What if ...

... Microsoft made iPods?


And the funniest thing? This video was made by MS employees.

White men CAN jump

But can they look good doing it?

I'm not much of a basketball fan but since the draft just passed and Toronto had first pick there's bit a lot more coverage in the paper as of late.

All I can say is no matter how much money he ends up being paid, Andrea Bargnani is one geeky looking white guy.

And I'm still not sure what's going through the mind of Steve Nash's stylist. Multi-year MVP and he still looks like his hair style was the result of a lost bet.

Mac and Me

Hey, well it looks like I'm not the only one who doesn't find the latest Mac ads all that well thought out. While they look great, as most Apple things do, I think the overall smugness by the Mac just makes you want to cheer for the underdog and the fact that the underdog in this case seems like a genuinely nice guy doesn't help/hurt either.

Who knows, when they show the next batch of these a year from now and you see the same PC guy with a new suit and glasses standing next to an entirely new Mac guy, because his shoes needed changing which of course required a completely new system, my opinion may change.

I only had one major disagreement with Seth Stevenson's review; I actually liked Dodgeball and, for the first season at least, Ed.

And just for the hell of it, here's a link to RoosterTeeth's parody of the Apple 'Switch' Ads.

What he said.

Hot Air has the footage of Bush's response to the latest example of the New York Times national security policy, which is essentially, "we don't believe in it".

I say it's about time although he's a lot calmer than I would be in a similar circumstance.

Freedom of the press is a vital right that is necessary in any truly representative government system. Without it, the government could forcefeed people whatever they wanted and thereby manipulate elections. But as Uncle Ben said, "With great power comes great responsibility." The New York Times seems to have forgotten that.

Defenders of papers like the Times and others who repeatedly take it upon themselves to disclose covert programs used to ferret out terrorists and their enablers just simply can't come up with any valid reasons to expose such programs. Especially since every certified case thus far, has been shown to be perfectly legal under the US Constitution. In the latest case, even the Times does not question the legality of the bank record searches while at the same time they do acknowledge their usefulness in tracking down terrorists.

So the question remains, what public good does it serve to expose this type of program? The answer; none, unless you view the terrorists as part of the public you serve. And while I know circulation numbers are falling through the floor, I can't believe that even the Times would be desperate enough to try and steak out that market.

The Politics of Giving

RedState has a link to a short, but interesting, Washington Post article.

A study by Stanford University professor Shanto Iyengar found that when polled about Katrina relief, Republicans are likely to be less giving and over a shorter period of time than Democrats.

Now don't go rejoicing all you left leaners. The same study found that while Republicans were effectively color neutral, giving the same amount to all victims, regardless of race, Democrats were far more likely to give more money to Whites than to other races.

According to Professor Iyengar this matches perfectly with an earlier study on criminal punishment in which Republicans wanted criminals punished, but in equal measure, while Democrats were more likely to punish non-whites than whites for the same crimes.

You just can't imagine my surprise in finding that Democrats are more likely to let color affect their behaviour. I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!

My only issue is with the 'stingy' tag being given to Republicans in this case. The Stanford study greatly limited what they considered charitable givings so that things such as Church offerings, something that greatly helps the poor and needy, were not included. The study itself focused mainly on welfare type programs which should explain the relatively low Republican giving. As a general rule, Conservatives tend to be more of the "hand up" and not "hand out" group, and while acknowledging the need for social assistance programs, expect that after a certain amount of time the 'victim' should be able to get back on their feet. In the real world, when everything is included, Republican states give more than even the more affluential Democrat ones.

"The Birds"

Nature at it's oddest: "The Birds"

(Link found via Redstate)

Boneless Girl

As the description says:

"Pointless fun, click, drag and drop boneless girl."

Really, it's not as bad as it sounds. Just give it a try.

(h/t Airyck*)

*At no time today, or for that matter EVER, will I be posting the links he sent me before this one. You'll just have to trust me on this one. =)

Update:
Ok, one more safe one.

"Weapons of minor discomfort"??

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned my immense dislike for a certain MSNBC 'news' personality with the initials K.O.

Well it looks like Mr. O. strikes again in his attempt to be 'fair and balanced' in his representation of the news.

Now I don't think the fact that over 500 shells containing chemical weapons is necessarily as exciting an announcement as many on the right have made it out to be (except for those few far left liberals who fully subscribed to Michael Moores kite flying fantasy version of Iraq, we all knew they were there somewhere) but it is still of some interest and to downplay it like Mr. O, by dismissing Sarin and Mustard gas shells as "weapons of minor discomfort" is just plain ridiculous. (In an odd coincidence, I believe 500 is also the approximate viewing audience of Mr. O's show on a night basis)

Every expert I've seen or heard has quite clearly stated that while Mustard gas may breakdown and congeal over time, but still remain quite dangerous, the Sarin gas is without a doubt still very deadly. It may have lost some of it's effectiveness, having been stored for a long time in probably not the most ideal conditions, but that would mean more like it could now only kill 100 people if released, as opposed to 1000. Hardly a minor discomfort.

But that leads to another issue all together; the Left's need to ensure that their Bush lied meme doesn't fall to the wayside. Despite the fact that weapons of mass destruction was merely a small part of the declaration of hostilities with Iraq, it has become a cornerstone of the anti-Bush crowds argument against the invasion. All the humanitarian issues raised seems to just disappear when being trumpeted by a Republican. Now that WMDs have been discovered, no matter how degraded and inconsequential, it is job #1 amongst the left to make sure that these are clearly separated from the real WMDs that Bush was talking about. Nevermind that these would be clearly covered under the category of weapons that Saddam had, in violation of UN sanctions, which happened to be another of the originally stated reasons for the justification of the invasion.

You know, honestly, I always thought the accidental discovery of 30+ fighter Jets buried in the Iraqi desert during the first stages of the war should have been enough to make most people understand how easy it is to hide and how hard it is to find things in the desert, let alone all those truck loads of munitions and equipment that were most likely shipped out of country during the several month build up to the initial conflict.

Domestic Spying

Well someone must be thinking God (or Allah) for the New York Times steadfast dedication to exposing all those legal actions being taken by the American Government to help track down terrorists. We at least know the ACLU is overjoyed.

For the life of me I can't figure out what is going on with the 'Newspaper of Record' when they continue to divulge what even they admit is 'Top Secret' intelligence and military information. In the latest two cases, with regards to the banking records and the troop deployments, even the Times can't show anything the slightest bit illegal. Of course, almost none of their leaks have really shown anything that is truly illegal. Even their strongest case for wrongdoing, the NSA wiretapping, has already been spoken on by the FISA courts, who all those who are crying foul claim should have final authority, as being well within the President's power to authorize. But what would they know, they're just the panel of judges set up to review these exact types of situations.

I think the best explanation for what is driving the Times, and other papers like them, to try and expose every covert action being done in the name of fighting terrorism comes from the Times Executive editor himself (by way of BreitBart.com):

"We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use it may be, is a matter of public interest" said Bill Keller, the Times' executive editor.

As Donald Luskin points out, Mr. Keller clearly states "the administration's access" and not the governments. And seeing the Times didn't seem to have any problems with similar (or in some cases the exact same) programs run under the Clinton Administration, and for some reason they are totally disinterested in finding the source of any leaks that cannot be tied back to an administration official (I'll let you Google the Plame non-scandal yourself), I guess the most obvious answer to why they keep doing this is simple, anything they can do to damage this Republican administration is seen as a good thing. As Ace puts it, it's essentially the MSMs attempt at blackmail, it's a 'Give us a Democratic President or else we'll tell everyone what you did last summer' kinda thing.

At some times the line separating freedom of the press from outright treason seems pretty thin. In the case of the NYTs as of late, it seems they are trying their best to jump over just it to see what the government will do. Well, if nothing else this hardline anti-Bush stance has seemed to have some affect on how the world sees the Times, just not what they were hoping for I guess.

It's time for the various government agencies to close ranks and actually start prosecuting, to the fullest extent of the law, those individuals responsible for leaking this classified information. You'd think that if a special prosecutor could be called for the outing of a 'spy', who just happened to work at CIA headquarters and whose profession has been described as one of the worst kept secrets in Washington by the several journalists who already knew her identity, even prior to her 'outing', then you'd definitely get some special independent investigations into the sources of the leaks the NYT's has been reporting on, as of late. I won't be holding my breath.

(h/t to Powerline for a lot of the above links)

Scarborough Imam speaks out

This Globe and Mail article has got to be read to be believed.

To defend his mosque against charges that they allowed pro-terrorist propaganda to be distributed in the parking lot, the imam for the Scarborough Mosque which was frequented by all 17 arrested terror suspects, put forward the argument that the DVD's in question, distributed by those same suspects, that supported the terrorists responsible for the attacks on September 11th, would not be widely accepted at the Salaheddin Islamic Centre because it's not something most of his parishioners believe in.

You'd think that would be a good thing, that is until you hear exactly why. The reason is not that they fundamentally reject the use of terror as a means to and end, no, it's that the more widely held belief at his mosque is that 9/11 was never a terrorists act to begin with and was in fact an operation used to justify the war, perpetrated by, I'm assuming, the US government, and judging by his reference to the Holocaust (which he seems to imply didn't happen), the Jews. Incidentally, to get DVD's supporting those claim you don't have to wander out into the parking lot since they are available within the Mosque itself.

And people wonder why you never see the 'moderate' Muslims marching in protest over the 'hijacking' of their religion by extremists.

I've have known and seen Muslims who fully accept that there are elements within their religion that are quite capable of killing 3000 civilians, and are disgusted by that fact, but more and more it seems that they are in fact the minority. So while the extremists that are prepared to perform these violent acts may be few and far between, a foundation of distrust/hatred for the liberal West does seem to be pretty prevalent in 'mainstream' Islam.

(H/T LGF)

Ottawa Traffic (part 9)

Word to the wise: if in a hurry and faced with the choice of being stuck behind a Pontiac Firefly or a Plymouth Breeze always choose the Firefly. It may not do more than 60, but it will probably get there long ahead of the Plymouth.

The Firefly driver more than likely wanted a better car but that was all they could afford so when given the chance they will try to get as much performance out of their 1/2 cylinder engine to help make them feel good about their car.

A Breeze driver actually chose a car that is named after a slow moving air current. Unless it was a gift, there had to have been other options in the same class or even below, but yet they choose the Breeze. As a general rule, these people are not worried about speed.


(Ottawa Traffic Part 8)

Pot meet Kettle

I just love the description of this new Keith Olbermann book, "The Worst Person in the World".

"Controversial, outspoken, and wildly entertaining, Keith Olbermann hosts a popular nightly newscast on MSNBC."

Calling Countdown 'popular' is straining the legal limits of the definition of 'poetic license'. When your entire fan base couldn't even form enough people for a decent game of touch football I wouldn't say you're all that 'poplular'. And then later making a positive comparison to the writing style of Al Franken of all people really shows who the target audience is.

If there was even the slightest doubt in anyone's mind about Olbermann's current political bias I don't think this book will leave much doubt.

And the best part of all; the cover. Honestly, does anyone on Keith's side have any clue about cover art? It's like they hired this guy from the Liberals to come up with design.

My prediction, this may be the one to knock Cindy Sheehan out of that comfortable 324,610 position on Amazon's book rankings.

(h/t Michelle Malkin)

The Obligatory ECW Ann Coulter 'Godless'* post

Since the release of her book 'Godless' and the controversy that it has generated, Ann Coulter has been on pretty much every major talk show and has been discussed on all those she hasn't personally appeared on. From The Factor to The Tonight Show, she's popping up everywhere and now that it's been announced that her book will debut at #1 on the New York Times bestseller list you can expect to see more of her.

I don't much agree with the methods she uses to get her points across but for the most part it's hard to disagree with those points. The one causing the most fuss right now is over her choice to attack the Jersey Girls use of their husbands deaths on 9/11 for political gain. I have to say that when she delves into the hypothetical family lives of those women and questions how happy they really were prior to their husbands deaths I think she has passed from what is acceptable fodder for political debate into an area of personal matters which is not really necessary. In some cases this type of things may be acceptable and relevant, but with regard to these 4 women, it's really just mud slinging on Coulter's part.

That being said, her point about liberals clinging to 'victims' to use as human shields is a very valid one. Even watching the debates on the various program she appeared, almost without fail the more left leaning panellists start to use the "well they lost their ____" line to defend the people Ann is attacking, thereby validating her point. Also interesting is the number of those same panellists who proudly admit to not having read the book but feel superior enough in their ignorance to debate it's finer points (flashbacks of Bernard Goldberg's treatment over his last book).

Yes, in a free and open society we are all able to question the beliefs of anyone we choose, but by enlisting the aid of people who have suffered tragedy liberals intentionally capitalize on the sympathy we all feel for them to shield their ideas from truly open discussion. Any dissenting opinions or valid attack on the persons credibility is instead manipulated by the left to appear as a heartless attack on the person. That way any real debate is squashed and the left can get their message out unfettered by any need for facts.

What I find oddest about this behaviour is the outright hypocritical manner in which the left adhere to the very rules of decorum they demand of everyone else. While thousands of people with a similar story to tell may come out in support of a conservative proposal, they are generally dismissed out of hand so that the lone dissenter can be given all the attention and treated as an expert due to their experiences. Just take a look at the entire Sheehan fiasco. Cindy Sheehan's opinions represent a very small portion of military families who have lost loved ones in the Middle East, and even in her own family only her and her sister seem to share their particular view of the war and the President, yet she is treated like a super star amongst the far left and almost elevated to God -like status while all the pro-Bush families are ignored.

The same can be seen in their selective choosing of military voices to glorify. Look at their handling of the swift boat vets last campaign. While by definition they also served in Vietnam (and most for far longer than Kerry's handful of months) they were dismissed as partisan hacks for daring to challenge Kerry, who in contrast was presented as a war hero of the highest calibre. It didn't matter that many, if not most, of their allegations could not only not be disproved but in many cases had substantial proof, while at the same time many of Kerry's own recollections defied all logic and in some cases the very fabric of space/time. And I may take some flak for this but while deservedly a badge of honour I fail to see how a purple heart on it's own, in any way elevates a soldier to hero status. The story as to how the award was received is what makes the hero but the badge itself, as it can be handed out to anyone requesting one for even the most minor of injuries (as clearly shown by Kerry himself), does nothing but indicate you were in an recognized military zone and got injured. In Kerry's case as soon as he got the minimum number required for redeployment state side he was on the next plane home ( for the record I believe the total amount of time in recovery for all 3 purple hearts Kerry received was about 1 day as at least 2 only required a small bandage and no down time).

This is much the same as the way Jack Murtha's honourable military service from 20 years ago is trumpeted by so many on the left while the opinions of active military personnel or retirees with much more impressive credentials are ignored. Not to dismiss Murtha's service, but many people of all educational levels, political leanings or ideologies have served in the military and while just the fact you served may help give you a boost in most peoples books (although oddly enough it is most often seen as a negative by those on the far left unless you side with them) it is your actions today that define you, not only those of 20 years ago.

So I guess to get back to my original point, for those on the left who are like to point out the lack of voices criticizing Coulter for her personal attacks on the Jersey Girls and the like (although there are in fact plenty of people that take Coulter to task for her over the top rhetoric), I guess my response is this; there are many on the right that truly disagree with Ann's 'in your face' style, but it's such a constant buzz that we kind of drown it out. If it comes up in a discussion we'll address it but otherwise we just try and ignore the buzz and focus on the points. She is just a political pundit after all and not an elected official so her personal actions are not something others have much control over. Her vitriolic personality would probably not land her in my top ten people I'd like to meet but if you can cut through all that, she can have some pretty interesting things to say.



*just had to qualify this post with her book title because knowing Ann's tendency to be way to outspoken I'm sure there will a future call for another "Obligatory ECW" post involving her.

World Cup comes to Iraq

At least to the American Forces Network watchers there.

While Rupert Murdoch may be doing this out of the goodness of his heart, as he is a well known supporter of the troops, I'm sure it doesn't hurt that it will also drum up a lot of positive publicity. Even the New York Times has nothing bad to say about the deal.

Either way, I'm sure the tens of thousands of military men and women who would otherwise be unable to see the World Cup are thankful for News Corps intervention on their behalf.

Artist loses his head

Hilarious.

As if art critics weren't seen in bad enough light before.

(h/t Protein Wisdom)

Bush Chide(d) ... a Reporter Cried!

Well actually, no, he was quite ok with the whole thing.

I was looking for an unrelated video at Expose the Left when I came upon this little story. Apparently Bush made a joke about a reporter wearing his shades during a cloudy press conference not knowing that the reporter in question, Peter Wallsten has an eye condition that requires extra UV protection. For the record, Wallsten, who routinely takes written notes, wears only normal glasses indoors, and did not inform anyone at the Whitehouse of his condition, was ok with the joke and later, when the President called to apologize after learning the truth, said everything was fine and even encouraged the President to continue his joking around.

What's interesting is the response from some, and this is more for the die-hard BDS sufferers, who want to make a big deal of it. You know who you are. Just reading some of the comments on TP (I've never noticed how fitting that name is until now) is especially telling of the lefts tendency to use knowledge gained after the fact, that was not known to the participants at the time, to judge past events. Since it has now come out that Wallsten has a serious eye ailment (but as mentioned above is not without sight), though that was not widely known at the time, it's Bush's fault for making a joke about his use of shades. As one person put it, he should have assumed that anyone wearing sunglasses is blind. This wouldn't even be of the slightest interest if it wasn't a prime example of the same type of distortions of logic that led to the "Bush lied ..." meme (of course that also has problems in that many of the supposed "lies" have been, with the aid of captured documents and personnel, shown to be more true than previously believed).

I have no problem with anyone who wants to use this story to make fun of Bush. It's just one of those unfortunate situations where a person makes an social faux pas, and as such is fair game for friend or foe to use to rip into him, it's just those who try to use this to demonize the man personally are going a little too far. The Righteous Indignation bit is becoming a little tired, especially when the 'victim' himself is on record saying he took no offence. My advice, just make some jokes and move on.

-------------------------

Now the story I was looking for was a video of an O'Reilly segment from last night debunking yet another NYT op-ed about a poor unfortunate 19 year old who was held at GITMO just because he happened to take the wrong turn while vacationing in Afghanistan.

The story gets interesting though when O'Reilly adds the parts the NYT editors choose to leave out or just gloss over, namely that this poor unfortunate boy, who was only released to face terrorism charges in France, is a member of a family with a little more than a passing involvement in terrorism itself. His brother, step brother, mother and father are all currently in French prisons having been convicted of terrorism related charges. His dream vacation to Afghanistan was to a al-Qaida training camp (which he admits but claims he was tricked into going), and his return trip to France, where he claimed to be headed when he was captured, just happened to take him to the Afghan/Pakistan border.

Once again the New York Times has shown a complete disregard for the facts in chasing down a story that may put a negative light on the current administration. Even with their tragically flawed history of printing unfounded accusations with not even the least credible piece of evidence, they still continue day after day on their crusade to demonize the military and their civilian leadership. At least CBS knew enough after their first big goof that things had to change if they stood any chance of reclaiming their credibility; no such luck it seems at the Times.

At some point you'd think someone in the NYT head office would look at their declining reader base and start to think, "maybe our campaign to discredit our own military may not be what's best for us or our country".

Appreciation - Government Style

I know the government is trying to be a bit more careful with our money nowadays, which I'm all for, but come on, throwing a employee appreciation BBQ and then making us pay $7.50 for the ticket (which entitles you to a burger and pop and if you were lucky 4 or 5 vegetable pieces with dip) doesn't scream 'appreciation' to me, if anything it scream 'fiscal mismanagement'. They even made us bring our own utensils and plates under the guise of being waste free.

I can't wait till I retire in 20 years or so and get that bill for $30 on my last paystub to cover the cost of my "Thank You for All Your Years of Service" card.

To be fair, my Manager and Project Leader did take it upon themselves to pony up the dough so for those of us who went from my group (that would be 2 of us) we were covered. Most people were not so fortunate.

Big news of the Day

- Rove still not indicted (see reactions from the left here)

- Canadian terrorists claim torture (are we not setting the bar a little too low when we include being kept in a room with the lights on as torture)

- A Kennedy pleads guilty to DUI

- Sky still blue

Honestly, it's like even the news has gone into repeats for the summer.

Now That's How You Interview a Phelps

I know as a journalist you are suppose to keep a level head during an interview but when it comes to the Phelps family and their special brand of 'God is Hate' brand of bible thumping this is the only way to talk to them.

Thankfully their 'church' is made up almost entirely of their inbred family members but you'd think that at some point even amongst the lowest of the lowest someone's got to think "WTF am I doing?" and split from their family.

Quote of the Year Nominee

I know we're only about half way through the year, but I believe this quote from Human Rights Activist, William Goodman, will stand the test of time and make it into the "Top Ten Dumbest Quotes of the Year" if not take the #1 spot.

In reference to the 3 Gitmo prisoners who recently committed suicide he called them:

"heroes for those of us who believe in basic American values of justice, fairness and democracy"

What always astounds me about human rights activists who protest the American treatment of Gitmo detainees is that most are hard line Muslims who follow the strictest form of Islam taught by the Taliban in which death by stoning is the recommended 'treatment' for anyone caught committing the crimes of adultery (which all women who has been raped are guilty of), being homosexual or daring to change religions to name just a few, yet to these people, simply because they oppose the US they are seen as 'heroes'.

And as for their mistreatment, the average prisoner has gained a significant amount of weight since being incarcerated, have had all their religious practices catered too (to a ridiculous extent), has been provided with better meals than those given to the soldiers guarding them, have been given access to first rate medical and dental care and in at least a dozen cases upon release have actually refused to leave.

(h/t LGF)

Blogger

Blogger has been a bit wonky over the past couple of day, as anyone who happened to drop by here may have noticed. So for anyone who was wondering, yes I did know that my previous post appeared in triplicate, I just couldn't do anything about it.

All this raises the question, for a online resource run by one of the largest online companies in the world, namely Google, why is Blogger so touchy? Is this just one example of the greed of the nineties rearing it's ugly head? When uncontrolled tech purchases were seen as 'investments' even when there was no plan as to how to use them. Did Google ever have a real strategy for using Blogger to extend their empire? Will Foster ever stop waking me up at 6am to take him out for a walk?

I don't really know the answer to any of these questions but as long as Blogger remains free, which fits my budget perfectly, then I guess I'll just have to live with their problems. As the saying goes beggars can't be choosers, but that doesn't mean we can't keep bitchin' about it.

P.S. It may be a little indicative of the level of caring at Google towards Blogger that the Blogger spell check still doesn't recognize the words Blogger or Google. They can reveloutionize the art of internet search but they can't type 2 words into a dictionary.

The obligatory ECW al-Zarqawi post

Not that I'm not overjoyed at the successful operation that managed to take out Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as well as several other key personnel in his insurgent hierarchy, just that I think it's being pretty well covered by every .. other .. website .. on .. the .. internet .. right .. now so I can't see myself having much new to add.

I do see one small oversight that needs taking care of though. You have the conservative commentators who, rightfully so, are quite happy that one of the main masterminds behind the Iraqi insurgency will from this point forward be referenced in the past tense (see links above), and you have the far (far) left commentators who are upset over hearing the news that their folk hero has died a tragic death at the hands of the evil imperialist Americans. Then you have the generally far left commentators who are both happy that al-Zarqawi is dead but upset that this may help Bush's approval ratings.

But what of the conservatives, like myself, who are both happy to see Zarqawi dead from a military perspective but a little sad at the same time because we know his death will probably put a crimp into his guest blogging over at IowaHawk? Where are we suppose to turn to? I guess we'll just have to buck and keep a stiff upper lip.

Update:
Well it looks like things worked out the best for everyone (except if you're a Mike Berg style liberal) as it appears al-Z managed to still keep up with his guest blogging duties, even from the other side.

ECW Laugh of the Day

Well I guess it would technically be the laugh of yesterday but what can I say, seeing RFK Jr. going on an internationally broadcast television show and making widely debunked claims with a straight face just brings a smile to mine.

Just some of his funnier claims:

A)Bush stole the last election and to prove it he has several reports (even though the very reports he sites claim the exact opposite, including the DNC funded one).

B)He's merely a non-partisan truth seeker with no political agenda except to clean up the electoral system. It's just coincidence that even though almost every criminal conviction for actual voter fraud (from physical assault, bribery, destruction of property, illegal voting, etc..) in the US from the last election involved Democrats or their supporters (ACORN, America Coming Together, the AFL-CIO and the NAACP National Voter Fund anyone) all he can find is some statistical irregularities (which even the statisticians try to explain are in fact not all that irregular) which may or may not give a few extra votes to Kerry (but even then well below Bush's margin of victory).

and the funniest bit of all...

C)there was no wide spread election fraud when his Uncle beat Nixon for the Presidency (well to be fair, for a Democrat the sight of dead people voting or areas with more recorded votes than residents is to be expected and is not considered fraud).

You can read the original Salon debunking of Kennedy's claims here as well as the online debate between RFK Jr. and Mr. Manjoo on the topic here.

Expose the Left has video.

You know, this almost makes me feel sorry for poor old Mary Mapes who if RFK wasn't on 'Your World' last night would have been a shoe-in with her recent HuffPo piece. Although her comments section at HuffPo is priceless and almost pushes her to the #1 spot.

And just for the record Ms. Mapes, when the only reports you can point to to 'prove' the documents weren't forgeries are the CBS report which went out of it's way NOT to attempt to validate the documents (as it's focus was on the newsroom's vetting process itself) and one from an expert who later had to admit that his 'proof' was itself created using a word processor and not an actual 1970's machine, you may want to consider just letting the case drop. Just check out the Wiki entry for more including Charles' Originals vs. 'Word with default settings' graphic.

Stumbling through the internet: vol. 1

I have to give Rat the hat tip for pointing me towards StumbleUpon, a FireFox extension. It pretty much a pointless but quite entertaining browsing tool which allows for semi-random jumps throughout the Web. Just set your category(s) of interest and start Stumbling.

Here's installment #1 of what I found while Stumbling around earlier today:

• Virtual Stan - It's exactly what it says but I really still can't find a point.
• Steve, don't eat it. Vol. 7 - Really Steve, I don't know you but for the love of God, don't do it! (You can check out the rest of Steve's site here.)
• YellowSnow - It's just like those Hallmark E-Cards, but NOT.
• Windows Mix - I think we've all been there.
• A brief history of spaghetti - Things you probably didn't know about everyone's favorite medium sized string like pasta.
• Fly Guy - Another pointless but still somehow entertaining waste of time.
  
• Bow Man - Really, what's the point of oddities if you can't find at least one game.

Guilty Guite

So another major player in the ADSCAM scandal is headed to the big house as Chuck Guite is found guilty on all five counts of fraud he was being charged with. He now faces up to 14 years in jail for defrauding the Canadian tax payer over $1.6 million.

I hope that this isn't the end of the convictions as although Guite may have been guilty, he wasn't acting in a vacuum and there were plenty of others, both above and below him, who both had knowledge and involvement in the mismanagement of millions of dollars.

Terror Cell busted in Toronto

I wonder if this will finally be enough to help force people to understand that this is not just an extremist vs American fight and that it's a fight between radical Islam and the West in general.

As of now it looks like 12 adult suspects and as many as 5 underage suspects have been arrested for being part of a cell which intended to bomb the subway system in Toronto.

Angry in the Great White North, Small Dead Animals, Little Green Footballs and Captain's Quarters have more.

Kate points to this rabble thread which shows just how disconnected from reality so many on the left truly are. While some congratulate the Canadian security forces for stopping what would have been an unprecedented attack, just as many seem more upset over the fact that this may just give the evil Conservatives some ammunition in their attempt to pass some much needed criminal reform.

And notice just how fast dissenting posters are threatened with banishment for what could only be considered the mildest of criticisms for other posters who are trying to make this entire things a giant Harper led conspiracy. Liberalism at it's best.

Update:
Michelle and Jeff seem to be keeping on top of things.

[INSERT ENVIRONMENTALIST RHETORIC HERE]

Seems Greenpeace made a little mistake in their attempt to protest Bush's nuclear energy program last week. In their rush to get their message out it seems they forgot to do a little last minute editing of their 'fact sheet'.

The exact text of a portion of the sheet as reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer:

"In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world's worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]."

Priceless.

(h/t The Agitator)

Liberals in Exile

Even sitting on the sidelines it seems Liberals have an ability to get themselves into money scandals. The latest is thanks to leadership hopeful Joe Volpe and his accepting of $27,000 in donations from five of the children of wealthy contributors, and by children I don't mean the 20 somethings who happen to still live at home in the family mansion, but minors more in the 6-16 age group.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that all 5 just happened to give the maximum allowable donation of $5,400 as did each of their parents (I'm still waiting to hear about how the family pets decided to spend their hard earned incomes though I have a source who claims to know, for a fact, that in at least one case the goldfish lean towards the NDP so tough luck for Joe there).

That alone would have made an interesting story, but as the age of the contributor is not something the campaign is necessarily party to I was figuring on giving Joe a pass on that, but then he went and did something that reaches new heights of Liberal bravado; he had a satirical site making fun of his recent campaign problems shut down by the CIRA (Canadian .CA registrar). Luckily over at LGF a poster has managed to provide a link to a PDF copy of the site as it appeared before being deleted.

With all the PR problems facing Joe's campaign as well as the story of friendly loans to fellow Leadership hopefuls Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff, to the amounts of $100,000 and $125,000 respectively (both perfectly legal but still in violation of the spirit of the $5,400 donation cap), it looks like the race of Liberal Leader may just come down to who people hate the least by the time of the convention.

So I guess for all those who wondered what would happen to the Liberal party after being thrown from their seats of power the answer is made quite clear; it's business as usual.

Stephen Taylor has more.

Theists, Atheists and whatever...

I've been doing a little browsing over at Ebonmuse's site after reading and linking to his 9/11 stuff and as can be expected from a site named Daylight Atheism, the topic of religion comes up in a lot of his posts. While he tends to host some of the calmest discussions about the differences of beliefs between those of us who believe in a higher power and those of them that don't, I am still amazed at how quickly many Atheists dismiss those people who have strongly held religious beliefs.

From my point of view it takes as much faith to belief in God as to not (and if you need any proof to that assertion just check out any thread over at Slashdot where Creationism is brought up). There is no amount of reason or any scientific experiment that can be used to either prove or disprove the existence of a higher being as by general definition they exist outside of our normal bounds.

Now that isn't to say that an individual's claims of a higher beings intervention in their lives can't be debated and possibly even debunked, but it is analogous to saying that proving the greasy haired poser at the bar doesn't in fact have the Ferrari he claims is his second car means that Ferrari's themselves don't exist. As the existence of a God is not reliant on everyone who claims to believe in him (and yes, as a Christian and to make things easier I'll refer to God in the masculine) actually being correct, or for that matter anyone being correct at all, then while it may be an interesting exercise and even useful in invalidating certain specific religions, sects or cults, it does nothing to ultimately bring us even the slightest step closes to proving the ultimate point.

Even death, depending on what your specific religion believes, may not provide you with the answer.

Only agnostics can claim to be totally rational on this subject. The only conclusion that you could reach with pure reason, despite what many Atheists claim, is that we just don't know and since there is really no way to determine which religion is closest to the mark, the smart approach would be to live your life playing it straight down the middle, neither accepting or dismissing any particular theory, and just playing the averages. Anything beyond that requires a leap of faith.

That being said, I still recommend the occasional browsing of his site. I may not agree with his ideology or his politics but in general Ebonmuse does write some pretty interesting posts. Read in good health and with an open mind.

This One's for You Rat K.: Part Deux

I was just going to add this link to Daylight Atheism's, Loose Marbles: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories to my previous debunking Loose Change post, especially since it's only 3 posts down the page, but the work done by Ebonmuse is so good that I thought it deserved to stand on it's own.

If you only read one article dispelling all the hare-brained conspiracy theories generated about the attacks of 9/11 by the 'documentary' LC, this should be it. (Well I guess technically it's 3 articles as he splits it into parts I, II and III, but you get my point.)