Unbelievable

A US soldier was ordered to pose as a Gitmo detainee for a training exercise. He was subsequently beaten and choked. Ultimately he was discharged because he suffers from seizures that he claims are due to the brain stem injury he recieved when the soldiers bashed his head against the floor.

So logically I should be upset that soldiers would do this to any prisoner. Honestly though, it pisses me off that it happened to one of our soldiers. This poor soldier beaten, broken, and discharged is an American. I hope he realizes he has a congressperson. And I hope that congressperson fixes this. The beating was atrocious and wrong, but sadly not unexpected. What shocks me is the way the military discarded one of our own.

UPDATE: I hadn't realized how old this story is. Nov 4th 2004 evidently. The soldier, Sean Baker, has no legal recourse: as a former member of the Armed Services he is unable to bring suit against the military. It is past time hoping his congressperson will aid him. Hopefully he'll be treated at the VA for free, but he can no longer hold a job. It's tragic. Supposedly all of the other training exercises were videotaped, but for this one, there was no tape.

UPDATE II: Evidently he is suing. Perhaps only current members of the Armed Services are prohibited from suing? Also, folks have been writing about it since May 2004.

He's suing for15 million. That sound like a lot? He'll lose 1/3 to his lawyers and 1/3 to taxes. That leaves 5 mil. He's 37: 28 years from normal retirement: So that's kinda like having a 185,000/year job. He won't be working and thus won't get a decent pension/social security check, so that could be considered (if the neurologists still give him a normal life-expectancy). Consider also that people who get seizures are prohibited from driving motor vehicles: that can be a pretty big lifestyle adjustment. (Note that losing control of your body a half dozen times a day is also a big lifestyle adjustment.) So while 15 million sounds like pie-in-the-sky "jury money". I think it's about right. I hope he wins enough to at least provide for his family, and hopefully to send his child to college.

Speech

I'm dissapointed. There's little new in that speech, except that it was short. Also nothing to brace the nation for imminent scandal...maybe said scandal isn't coming. We can hope.

Anyway, I saw it from a bar, which means I couldn't hear it. If you ever have a chance to watch a closed-captioned speech from the President, you totally should. Now I'll admit that typing live is waaay beyond me, but it's funny some of the typos.

"Air [our] strategy can be summed up..."

"The Department of Defence has set up a website - AmericaSportsYou.mil. [AmericaSupportsYou]"

Those are the only ones I remember. (I was at a bar mind you) Anyway it helped visuallize his diction.

UPDATE: having read the transcript, I'm forced to concede there was nothing to support the "liberals are sympathizers" theme. Good for the President for not politicizing the issue (directly).

Big Presidential Speech Tonight!

Yeah, I usually wouldn't watch it. However, this is officially 2 days before the release of the Abu Ghraib photos. My pet theory of Rove's attack should be confirmed or refuted. Of course it's hard to prove either way, but I'm betting he goes heavy on the the pathos and provides context to tacitly rationalize prisoner abuse. Bonus points for anything that would prohibit the Dems from capitalizing on the release.

I still think it's strange that no one has said a word about these photos since the first week of June. With a 30% over-under on the photos ever seeing the light of day I would have bet "no way".

Tigerhawk Develops Iraq Metrics

Tigerhawk takes the NYT to task for not really understanding what the Iraq war is about.

First, we needed to re-establish out[sic] credibility in the Arab world, which
credibility was squandered by virtually every president since Jimmy Carter. This
could only happen by brining[sic] the war into the heart of the Arab world and taking
casualties killing jihadists. We are doing that every day.

I don't know where to begin with this...first the worst: Tigerhawk would have us believe that "taking casualties" is a good thing? Is this some kind of amateur spin-doctoring? I suppose in a way it justifies our losses, but what is it saying to the troops? Go over there and die, so we can look tough? It is an interesting take though, the idea that taking casualties benefits our war on terror. The question is: how many casualties do we need to prove we care more about (whatever our current goal is) than our soldier's lives?

Speaking of "lost credibility". That's a new reason for the war-- at least not one I've previously heard (and face it, we've heard a lot). This "strike at the heart" mentality is new too. If we were at war with the Arab world it would make sense, but I thought we were a bit more specifically after a single rogue state. Don't you need a particular reason to invade a particular country? Seriously, if you want to make the case that invading Iraq will protect us from 9/11 type hijackers (most were Saudi, none were Iraqi) you need a little more substance.

The forrest, the trees, and Rove

People are buzzing over Karl Rove's recent attack on Liberals. Kinda old news. In case you missed it, Rove says:

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers ... Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year? Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

Of course Democrats are up in arms and demanding an apology...and of course the Republicans are not giving one. Why not? Because they didn't make a mistake. The purpose of the comment was to raise the image of conservatives being righteously agressive and liberals being terrorist sympathizers. People, use your brains. Rove does not make mistakes of this magnitude. And he is not starting up a political royal rumble just because the President's approval rating is low. Every one of those words was scripted for a purpose. If you're an angry liberal and want to fight back, you should start by ascertaing the purpose of this fight.

Here's what I see: very soon the Pentagon will be forced to release the remaining Abu Ghraib photos. When that happens there will be an uproar. Islamists will embrace to terrorism and people will die. Americans will want someone to blame. Logically one would blame the people responsible, and the the people responsible for them, but the Administration will try to shuffle the blame off onto the people who declassified the information: the ACLU. The liberals. The liberals who are terrorist sympathizers. The ones who are betraying the good government who (if a cover-up emerges from the photos) was just trying to protect our troops in a time of war.

Slumming it at National Review

Does it get more conservative than the National Review Online? Sometimes reading them makes me feel like I need to shower. That having been said, at least the majority of the writers are genuine intellectuals. Sometimes they write posts that resonate with me, it's almost a perverse attraction. Here's one: They seem genuinely appalled that the government is using emminent domain to take over land for commercial development. Moreover they even seem to care about poor people and the fact that it isn't right! (Wow)

For those of you who haven't followed the case it's in New London CT. I grew up about 15 minutes away, and yes it's repressed. Bridge street is the only area in 50 miles with "streetwalkers". In terms of being a ghetto though, my home is in a worse neighborhood, and I live in one of the nicer parts of Philadelphia. I'm sorry to say it was the liberal judges that carried the day. I'll keep it in mind as nominees show...neither party believes government should leave people alone...conservatives want into your personal life and liberals want into your business.

Also in the news. NRO is pretty uniformly opposed to the flag-burning ammendment. Hello conservative think-tank types...put your money where your mouth is and tell your Republican Senators to quit it. While you're at it, can we do something about the House too? Everyone seems confident this would pass the States if it gets through the Senate, if so, it must be good right? Democracy right? Up or down vote, etc... I'm sensing the real deal is it's a populist issue, and intellectuals on both sides oppose it. The Senate is supposed to be a body of intellectuals who protect the State from populist sentiments. They've obstructed 6 times. Me and the NRO hope they pull it off again. Does the NRO feel bad rooting for Democratic Senators? As bad as I do siding with Scalia? (sorry for jumping backwards...let me reiterate...the Liberal judges sided with business over the people. Damn, that pisses me off).

Finally the majority of people who have read John Derbyshire find him a scary fucker. Who does he think is a scary fucker? Hillary Clinton.

She is icy mean and ruthless. As a shark lives only to swim and eat, Hillary lives to move through the political waters accumulating power. She is s-c-a-r-y.

Admit it, there's a case for cold-blooded ruthlessness in the White House. There are times you might want that -- really want it, more than you want strict-constructionist judges, more than you want federalism, more than you want to preserve marriage or restrain spending or keep women out of combat. Right after we lose our first city to a nuke, perhaps.

I'm reading between the lines but I think Derbyshire is actually getting sexually aroused. He fires mostly back-handed compliments, but underneith there is genuine respect...and admiration. Spank me Hillary, spank me, I've been bad!

I've long claimed that Clinton will wait to run until she's sure she will win. And I find she's not wrong often. I agree with the shark analogy, and I believe she'd do a great job.

Uhoh... Iran and China ?

via Tigerhawk

This from Iran Press News:

Iran Press News: "China will never permit the Islamic Republic of Iran to gain access to nuclear weapons" said the Foreign Minister of China, Li Hoaxing who was visiting Israel.

Imagine China unilaterally invading Iran. Maybe because they have intel on WMDs, maybe because they want oil. How could we argue aganist them? They have the power to do it unilatterally. What are we going to say, that they should get UN approval?

One thing is for sure...it won't be under the guise of spreading Democracy.

Again with the flag

Next, from the people who brought you the Partiot Act!!:
Our small-government, states-right loving conservative leaders are pushing to make it illegal to burn the US flag. All it takes is a little ammendment to the Constitution.

Is it pointless to call out the obvious ploy to make Dems look unpatriotic in wartime? From Terry Schiavo to the patriot act to this new legislation the government is grasping at control of the people. They do it for their own gain, and because they ENJOY powerful government.

What will it cost Democrats to oppose this? Either 1: they look unpatriotic to the insipid majority or 2: they sell out their principles. Expensive either way. This is a trap, and there's no way out of it.

My official position: I have no reason to burn the flag, and I find it moderately offensive when people do. However, this is the land of the free and the home of the brave. I'm proud of how free we are, and if that means I have to suffer assholes who want to burn the flag, I will suffer them. It's a matter of principle: people in the most repressed shithole dictatorships can burn the flag, but if we pass this ammendment the very same act would make us political criminals. I0t chafes me to think that other people might be more free than me, even if it's for a freedom I don't ever invoke.

There have only been 2 ammendments to ever deprive people of freedom. The first was the 16th, which gave the federation power to tax income (obviously this one is a valid and vital function of government). The second was the 18th (prohibition) which was later repealed. Perhaps we will outlaw flag burning...and homosexual marriage...etc...or perhaps we'll follow the rhetoric we spew at the Middle East and hope democracy follows liberty.

PS: I heard a rumor that some state capped the maximum penalty for punching a flag-burner at 5$. I could support that, but I can't support more conduct laws.

Drunk Blogging

Not entirely drunk, but not entirely sober either.

Ten Stone was pretty cool. I met a couple interesting people from the Drink Liberally crowd. Since they had doctorates and also work in labs at Penn we mostly talked science. Haven't become any more liberal, but now I have a nice "Drink Liberally" button! I mostly hung out with friends I brought. I feel a little bad about not buying Chuck Pennachio a beer (I mean how cool would it be if he becomes a senator to have bought him a beer?) I dunno though, I'm leaning towards Casey atm (meaning I've never heard of Chuck before today).

Of course if HE bought ME a beer my vote would be guaranteed. Realitically though, I'm not a Dem so can't help in the primaries....and I can't imagine the person I wouldn't pick over Santorum....so he either will or won't get my vote anyway.

Later we (my friends, not the liberals) did Quizzo at the Bards and came in 2nd to last...it was a humbling experience.

Final note: it wasn't looking too safe out tonight. There's usually more folks out when I go home from the bars. Then again I usually only drink on weekends. No more midnight quizzo for me.

Who runs the CNN photo dept?

'Cause it's pretty hard to find a less flattering picture of McCain...

Anyway in this article McCain takes issues with Cheney's happy-go-lucky portrait of the war. I still think the photo is the real story. Is it a liberal making McCain look buffonish? Or a Cheney defender? Possibly just a big Austin Powers fan?

The world may never know...

Senator McCain 

Dr EVIL 

Ten Stone : Fabulous Comment

Evidently Atrios lives in Philly. Learn something new everyday! I have posted before how the Ten Stone Inn (it's actually a bar not an Inn) is 3 blocks from my house and on my way home. It is also the Philly site of Drinking Liberally.

Evidently Atrios brought too much traffic to the Drinking Liberally site causing this comment:

Atrios, I think you have strained the Drinking Liberally site. Thing could not
load any slower. Attaturk

Followed closely by:

This is to prepare you for the terrible service you will receive
tonite. Yanagi Bocho

Yanagi made me laugh a lot! Ok, you have to have actually been to Ten Stone to appreciate that. They have just about the slowest waitstaff on the planet. Good beer though, and a great brunch on Sundays....if you don't mind waiting.

Who is screwing up America?

So right-wing bloggers were asked the question: Who is screwing up America? Here's the result. They had 47 responders and each was supposed to submit 20 names. Howard Dean and Michael Moore tied for first at 26 votes each. The really funny thing is, with 47 bloggers and 20 choices each, I'd expect more consensus on who is really really bad. I mean the worse demons of liberalism could barely muster half the votes. If the same quiz were given to the left wing, Bush and Cheney are virtually guaranteed 100% showing. It's like the right wing can't agree who to blame...maybe that's why they need a poll.

One of the responders, Lee, takes the survey to task and establishes a working distintion between conservatives and republicans. His top choices were the head of the Executive and the entirety of the Legislative. Lee is about as conservative as they come, but he can at least piece together cause and effect. It's worth reading both his list and his post. Lee represents a group of people who will never vote Bush out of office. They are not apologists per se, but no matter how bad they feel they will vote for Bush anyway. Still, there is some sliver of hope that people like Lee can effect some changes from within, possibly weeding out bad eggs in the primary process. Lee's attempt to explain the basics of accountability is a fine start.

I'll follow his take with the added observation that so few of their choices wield any power. C'mon, Al Sharpton is screwing up America? I guess conservatives pay more attention to him than anyone else. Al Gore: even more of a has-been. 8 Senators on the list, but not Congress itself?

Here's the issue. Conservatives (or maybe just Rebuplicans, they used to be harder to separate) have been whining for years about how oppressed and victimized they've been. They have a nearly universal martyr complex, but it just doesn't work when they're the ones running Rome. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Our emporer is a mover and shaker. He deserves credit for our current state.

There's a hurricane coming...

(Note: I originally meant to publish this May 27th, and forget why I saved it as a draft...anyway, as the deadline is approaching it is getting more interesting)


....but I'm betting it will miss us.

A judge has ordered the government to release the rest of the Abu Garhib photos. I don't think it will stick. These are photos that the Democrats, in an election year, agreed to cover up. I don't know what atrocities they contain, but I'm betting they're worse than the ones we've seen. I read somewhere about a video in which a male detainee was raped by a female guard. Until that video comes out 99% of the world- scratch that- 99% of the US and most of the world won't believe it.

But we believe what we see. The dozen photos have gotten more people tried and convicted than dozens of dead bodies. Those bodies are a guarantee we've done worse: it was just done without cameras.

Here's the bigger issue: what if these new photos show more than just the Lyndie England crowd? What if there were 20 people or 25? An officer? We've had these photos for years...if that is what is in them...the entire world would have physical evidence that not only were abuses widespread, but our prosecution was a sham. I don't believe these were the actions of 7 rogue enlisted personnel, but I don't pretend to know for certain. My beliefs rely on clearly fallable deduction (presence of dogs, relatively light sentencing, etc) from an uninformed perspective, thousands of miles away. I can say it looks bad, but I have no proof. In a very real sense I don't want any proof.

The US can't handle the shock of those photos being released. That's why the Democrats didn't use them. That's why they (somehow) will never be released.

Back from vacation

Just back from a week of camping at Taughannok Falls in beautiful Upstate New York. It was great.

I love camping, especially the easy kind where you can throw up a tent near your car. The kind where you can bring a cooler and chill a bottle of wine. It rained every day, but we had fun anyway. Thankfully it wasn't raining when we set or broke camp.

Anyway, it was great to be away from news, lab and pretty much everything for awhile.

Victory for Homeland Defense!!

The FBI has apprehended two sleepers with knowledge of Al-Queda training camps in Pakistan! Go FBI!!

Read all about it. I hope these yahoos lead to the apprehension of other terrorists.

One disturbing thought:
"Hamid advised that he specifically requested to come to the United States to carry out his Jihadi mission. Potential targets for attack would include hospitals and large food stores."

This is a guy who lived in the US for a long time. Why hospitals and food stores? Not malls or stadiums? The "large food stores" part makes me think poison or bioterrorism rather than explosions.

Amateur Numerology

I wanted to contribute to the growing discourse on the apocolypse. After all there are a lot of cool sites dedicated to it and while I'm certainly not an expert, I thought I could lend a bit of a scientific perspective to these guys.

Here's the theory: Suppose the number of the beast is really code for it's name. That's possible right? Cause names are pretty important. Some people, like the Kalabarians think names are very very important. They even describe attributes and characteristics of >700,000 names as diverse as Ersades or Crapface.

Anyway, names are important. So I thought I'd check out a few names to see whether the sum of the ASCII values in anyone's name yielded the number of the beast. Right off the bat I checked the usual suspects. Bill Gates, Osama Bin Laden, and George Bush are in the clear. So then I thought I'd screen a list of names. You'd think it would be easy to find big lists of people's names on the internet right? (say a phone book perhaps?) Wrong. In the 10 long minutes I devoted to it, the best I could find was a downloadable list of cat names. But here's the genius of it...cats are beasts. Number of the beast, list of beast names: it fits like a jig-saw puzzle! (Sometimes my cat hisses and looks possessed. No really, she's scary.) So here's a quick screen of 15,410 cat names:

666 turned up a single really disappointing hit. Ordinarily, that would be an awesome feat to pull one name out of 15410. However, not when that name is "Paw-bot". Who names their cat Paw-bot? Definitely not a name of terror. No, not a name to threaten existance. (probably)

However, people in the know rebuke the conventional wisdom of 666 in favor of 616...Now that number is loaded:

Amulet,Aubrey,Bopper,Bullet,Canyon,Cooper,Darius,Denton,Dynamo, Eskimo,Greyel,Grunge,Gung Ho,Hip Hop,Holmes,Hoodoo,Hootie,Hummel, Jonsie,Keykas,Kissie,KitKat,Lindor,Maduro,Mignon,Miribu,Moglet,Monday, Monger,Morgen,Narkis,Newark,Noonie,Orphan,Parkay,Peep-Bo,Peewer, Pernod,Pinnar,Puffer,Puffin,Qantas,Ray Man,Rocket,Sativa,Scylla,Sebbys ,Sikkim,Silvia,Singer,Smokie,Soleil,Sophie,Static,Steave,Tanner,Tom Cat, Tomcat,Touche,Tracey,Uglier,Zeezee

Wow, that's a list. It's strong in the gumshoe detective area, with (Sergeant) Monday, (Dick) Tracey, and (Sherlock) Holmes...but I think that's just misleading. The best target I can find, with my scientifically applied numerology is....Darius Rucker of Hootie and the Blowfish Take note, he's also the lead singer. That's my advice. Beware of Hootie. Just to be sure though, avoid anyone named Paw-bot too.

By the by, today's rapture index is 144. It's hot, humid, and I'm feeling a serious need to get my ass to church more often. Good night, and God bless.

Aspartoacylase

So I'm looking at a scientific paper on Aspartoacylase, and I start wondering whether there are Four Horsemen of the Aspartoacylase.

Behold, I saw a pale leukocyte, and upon it rode phagocytosis.

Oooo religious geek humor: doesn't get any better than that.

But if it did it would be Apocolyptic websites playing Wagner.

Newsflash to Dems: Quit backing losers

It look's like Josh Marshall is rooting for a third Joe Donelly (D) / Chris Chocola (R) match-up. The rationale: Joe lost last time (and worse than the first) because he didn't have enough funding. Whatever. He's lost twice now. He's fixed in people's minds as a loser. Find a new voice. Chris Chocola looks vulnerable now, because people don't like him. That's insufficient in terms of winning an election. If there is anything is to be learned from the last election, it's that people won't vote out bad people without good alternatives.

Find a new home for Joe, or dump him like Newt Gingrich (or Trent Lott, Bob Livingston, etc) but it's foolish to run damaged goods in the same match 3 times. This is why Democrats have lost (the House, the Senate, the Presidency). As much as anything else, polotics is about selling a persona. When the people have rejected a persona it is time to listen and to offer another, not to cram the same one down their throats year after annoying year.

More Abu Gharib

I've written about this before, but here's more info on the release of more Abu Gharib photos.

Judge Alvin Hellerstein (search) said the 144 pictures and videos can be turned over in redacted form to protect the victims' identities. He gave the Army one month to release them.

The judge ordered the release after he viewed eight of the photos last week. They were given to the Army by a military policeman assigned to Abu Ghraib.

As an aside, 144 pictures is a dozen dozens. That's one hell of a coincidental number. It would make perfect sense if these were film photos, but is a curiously round number for digital photos. My guess is the original investigators got tired of collecting them, or maybe they felt a dozen dozen were enough to tell the whole story. Coincidences happen, but still pretty bizzare.

I also find it remarkable that a judge can order the release of 144 photos after only having seen 8 of them. Is that an informed verdict?

Countdown: 1 month until the world hates us twice as much as they already do. I'll still be amazed if these photos see the light of day. It will be a bad day, I'll tell you that.

Sacrificing the meaning of words

This Fox headline: Thune Willing to Sacrifice Bolton for Air Base

should read: Thune Threatens to Sacrifice Bolton Unless Air Base Supported. The way it's written sounds as if he will sacrifice Bolton if he gets the airbase, when in fact, he means the opposite. I thought maybe the Democrats had made him a deal...which would be odd because they have no power whatsoever. The thrust of the article is a threat by the Senator to vote against Bolton unless S. Dakota gets to keep it's airbase. So he's pressuring the Republican leadership. Is that a threat, extortion, or horse-trading? Politics is twisted like that.

Given the way it doesn't actually fit the sentence, Fox must have really wanted to use the word sacrifice. Poor John Bolton, sacrificed, his metaphorical soul off to join those of the conservative judges who were assassinated by Democratic Senators. What's with all the death rhetoric? Foxnews.com's headline today: Bomb Attack kills 10 in Iraq.

So here's the deal: When people actually die though the actions of terrorists or fighting in a war zone, they are "killed". Neutral, sanitary, no emotional investment. They are not "murdered", "assassinated", or "sacrificed". Those terms are uniquely reserved for political methaphors. That way we only get hopping mad over political appoinments, not actual people being blown into pieces. I wish we cared as much about actual human life.

Blogroll Additions - Where I waste time

I always mean to update my blog design, but all those funny html symbols are intimidating. I did finally update my blogroll and I'll be perfectly transparent about it...I did it because I have too many bookmarked pages and wanted easier surfing.

Just the same, these fine folks influence my thought and through the bizzare psuedo-annonymity of the web, I have formed favorable opinions of them. Opinions I shall now share.

First the lefties. Simply Appalling is just that. It's pretty rare to see anything cheerful over there, kinda more like watching car accidents. I confess, I don't even know the authors pseudonym, but I'm picturing a tortured soul who blogs for the therapeutic value. Or....maybe I'm just projecting too much of myself. Anyway, SA actually sat through and transcribed the Galloway interview, which is about as comic as Congress gets. (TABLOID ALERT!! READ THE TESTIMONY CNOGRESS DIDN'T WANT YOU TO HEAR!!) That kind of patience deserves reward. Undoubtedly the best place to go if you're feeling bummed about the state of the union and need a reason why.

Next up, Talking Points Memo. I've written about TPM before, and almost feel bad including it here: its like a wolf among sheep. Josh is not only liberal (which is fine) but very much a Democrat (which is more questionable). He latches onto issues like nobody's business...probably has 200 posts on social security reform. This week he launched TPM cafe which is another blogging arena... a playground of liberal intellectuals. The question is how long do they stay intellectuals? Will their system of rating posts and comments push them further left and leave them wallowing in groupthink and conformity? It might, so catch it while it's good. This week John Edwards is blogging. Surprise. He still cares about poor people (and I always thought that was just a show).

Now the righties. Admittedly, I have issues finding conservatives I like. (I'm not sure Andrew Sullivan even counts these days...) Prerequsites include being able to think for yourself, and not mindlessly parroting GOP talking points. No rank apologists allowed (I fear TMP may have to go if Democrats ever get a majority). Being able to construct an argument is a plus, as is being somewhat libertarian. I am pleased to refer to people's attention the evidently intelligent and mostly civil Princetonian, TigerHawk. Poor TH usually only gets criticism from me, but his post on tax reform was exceptional. TH earns criticism by being thoughtful and worth debating. His blogroll has a lot of the big favorites.

Next up is an interesting individual who I have to say just lets it all out. Lee over at Right-Thinking wins on that George Bush sort of person I'd like to have a beer with. Often intelligent, but rarely intellectual, he thinks for himself and sometimes hits something good. I don't agree with a lot (ok vast majority) of his opinions, but he has a real-America feel (possibly even rednecked). Besides Lee has more opinions than most, and you're bound to like some. Here's a recent good one. Lee tells it like he sees it, and I respect that. And his by-lines are hilarious. (All Your Liberalism Are Belong to Us) Sadly, I will never post on his blog because you have to register, whatever. The other commenters won't miss me: they're kinda rabid.

Anyway, that's the scoop. Doh, I forgot fafblog. I will sneak it in some other day. Fafblog is pervasive like that.

More Venezuela

Either those Venezuelans are a special blend of stupid, or the State Department is:

The extradition request for the Cuban terrorist was turned down because it was "flawed". Now we've rejected the visa of their Supreme Court President because it had an "error".

There is nothing political here, it's just that Venezuelans aren't good at paperwork, right?