Jack Rich has a good post up on the Olympics, which brings to my mind a pet peeve about them from the other night.
Husband David watched a lot of Olympic coverage, while I hadn't watched any. One evening, he told me I just had to watch one race. I didn't really want to, because the laundry needed doing, but I figured "how long can one race last"?
Turns out, quite a while, because the officials couldn't start it. Too much booing from the crowd for the starter sound to be audible. Booing of Americans, it seems. Unlike the whiners Jack Rich blogged about, these booers apparently weren't upset that we led the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq. No, these -- to borrow Jack's term -- idiots and ingrates were mad at Americans because some Greek dofus failed to show up for a drug test and was disqualified from the race. Following the world's standard rule: Whenever anything goes wrong, Blame America First, the crowd was booing the American runners who had showed up for their drug tests.
Apparently, the purpose of the Olympics is to cause friction between nations. It was starting to make me hate Greeks (and just when I was starting to forgive them for adoring the anti-American demagogue Andreas Papandreou and their insistence on maintaining poor airport security, leading to incidents such as the hijacking of TWA 847 and the murder of the young American sailor Robert Stethem), so I went back to doing the laundry.
Jack Rich has a good post up on the Olympics, which brings to my mind a pet peeve about them from the other night.
Don't know whether to be insulted or flattered. Someone stuck the search term "conservative jerks" into Google, and this blog ranked #2.
Addendum: Now this blog ranks #1... I guess I shouldn't have said anything.
ProfessorBainbridge has posted his results for Chris Lightfoot's Political Survey. I took it, too, with similiar results. He posts a link for those who want to try it for themselves.
Just for fun, husband David sent over a quiz.
Who was awarded the largest number of purple hearts?
A. John McCain, whose injuries were so severe that four years after his release from the Hanoi Hilton he was prevented from receiving a sea command.
B. Former Senator Daniel Inouye, who lost an arm during World War II.
C. Former Senator Bob Dole, who lost the use of his right arm and spent three years in military hospitals.
D. Former Senator Max Cleland, who lost two legs and an arm during the Vietnam war after a grenade went off in his hand.
E. Senator John Kerry.
Answer: John Kerry. Kerry received three; Bob Dole, two; Daniel Inouye, one; John McCain, one and Max Cleland, zero.
Harry Truman must be turning over in his grave.
The planned withdrawal of U.S. troops from Europe and Asia that President Bush announced this week, if allowed to stand, could lead to the demise of the United States' key alliances across the globe, including the one that Truman considered his greatest foreign policy accomplishment: NATO...
Always-thoughtful blogger Jack Rich has another worthy essay on his life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness blog, this time a reasoned rebuttal to the bumper sticker slogan "War is Not the Answer."
Jack's blog is one of the best out there. I read everything he posts.
A friend drew our attention this evening to this Washington Post story in which an AFL-CIO leader gives this advice to Pentagon employees who are union members:
Our job is to be the irritant, piss ant stinging them on their ankles at every opportunity.and
In your workplace, be creative, be disruptive, be a royal pain in the [expletive]!!This is the kind of thinking that makes me believe that the only good labor union is an extinct one.
Why are any employees at the Pentagon unionized, anyway? The entire notion is pathetic.
We might as well just invite in the Visigoths and save the trouble of a battle.
Readers will notice a new feature on this blog -- the opportunity to e-mail the url of any blog post you especially like (or dislike) to a friend. To use this feature, click on the little envelope with an arrow on it. Your friend will receive the url of the post you have selected, but will not receive the full text. You can add a short message to the e-mail if you wish.
Maybe I'm the last one to notice, but just in case I'm not, Google News now has a bar at the top permitting users to access the top stories from ten nations.
I just tried all ten. Interestingly, updates in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal was the Google News Overall #1 story just now for two nations (and only two nations): France and Germany.
Gloating, are we?
I let MSNBC's marketing scheme work in my case and as such I watched Chris Matthews' Hardball show tonight.
I'm not impressed. It is hard to be impressed by a man over 13 who intentionally messes up saying another person's name (Michelle Malkin's) just because he disagrees with her political opinions. Matthews did that tonight, and was unfair to Michelle Malkin in other ways, too. For instance, Matthews insisted repeatedly that he asked Malkin a question 12 times on Friday's show and Malkin didn't answer. The issue was not how often Matthews asked, but that he refused to listen to her answer. Better he had asked her once, and then shut up and listened to Malkin's reply. Then he could have asked a follow-up. (I admit this is a revolutionary suggestion on my part, but it just might have worked.)
In another criticism of his professionalism, I question why Matthews referred to Republican donors repeatedly as "Republican fundraisers." A fundraiser raises money, a donor donates it. Matthews is a political hack; he knows the difference. Having no other explanation, I can only conclude that using the accurate terminology just isn't important to him. Certainly, in this instance, it doesn't really matter, but if a "journalist" does not care about accuracy on small things that don't matter, how hard will he push for accuracy on matters that do matter, especially if they lead to conclusions he does not like?
Of course, I may be biased. First, I tend to hold people who claim to be journalists to fairly high standards on things such as word usage. (I seem to be a rare bird in this regard.) I also expect them to know more than diddly-squat about the subjects they are doing stories on. Second, this institution spent the first six years of its existence (we were founded in 1982) supporting Ronald Reagan's national security policy. We were fought tooth and nail by the Democrat Congress. Chris Matthews was Tip O'Neill's chief of staff during (roughly) that same period of time. I'm not exactly bitter about our experiences then, even though they were hard years (by office job standards), since we did win the Cold War. But I admit it is hard for me to look at his face on the TV and not remember so many of us having to fight so hard against domestic opposition in order to do so. To this day I don't understand why so many Democrats refused to be on the side of freedom.
I have not been watching Chris Matthews' show on MSNBC these last howevermany years. Some have told me Matthews' show was good during the Clinton impeachment trial because he, Matthews, reportedly did not make excuses for adultery and perjury, yet he was not reflexively anti-Democrat, either. If so, good for Matthews. But I would find it hard to regularly watch a show dominated by someone over 40 who seems to have a teenager's level of maturity, even if we had been on the same side of the climactic battle for world freedom that consumed nearly the entire 20th Century.
Strengthen the Good: Gulf Coast Community Foundation Of Venice Hurricane Charley Disaster Relief Fund
The new Strengthen The Good network of bloggers banding together to support worthy charities has selected its first charity for support: The Gulf Coast Community Foundation Of Venice Hurricane Charley Disaster Relief Fund.
I encourage folks to visit this link and evaluate this charity. If you like what you see, please consider a donation. Until $100,000 is collected, all gifts are being matched dollar for dollar, so everytime someone gives a dollar, the charity receives two.
Gifts can be made by credit card, PayPal or post office mail.
Project 21 member Deroy Murdock is making a good point on Joe Scarborough's MSNBC Show right now (blogger Hugh Hewitt is another guest), specifically: That so-called "outside groups" (of all political persuasions) have First Amendment free speech rights.
I'm with Deroy on this one. Let everyone speak. The voters are smart enough to separate the wheat from the chaff.
In my opinion, we should limit our campaign finance laws to full and prompt disclosure of all campaign contributions.
Husband David Ridenour, whose musings have been published here before, has a few more thoughts:
Prominent conservatives use expletives only when pushed to anger, while their liberal counterparts do so on purpose to project an "oh so cool" image. Yet, conservatives get more adverse publicity. To borrow a joke attributed to former Rep. John LaBoutillier about the House Speaker under whom he served: What do Michael Moore and the federal budget have in common? They're both big, bloated and out-of-control. When most Americans do the morally reprehensible, it is because they can't help themselves. According to his new book, when Bill Clinton does so, it is just because he can. If higher prices reduce demand for and thus use of gasoline - something liberals claim to want - why are so many liberals lamenting high gasoline prices? Seizing or destroying the enemy's command and control - which includes communication facilities - is key to winning war. So why, in our war against international terrorists - a war without borders - hasn't Al Jazeera been reduced to a pile of rubble? Liberals preach sensitivity, compassion and self-esteem. Yet, they're the first to question the intelligence of conservative politicians - Ronald Reagan, Dan Quayle and George Bush, to mention just three. If these conservatives really are "stupid," isn't it insensitive to mention this? And shouldn't they be praised for rising above their limited talents? While we're at it, shouldn't we require government across the board to slow down and simplify so that such politicians aren't left behind? That's what we do with our school system. It's all about self-esteem, you know.
When you hear some people talk, you could almost be convinced that the Bush Administration's new overtime policy is bad for workers.
Here's what I wrote on this a few months ago, relying heavily on information from the Heritage Foundation. If you click the link, you'll see who really likes the old rules Bush is reforming (trial lawyers) and why they like them (confusing rules equal lawsuits equal cash cash cash -- for lawyers, not lower-income workers).
Speaking of overtime and the Heritage Foundation, Heritage has a wealth of info up about this on its main webpage right now.
Bottom line: The new rules are better than the old for workers and better for America.
Now, if we really want worker flexibility (which a lot of working parents really, really like), we'll get the government out of the matter entirely, but that's a discussion for another day...
BeldarBlog examines the New York Times chart that attempts to show connections between the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and George W. Bush.
The chart is amazing -- an amazing example of wacky journalism. I actually read parts of it a couple of times because I could not believe my eyes.
For example, here's a key connection between SBVT and George Bush, according to the chart: One of Swiftee John O'Neill's law partners used to be married to a woman who was named to a state appeals court by George W. Bush when Bush was governor of Texas.
Yes, that's one of a whopping six connections the New York Times has on the chart.
Maybe there's a tighter connection in real life, but, if so, it's not on the chart.
Beldar wonders why he didn't make the Times list. I'm wondering, too. I once lived in an apartment building owned by a company partially owned by someone who gave $25,000 to the Swift Vets, and I worked for the Republican National Committee 25 years ago.
Coincidence? You decide.