Ara wants Gore to run in '08. He says that Gore is right on everything. Excuse me while I choke down my bile.


You want this guy for President? Maybe Howard Dean can be VP!

I just watched an old episode of South Park that ripped John Edward, the "talk to the dead" guy. Penn & Teller also recently did a show exposing all these "psychics", including Edward.

Edward is a douche that preys on people during a time of sorrow. I can't stand people that take advantage of others. I hope there is a special place in Hell for people that prey on those who have suffered a loss.

Do you have anyone that you'd like to nominate for Biggest Douche In The Universe?

It has been suggested that I was engaging in hyperbole by suggesting that the recent Kelo decision by SCOTUS was akin to date rape.

I felt that it was an accurate analogy and not in least bit hyperbolic. So, I want your opinion. It is hyperbolic to suggest that Kelo is nothing more than legal government date rape?

“The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.
—Justice Sandra Day O’Connor

The government can take your property, against your will, sell it to a private body for private development and because they gave you money, it is okay. That is what SCOTUS ruled.

I feel that this is no different than date rape. A man takes you to dinner, drinks and a movie. You say thanks but no sex. He takes what he wants even though you said no. His rationale? He didn't do anything wrong because he paid, you owed him.

How is that any different than Kelo? The government says that it wants your property, you scream NO, and they TAKE it anyway and throw some money at you. Rationale? It's okay because they paid you!

A package arrived today from Tokyo. Jacob couldn't wait to see what was in it. I mean, it was a package from Japan. It was a gift for Jake and Draco from Sean Kinsell.

What was it? A beautiful Japanese children's book. Jake was just awed by it but he wasn't just awed by the coolness of the book. No, no, no. He was awed by the fact that Sean translated the entire book, by hand, including the illustrations. That took some time and serious effort.

Jake keeps looking at the books and repeating, "I can't believe he rewrote and redrew the entire book, in English, just for us". "You and Dad have really awesome friends".

Indeed!

Thank you, Sean. You are so thoughtful, mere words cannot express our gratitude. So, here is a picture!

Size doesn't matter. It's what you do with it that counts!

Michael found this site and is wondering what it's about. Their slogan reads: "Debt Elimination Services based on Christian Principles."

I'm thinking maybe it means: if you don't believe you owe them (creditors) the money, then you don't have to pay them the money.

BTW, Michael, your comments are still screwy!

I've been thinking. If the majority of Americans are truly Pro-Choice and everyone is afraid that Roe could be overturned, if too many Conservative judges get put on the bench, then why not try and amend the Constitution.

Once the Constitution is amended to include a right to privacy and abortion, then the judges would be unable to overturn Roe.

That would leave us in a postion of having our Senators evaluate a judge on merit rather than philosphy and faith.

Of course, we could find out that it isn't just the "Religious Right" that opposes abortion. That would make vilification based on religion a bit tougher for some people...

By not nominating Alan Dershowitz.
Why ask my more liberal friends? Their assumption, of course, would be that Dershowitz is too liberal.

Yes, but that is not the reason. The reason is that he (Dershowitz) is pro-legal torture.

This would force Democrats to either filibuster him or compromise their principles.

Okay, okay, quit laughing Bushies. I know and you know that the Democrats would find some way to justify confirming a pro-torture liberal, so it is a good thing he didn't do it.

Could you just imagine the seismic activity the earth would register as the entire Left flipped to justify Dershowitz style torture, not that nasty Pol Pot, gulag or Nazi kind that us Bushies would try and use. We may very well have lost the entire left West Coast.

By nominating Roberts, the mighty Bush has once again saved the United States.

A lot of people are now giving Judge Roberts' opinions a more thorough exam than a proctologist would. Much has been made of his opinion in the French Fry case. The biggest complaint is that he (and the other judges) followed the law rather than ruling with his heart in favor of the 12 year old girl and her mother. The case was not about how stupid the law itself was but rather whether or not her civil rights were violated by being arrested and taken into police custody.

They ruled that her rights were not violated. You can read the opinion here.

Do you want your Judges to rule based on pity or law? I think it is safer to stick with the law. If you don't violate the law, you have a better chance of prevailing when your rights HAVE been violated.

Blogger Michael Reynolds is organizing a trip to London. The second attack on London happening exactly 2 weeks after the first has inspired him. As a show of solidarity, he wants Americans to join him and ride the morning rush hour subways and buses on August 4, two weeks from today.

If money were no object, Dean and I would go. That's a bit pricey and quick for us to manage. If you can and you are willing to do it, contact Michael via his blog The Mighty Middle.

Via: Dean

I was hoping to address some things yesterday but time escaped me.

Do you know what sucks worse than cleaning your kid's bedroom and walk-in closet?

Seriously? I'm at a loss for what is worse than that. It was horrible!

I'm working on a few posts right now! Check back later.

At the height of our technological acheivement, we (thru Neil Armstrong) stepped foot on the moon. 36 years ago today. Today, we can't even get off the ground...

Sad isn't it?


Also, today, James Doohan passed away. People may not remember him by his real name, but I'm sure you've heard the phrase: "Beam me up, Scotty."

James Doohan portrayed Montgomery Scott ("Scotty") on the original Star Trek series.

He was 85.

I'm in the process of overhauling Jake's bedroom. Blogging will be light this morning and afternoon. I have a few things I want to address and I will try my hardest to get to them before the end of the day.

I want to respond to Mark Adams' comment and I promise I will later.

I want to talk about Karl Rove/Leakgate and I hope to touch on that later.

I also want to address the SCOTUS nomination some more.

Do you have anything you want my opinion on or anything you'd like to discuss?

President Bush has nominated conservative jurist John Roberts to the Supreme Court.

I guess those who thought it would be a token woman were wrong. A big plus, he is only 50.

HT: Michael

Mary Madigan is on to something here. I think this is something that even the Liberals may agree with.

And I totally agree with Mike: "And when you capture a pirate you give them a fair trial - and then you hang them."

Yes, yes, yes. Catch the terrorist before he kills, give him a fair trial via military tribunal, then we hang him!

Anytime you talk about the Geneva Convention and why it doesn't apply to terrorists, we inevitably get someone spouting the "Talking Points".

You know what they are, don't you? We should be better than them. We are Americans and we should be better.

Guess what?

WE ARE BETTER THAN THEY ARE!

Here are a few clues to help you remember why WE are better:

1. We don't target innocent civilians.
   
2. We don't kidnap people.
   
3. We don't chop off the heads of those we detain.
   
4. When we do kill innocent civilians, it is accidental and we are remorseful.
   
5. When the rare soldier goes overboard and hurts a detainee, he is investigated and reprimanded.
   
6. Our soldiers wear uniforms so they can be identified.
   
7. There are countless other reasons that we are better, I'm sure you can think of them on your own.
   

I'd like to make a few points on this subject because I believe that we are just talking around each other. When we talk about not following the GC with terrorists, that doesn't mean we intend to use torture and kill detainees at will. It means that the detainees will be tried via a military tribunal and punished accordingly. You know, under the Geneva Conventions it would be acceptable to shoot most of them in the head and bury them in a mass grave for God's sake.

Has torture occurred? Yes and it is shameful. Do I feel bad that some terrorists were tortured? No, I really don't. I don't care if the bad guys are hurt or maimed. I only care that our reputation is sullied by rare instances of bad behavior. But the idea that our soldiers in the field are put at an increased risk because of these few instances? Jesus, what planet are you on? These people were cutting people's heads off and setting them on fire before there was even one allegation of someone putting panties on a guy's head. Don't you people get that we cannot "provoke" these monsters into being worse than they already are?

I can't stomach the assumption, by Americans no less, that we are automatically evil and bent on harm. The Court says that POW status can be denied to terrorists and some people are stomping their feet in horror; assuming that we, the United States of America, will do horrible things to the poor, head chopping, suicide bombing, child killing terrorists.

Shame on YOU for assuming and expecting the worst. This isn't a partisan thing, this is an AMERICAN thing. You big jerks!

Shame. On. You.

This is The United States of America. We are the best country in the frickin' world and because of a few bad occurances during the execution of a WAR like no other, and just because you don't like the President, you feel justified in assuming the worst about our own people.

Shame. On. You.

If you treat your kids the way you treat your country and countrymen after a few mistakes, the poor babies will need to be medicated. Do you expect perfection from them? And when they don't live up to your expectations, do you stop expecting the best from them? Do you now just assume your kid is a screwup? Do you start calling your kid dummy after a few bad report cards? Do you lower your expectations so low that a worm could crawl over them?

I'm gonna assume that the answer is no. If that is true, then why do you expect the worst from your country? Why are you projecting your hatred of Bush onto the rest of us?

Do you really, deep down believe that George W. Bush wants our guys to torture, maim and kill detainees? Do you truly believe that our President, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, is evil incarnate?


Do you believe that the majority of our brave men and women that are fighting the War On Terror are evil--that they're following secret orders to torture mutilate and maim, and are hellbent on destruction and obeying "secret orders" to do that stuff? That they are no better than the terrorists that they are fighting?


Shame. On. You.

Well, the Courts have spoken.

Now all you bleeding heart whiners can just stop bellyaching about the Geneva Convention. It DOES NOT APPLY TO TERRORISTS. They aren't POWs.

You can read what the Court said:

The protections of the 1949 Geneva Convention do not apply to al-Qaida and its members, so Hamdan does not have a right to enforce its provisions in court, the appeals judges said.

Why? For the reason we've been saying all along. From the Court decision:

Even if the 1949 Geneva Convention could be enforced in court, this would not assist Hamdan. He contends that a military commission trial would violate his rights under Article 102, which provides that a “prisoner of war can be validly sentenced only if the sentence has been pronounced by the same courts according to the same procedure as in the case of members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power.” One problem for Hamdan is that he does not fit the Article 4 definition of a “prisoner of war” entitled to the protection of the Convention. He does not purport to be a member of a group who displayed “a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance” and who conducted “their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.”

Another problem for Hamdan is that the 1949 Convention does not apply to al Qaeda and its members. The Convention appears to contemplate only two types of armed conflicts. The first is an international conflict. Under Common Article 2, the provisions of the Convention apply to “all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.” Needless to say, al Qaeda is not a state and it was not a “High Contracting Party.” There is an exception, set forth in the last paragraph of Common Article 2, when one of the “Powers” in a conflict is not a signatory but the other is. Then the signatory nation is bound to adhere to the Convention so long as the opposing Power “accepts and applies the provisions thereof.” Even if al Qaeda could be considered
a Power, which we doubt, no one claims that al Qaeda has accepted and applied the provisions of the Convention.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Al Qaeda didn't sign or act in accordance with the GC. If they did quite a few people would still have their heads about them.

Get it now fellas?

Via: Malkin

Be sure to share this highly educational film with your children.

Some Lefties have made a really valid point on this Plame business.

If Plame wasn't covert like so many of us believe, then why didn't the CIA put a stop to this investigation? The CIA is in a position to end it all. If Plame was not covert by any definition, then why didn't the CIA just say no harm, no foul?


I have another question. If Rove was the leak/source, why is Judith Miller still in jail?

Is there another source?

Hey, did you know that today is my husband's birthday?

Yep, my beloved, is 39 years old today.

Stop by Dean's World and wish him well.

Happy Birthday, Baby!

Sto lat, sto lat, niech zyje, zyje nam.
Sto lat, sto lat, niech zyje, zyje nam.
Jeszcze raz, jeszcze raz, niech zyje, zyje nam.
Niech zyje nam!

When the choice was between Al Gore and George W. Bush, I went with Bush. I can't stand Gore, never could. I take that back. I never thought too hard about Gore until HE brought up Willie Horton against Dukakis. It was Al Gore that gave Willie Horton to Bush the Elder. He used it against Dukakis during the primaries. I've hated him ever since.

When the choice was Bush or the elitist Kerry, I had no choice. It had to be Bush. John Kerry? I can't believe you people nominated that asshole. Bush is ambrosia compared to that jerkoff. The funny thing is we all get so sucked in by the campaigns. Seriously, you hear some liberals talk about John Kerry or Al Gore like they were the second coming of Christ. Dudes, they weren't even the second coming of Jimmy Carter. They were crap choices, face it.

Time to move on. I like Bush but he is not a perfect Republican. Honestly, he is too liberal for my tastes. Not socially, mind you, but fiscally and on immigration. I can't stomach rewarding illegal immigration. That really pisses me off. My parents came here legally and so did many, many others. It is a slap in their faces to reward illegals with cookies and milk day passes. Enough griping, on to my actual point.

If you could handpick the POTUS in 2008, who would it be? Not who is electable, not who could trick people into believing they are appear moderate.

If you could handpick and appoint our next president. Who would you choose?

Let's play Fantasy President!

Pork steak grilled outside with BBQ sauce, then you are seriously missing out on some good eating!

Forget about Rove, or Palestine, or BBC sanitization! I have great news!!

I just saved a boatload of money by switching to Geico!!!

No, not really. The actual news is that the players & owners agreed to a new CBA, so it looks like we'll have HOCKEY in the fall...

WOO HOO!!

9 words or phrases in ADDITION to "terrorist" that the BBC has decided need considered editorial finessing

1. “freedom" → “the soft tyranny of rampant consumerism"
2. “insurgency" → “quasi-soccer hooligans"
3. "Islamic fundamentalism” → “slightly miffed Muslims with a wee bit of a bone to pick"
4. "inchoate democracy” → “seemingly endless fields of dead Iraqi civilians whose dying wish was to return their country to the halcyon days of Saddam’s stern but loving rule."
5. “Israel" → “Palestinian territory"
6. "George Bush” → “Him"
7. "french fries” → “chips"
8. "United States” → “Kingdom of the Bible-thumping Jew lovers"
9. "assimilation of immigrants” → “wanton cultural genocide"
10. “black" → “white"

Yeah, there's 10. That Goldstein is a real pistol!


Hijacked from: Protein Wisdom

Ron said something, in the comments of an earlier post, that I find compelling. I believe it is worthy of a post.

Ron said:

I fully support the right of Israel to exist. What I don't support is the right of the Israelis to subjugate the Palestinians and to occupy (and settle!) lands that rightfully belonged to them. I'm not anti-Semitic. I live and work in an area with an enormous Jewish population, and have many professional and personal Jewish friends.

Exactly which lands rightfully belong to the people that call themselves Palestinian? Please, tell me which lands that are currently possesed by Israel, rightfully belong to Palestine?

All the information points to Karl Rove as Matt Cooper's source. So far, all that we know for sure is that Rove made mention of Wilson's wife but supposedly did not actually name her. The big question is this: Was a crime committed?

What next? I guess we wait and see what the Special Prosecutor wants to do. If he says that a law was broken then Bush will have follow through on this promise:

"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is and if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of," Bush said in September 2003.

Reid and some of his fellow Democrats apparantly have reading comprehension problems. They interpreted those remarks this way:

"The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration, his administration. I trust they will follow through on this pledge," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.

I trust that Bush will follow through on his pledge too. I also trust that the man won't lose his job if he didn't commit a crime.

Prove him guilty, first. That is our standard. If the S.O.B. is guilty, toss him in jail. If not, leave him be.

At the park in Grand Rapids




Nothing says summer like a melting ice cream cone



Jake swimming across the street from Auntie Al ('Lil Sis of All Evil)


Draco's first swim

Some left-wing revisionists of history insist on implying that I, Queen of All Evil, have stated or implied that "criticizing this President is the same as dishonoring the troops".

Well, I don't believe that criticizing this President is the same as dishonoring the troops and I'm certain that I have NEVER said it. I've stated numerous times that some dissent isn't patriotic but certainly there is plenty of dissent that is.

I want here and now any examples of me, Rosemary Esmay, stating that criticizing this President is the same as dishonoring the troops.

Lay it on me. If I ever said such tripe, then I owe many,many apologies. If I didn't, then someone owes me one.

Fire away.

Update:

Ara wants everyone to read the link because it is to a comment of Dean's. I guess that means he didn't mean me. Well, I've been called a Bush apologist enough that I feel tagged everytime it is used and since it was used in the plural and not the singular, I figure he meant all of us that he refers to as a Bush apologist and not just Dean.

If that is true, drop the "s". Otherwise, Put Up or Shut Up!

Oh and feel free to provide links to Dean saying "criticizing this President is the same as dishonoring the troops".

While perusing the Daily Kos, I came across something unbelieveably amazing.

What is it?

A sane commenter:

Bush Lied, still? (none / 1)

Actually a lie is different from a mistake.

The American people were not lied to by Bush, when he said the same thing that Clinton said. Intelligence makes mistakes. The task of gaining information from someone who doesn't want you to have it is errorprone, and difficult.

Of course, we all know that Clinton lied, but that is ok, because it was just about sex, right?

Lie: intentional misrepresentation of that you believe to be the truth.

Mistake: unintentional incorrect action, which may have a number of causes.

Saddam lied, but we didn't expect anything else from him (aside from mass murder of Kurds with Chemical agents). Wait, if he killed Kurds with chemical agents, that was a Weapon of mass destruction. Bush told the truth!

I wonder how it feels to be the only sane person in the asylum.

It's a beautiful and warm day, so I'm taking the boys swimming!

What are you doing today?

Via: Dean

A rumor is floating that tomorrow morning Chief Justice Rehnquist will retire.

The announcement is scheduled for Friday morning at 10am .

Man, if this is true, I think we may just see the Democrats self-combust.

Looks like Al Qaeda has struck again, this time in London. So far, 33 are reported dead and more than 300 injured.

There is a call center to deal with concerns of those with relatives and friends in London. The number is 1-888-407-4747.

Horrible. I wonder how long before Bush is blamed for this?

Kelly TOTALLY deserved that perfect score for her freestyle dance.


Yeah, yeah I watch Dancing With The Stars. I can't help it, I'm a sucker for ballroom dancing.

I watched Troy over the weekend. I loved it. Maybe I loved it because I love big epic movies, maybe I loved it because Hector and Achilles were HOT.

Either way, I don't understand why it got panned. Dean said that the reviews for it were pretty bad and he wasn't gonna bother watching it. I generally like to make up my own mind because the critics aren't always right.

Did anyone else see it and like it or am I the only one?

Update: Adam wrote a review of the movie and I totally agree with it. I was also a skeptic but Troy won me over. The story was good, the actors were better and Brad Pitt was a great choice. The critics were wrong.

We are preparing for another political battle. The Democrats are gearing up to filibuster Bush's nominee for SCOTUS. Of course, they don't know who it is yet but that doesn't seem to matter. They just know that "unnamed nominee" is gonna be some kind of conservative and that is good enough to break the don't filibuster deal.

One of very favorite liberals recently said this:

Actually, the deal was a requirement for "extraordinary circumstances” to allow the other party to filibuster a judicial nominee. Changing the makeup of the highest court in the land for the first time in ten years is not only distinguished by some unusual quality, it is certainly also going beyond what is usual, regular, or customary. Changing it to enforce a right-wing ideology at the behest of a minority group of religious fanatics is outrageous.

SCOTUS is extraordinary.

I will ignore the fact that we have no clue what Bush plans to do. That we have no way of knowing anything other than what Bush has always said, he plans to nominate a strict constructionist in the bent of Thomas and Scalia.

Ignoring that I have a question, when did it become "bad" to change the make up of the SCOTUS?

Who replaced Thurgood Marshall? Harry Blackmun?

Has the Court always been 7 conservative appointments and 2 liberal ones?

If John Kerry were president today, would the Democrats/liberals/pinkos be screaming that he CAN'T CHANGE THE MAKEUP of the Court? Would Kerry be forced to replace a conservative with a conservative?

NOOOO! He'd put in HIS CHOICE and I'm damn certain that HIS CHOICE wouldn't be conservative. It would also be HIS RIGHT as president, just like it was Clinton's, Bush the Elder's, Reagan's and so on.

The reactionaries are freaking out because they believe that by magic Roe would be overturned if Bush picked a hardcore conservative.

Update The reactionaries are wrong. O'Connor is NOT the swing vote on Roe. Without her Roe still has 5 Judges and I can assure you that Rehnquist ain't one of them.

In the era of divisive politics, can a compromise ever occur?

How can we compromise on abortion? Congress passes Laci and Connor's Law and the whackjobs are screaming that the end of Roe is near, that this law is an attack on a Woman's Right To Choose™. Gimme a break. This law is a different issue altogether. This is about violent, criminal acts that result in the death of an unborn child. While some people think that abortions are criminal acts, the law doesn't and most sane people don't.

You want to know what IS an attack on a Woman's Right To Choose™? Forgetting that women have two choices when it comes to pregnancy. End it or continue it. I wish the advocates of choice would kindly remember that maintaining a pregnancy is a legitimate choice that should be defended and when some piece of shit criminal attacks a woman that is happily pregnant and the result kills her baby they should have to pay for that. And it is her baby, I've never met a pregnant woman that didn't refer to her unborn fetus as her baby.

Do you remember the arguing and screeching that happened when Partial Birth abortion was outlawed? Roe clearly allows for the State to protect the unborn once viabilty is established. It's right there in the decision. Most people believe that abortion should be legal and that it should have limits.

For the extremists on both ends of the debate, there is no middle ground. Luckily, the majority of citizens are floating somewhere near the center. That being the case, why can't Congress compromise? Why can't they meet in the middle? Why are the Democrats stuck up the arse of NARAL? Why are the Republicans stuck up the arse of the Religious Right?

I discovered, quite by accident, that Draco's first tooth has arrived.

Just like his older brother, no fussing and no fanfare, just lots of drooling. He's been like a mini St. Bernard for a month or so.

We were in Church, on Sunday, and Draco was being as sweet as ever, until he bit my finger. I stood there reciting The Lord's Prayer and I realized that I felt something sharp. I put him down and discreetly rubbed his bottom gum and there it was, a dazzling little white pearl.

Perfect timing for a memory, Draco got his very first tooth on 4th of July weekend. Nothing short of Alzheimer's will allow me to forget that one.

Yor reading assignments for this morning are:

Kim du Toit's Compromise Via: Michael

Rove seems to be in the clear. I wonder if Lawrence O'Donnell will have another meltdown...

Will Bush be the cause of another lefty tantrum or give them a lollypop and a pat on the head?



I will be posting later on all the topics linked.

My very first taste of government and understanding of our Constitution came from Schoolhouse Rock. I thought I'd quote from it in celebration of today. Happy 4th!

Hey, do you know about the U.S.A.?
Do you know about the government?
Can you tell me about the Constitution?
Hey, learn about the U.S.A.

In 1787 I'm told
Our founding fathers did agree
To write a list of principles
For keepin' people free.

The U.S.A. was just startin' out.
A whole brand-new country.
And so our people spelled it out
The things that we should be.

And they put those principles down on
paper and called it the Constitution, and
it's been helping us run our country ever
since then. The first part of the
Constitution is called the preamble and tells
what those founding fathers set out to do.

We the people
In order to form a more perfect union,
Establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,
Provide for the common defense,
Promote the general welfare and
Secure the blessings of liberty
To ourselves and our posterity
Do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America.

In 1787 I'm told
Our founding fathers all sat down
And wrote a list of principles
That's known the world around.

The U.S.A. was just starting out
A whole brand-new country.
And so our people spelled it out
They wanted a land of liberty.
And the preamble goes like this:

We the people
In order to form a more perfect union,
Establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,
Provide for the common defense,
Promote the general welfare and
Secure the blessings of liberty
To ourselves and our posterity,
Do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America.

For the United States of America...

Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement. I don't think we have had enough partisan bickering yet, do you?

Let's get this party started!

Nominate Ashcroft!