscreen, and lose enough weight to look good in my new swimsuits. Because I'm hoping Mr. Gore is right and I'll have beach front property here in Missouri in a few months. Why not celebrate the Earth getting warmer when the alternative is that it will get colder, and I know which one of the two I prefer. Even if you think that global warming has something to do with what people are doing (and I don't), I figure that since it's taken us decades to put carbon dixoide into the atmosphere it will take decades to get it back out which means it's going to be around a while so you might as well enjoy the ride.

The (Pay Per) View: Star vs. Barbara

I can't say why I clicked through to the article about the Star Jones - Barbara Walters cat fight, but I did -- OK, it's the phrase cat fight -- and I was rewarded with puzzlement. No, not that celebrities are people too, but by this bizarre claim by Ms. Walters:

Jones was one of the original cast members of the show when it launched nine years ago. Word is network execs decided not to renew her contract for a 10th season because research showed her dramatic weight loss and 2004 wedding to banker Al Reynolds was a turn-off to viewers.

“We tried to talk them out of it, and we tried to give Star time to redeem herself in the eyes of the audience, and the research just kept getting worse,” Walters added.

UPDATE: This story just keeps getting stranger as time goes on. Star Jones Reynolds told Larry King that ABC told her to make up a story as to why she was leaving to spare her the embarrassment of admiting that it was because she was unpopular with the audience.

King read Reynolds a statement from ABC claiming that she had been dismissed from the show immediately because, after her remarks to PEOPLE, the network could not trust her to tell the truth on the air.

Reynolds said she was "having trouble reconciling" that charge with the fact that ABC had previously asked her to lie.

And just who was the lie really supposed to help? Star or The View? The View, of course, because who do you think less of, the person who got fired for losing weight and getting married, or the person who fired her? Tell me again who lost their dignity here?

How would you take "you're skinny, you're happily married, you're fired!"? Announce that you're leaving the show to stay thin and married? Or just come right out and tell the truth - they don't want me back.

As a futher butress to my claim that the View's core audience is fat lesbians, consider who they are replacing her with: Rosie O'Donnell. I rest my case.

The New York Times Is Worse Than Nixon

Tom Maguire is all over the NYT's latest "the public be damned" moment, and points the way to this funny satire by the New Editor entitled "NYT Announces Formation of Shadow Government":

"Forgive me, I know this is pretty elementary stuff — but it's the kind of elementary context that sometimes gets lost on morons who don't work for the New York Times, especially the knuckledraggers and mouth breathers who vote for Republicans," said Keller. "And while we hesitate to preempt the role of legislators and courts, and ultimately the electorate, we just feel ... well, that we're smarter."

"What he said," said new shadow Secretary of Defense Paul Krugman.

A Response to Mr. McClellan

I think the only proper response to this Bill McClellan column, "Mr. President, you can woo blockheads for Talent" is, pardon my French, "Bill, you can kiss my ass."

Things That Make You Go HMM

After I read this morning an article about how breathing any amount of second hand smoke is harmful, I'm sitting at a stoplight on my way to work with the drivers of the two cars in front and one behind smoking.

King Kong ZZZZ

I've been sick and busy lately (funny how often the two go together, with the former leading to the latter), but I did watch Peter Jackson's version of King Kong over the weekend. I have to say, it showcases everything great about Jackson, and everything wretched. And here, the wretched outweighs the great. Far outweighs. The only reason I actually watched the whole thing is that (1) I never voluntarily stop watching a movie or reading a book once I start and (2) I didn't feel much like getting off the couch. I think perhaps Mr. Jackson should just produce giant spectacular movies, and leave the directing to somebody else.

The movie is actually quite boring despite, well actually because of the non-stop action. There is about 15 minutes of plot puffed into three hours of movie (kind of like a three hour porno movie -- if anybody was crazy enough to make one that long -- and just as believable) and it doesn't take long before it becomes clear that the criterion was that it didn't have to make sense, it just had to look good on film. And I'm not saying if you thought about it, it didn't make sense; it just obviously didn't make any sense the moment the photons hit your retinas. I don't mind suspending my disbelief, but I don't like to be insulted. If more is less, there wasn't anything at all to this movie, and more is less. I like movies that seek their proper length, whether that is 90 minutes or almost 4 hours, but there is nothing worse for a movie than to be very long and very boring (see The Horse Whisperer).

I should have paid more attention to Dirty Harry.

Why I Hate The Press: Reason 1

Yesterday I'm reading a USA today editorial about how we need a press shield law to protect America. Not just no, but hell no. Can we get a special prosecutor, someone who's able to keep his eye on the ball, unlike Fitzgerald, to start prosecuting the leakers who are trying to help our enemies? And I mean yesterday. Because it's getting to the point that if Bill Keller were to show up on the inside of cage in Guantanamo I'm not sure I'd complain, let alone be troubled by that -- and that just isn't right.

Less Is More

How is the brain and the military alike? Less is more. By that I mean for the brain, it isn't about working hard, its about working efficiently, since studies show the better a person is at a task, the less the brain works to perform it. And for the military, it isn't about bringing more firepower, it's about putting minimum firepower precisely on the target -- again, it's not about working hard, its about working efficiently.

And I don't think those are the only two areas where this applies.

Immigration Ecomonics

I expect you've heard this big picture thermodynamics question before: You have a thermally isolated room with a refrigerator. You plug the refrigerator into a working outlet and open its door. Does the room get colder, warmer, or stay the same? The answer is that the room gets warmer because the total energy in the room is increasing due to the electricity flow via the plug. If you look at the big picture, it's really a very easy problem.

So we come to the point of this post, the effect of large scale immigration on workers. The relevant law here is that of supply and demand, and if you increase the supply of workers, the price at which they are employed will inevitably fall relative to the price without an increase. Now it may well happen that if the increase in demand is greater than the increase in supply the actual price increases, just less than it would have if there had been no increase in the supply. So if you get a lot of immigrants who are increasing the supply of labor, then that will inevitably lower the price everybody is getting paid in that labor pool relative to what they would get without a change in labor supply. I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, I'm just saying what happens.

What sparked this particular post is a John Tierney column which would appear to be behind the Times Select Wall since the St. Louis Post Dispatch ran a column the NYTs published May 30th today. I'm a fan of Mr. Tierney, but I think he stumbles a bit in this article as he's pretty breezy with one consequence to large scale immigration (legal or not). And yes Virginia, there isn't just one consequence.

First off, neither Mr. Tierney or I compete in the same labor pool with the overwhelming majority of immigrants, so we are able to offer a bit more detachment than those who do. I admits its easy to blase, even upbeat about trends that you don't think affect you.

Secondly, Mr. Tierney makes the common mistake of confusing an anecdote with data. He offers the nice tale of a native American women (not to be confused with Native American) who loses her nail salon to the more numerous, lower cost salons run by Vietnamese immigrants. But she lands on her feet by going freelance and working for the wealthy of LA who are willing to pay to have someone who can carry on an intellegent conversation while doing their nails at home. So, despite the fact that a particular person was able to land on her feet, did the average wage in the nail salon business go up or down? Mr. Tierney doesn't comment on this directly, but I think we are safe to infer from the rest of the story it went down. And I'll point something out that Mr. Tierney doesn't -- the (better) job that his nail salon owner found existed before she found it; that is there were plenty of wealthy people who were willing to pay extra for in home nail care before the Vietnamese took over the salon business, its just that the salon owner was comfortable in her job and was not looking to make a change. But what about the wages of such freelance workers - have they gone up or down with the influx of American workers into that niche, displaced by the Vietnamese into the salon business? Again, Mr. Tierney is silent on this subject, but uses the anecdote to claim out that everything will be just fine for all the displaced workers because everything worked out for the particular lady he featured. What would the story have been like had this particular worker moved into the at home/freelance nail business several years ago? Would it have been quite to happy and upbeat? Or would she have been complained of declining wages due to the increased competition with her fellow natives who were moving into the business?

Well, I have no doubt that some workers will move to better jobs because they will actively seek jobs where they weren't looking in the past. But I also have no doubt that some workers will not move to better jobs, and there will be downward pressure on the wages of those workers who remain in their jobs.

And whether you considered this a positive or negative affect might depend if you were a worker in the field, or if you were a consumer of this product or service who was seeing a decline in its price.

And this raises an even bigger point for me -- I think we are better off as a nation looking at the issue, exploring the costs and benefits, weighing the options, and then devising the laws and regulations through the political process with representative government, than we are with our current system of immigration policy by default, with inflows determined by the immigrants themselves, because they aren't looking at the big picture, nor would I expect them to. They are looking at what it means to them.

One of the problems with illegal immigration is that not only the immigration, but so much of the life of such an immigrant takes place off the books. And as Hernado De Soto observes, this life in legal limbo is what makes so many countries poor, and will certainly hurt our own nation. So for me, whatever else the outcome of immigration reform, I just want to see the illegal, off the books part brought back into the law, back onto the books.

A great American Stephen Decatur once said "Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but our country right or wrong.” I'm going to say: "Our representative goverment! May the outcome of our representative government always be in the right; but the process of representative government right or wrong."

Genetic Screening

I'm a firm believer that human life starts at conception, and I'm the father of a daughter who had two congenital heart defects, one life threatening -- coarctation of the aorta -- and one not -- VSD. Erin had an operation when 3 months old to remove the constricted section, and had a balloon angioplasty when 2 to break up the scar tissue that was causing a recurrance. We worried that our next child would also have heart defects. So I greet this news with mostly joy and only slight trepidation: New genetic testing of In Vitro Fertilized embryos can detect genetic diseases.

Such testing could help reduce, or even possibly eliminate a lot of genetic diseases, such as cystic fibrosis. Such testing could bring great peace of mine to anxious parents. Hence the joy. Of course the question immediately arises for me what happens to the embryo's that test positive. And one wonders how far do we go - do parents select embryos based on other characteristics, such as eye color? Hence the trepidation. I'm not one to stop a good because a bad may come later, especially when we can draw a line later against the bad. So I'm not too worried about what might happen years from now. But I am concerned with what happens now, namely what happens to the embryos. I can't imagine requiring a parents to have a child we know has a terrible disease, and yet just as I can't kill children once born with a terrible disease, I'm against destroying the embryo. So would it be too much to ask to hold onto the embryo until they can be cured -- until their genetic defects can be repaired? I don't think so.

White Guilt: Foreward

Why yes, I've been busy lately - or I should say busier. So less posting. I just finished White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era by Shelby Steele. It really is a GUT (grand unified theory) that explains the political scene of the last 50 years. I'd like to explore the book in greater detail later, but I'll just note a few quick things, like how the Publisher's Weekly editorial review calls Mr. Steele "contrarian cultural critic Steele" which begs the question, contrarian to what? The establishment view? The gospel of the left? What the reviewer thinks? It's especially ironic as the review just noted that he's "speaking the language of moralism, individual freedom and responsibility" -- apparently all those things are no longer part of the dominant culture, or at least the dominant culture in publishing circles.

I found the book to be a quick, interesting, and very important read. I was drawn in when Mr. Steele described how his father would call out "Say chief" to get someone's attention in the 50's -- something my father did in the 60's.

But the most important part of the book is his theory of what happened at the culmination for the Civil Rights Movement, how White Guilt replaced White Superiority, and what the effect that has had on not just race relations ever since. Really good stuff.

Insults Do Not An Exchange Of Ideas Make

After taking Ann Coulter to task for her insulting remarks about a certain group of 9/11 widows, I think it only right to show case a remark by one Larry Johnson that is far worse than any Coulter made: "Karl is a shameless bastard. Small wonder his mother killed herself. Once she discovered what a despicable soul she had spawned she apparently saw no other way out." Mr. Johnson has since tweaked the remark, although from "Small wonder his mother killed herself" to "This could explain why his mother killed herself" really isn't much of a change in meaning. So what's the point? Mr. Johnson objects to Mr. Rove's "attacks" on Jack Murtha and John Kerry for wanting to withdraw all American troops ASAP - as well as the usual assorted claims against the Bush administration. Does such a remark reveal anything about Mr. Rove, let alone shed any light on the correctness of any claims by either Mr. Johnson or Mr. Rove? Of course not, but they do reveal a lot about the character of Mr. Johnson, none of it positive. And I can't even say about Mr. Johnson it reflects badly on his substantive points because he doesn't have any. He simply wants us to believe the paranoid fantasies of the left based on his insults of the right.

Nor do I care what Johnson has to say about Don Surber, who demonstrates how to argue like a grown up, not a petulant, spoiled baby who cries and lashes out when people simply don't do as he demands.

Media Bias: A Description

The best description I've read of bias in the entertainment media and what it means from Andrew Klavan at Libertas:

All the same, it’s a relief to see it. I mean, personally, I would prefer my romantic comedy to come without partisan politics at all, but I suspect that’s almost impossible nowadays. One side has so much control over the narrative assumptions that underlie most movies that merely to work under a different set of assumptions is to declare an opposing position. I mean, in movies, the big corporation is always bad, the environmentalist always good; the gun-lover is always crazy, the religious guy always repressed or insane. The patriot is always a jingoist, wise men are always black, gays are always friends and advisors and, if you watch carefully, a poor man’s crimes are almost always traceable back to a rich man’s perfidy. The suburbs are always either comic or stifling, abortion may be rejected but never for moral reasons and – my personal favorite – the United Nations is always a force for truth and justice instead of the loathsomely corrupt gang of child-molesting, sex-trading kleptocratic tyrants we know and abhor.

In short, at the movies, as on the network news, one worldview is assumed to be the steady state of affairs, while any other is considered a more or less ugly aberration. As a result, even the slightest indication that the hero of a movie might be, say, a Charlton Heston fan is bracing, a noticeable statement nearly shocking in its aggression. As for patriotism, faith, energetic capitalism – what some of us call normal on a good day – these become ferocious political pronouncements measured against a radical baseline.

Amen, brother Andrew. OK, I teased you, because to learn what it means you have to go visit and read the end. I will add a filip of my own - it's worse than described because the entertainment media and the news media provide a seemless web of reinforcing bias since they have the same ones.

Border Crossings Reduced

Hmm, apparently sending the National Guard to help seal the border has already had an effect: fewer illegal immigrants are trying to cross, in a mixture of individual discouragement and higher smuggler fees. Let's hope Congress does its part so that they don't waste the time and effort of thousands of National Guardsmen.

When Not Is News

So when is something not happening news? When it's Karl Rove Not being indicted. Why is his not getting indicted news? Because a lot of people on the left were convinced he would be, and since most people in the news media were also convinced (since there is of course no overlap between lefties and the news media according to both lefties and the news media) that he would be, his not being indicted is almost bigger news than if he had been. Tom Maguire, who's been all over this story from conception, has the story. I'm still wondering who's worse, Nifong or Fitzgerald.

The Da Vinci Code

I read the book, enjoyed it even though I thought it slandered the Catholic Church and was generally a bunch of hogwash. So to sum up, I thought it enjoyable hogwash. One of the things that struck me as hogwash is the oft repeated idea that somehow Christianity singled out women to deprive them of freedoms they had as pagans. Steve Sailer has a great look at the Da Vinci Code and women, and you just can't beat his last line. Thanks to Tim at Random Observations for the tip, and for his reminding us that pagan infanticide is still with us, on a scale probably greater than ever.

More Fun With Intestinal Bacteria

It's just not possible to overstate the importance of intestinal bacteria to your well being. Part of that is simply a fine economy - why should your cells do what 3 pounds of bacteria can acomplish in your gut. The other part is that one dies without the other. Scientists have had a hard time investigating the full toxonomy of your gut flora, mainly because they don't live well outside you. But scientists have developed a way to find out what's in there, and the answer is one hell of a lot: more than 60,000 genes (or twice the human genome) and thousands of different strains of bacteria and archaea. So how did they manage to collect this treasure trove?

Rather than struggling to grow the body's myriad microbes and testing their ability to perform various biochemical reactions – the methods scientists traditionally use to classify bacteria – the team used tiny molecular probes resembling DNA Velcro to retrieve tens of thousands of snippets of bacterial DNA from smidgeons of the intestinal output of two volunteers.

My problem isn't that I eat too much, it's that my gut bacteria are too efficient. Researchers (from right here in St. Louis) say that the amount of calories you actually extract from food depends on what's living in your gut. My next question would be how much of what's in you depends on what's in your parents? I can just imagine that in the future, we'll be imbibing different mixtures of gut flora to lose weight or bulk up.

And how about downing a nice mixture of whipworm eggs and gatorade? Yum, yum, but even better than the taste is that it might help people with inflammatory bowel diseases such as Crohn's. The theory is the worms give your immune system something to do and so it leave the rest of you alone. Needless to say kids, don't try this at home, wait for an FDA approved treatment.

Palestine, Hamas, and us.

OK, remind me again why we should give Hamas a nickel, or why the Palestinians, who've never missed an oportunity to miss an oportunity, deserve a state (and not the Kurds?) Because from where I sit, all I can see is the partying in the streets after 9/11, and now the comes the reaction of Hamas to Zarqawi's death - a man responsible for the death of thousands, and a man who took delight in beheading people: "With hearts full of faith, Hamas commends brother-fighter Abu Musab ... who was martyred at the hands of the savage crusade campaign which targets the Arab homeland, starting in Iraq". If Hamas considers Zarqawi a brother fighter, and Zarqawi clearly fought against the US, that means that Hamas considers themselves ... in a fight against us. I say we don't disappoint them.

Ann Coulter and The Jersey Girls

The problem with Ann Coulter is that whenever she makes some good points she discredits them with terrible hyperbole and insult. Her problem isn't uncommon in partisans who are forever overreaching, but far too often she misses provocative and land squarely in revolting. For instance, Confederate Yankee is able to make the point she was trying to make without any insult: "The point, of course, was simply this: personal tragedy does not bestow omnipotence upon the bereaved." I would add that the greater the demonstration of bereavement, the greater the compromise of wisdom and perspective, but then I come from the stoic Midwest.

That Would Be A Good Thing

I suppose it was a fitting end for a mass murderer who used, among other techniques, car bombs and IEDs to kill: blown up by a bomb. A pair of them actually (JDAMs, I assume). Yes, Abu Musab al Zarqawi is dead, killed by a pair of 500 pound bombs dropped by an F-16 in a little town called Hib Hib near Baqubah, Iraq. His death was the result of a tip or tips as Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malik announced that the 25 million dollar bounty would be paid. Apparently Jordan intellegence was able to provide the rough location and locals provided the exact location.

The Prime Minister also completed his cabinet, as three ministers were approved by parliament and sworn in: ministers of Defense, National Security, and Interior.

Another step in the long road to victory.

Third Party Thoughts

The talk of the day is about a third political party. Oddly enough, it seems to be driven by disaffected Republicans hoping for a purer or better Republican party. Parties are odd things - since to be one of the two major parties you have to be pretty inclusive. What actually defines them? The Democrats think of themselves as the party of the little guy and the Republicans think of themselves as the party of mainstreet America, but are they really? And even when you say the Democrats are the party of urban and rural America while the Republicans are the party of Suburbia, that is a tendency, not a uniformity. Same thing goes for the whole Red/Blue state dichotomy - we're really just shifting pattern of purple.

I would have thought the Democratic coalition of disparate groups would be the first to crack because the members seem to be in actual opposition over positions, where the Republican coalition between fiscal conservatives and moral conservatives could better tolerate different areas of interest. For instance, the working class Catholic part of the Democratic coalition has to clash with both the anti-religous and pro-abortion wings of the coalition. The interests of Black parents and the teacher's union leadership are also in opposition. The amazing thing to me about the Democratic party is that it hasn't torn itself apart, but maybe the ability to unite around hating Republican presidents is enough of a glue to keep itself together. And perhaps that's why the Republicans do better at electing Presidents - the strain shows up the worst on a national scale.

Of course, what people when they talk about a new third party is a third major party, because there are more third parties already out there than you can shake a stick at. In my life we've had a couple of third party candidates -- John Anderson (who's policies for 1980 are amazingly relevant for today) and Ross Perot who might have actually won the election if he hadn't vacillated because of what he thought was a Republican dirty tricks campaign -- but they didn't leave a major third party behind.

The last third party to emerge was the Republicans themselves - and it wasn't driven by leadership but by principle - the fight over slavery. That sort of galvanizing principle is what's needed to form a new major party, not some isolated man on a white horse riding in to our rescue. And the party that fell apart during the relignment was the Whigs, kind of old school Libertarians, who weren't as old, organized, or successful as the Democrats. I'm not sure that a new party built along the lines of what commentators think the Republican party should be would actually spawn a brand new third party when it's more likely that it would simply reenergize and transform the existing Republican party. If the problem is that the party faithful feel their party leadership is out of touch, wouldn't it be more likely that a lot of incumbants lose primaries and a new party leadership be installed than a whole new party be formed?

For a new major party to form, you have to have significant numbers of voters leave both current major parties, so you have to have a principle that divides both parties. Otherwise you wind up with one major party, two minor parties, and that same host of insignificant parties. Is (more/less) immigration that principle? It sure seems to provoke enough emotional reaction; but I'm not clear that it would split both parties or that a third party could grow by planting that banner. The fight over slavery festered and blazed over decades before it forged a new party - I don't think we are there yet on immigration. I don't think it's enough for people to climb up out of their ruts.

Quite frankly, I see the Democrats in far more danger of an actual crack up than the Republicans. I don't want to underestimate the power of habit and hatred, but that is all I can see holding the Democrats together. And a crack up of either party would mean a realignment as different interest groups migrated between the parties. If one or the other were to break apart, the other one would be changed as well as an influx of new voters and an outflow of old voters would change the party whatever it's name is.

I Want My Nintendo

Will Nintendo beat Sony and Microsoft in the next round of the gaming console wars? This guy thinks so. My vote will go to whichever company can provide me their latest console loaded with hot software to test and report on. (Yes, I'm still waiting on a wall mounted Plasma TV to review). Because I don't want to end up like this guy - writing about really old video games with fondness. I want to be able to say that back in my day, the games were lousy, and I'm glad I have the latest gear. I want to say I'm glad the designers of today only care about how good a game looks and don't care what it plays like.

Borders Will Carry Mohammed Cartoons

Borders has decided that while they weren't willing to risk jihad over an obscure publication that a few people read, they are willing to put their necks on the line for Vanity Fair. Maybe they figure Jihadists were already so upset at the pictures of mostly naked women in the ads (so I've been told) that they wouldn't bother to notice that VF has the infamous Mohammed Cartoons in them. Or Borders could be run by a bunch of buttholes. We report, you decide.

Communism Is Alive And Well

Tim at Random Observations has a look at the reality behind communist infiltration in the US:

Today, Haynes has come full circle. Years ago he laughed at the old Minnesota DFLers. Now, many of his fellow historians dismiss him.

"They still see Communist Party USA members as idealists focused on social justice -- just 'liberals in a really big hurry,' " he says. But Haynes is hopeful that the facts will prevail. Younger historians are more receptive, he says. "They don't have the same investment in the academic conventional wisdom as the Sixties generation, who often try to rewrite history to suit their own agenda."

Kevin Looks At Some Blogs

Don Surber has a story of a female narcissist who instead of pining away while staring at her own reflection was fired for staring at her own reflection -- or reflections in this case.

In honor of the Listless Lawyer who needs some special superglue, I offer this joke:
A man doesn't know what true happiness is until he gets married - and then it's too late. It's a joke people! Or how about this one: A married man should forget his mistakes - his wife will remind him whenever he needs it. OK, I'll end this with a quote from Mignon McLaughlin before I get in trouble: "A successful marriage requires falling in love many times, always with the same person. "

I went backwards up the blogroll, so I read Chris Johnson's excerpt of Lileks first:

The alternative worldview postulated in “The Da Vinci Code” does not exactly give us anything transcendent and wonderful, friend; the most “sacred ritual” described consists of some old French grandfather, nagoy and panhandled, moaning under some grindy-hipped fleshy woman “with long silver hair,” while observers – yes, observers! – stand around in masks holding orbs, chanting. I met her in the grotto and she sheathed my sword, da doo ron ron, da doo ron ron. This may be why the interminable Latin mass became popular: absolutely zero chance of seeing Granny get it on in front of the bridge club.

Doctors said sexually transmitted diseases among senior citizens are running rampant at a popular Central Florida retirement community, according to a Local 6 News report.
A gynecologist at The Villages community near Orlando, Fla., said she treats more cases of herpes and the human papilloma virus in the retirement community than she did in the city of Miami.

Will New Orleans go the way of Atlantis?

Speaking of New Orleans, the Army Corps of Engineers has a mammoth report out on Katrina and surprise, surprise, surprise, concludes that "The hurricane protection in New Orleans and Southeast Louisiana was a system in name only." Oh really, I hadn't noticed.

Iran continues to be off in cloud cuckoo land, and I mean more than their negotiating style, I mean their claims of fusion research. Maybe they got their hands on Stanley Pons.

Speaking of disfunctional countries, Brad and Angelina got to seal off a resort in Namibia for the birth of their child. No word from Amnesty International yet on this flagrant offense against human rights.

And speaking of flagrant offenses against human rights, which I would be against except that it's too funny, you can view the winners of Fark's photoshop Al Gore's inconvenient truths contest.