Went through it with a fine-toothed comb and a bottle of Lysol.  I gotta say, where first this "inappropriate language" nonsense angered me, it's now gravitated on to boredom.  At this rate I'd be surprised if this little experiment lasts the week.  And I know Hugh would be crushed if I left.

I don't suppose TownHall technical support would be willing to email me their "inappropriate language" list.  Assuming, of course, that my email box is big enough to contain it.

You know the drill.  Click here for my Grover Norquist post.

Can't some TownHall techie fix this blasted thing?  I'm beginning to get the feeling that the "inappropriate language" I'm using is English.

 You know how sometimes when you keep picking at a scab it opens up, starts bleeding again, and can become infected? And how afterwards you wished you had just left well enough alone?

Well, the Democrats just cannot let their isolated victories be:

A source close to [ex-Congressman Tom DeLay] tells Time that DeLay is planning an aggressive campaign to retake the House seat he quit in June if an appeals court lets stand a ruling by a federal judge last week that his name must stay on November's ballot—even though he has moved to Virginia.

"If it isn't overturned, Katy bar the door!" says a G.O.P. official. "Guess he'll have to fire up the engines on the campaign and let 'er rip."

The Democrats sued in Texas to keep DeLay's name on the ballot, presumably as part of their House caucus' long-since defunct "culture of corruption" meme, believing that would be a detriment to whomever the GOP managed to put up against former Representative Nick Lampson, one of the victims of DeLay's successful (and recently SCOTUS-upheld) 2002 Texas redistricting. But all it seems to have done is light another fire under the former House Majority Leader and stoke his thirst for revenge against the "opponents" who smeared him out of Congress. Now they may not only not pick up his old House seat, but see him return to the House majority caucus, vindicated and triumphant.

The Dems had everything they wanted; Tom DeLay was out of the House GOP leadership and then out of Congress altogether. But they had to keep pick, pick, picking. And now their "scab" is poised to become an abcess they'll never get rid of.

Permalink

 I don't want to gratuitously knock Ryan Sager, even if he is a Rudy Giuliani backer, because he did yeoman work recently in highlighting the stand for free speech taken by Senator George Allen (R-VA):

"Republicans do not need, and should not attempt, to muzzle their opponents."

Nancy Pelosi? Harry Reid? Howard Dean?

Try Senator George Allen (R-VA), presumed 2008 presidential candidate, in a laudable attempt to return the Republican Party to its historic role as opponent of political-speech regulation. While Newt Gingrich has been railing against 2002's McCain-Feingold legislation in recent months, Allen's attack on the GOP's current effort to regulate so-called 527 groups - independent organizations banned from coordinating with candidates or parties - makes him the first top-tier '08 candidate to come out swinging against campaign-finance "reform."

Three huzzahs for Senator Allen. As Sager goes on to argue, this will put him in very good graces with the GOP base when the 2008 primaries draw nigh. Plus it's the constitutional thing to do.

However, I can't quite countenance Sager's next graf:

Whether it's enough to force a serious confrontation on the issue between status quo politicians such as Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader Bill Frist and the fed-up conservative base remains to be seen. But it's at least a start. And where the various candidates line up on the issue over the next year and a half will tell Republican primary voters quite a lot about who's on board with Karl Rove's vision of a permanent, principle-less majority and who's ready to ready to rethink the mistakes of the last five-plus years. [emphasis added]

That is, to be charitable, a gross mischaracterization of Karl Rove's "vision." And anybody who thinks that George W. Bush is bereft of principles has been in a coma for the past half-decade.

But apart from that, I guess it has to be reiterated once more: If you're not in the majority, you can't accomplish anything. Having read Sager's work for a while now, I get the distinct impression that he would rather the GOP be ideologically pure and in the minority than accept the inevitable philosophical dilution that comes with a majority governing coalition. For that matter, to a very large degree he erects a faciley false choice between "principles" and power. The two are not necessary opposites, and to the degree that they do clash it is at the behest of ideologues like Sager whose philosophical piety leads to a propensity for partisan fratricide.

Mistakes there have indeed been over the course of the second Bush presidency. But they won't be fixed by throwing our own bums out.

If I were Senator (and, God willing, eventually President) Allen, I'd be watching my back against such fair-weather support.

Permalink

That's two perfectly good, and perfectly clean, posts that this platform has blocked on language filter grounds.  It almost makes me want to start cussing up a storm just to earn this irritation.

Read the aforementioned post where the sphincter isn't so cramped.

 Isn't it fascinating in a time in which everybody and their brother thought that we would be witnessing the disintegration of the Republican governing coalition that, instead, we are watching the Democrats fragment over what to do about poor ol' Joe Lieberman? Who'd have ever thought that the same man who came within one more activist Supreme Court Justice of becoming Al Gore's vice president would, just six years later, become the lightning rod for the rampaging dementia of a one-time great and seemingly permanent majority party?

It's not as though the three-term senator from Connecticut has become a DINO, after all. There really isn't any such thing anymore, anyway, but even if there was, a big, fat 17 ACU rating wouldn't seem to qualify for that label. Nor would joining John McCain's "gang of fourteen" which left the Democrats' unconstitutional confirmation filibuster weapon in place, or his attempts to deflect Bill Clinton's impeachment (and ultimate vote for acquital). Or, for that matter, his decision to ride shotgun on then-Prince Albert's bloodless coup attempt. Joe Lieberman is as rock-solid a member of the opposition as any Donk could find or ever want.

The difference between him and his erstwhile comrades, of course, is that his opposition is loyal rather than disloyal. And for that his party's base has condemned him to political death.

That's where Lieberman's wacko primary challenger, Ned Lamont, came from. Fueled by a ton of self-financing, the rich Kos-hack from Greenwich is giving the incumbent a serious run for his money. Though Lieberman at last check was still fifteen points ahead, he has taken the extraordinary precaution of starting the gathering of signatures to get on the November ballot as an independent.

Why would the far Left want to monkey around with what should be a lock "blue" senate seat? Is tolerating even one patriotic voice in their midst really that unbearable? David Frum asked that same question:

The poisonous hatred directed at Lieberman has passed beyond the point of the political into the realm of the psychological. They hate him for keeping his Senate seat in 2000 rather than going down with the ship. They hate him for his modulated voice. They hate him for his attention to ethical issues. They hate him for what they themselves at any other time would have regarded as his virtues as for his political unorthodoxies.

It's a hatred reinforced by repetition and intensified by echo-chamber unanimity. It's a hatred ungrounded upon any clear foundation of reason, undirected to any political purpose. I can't remember ever seeing anything like such an angry excommunication of one Republican by others in my political lifetime - although perhaps the hatred felt by the Goldwaterites for Nelson Rockefeller comes close. But there at least the two factions were separated by real ideological disagreements. Not so in Lieberman's case. He remains one of the most liberal members of the Senate: The American Conservative Union rates him as more liberal than Debbie Stabenow, more liberal than Barbara Boxer, more liberal than Hillary Clinton, more liberal than Russell Feingold - and equally liberal as John Kerry and Barack Obama. Rating is not an exact science of course, but you get the idea.

Speaking of Lieberman's senate colleagues, they don't seem to be of one mind on how to approach this quasi-sectarian rivening either. While John Kerry and Hillary Clinton chickened out on endorsing him in the primary, Joe Biden, Ken Salazar, and none other than Babs Boxer, the biggest nutter in the Senate Democrat caucus, will be campaigning for him over the next month.

This reflects the perpetual pickle in which elected Dems remain ensnared. If they alienate their crazoid nutroots, they run the risk of their financing and GOTV efforts withering up when they need them the most. But if they get too closely identified with them, they can kiss goodbye (again) any chance of regaining their power.

That's why Joe Lieberman is also a barometer of these fratricidal tendencies. The worst possible outcome for Dem poobahs (short of the GOP picking up this seat, which would be a miracle of water-into-wine proportions) would be Ned Lamont winning the Dem primary and then an independent Lieberman triumphing in November. It'd be the worst of all worlds - further discreditation nationally, the needless loss of a senate seat "officially," and perhaps formally if poor ol' Joe opted (understandably) not to caucus with the Dems.

That outcome is probably not in the cards, given the degree to which Lieberman wiped up the floor with Lamont in their first debate:

He coolly took Lamont apart, limb by limb, revealing the netroots favorite's candidacy as what it is: a childish lashing out by the Democrats' anti-war base at an extraordinarily ill-chosen target.

Lamont has one issue and one issue only: the Iraq war. And it's an issue about which, should he be elected, he would be able to do absolutely nothing. How does he differ substantively from Lieberman on health care, education, dealing with North Korea, Social Security? Hardly at all, despite a lot of blustering during the debate.

In fact, it hardly seems as if Lamont knows anything about national policy, save what his staff has briefed him on. All he has to say is that Lieberman is too close to George W. Bush.

I guess this primary election will also be a barometer of far-Left influence as well. But even if the Kos kids do manage to erase the "D" after Joe Lieberman's name, 'tis doubtful they'll remove his name from the Senate roster. If that makes them feel like they've accomplished something, al Donka is in even bigger trouble than any of us have heretofore imagined.

Permalink

I can understand the desire to prevent this blogging platform from becoming a bathroom wall (it being free and all), and Townhall prominently highlights its language filter in the TOS, so there's fair warning.  But, as I've now just discovered, TH has provided, inadvertently or not, a rhetorical defense against any discussion of North Korea's ICBM by making it impossible to actually refer to it by name.

This is the chronic drawback of language filters on internet bulletin boards and discussions forms, and now blogging venues.  A perfectly good post, with narry a blue word in sight, gets spiked on a silly techno-cality.

Also, a word of advice on the automatic email notification feature: I already got my first recipient complaint of spamming this morning, so I've purged all the addresses I had input in my settings.

Lastly, while it's only been a few days, I've seen zero uptick in my site traffic.

I gotta say, I'm becoming less and less sold on this one-size-fits-all gig.  Jack of all trades is indeed proving to be master of none.

 Ted Kennedy has done a thorough lifetime's job of self-embalming; even his hypocrisy is too hopelessly pickled to succumb to entropy's ravages.

~ ~ ~

Here's the latest example of why it is impossible to parody Cindy Sheehan (h/t CQ):

O'Donnell: Would you rather live under Hugo Chavez than President George Bush?

Sheehan: Uh, yes.

Talk about pre-emption....

~ ~ ~

Speaking of scary women that are beyond lampooning....:

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement on the missiles launched by North Korea:

"The missile launches by North Korea are provocative acts that warrant the strong condemnation of the United States and international community.

"North Korea is moving outside the circle of acceptable behavior and is threatening the region, the United States, and the world. We must use every possible tool to stop North Korea’s unacceptable, provocative actions including six party, multilateral, and bilateral diplomatic negotiations.

"North Korea must know without a doubt that their behavior will not be tolerated."

We must use every possible tool to stop North Korea's unacceptable, provocative actions, but only the ones that have failed miserably for the past twelve years.

What's going to convince Kim jong-Il to start taking us seriously at this late date? Is Crazy Nancy going to threaten to date him?

~ ~ ~

Looks like Senator Hairplugs has started plagiarizing Robert Byrd:

During a conversation with an Indian-American political activist, Biden said: "In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian-Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking."

You know, I may owe Senator Kleagle an apology - Slow Joe may have been ripping off two other of his Senate colleagues:

Dr. Raghavendra Vijayanagar, popularly known in the Indian-American community as "Dr. Vijay," said this isn't the first time a Senate Democrat has insulted Indian-Americans.

"In 2004, Senator John Kerry referred to Sikhs as terrorists and Senator Hillary Clinton jokingly referred to Mahatma Gandhi as a gas station owner," Dr. Vijay said. "A clear double-standard in the mainstream media will likely ensure Senator Biden gets a pass over these comments that would get a Republican in deep trouble if he ever made a similar statement.”

At least Biden didn't add the Kwik-E-Mart to his offending remark. Otherwise when he swung by for a campaign photo-op (kind of like John Kerry going to that Wendy's in 2004) Apu Nahasapeemapetilon's squishees might start tasting funny.

Alright, funnier....

~ ~ ~

This is what passes for intelligent political discourse on the port side of the blogosphere (h/t Instapundit):

Hamsher replied to [Ann] Althouse's post about civility in public discourse by calling her an idiot and portraying her as a baboon. And then she portrays Senator Barbara Boxer as a baboon as well. Senator Barbara Boxer! About as liberal a Senator as can be found. Truly amazing. Boxer's sin: stumping for her fellow Democratic Senator, Joe Lieberman.

The funniest part is, in the course of proving Althouse's point in spades, Hamsher is probably airtightly convinced that she nailed her own. That, and the fact that Boxer is closer to a Rhesus monkey than a baboon (metaphorically speaking, of course), although she does have the feces-throwing part down pat.

Gotta like Bull Moose's observation, with one slight correction:

Over and over again, the lefty bloggers contend that their major objective is not an ideological one but rather a partisan one. They claim that they want to win. Badly. The Moose begs to differ. It is not the goal of the left to prevail, but rather to purify.

Make that "ideologically cleanse" and you've hit the bullseye.

~ ~ ~

But then the Deaniacal, Kos-hack extremists are too submerged in their own hatreds to realize that they're still in a democracy rather than a Chavista dictatorship. And while the Dems have Senator Barack Obama running around echoing Dr. Demented's laughably empty urgings to "reach out" to evangelical voters, polls keep showing that the nutroots are kneecapping ol' BO:

The headlines covering a recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, which was conducted in late June, focused largely on the troubling statistic that revealed 35% of respondents would not vote for a Mormon for President of the United States. Religious bigotry, while a shadow of its former self, still lurks around electoral corners.

But as if that information were not disturbing enough, some statistics from the same poll have received less attention but appear nevertheless to invalidate the American left's affectations of religious tolerance and pious political correctness.

According to the survey, 37% of self-identified liberals would vote against an evangelical Christian candidate for president; 38% of self-identified liberal Democrats would do so. Democrats as a whole are significantly more likely to vote against an evangelical Christian candidate for president - over a quarter (28%) - than either Republican or Independent voters. And barely a majority (53%) of all Democrats would vote for an evangelical candidate for president.

Imagine a survey that showed identical percentages of GOP voters declaring they would vote against any African-American presidential candidate. Think that'd make news?

Once again, we see that some bigotries are worse - and more actual - than others. That it can be so unwitting is, in my view, the biggest parody of all.

Permalink

 As I originally predicted, the "temporary" Israeli "incursion" into the Gaza Strip they foolishly abandoned to their Palestinian terrorist enemies nearly a year ago is inexorably evolving into a creeping reoccupation-in-self-defense:

The Security Cabinet approved a deeper military incursion into the Gaza Strip on Wednesday, following the Kassam that demonstrated a new, longer range by landing in an Ashkelon school on Tuesday night.

The IDF has been given the green light to enter residential areas, but will not reoccupy the Gaza Strip, an official at the meeting said. A buffer zone will be created in the northern part of the Strip. ...

Defense Minister Amir Peretz ordered the IDF to increase its activities in the Gaza Strip as part of "Operation Summer Rains."

Peretz stressed that one of the goals of the operation was to "remove the threat of Kassams."

Ze'ev Boim, a member of the cabinet said, "as far as I'm concerned, the people of (northern Gaza towns) Beit Hanoun and Beit Lahiya can start packing."

The Israeli cabinet can issue all the reassurances it wants about not reoccupying Gaza, but that question is begged by the very premise of their expanded "incursion." All the Pals have to do is keep getting longer and longer range rockets - not, presumeably, an insurmountable task since Gaza isn't exactly a huge piece of real estate - and they've already demonstrated that they cannot be deterred from using them to bombard Israeli cities. The logical end result, if the premise of "Summer Rains" is to remain consistent, will be the complete retaking of Gaza to eliminate the threat that, frankly, cannot be suppressed any other way. The alternative would be another retreat from Gaza, which would be tantamount to dangling cheesburgers in front of Michael Moore. From the frying pan, in other words, into the fire.

Will Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his Kaditha nullities be intimidated by "world" accusations of "ethnic cleansing" against the very people that are trying to do the same thing to the Jews? The latter had better hope and pray not, less the downside of Golda Meir's infamous vow ("We will not die so that the world will think better of us.") take another giant step towards realization. The Pals who elected Hamas to provoke such "incursions" had better supplicate Allah for better ballot judgment as well.

UPDATE: This isn't an encouraging sign:

Israel sent conflicting signals Friday on whether it would be willing to swap Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Shalit's release. Public Security Minister Avi Dichter suggested Israel could be ready to cut a deal that would include Israel freeing some Palestinian prisoners as a goodwill gesture.

If there is calm, "Israel will need to, after some time, release prisoners as a reciprocal gesture," Dichter said. "Israel knows how to do this. Israel has done this more than once in the past."

He was referring to previous prisoner swaps _ usually in deals that free far more Palestinians than Israelis. Privately, Israeli officials have said they did not rule out talks in Shalit's case, either.

This cannot be about Corporal Shalit. He was simply the trip-wire for much larger issues of Israeli security and survival that would never have arisen in the first place if the Jewish state hadn't acquiesed in its own disembowelment to allow its blood enemies to move into its very midst. Israel has gone an awfully long way down this road, and the way back will be a lot bloodier - but not as bloody as it will be if they don't reverse course, which cannot happen if they allow themselves to be paralyzed by the fate of one man.

[h/t CQ]

Permalink

 Who would ever have thought that a court ruling on sodomarriage exhibiting both judicial restraint and moral underpinnings would come out of New York state's highest court?

New York's highest court ruled Thursday that gay marriage is not allowed under state law, rejecting arguments by same-sex couples who said the law violates their constitutional rights.

The Court of Appeals, in a 4-2 decision, said New York's marriage law is constitutional and clearly limits marriage to between a man and a woman.

Any change in the law would have to come from the state Legislature, Judge Robert Smith said.

Anybody who didn't do a whiplash-inducing double-take upon hearing that obviously wasn't listening. And that's too bad, because the above report was no work. From Judge Smith's majority opinion:

We emphasize once again that we are deciding only this constitutional question. It is not for us to say whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong. We have presented some (though not all) of the arguments against same-sex marriage because our duty to defer to the Legislature requires us to do so. We do not imply that there are no persuasive arguments on the other side - and we know, of course, that there are very powerful emotions on both sides of the question.

The dissenters assert confidently that "future generations" will agree with their view of this case (dissenting op at 28). We do not predict what people will think generations from now, but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives. We therefore express our hope that the participants in the controversy over same-sex marriage will address their arguments to the Legislature; that the Legislature will listen and decide as wisely as it can; and that those unhappy with the result - as many undoubtedly will be - will respect it as people in a democratic state should respect choices democratically made. [emphases added]

Wow; when did Judge Smith go back to eating his Wheaties? A judge - on any level - deferring policymaking to the legislature? Next thing you know Superman will once again stand for the American way.

And yes, the moral unpinnings were there, Judge Smith's demurral notwithstanding; he just inserted them in a very pragmatic way:

First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships, heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement — in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits — to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.

People forget that there are actually very practical reasons for moral and ethical standards. That's why the Holy Bible is oftentimes referred to as the human "owner's manual." And nowhere should this be more obvious than the divinely-instituted marriage relationship, the attempted debauching of which can only have the ultimate result (no matter what the lavender lobby claims) of eradicating holy matrimony altogether by draining it of any coherent meaning. What no-fault divorce and "cohabitation" got started, sodomarriage would finish off. And off society would go down the slippery slope to applying the concept of "marriage" to pretty much any form of relationship, putting all of them on an equal moral footing, no matter how depraved, and granting all legitimacy and societal approval that none of them, apart from REAL marriage, merit or deserve.

As I read Judge Smith's words above, it sounds to me like his "coulds" for the New York legislature are implicit "shoulds." And yet he and the Court of Appeals majority are leaving it up to the empire state's elected representatives to decide, as it should be.

I can't decide which is the more astounding.

~ ~ ~

From the sublime, we now turn to the ridiculous (via icarusfalls):

A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Monday barring the Navy from using a type of sonar, allegedly harmful to marine mammals, during a Pacific warfare exercise scheduled to begin this week. The order comes three days after the Navy obtained a six-month national defense exemption from the Defense Department allowing it to use "mid-frequency active sonar."

I guess sunken naval vessels are good for marine life by giving them new "homes" to move into. Unless, of course, the destroyed ships are nuclear powered. I guess that'll be the next restraining order.

~ ~ ~

And finally, here's a picture to take to dreamland tonight:

The Supreme Court, by agreeing to hear a case on whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must take steps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, will finally judge on the alleged threat of global warming. The stakes are huge. Should the Court find in favor of the plaintiffs, it would put the EPA in control of the U.S. economy for the foreseeable future.

If you can't sleep after that, don't fret; try counting Justice Kennedys (kind of like plucking flower petals and saying, "He'll screw us, he'll leave us free; he'll screw us, he'll leave us free...."). If that doesn't work, you can always go say goodbye to your life savings, just in case....

Permalink

Where are "Star Wars" critics now? On Larry King Live demanding that the Bush Administration employ the same appeasenik tactics vis-a-vie North Korea that they did for six years, which were instrumental in transforming the decrepit "hermit kingdom" into a nuclear threat not just to its neighbors but to the United States as well. Meanwhile the only reason we have an even rudimentary missile defense system operational now is because Dubya reversed their MAD policy, abrogated the ABM Treaty, and moved belatedly ahead with SDI.

The Washington Examiner op-ed concludes:

It is a sobering thought to wonder how much more secure the United States and its allies would be today in the face of madness like North Korea’s launches if instead of a limited defense still in development we could depend upon the robust protection first proposed many years ago.

So far the Democrat Party "only" has the blood of three thousand American civilians on its hands. If they have their way, the death toll their criminal national security negligence will exact is unimaginable.

Permalink

 Little by little, inch by frustrating inch, "black America" is beginning to figure out just how badly the Democrat Party has been buggering them over the past two generations:

[Executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Wade] Henderson told a room full of black folks at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical University that Maryland’s Republican governor was trying to take over Baltimore schools. Then he told them about how teachers in predominantly-white Baltimore County schools are better than those in predominantly-black Baltimore schools and about disparities in the availability of advanced placement courses between the two systems.

Here’s what Henderson failed to mention: schools in Baltimore County and in Baltimore are run by Democrats. Maryland’s legislature, which funds both systems, has been a Democratic body for decades.

Any failures of Baltimore’s school system - which, according to a Manhattan Institute study, graduates only 48% of its students and only 39% of its black male students - have to be blamed on the political party that’s run the system for years.

That would be Democrats.

It's taken forty years, but the scales are starting to fall from some African-American eyes. And what they're seeing is that not only does the Donk emperor, as it were, have no clothes, but he looks awful in the buff:

[T]oday’s black Democrats in places like Baltimore and Detroit seem to have their lips permanently sutured to the rump of the Democratic Party jackass. If there is a clash between, say, the Democrats’ commitment to teachers’ unions and educational improvement for black folks, Democrats will choose teachers’ unions.

Black Democrats seem powerless to stop them.

When they aren't actively shilling for them, that is:

Remember what happened to Dave Bing several years ago?

Bing is a former National Basketball Association All-Star who now owns an automobile supply company in Detroit. He teamed with a white businessman named Robert Thompson, who wanted to donate $200 million to the city of Detroit to establish charter schools. Two things happened.

A black member of Detroit’s city council gave Bing a “Sambo” award and called him a sell-out. Detroit’s political leaders turned down Thompson’s offer.

The irony of that remark must have Dr. Martin Luther King spinning in his grave. But then, remember Bill Cosby's recent series of rebukes against "his own people"? Look at the heat he took for leveling with them on the need to reintroduce the concept of personal responsibility and [*ahem*] educational achievement to rebuild the black family. And, speaking of Maryland, look at the Senate contest raging there right now, in which both major party candidates may be African-American and the Republican (Lieutenant-Governor Michael Steele) - who is a big educational innovator, which makes him an enemy of the NEA by definition - is being doused in racist attacks from "his own people". Or, to be sardonically synonymical, the Uncle Toms of the Left.

This is what makes the race to succeed Paul Sarbanes such a barometer of racial progress and reconciliation. If black voters in so "blue" a state as Maryland evince with their ballots the realization that the Democrat Party, far from representing, much less fighting for, their interests, is in practice a slicker version of the same bunch of exploiters and oppressors that welcomed a klansman into their Senate ranks half a century ago and fought the civil rights movement bitterly every step of the way, it will mark the beginning of the end of modern left-wing plantation politics.

Small wonder that the prospect of Senator Steele is so terrifying to them. But however that election turns out, it will prove far more educational to their heretofore most, um, "slavish" constituency than al Donka would ever have imagined.

Permalink

 ....weeth a side ordair of soufflé d'hypocrite:

Responding to the report that French intelligence agents had interviewed six men on trial in France for links with a network plotting terrorist attacks while they were held at Guantanamo, the French Foreign Ministry said it had made no secret of three visits to the camp between 2002-2004.

"These missions, which were of an administrative nature, were aimed at identifying precisely French citizens who might have been at Guantanamo and at assessing their situation in a general manner," it said in a statement dated Wednesday.

It added that the aim was also to gather information needed to allow France to prevent terrorism and that representatives of other government officials had taken part in these missions to help achieve both these goals.

Sacre bleu! Zees ees a strainge use to wheech to put zee "Americain gulayg," no? Eet ees elmost like le Français were theenkeeng of Gitmo as zee Americains have zold it all along - a place to hold berzerkair terroreests indéfiniment so zay cannot launch any more attacks. And accordang to Capitaine Ed, autorités Françaises have held tham evair zince, just like zee Americains were, and for zee saime reazion.

The French, they are a funny race, parlez vous. And, mass car-b-ques notwithstanding, belettes déshonorantes to the end.

Permalink

 Ex-Enron CEO and convicted thief Ken Lay died suddenly yesterday of a massive coronary. He was sixty-four.

You can just hear the fever-swamp conspiracists warming up, cantcha? As in, "Lay was finally going to turn state's evidence against Bush (the REAL mastermind behind the Enron plot), so he had the Bushtapo 'silence' him!"

That's already out there, I'm sure. Although there's no shortage of tasteless hostility still percolating for Lay himself.

I'm not sure if being the Jim McDougal of the Bush era is quite what he had in mind as an epitaph. But now that's the best he'll be able to afford.

UPDATE:  Another bug to be fixed: There are no permalinks for each post.  What are supposed to be the permalinks (the post titles) just redirect to the main blog page.

Happily, I have my own to offer....

I blograted once before, about two years ago.  Here's my inaugural post from that grand opening....

Everybody make it back okay?  Good; y'all better get used to that, because that's how this gig will be different from the last one.

Y'see, I can already tell from the comments I've read over here that the platform has far too many bugs, and the template is, evidently, insufficiently customizable in terms of mastheads, sidebars, and the like, for me to even consider formally blograting again.

However, as a promotional vehicle - a portal, really - well, that's a different story.  By simulblogging, I hope to build up traffic and syphon it off to my main site all at the same time.  Kind of like having my cybercake and eating it too.  An expression which doesn't stand up to the lightest logical scrutiny, really, but I got a zillion of them, and I'm not reticent in my willy-nilly rhetorical dispersals.  Something else to which my TH readers will grow acclimated over time.

Think of this site as an interactive billboard.  An advertising banner with charm.  And a place where it feels good to use your powers on your enemies.

[*ahem*] Opponents.

Sorry, Hugh....