Isreal wiped off the map, UN says nothing

(H/T: Babylonandon)

How long have I been saying that the real goals of the Muslim community is the elimination extermination of Israel?

Here is the vindication.

In a speech Wednesday, Ahmadinejad denounced Israel and said a new wave of Palestinian attacks "will wipe this stigma from the face of the Islamic world." Citing the words of the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Ahmadinejad said: "Israel must be wiped off the map."

What has been the United Nations' reaction?
(pause)
(pause)
(pause)
(pause)
(pause)
Yep, that's right...Nothing!

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on Thursday called for Iran to be expelled from the U.N., saying "a state which calls for the destruction of another people cannot be a member of the United Nations." Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said Israel had not decided whether to ask officially for Iran's removal.

Gee, and as I recall the Left has been critical of any discussions regarding the deposing of Iran's leaders. Oh yeah, the Left also seems to be critical of Bush's attack of Iran's nuclear program. If this does not show why Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear anything then nothing will show the moonbats. Even the EU thinks Iran and nuclear are a bad combination.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Ahmadinejad's comment was "completely and totally unacceptable" and underscored the need to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

"I have never come across a situation of the president of a country saying they want to ... wipe out another country," Blair said.

"Their attitude towards Israel, their attitude towards terrorism, their attitude on the nuclear weapons issue, it isn't acceptable. ... Can you imagine a state like that with an attitude like that having a nuclear weapon?" he said.

Relations between the EU and Iran have deteriorated in recent months after negotiations with Tehran failed to get Iran to drop its nuclear program, which the EU and the United States fears is being used to build weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful.

Suuurrreee, it is peaceful. I support going into Iran and taking out all facilities that hint at housing nuclear anything.

Some info about Alito

Some information about Samuel A. Alito.

Some of Alito's decisions. Based on ONLY the summaries provided I put decisions I agree with in green and those I disagree with in red.

Alito wrote the majority opinion [4] in ACLU v. Schundler, 168 F.3d 92 (3d Cir. 1999), holding that a holiday display on city property did not violate the Establishment Clause because it included secular symbols, such as a large plastic Santa Claus, in addition to religious symbols. Such mixed displays had previously been held constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. The ACLU argued that a previous city display that was ruled unconstitutional because it lacked secular symbols colored the purpose of the new display.

A dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991), arguing that a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking abortions to inform their husbands should have been upheld. As Judge Alito reasoned, "[t]he Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems — such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition — that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion." while also adding some exceptions: "These exceptions apply if a woman certifies that she has not notified her husband because she believes [FN4] that (1) he is not the father of the child, (2) he cannot be found after diligent effort, (3) the pregnancy is the result of a spousal sexual assault that has been reported to the authorities, or (4) she has reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her." Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissent from the Supreme Court's 5-4 [corrected] decision striking down the spousal notification provision of the law quoted Judge Alito's dissent and expressed support for Judge Alito's reasoning.

A majority opinion in Williams v. Price, 343 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2003), granting a writ of habeas corpus to a black state prisoner after state courts had refused to consider the testimony of a witness who stated that a juror had uttered derogatory remarks about blacks during an encounter in the courthouse after the conclusion of the trial

A majority opinion in Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233 (3d Cir. 1993), allowing an Iranian woman to seek asylum in the U.S. on gender persecution grounds. (though not a strong disagreement).

A majority opinion in Saxe v. State College Area School District, 240 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2001) [5], holding that the public school district's anti-harassment policy was unconstitutionally overbroad and therefore violated First Amendment guarantees of free speech.

A majority opinion in Shore Regional High School Board of Education v. P.S., 381 F.3d 194 (3d Cir. 2004) [6], reinstating an administrative law judge's ruling in favor of parents who claimed the school system's failure to protect their child from bullying justified their placing him in a different high school.

A dissenting opinion in Sheridan v. Dupont, 74 F.3d 1439 (3d Cir. 1996)(en banc). [7]. Alito would have required a plaintiff to meet a higher standard of evidence to survive a motion for summary judgement in a sex discrimination case, agreeing with a ruling by the 5th Circuit. Alito earlier wrote the majority opinion when the case was heard before a three-judge panel, [8] expressing a preference for the 5th Circuit's reasoning, but ruling according to 3rd Circuit precedent.

A concurring opinion in Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer, 220 F.3d 127 (3rd Cir. 2000), in which Judge Alito recognized that a New Jersey law banning "partial-birth abortions" was unconstititional in light of the recent Supreme Court case of Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 120 S.Ct. 2597, 147 L.Ed.2d 743 (2000).

A dissenting opinion in United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996), arguing that a U.S. law banning private citizens from owning assault weapons violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution in light of the then recently decided United States v. Lopez.

A dissenting opinion in Homar v. Gilbert, 89 F.3d 1009 (3d Cir. 1996), arguing that a state university need not hold a hearing before suspending a campus policeman without pay after he had been arrested on drug charges. The Supreme Court later agreed with Alito.

A dissenting opinion in Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 110 F.3d 986, 989 (3d Cir. 1997), arguing against a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.”

Again I stress that the agreement is based ONLY on the summaries provided here.

What have various Democrats said about Alito?

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “You have obviously had a very distinguished record, and I certainly commend you for long service in the public interest. I think it is a very commendable career and I am sure you will have a successful one as a judge.”, speaking on Alito's nomination to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ): “I believe Mr. Alito has the experience and the skills to be the kind of judge the public deserves – one who is impartial, thoughtful, and fair. I urge the Senate to confirm his nomination.”, speaking on Alito's nomination to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

Former Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ): “The confirmation of Sam Alito as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey is testimony to the commitment he has shown and the success of his efforts as a law enforcement official. I am confident that he will continue to do all he can to uphold the laws of this nation with the kind of determination and vigor that has been his trademark in the past.”

Just a pair of tidbits:

Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr. could all share the nickname Tony.

Catholic Majority - Alito nominated on Protestant Reformation Day: October 31 is not only Halloween but also Reformation Day, the traditional birthday of the Protestant faith when Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Catholic Church. Therefore, it is trivially ironic that President Bush nominated the fifth Catholic to the current court on Reformation Day, taking a step towards what could become the First Majority Catholic Supreme Court.

Some info for digestion as the Left begins to bash Alito as the Anti-Christ.

Who is full of hatred and venom

So, I went to the Daily Kos to get reaction to the Alito appointment. The reaction was of no surprise but I wanted to take a moment to reiterate the question of who exactly is engaged in hatred, dividing the country, vitriol, etc?

Some choice samples:

I think Alito is better than Luttig - he is on record that women must get their husband's permission to have an abortion. How messed up is that?? We must tell every single person we know about this - send out the emails, write LTEs, call the conservative talk shows and tell the listeners how this guy wants to bring women back to the 1800s, under the domination of their husbands. An Italian male who wants women to have to ask their husbands about a bodily decision...

To this I want to say (1) his ethnicity is irrelevant and thus bringing this up as a point against him is racist. (2) so you want to be anti-choice if a man wants the baby aborted but ends up being forced to pay child support and anti-choice if a man wants to keep the baby but the mother can keep the abortion secret from the father. Another glaring example of the pro-abortion crowd's hypocrisy.

I will leave out the stereotypes when the Italian males I know stop trying to run their wives' lives. Or when Alito stops trying to run womens' lives.

That was the Lefty justifying racism.

I take [Alito's appointment] as a declaration of WAR? We've gotta find a way to scorch the wrongwing on this.

See, who is for dividing the country? The President gets to appoint whomever he wants. Unless the appointee is a criminal they should be confirmed.

New Name for this Chump: ASSholito (nt) :)

Again, namecalling instead of debate. This is typical of the Left in every aspect.

We shouldn't be fighting over Alito at all Dems shouldn't even permit hearings until an independent counsel or commission is appointed to uncover all the treason and fraud at the White House. Period.

Let's see, for Clinton they wanted proof of a crime to warrant investigating the crime. Now they want charges without a crime. Even if I were a liberal I would disassociate myself from these idiots.

If I were a woman I would inform my Husband of our Devorce before I'd inform him of my intention to have an abortion!

Reading all of the points against Alito's position on the husband notification issue makes me more solid that his position is correct. There is not a single valid arguement that holds up to intellectual scrutiny on the opposition.

I end with the thought that makes me happy...the following possibility that is scaring some of the Left:

If they nuke.....and lets say JP Stevens dies... say hello to Justice Janice Rogers-Brown.

One can only hope.

One last tidbit about Miers and the elitists in the GOP

(H/T: Alamo Nation)
Another blog that I enjoy tremendously is the Alamo Nation. Through the Miers ordeal he has been on the supporter side but just as in the wrong rhetorically speaking as those on the anti-Miers wagon. The one point he had that made the difference to me is that conservatives and Republicans have been saying for years that the President gets to choose whomever he wishes for the Courts...until the elite (and those who wish they were elite) were not in agreement.

Miers made those elite Republicans and those wannabe elite Republicans start acting like the Democrats by placing acceptability litmus tests to Miers nomination.

In the aftermath of the Miers withdrawal Alamo Nation brings us a very good posting...the meat and potatoes of the angst against the elite and wannabe elite.

I take delight in informing our jackass elite conservative punditocracy that they were, in fact, not speaking for the conservative base. At least according to a recent Gallup poll. I saw this first over at Terrance This Is Stupid Stuff and then later over at the Hedgehog:

Initial Reaction to Miers' Withdrawal

Conservatives Pleased 34% Disappointed 44%
Moderates Pleased 45% Disappointed 33%
Liberals Pleased 55% Disappointed 25%

Republicans Pleased 31% Disappointed 53%
Independents Pleased 39% Disappointed 33%
Democrats Pleased 55% Disappointed 25%

In other words our elite conservative punditocracy was in fact speaking for conservatives - but the minority and not the majority as they presumed to do. In fairness Amercians were overall pleased by the nominee's withdrawl, 42% to 35%. But amongst the conservative base which our elite conservative punditocracy kept telling us they spoke for it was the other way around.

So what are the lessons here for our talking heads? They are not the arbiters of conservative issues that they believe themselves to be nor are they the mouthpiece. They may want to check with the rest of us conservatives (who outnumber them by dozens of millions) before deciding to tell us that they're speaking for us all.

I agree 100%. Ask me what I think (as a conservative) before claiming to represent me (as a conservative). Hannity...go jump in a lake, you blowharded putz. You local bloggers (you know who you are), get off of your self-aggrandizing pedestal. You do NOT represent conservativism...you represent a self-centered, self-important exclusionary political breed which is too similar to the Democrat breed. Pull your head out, open your mind to something outside of your narrow line of thinking.

Did Bush call them for the Alito appointment

The new appointee to the Supreme Court is Samuel Alito.

Alito "has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in 70 years," the president said.

So consistently conservative, Alito has been dubbed "Scalito" or "Scalia-lite" by some lawyers because his judicial philosophy invites comparisons to conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. But while Scalia is outspoken and is known to badger lawyers, Alito is polite, reserved and even-tempered.

Actually, I heard that this is not the correct meaning of the nickname. I assume the blogosphere will correct that in time.

What I want to know from the people who so arrogantly opposed Miers because they were not consulted (Miers was not acceptable to THEM and thus everyone should oppose her) is DID YOU GET YOUR PERSONAL PHONE CALL FROM THE WHITE HOUSE GETTING YOUR APPROVAL?

I'm specifically asking Bogus Gold, Our House, Daly Thoughts, Kennedy v Machine (who seem less focused on the MN Senate race lately and more focused on being a party-lap dog), just to name a very small few.

The shame in having to call people out like that is of those 4 blogs I respect the authors of 2 of them very much--1 of them is a friend of mine--and putting them is such a spot can be tough.

UN doctors report to protect Syria

Again, is it any surprise the United Nations does anything it can to protect evil?

THE United Nations withheld some of the most damaging allegations against Syria in its report on the murder of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, it emerged yesterday.

The names of the brother of Bashar al-Assad, President of Syria, and other members of his inner circle, were dropped from the report that was sent to the Security Council.
...
But the furore over the doctoring of the report threatened to overshadow its damaging findings. It raised questions about political interference by Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary- General, who had promised not to make any changes in the report.

One crucial change, apparently made after the report was submitted to the UN chief, removed the name of President al-Assad’s brother, Maher, his brother-in-law, Assef al-Shawkat, and other high-ranking Syrian officials.

The final, edited version quoted a witness as saying that the plot to kill Mr Hariri was hatched by unnamed “senior Lebanese and Syrian officials”. But the undoctored version named those officials as “Maher al-Assad, Assef Shawkat, Hassan Khalil, Bahjat Suleyman and Jamal al-Sayyed”.

The deleted names represent the inner core of the Syrian regime. Maher al-Assad, President al-Assad’s younger brother, is a lieutenant-colonel and head of the Presidential Guard. He is known for his quick tem- per and six years ago was said to have shot his brother-in-law, General Assef Shawkat, in the stomach during an altercation.

And just how did the error get discovered?

The confidential changes were revealed by an extraordinary computer gaffe because an electronic version distributed by UN officials on Thursday night allowed recipients to track editing changes.

The mistaken release of the unedited report added further support to the published conclusion that Syria was behind Mr Hariri’s assassination in a bomb blast on Valentine’s Day in Beirut. The murder of Mr Hariri touched off an international outcry and hastened Syria’s departure from Lebanon in April after a 29-year pervasive military presence.

Let it be known that Syria is a huge threat to all free nations within the Middle East and to a slightly lessor extent to the rest of the world. Syria must be dealt with...and to you weak-spined Lefties who think the only right thing to do is "more diplomacy" explain to me a couple of things.

What diplomacy to our benefit is possible through the United Nations when it is so blatantly anti-Isreal, anti-America and anti-sovereinty?

What diplomacy can be trusted or even accomplished with Syria, Iraq, China, North Korea, Cuba and Russia?

Miers withdrawal was predicted on Friday

First the news (which every other blog is reporting and I thus refuse to). Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination last night.

The story I want to focus on is that TradeSports predicted this on Friday. Trade Sports is a great predictor and if you understand how to use it the site is also a great place to invest.

The "Will Miers be confirmed" contract was trading at 62 (indicating a 62% liklihood of occurring). Suddenly on Friday it dropped to 20%. Insider trading is allowed...so those who know information can drive the market like that. The sudden drop indicated something big against Miers was coming. That could be hugely damaging news, her withdrawal, something big.

The founder of TradeSports was on the Glenn Beck program on Friday and said the same thing...the drop indicated something big. He predicted that Harriet would withdraw herself on Monday.

Oh, and how am I doing on TradeSports? I'm up 50% in 3 weeks.

Brazil rejects gun control

Brazil rejects gun control but the real news to me is how the media are downplaying the story. The AP version has this paragraph:

Supporters argued that gun control is the best way to staunch the violence. But opponents played on Brazilians' fears that the police can't protect them.

Supporters had the good arguement, opponents just used predatory fear tactics.

What losers! The media suck.

The audio that I heard throughout the day had opponents stating that it since the bad guys would still have their guns no matter what laws were passed it is only right that the good guys be able to protect themselves.

That is a very powerful line of logic and the gun control crowd knows it. The media love gun control (except when it comes to them) and refuse to let the story be told in a fair light.

Good for Brazil!

Shame on the media (no surprise).

Indictment in the White House

I guess there are pending indictments of someone in the White House. But here is something I found to be more interesting. A History of Indictments.

The only sitting Cabinet member in recent history to be indicted while in office was Raymond J. Donovan, President Reagan's labor secretary. In September 1984, Donovan was indicted along with several others, accused of grand larceny in his co-ownership of a construction firm. After going on unpaid leave in October, Donovan resigned in March 1985. In 1987, a jury acquitted Donovan and his co-defendants.

___

_ In October 2005, David H. Safavian, the top procurement official for President Bush, resigned. Three days later, he was arrested and indicted on five felony counts connected to criminal investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff. At the time the indictment covered, from May 2002 to January 2004, Safavian had been serving as the chief of staff at the General Services Administration. Case pending.

_ In November 1996, Henry G. Cisneros resigned from his position as President Clinton's housing secretary. In December 1997, he was indicted on 18 counts of conspiracy, obstruction and lying to the FBI. Cisneros pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in 1999 and was fined $10,000.

_ In December 1994, Mike Espy resigned from his position as Clinton's agriculture secretary. In August 1997, Espy was indicted on 39 corruption counts in allegations that he had received financial gifts from Tyson Foods Inc., one of the companies his department regulated. In December 1998 Espy was acquitted on all counts.

_ In May 1993, White House travel office chief Billy R. Dale and his entire staff were fired by the Clinton administration. Dale was indicted in December 1994 on two counts of embezzlement and conversion after a grand jury said he pocketed up to $68,000 from media organizations traveling with the president. Dale was acquitted of all charges in November 1995.

_ In November 1986, John M. Poindexter resigned from his post as national security adviser to President Reagan. In March 1988, Poindexter and three others were indicted in relation to the Iran-Contra affair. Poindexter was charged with two additional counts of obstructing Congress and two counts of making false statements. He was convicted in 1990, but the charges were overturned the following year.

_ In 1983, Thomas C. Reed resigned from the Reagan administration after working as a presidential assistant under National Security Adviser William P. Clark. In August 1984, he was indicted on four counts related to alleged illegal stock trading. He was acquitted in 1985.

_ In April 1973, President Nixon forced White House chief of staff H.R. Haldeman, domestic affairs counsel John Ehrlichman and five other staff members to resign. In March 1974, they were indicted in connection with the Watergate cover-up. Along with several others found guilty, both Haldeman and Ehrlichman were convicted in 1975 and sentenced to 18 months in prison.

Something interesting in this list. Notice which administration had the most indictments related to the Administration? That's right...the self-proclaimed "most ethical administration": the Clinton Administration. They abused their positions within the White House.

World Series 2005

I know, I know...I'm a little bit late with this. But none of the information I provide is different here after Game 2 than if I wrote this prior to Game 1.

The White Sox have been resting for quite some time. The Astros limped into the World Series. Granted the Astros beat what was the best team in the playoffs, but the Cardinals were the MBL 2005 version of the Walking Dead during October.

Can the Astros slay the 2nd best team in MLB?

Basically the White Sox were the strongest team in the playoffs once you factor in the Cardinals injuries. Since the Astros barely got past the Cards I am tempted to say that the Astros are facing an uphill climb.

TradeSports.com odds of the White Sox winning the World Series (before Game 1) was around 70%. I thought that was low and put my money where my thought was. I also put my money on the Sox winning in 4 or 5 games.

Congrats to the state of Texas for getting your first World Series...better luck next time.

Two weeks and two interviews

We sent El Tinklenberg numerous e-mail and voice mail to try and give him equal time for an interview since he is running for Congress. Well, we blocked the time for him and he never returned our calls.

But he did finally come on the show...listen to the interview here. (You know, he could have least just called and said, "No thank you." We would have accepted that.)

Then this past week we somehow received a phone call from Saddam Hussein...so we interviewed him. Listen here.

BTW, the echo that plagued the podcasts from 10/9/05 podcasts has been corrected.

GA not allowed to verify identity of voters at the polls

Voter fraud happens in so many ways. One of the most common tactics used frequently by the Left is to have people register and vote in multiple locations and using multiple identities. This is proven to be a tactic of the Left. Remember that the Greens were going to bus people from out of state to 'register' and be 'vouched for' so they could vote for Paul Wellstone. (I wish I had kept that e-mail from when I infiltrated their in-group mailing list.)

I believe that Same Day Registration is a bad idea. But one of the ways to fight voter fraud is require state issued identification.

Somehow the race-baiters think that this idea is racist.

On Tuesday a short-sighted judge agreed with the race-baiters.

U.S. District Court Judge Harold L. Murphy issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday halting enforcement of the new law passed by the Georgia General Assembly this year.

Murphy’s order, handed down in the Northern District Court, Rome Division, states that challenges to the law — which argue that it is a disguised poll tax and an undue burden on the right to vote — have a good likelihood of succeeding. The injunction does not end the case, which could ultimately end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Opponents of the photo ID requirement hailed the news as a positive sign for the future of the fight.

“This is the wrong way to go about preventing voter fraud,” said Alvin Jackson of the NAACP Rome chapter. “Our state legislators should rethink their positions on this. I think they owe us an explanation of why they didn’t tackle the issue from the absentee angle.”

Let me provide your explanation. Addressing the "absentee" angle does not address the very real issue of people using multiple false identities to vote multiple times. Your state legislators did exactly the correct thing, the executive branch of your state also said that people could get a fee waiver if they could not afford to pay the lousy $35 dollars for a driver's license or state identification card.

Tell me something though. How is this closing of a voter fraud loophole racist? If the poor suppossedly cannot afford to pay for a state ID card then according to Kaiser state health facts it would affect 560,000 whites and 620,000 blacks. Hardly disproportionate. And affecting the poor does not mean affecting blacks. Unless you think that blacks can only be poor AND blacks are the only poor.

But that also assumes that asking for a state issued ID is somehow infringing the right to vote. I reject that notion and think that Judge Harold L. Murphy is wrong.

Scientists don't know what would warm the Earth

As hard as they try the Harvard Gazette just could not get a convincing case that there is human caused global "climate change".

"A key element of our mission is to present current science on issues of importance," said HMNH Executive Director Elizabeth Werby in introducing [Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences Daniel] Schrag. "It [the exhibit] is incredibly timely and incredibly urgent."

Schrag drew on the lessons offered by Venus' hot atmosphere, Mars' cold one, and Earth's own past of fire and ice to illustrate how atmospheric carbon dioxide has affected planetary temperatures.

And the Gazette goes on for soooooo long about CO2 creating an inevitible warming.

The problem with their portrayal is they ignore the very example they used to claim man-made global warming. They point to millions of years ago to help prove the case that man is creating climate change, but ignore the fact that many warming & cooling epochs occurred without the existance of SUVs, flourocarbons and humans. They fail to ever explain the difference between those times so long ago (when heat waves lasted 60-million years) and the past 50 years.

They claim mankind is actually accelerating the heat wave which implies that somehow over the past 50-60 years we have the power to do something that took 60-million years at a time all while being 100% powerless to reverse the trend.

Whatever the cause, Schrag said the event is similar to what's going on now, except that now we are increasing greenhouse gases more rapidly with the burning of fossil fuels.

"We're doing it more quickly by burning coal, oil, and gas, but it's really the same thing," Schrag said.

Same as what?

Scientists are particularly interested in a dramatic warming period at the beginning of the Eocene [heat wave era that lasted 60-million years], when global temperatures shot up 8 to 10 degrees Celsius in the geologically short period of 10,000 years. Some researchers believe the temperature spike resulted from a bubble of greenhouse gas - perhaps methane - bursting from the ocean floor or from the relatively sudden drying of what had been an ocean after India collided with the Asian continent, releasing greenhouse gases as organic material on the sea floor dried and decomposed.

Again, how did we get so powerful to warm so quickly yet powerless to cool?

Scientists believe that the global average temperature will increase between 1 and 6 degrees Celsius by century's end. That may not sound like a lot, Schrag said, but global temperature was just 4 to 5 degrees Celsius lower during the last glacial maximum, when the Boston area was buried in ice.

That means the coming temperature change is potentially dramatic. Sea levels could rise by one-and-a-half meters owing to expansion of warming seas. Should either the glacier covering Greenland or part of Antarctica collapse and slide into the sea, sea levels could rise far more, six to seven meters.

Two things. They forgot to mention that the Antarctican ice shelves are expanding and I have yet to have this concern addressed: if the ice in the oceans is 99% underwater (only about 1% of icebergs/ice shelves are above surface) and water contracts when melted from ice to water then how will the water levels rise?

And the true cause of the Global Warming crusade comes out. It is all about the poor vs the rich.

Schrag said that the greatest impact will likely be on the poor, who have fewer resources with which to adapt to changes, but that doesn't mean the wealthy will be unaffected.

"In general, people will be worst affected by climate change when they are too poor to adapt to climate change," Schrag said. "But rich people will be affected by climate change too, in ways that will cost a lot."

The final thought on this vacuous article is that the Global Warming nuts present as evidence of the Greenhouse-gases-are-causing-global-warming-climate-change drivel the case of Venus and Mars.

Venus, with surface temperatures of 460 degrees Celsius, is an example of a planet where the greenhouse effect has run out of control. Though Venus is closer to the sun than Earth is, its high temperature is largely the result of its atmosphere trapping and holding the sun's energy. The atmosphere is about 100 times denser than the Earth's and is made up almost entirely of carbon dioxide.

At the other extreme is Mars, with surface temperatures of minus 50 degrees Celsius. Though Mars' atmosphere is also largely made up of carbon dioxide, it is 100 times thinner than the Earth's, making it unable to retain enough heat to warm it up.

Again, don't let the facts get in the way of a good Chicken Little story. If the Venus-warm/Mars-cold example holds water then why is it the case that the polar caps on Mars are melting?

Hello, Global Warming believers...when does the sky fall?

Something else they ignore is the Solar System itself.

Abortion called Birth Control

People who know me well know that my view on abortion is somewhat undecided...and I am not getting into that here. (Any comments trying to persuade me one way or another will be deleted at my discretion.)

That means I am speaking with a little bit more objectivity than the typical Republican or the typical Democrat

One thing I will say is my position relies on the actual definition of life and viability while balanced with the interests of the mother. (I know all of the arguments...keep them to yourself please. Both sides engage in specious rhetoric more than anything else and I do not want that here now.)

But one thing I do NOT accept is the notion that abortion is birth control. So when I read years ago that Madonna had one of her many abortions while on tour because it would interfere with her tour it disgusted me and made me decide that I could not support her music career (her music career being the direct cause of her abortion).

To my equal disgust was a post by Moderate Left where he bitches about Target because "Target refuses to fill a woman's birth control prescription."

It Ain't Birth Control you rube.

As it turns out the link that Moderate Left give is to Planned Parenthood lapdog America Blog. They quote as if it were from a news source the following:

A 26-year-old Missouri woman was refused EC when she handed her prescription to a pharmacist at a Target store in Fenton, MO, on September 30. The woman was told by the pharmacist, “I won’t fill it. It’s my right not to fill it.” She was told that she could go to a local Walgreens instead. The woman said, “When the pharmacist told me she wouldn't [fill the prescription], I went from disbelief to shock to anger. I guess I'm still pretty angry. It seems unbelievable to me that a medical professional could/would deny access to a federally approved drug and impose their personal beliefs in a professional setting. I am also grateful that I did not need it filled at that time. I don't know how it would be if I had just been raped or if the condom broke and I was a feeling confusion and panic anyway -- and then was denied access and told to go across the street.”

The national headquarters of Target has not responded to three PPFA attempts to clarify its policy on pharmacist refusals.

Sadly I have searched and can find no reference to this alleged story except from the biased party (Planned Parenthood).

Target's response, by the way:

You may have heard about an alleged incident at a Target store in Missouri. Please know that we have thoroughly researched the situation and determined that the organization has inaccurately portrayed the events that occurred. We are extremely disappointed by yesterday's Planned Parenthood protest at the Missouri store and the misinformation that is being perpetuated.

(provided by the liberal rag, City Pages).

So all of this time and space to point out that Moderate Left is being the useful idiot for Planned Parenthood/SaveRoe since Moderate is spewing an unconfirmed story around as if it is news.

Response to Captain Bogs about Miers

I had a rather lengthy post challenging people to provide actual reasons to be opposed (or even to support) Miers. This aped the same request that I made on the air last week. One of the problems has been the complaint that there needs to be an extensive judicial record so that we (conservatives) can be assured that a nominee won't not be Souter. Oddly enough Souter had that "extensive judicial record" and still betrayed his record.

Is there any measure that works? And, what are the reasons about Miers to have an opinion about Miers?

Marty stepped up to the plate with some information on predicting which nominees will betray their record and which will embrace their record. He told me about his findings yesterday during show prep and I have been meaning to find his finding on his blog.

Captain Bogs responded to my request as well. I want to address that here.

2 reasons to be opposed: Conservatives are worried that she will be another liberal in a conservative (pants)suit, and she is not really up to the job intellectually

Liberal in a conservative suit
Really this objection applies to any nominee. This is not unique to Miers. Let's be honest. We're still going to be holding our breath and peeking between the hand covering our eyes as we read Roberts' decisions over the coming years. I would be doing that with the decisions of my choice candidates. Souter and Stevens and O'Connor and Kennedy have made me not trust any candidate fully. Seeing the amount of vitriol from the conservatives over 2 fairly "stealth" nominees (remember that many were upset with the selection of Roberts) shows that I am not alone in that distrust. This is not unique to Miers and thus if we oppose Miers for this reason we must oppose every nominee besides ourselves (and those that fall into the Marty exemption--more on that in a bit). I must reject this "justification" for failing on it merits. It does not provide a reason to oppose Miers...only a reason to oppose any nominee.

Not up to the job intellectually
This is really an -ist attack of some sort. You pick. Why is the assumption that she is not intellectually capable? Because she did not go to an Ivy League law school? (Elitist attack.) Because she is a woman? (Sexist attack.) Because she is not a judge? (Baseless attack...I know, it doesn't end with 'ist'.) She is one of the top 100 lawyers in the nation, is she not? Top lawyers are not intellectually inferior. In fact, those who think being a lawyer is not some indication of intelligence should go and take the LSAT. Again, this objection to Miers actually does not apply to Miers and I must reject it.

We are still left with no reasons to support her and no reasons to oppose her.

The Marty Exemption
Marty did some research on the Justices of the Supreme Court. He or Captain Bogs can correct me on the specifics (or point me to the post on their blog...I missed that post).

Basically there are 2 types of Justices. One holds true to their philosophies after their appointment and the other abandons their philosophies after their appointment. Marty found the one item in a nominee's bio that was a reliable predictor (over 90% accurate) in the Justices over the past 100 years. That predictor was if the nominee was a law professor. 90% of the law professors stay true to their history. Everyone else...place your bets.

How does that apply to Miers? It does close down the appearance of validity in the claim that Miers should have a judicial record via a prior judgeship. That would not tell us anything.

Two long post in two days after waiting over two weeks to observe the arguements and we are still in the same position: no reasons to oppose and no reasons to support Miers.

El Tinklenberg Interview

On the radio show we have just concluded Phase 1 of our "Getting To Know You" Series. With so many people running for the 6th Congressional District we wanted to provide a chance for the people to learn more about the candidates. We had all 5 GOP candidates (even though the field is down to 4) and moved on to the DFL side. Scotty Mortensen came on without hesitation. Unfortunately only one candidate never returned any of the 5 voice mail requests or 3 e-mail requests. That would be El Tinklenberg.

Finally, in our 2nd hour yesterday El called in for an interview. Listen to the very enlightening entertaining interview here.

Mortensen interview

We interviewed Scotty Mortensen yesterday and I wanted to ask some questions of everyone out there. He said a few things that confused me.

"I believe that any President that would take us to war on outright lies should be impeached [and because] 60% of the people don't support the war"...when did popular opinion become the criteria for impeachment? I thought it was high crimes & misdemeanors...and the Senate already set the standard that perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering is not high enough. So when did popular opinion constitute "high crimes"? Oh yes, one of the other justifications for impeachment of George Bush was that Tom DeLay was indicted and thus this shows corruption within the White House.

Another claim he made was that socialized health care is a necessity because the Pharmaceuticals are unregulated. Can someone please explain this to me?

Really, I know the answers...those are partisan myths being spouted to create a false impression of reality thus the altered reality will support the positions that are held by the partisan.

Scotty is a nice guy...very energetic...but he is on the wrong side of most of his positions.

Eva is a mindless freak

Sometimes a person looks at the carnage of an auto accident for no justifiable reason. For the same unknown reason I checked back in at the pap that is Eva Young's blog.

Now remember, Eva is the person who stalks various people in the Twin Cities. After speaking with a few psychiatrists about Eva's stalking of Michele Bachmann they agreed with my theory. Eva is in 'love' with Michele and the only way to justify to her gay friends the amount of time spent following every word about Eva's dream is to act like Eva hates Michele. Sound like a soap opera? It is worse because Eva's stalking is borderline criminal (and very easily could be committable). Anyway, because Eva's love is not returned Eva's angst becomes both justified and exaggerated thus creating a self-feeding circle.

How bad is it?

Eva recently discusses a reporter who was fired for writing "a piece critical of some of the local school board members and candidates". Eva takes that to mean that a Congressional candidate was the cause of the firing and trying to get her irrelevant following (militant gays) to call the Congressional candidate with the accusations of "trying to shut down the freedom of the press".

How someone makes that leap from fact to fiction I still do not understand.

Eva, please answer this: Did you learn this creative fictional writing in some public school or is the imagination simply running so uncontrolably wild while you are off of your medication?

Stop stalking the candidates.

What the enemy thinks of Americans

In a letter from Al-Qaeda's #2 (Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi) to Al-Qaeda's Iraq 'chapter' many things are brought out.

First, they view us (Americans) for what the Left has made us.

[The Americans], as you know, are the most cowardly of God's creatures. They are an easy quarry, praise be to God. We ask God to enable us to kill and capture them to sow panic among those behind them and to trade them for our detained shaykhs and brothers.

And how do they view some of the others in Iraq?

[The Kurds] are a lump [in the throat] and a thorn whose time to be clipped has yet to come. They are last on the list, even though we are making efforts to harm some of their symbolic figures, God willing.

[Soldiers, Police, and Agents] are the eyes, ears, and hands of the occupier, through which he sees, hears, and delivers violent blows. God willing, we are determined to target them strongly in the coming period before the situation is consolidated and they control arrest[s].

It is pretty clear who they are targeting.

They do recognize our success, even if the American media and the useful idiots of the Left will not.

But America did not come to leave, and it will not leave no matter how numerous its wounds become and how much of its blood is spilled. It is looking to the near future, when it hopes to disappear into its bases secure and at ease and put the battlefields of Iraq into the hands of the foundling government with an army and police that will bring the behavior of Saddam and his myrmidons back to the people. There is no doubt that the space in which we can move has begun to shrink and that the grip around the throats of the mujahidin has begun to tighten. With the deployment of soldiers and police, the future has become frightening.

Not quite the story that our liberally biased media tells. Not quite the facts that the Left allows to be spoken. We are making immense progress in Iraq.

Oh, and for the people who think that the insurgents are fighting for Iraq let me educate you. Iraq to our enemy is only a battlefield. Iraq is not their cause. Their cause is the elimination/death of all non-radical-Muslims. They will use anyone to fight/kill the non-Muslims and if they should succeed they will eliminate/kill all the non-radical Muslims. (Yep, that is nearly 100% of the Muslims within the United States.) You Muslims need to understand that you have to stand with us in fighting our Muslim 'extremist' enemy or you are an enabler to our enemy. What you also need to understand is that you are a target of the very muderers within your religion...you simply are not the present target.

The present target is America and her allies because they are in the way of their next target: the annihilation of Israel and Jews. Their cause is about the Jews.

Here is the current situation as I, with my limited vision, see it. I ask God to forgive my prattle and lapses. I say, having sought help from God, that the Americans, as you know well, entered Iraq on a contractual basis and to create the State of Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates and that this Zionized American Administration believes that accelerating the creation of the State of [Greater] Israel will accelerate the emergence of the Messiah.

They believe that we are in Iraq to expand Isreal. And since these Muslims cannot get along with anyone of different views (kind of like liberals, imho) they want the execution of the non-Muslims.

This letter from al-Zarqawi is very enlightening and educational. We get to peek into the mind of a madman, we get to understand their reasoning and we (the Right of America) get to show that we are right again on foreign policy matters.

Comments On Miers

Up to this point I have not really had to much of an opinion on Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the US Supreme Court. I have been listening and absorbing. I am still somewhat undecided on Miers, but I have learned much about the conservatives, the Republicans and the politically aware.

Marty and I talked about Miers on our radio show. I mentioned that almost all of the contentions with Miers was not really about Miers but more with hopes for others being dashed. Marty (who claimed to be on the fence on this) said that what the Right wanted was a nominee with a track record to be certain that Miers would not be another Souter.

"How would you get that?"
"By having a record of her judicial philosophy."
"And how did that work for Souter? Or Kennedy? How much did it help us with O'Connoor?"

Both on and off the air I challenged Marty to find some reliable predictive method to prevent turncoats like O'Connor, Stevens, Kennedy and Souter.

Off he went to prove me wrong...or at least get some answers to unanswered questions.

In the meantime I continued to listen. I told Marty last week off the air that the ONLY real reason there is so much opposition from the Right is that we wanted that big, drag-down, bloddy fight with the Democrats. Since we are not going to get it we are all disappointed. Some of us have taken the Democrat road of hypocrisy and double standard.

When Roberts was nominated I heard some complaining about how little we know about him, how we may have another Souter within Roberts, etc. The Right did not give wide support until Roberts made Schumer & company look like Democrats the idiots that they are during the confirmation hearings.

I have heard stupidity on both sides; intolerance on both sides; smart people being ignorant on both sides. Some people I respect very much fall into this...Doug of Bogus Gold being a prime example. Some who I do not repsect much like Hugh Hewitt and KvM have also preached intolerance of differing sides.

Hewitt's insipidness:

If you’re anti-Miers, you’re anti-the President. If you’re anti-the President, you’re anti-the GOP. If you’re anti-the GOP, you’re pro-Hillary. If you’re pro-Hillary, you might as well just appoint nine Ginsburgs to the Supreme Court. That’s where you’re headed. Does that make it simple enough for you? Hmmm? Do you want to give the Senate back?

(transcription courtesy of Speed Gibson)

To Hewitt: no you intolerant moron, people just simply disagree. They are not Pro-Hillary just because they disagree with the President. While you are willing to do lap dances for Bush whenever he beckons not all of us on the Right think he is, well, conservative. I have said it over and over...on 9/10/2001 I was anti-Bush. I support Bush's foreign policy (outside of North America that is) and the rest of his platform I believe is more crap than good. But I am in no sense pro-Hillary. Hugh, you're so smart (according to your adoring fans) why not explain why people who are anti-Miers are pro-Hillary...other than the vacuous over-generalization that anything not pro-Bush is pro-Hillary. Connect the dots for the rest of us, as you put it, knuckleheads.

But wait, the anti-Meirs people are just as bad. They do not give REAL or SOLID reasons why to be against Miers. To be sure, they do not give reasons that (a) hold true with previous nominees, (b) were not said about Roberts, and (c) don't contradict their (now meaningless) rhetoric about judicial appointments.

Doug states:

For example, we've been told Miers opposes abortion. And I have little trouble believing this to be true. But would she oppose Roe v. Wade out of a proper understanding of interpreting the constitution, or because she just personally doesn't like it? This makes a HUGE difference when it comes to my support. And so far I've seen nothing addressing this distinction.

So, why does having no information on explicitly saying "Miers will overturn Roe v Wade" mean she should be opposed? After all, was it not the defense of Roberts that these litmus tests were wrong? Was it not the case of conservatives that the Democrats were out of line for wanting these answers of any Bush nominee?

Ah, the ol' Good-enough-for-you-but-not-good-enough-for-me standard...also known as a double standard.

Remember when nominees were being filibustered because, well for any reason that the Democrats created. The Republicans kept saying that Bush won the election and therefore had won the perrogative to appoint anyone he damn well pleased. So why has that standard disappeared? I expected better from the conservatives who so often chastise the Left for their deficiency in intellectual honesty or holding standards.

We do not know much about Miers yet. For that reason I can say I'm disappointed, but I cannot say I oppose her. We have been saying for years that the President's perrogative is to appoint judges as he sees fit, not as we the blogosphere and stuffy pundits see fit.

Are there other people qualified? Sure, there is always someone who is better than anyone in some aspect. If that is the standard then (1) who determines "the best qualified" and (2) how is anyone capable of being the best all around perfect candidate?

People want a judicial history. Why? What good does that do? What would you have seen in Souter history that would have given cause to say, "Don't approve her."

People want to know Miers position on Roe v Wade, but were so hell bent to make certain that Roberts was justified in not 'tipping his hand' on his Roe v Wade beliefs. Hypocrites is all they are.

Remember when the defense of previous Bush appointees was (and I still hold this position, unlike my "Conservative" colleagues) that confirmation was not to be about ideology. My how quickly the standards become doubled.

People have NO REASON to oppose Miers. They are strictly in opposition because they were not consulted.

At this point the only intellectually honest reason for the Right to have an opinion at this point is that Bush won the election and gets to appoint whomever he chooses and that the nomination process is not about ideology. Is she competent? Difficult to say without having been a judge, but she is competent in her related field: law. (Oh, whoops, that is the same field.)

Bring me some honest answers. Otherwise please silence your hypocritical double standard.

20,000 hits

I logged in just now and saw that I have finally achieved 20,000 hits. Wow...

Whose error was it

OK, 9th inning and the score is tied. 2 outs and 2 strikes to the batter. The next pitch was low...very low and possibly hit the ground. If it did hit the ground then the batter can run to first. That is what happened yesterday in the Angels-White Sox Game 2. Did it hit the ground? Don't know. In my opinion it was hard to tell from the replay angle looking straight on. How in the hell can you blame the umpire for missing that call?

Anyway the catcher tried to "sell" the strikeout by throwing the ball back to the mound and running back to the dugout. The batter ran to first base and VOILA, he was called safe at first on a passed ball. The next batter hit the game winning RBI. Enter the I-can-do-better-than-that-ump people.

"The ump gave the signal for an out."
"The ump blew the call...the ball never hit the ground."
"We need instant replay."

SHUT UP!

As ESPN's Harold Baines correctly pointed out the umpire's "signal" for strikes (not strikeout) was consistant between the "blown call" and the rest of the game.

As I will tell you from personal experience the umpire behind the plate can only do the best he can with that kind of pitch. That is his call (if it hit the ground or not) and is not the "jurisdiction" of the other umps. Unfortunately because of how crappy the pitch was there was not a good angle for the ump to view the end of the pitch. The catcher is blocking is view.

But Yahoo's Ryne Sandberg makes the best point about who is to blame for the whole "controversy".

Many people are pointing fingers at home plate umpire Doug Eddings for making a bad call on A.J. Pierzynski's swinging third strike. The call will forever be debated – Did Eddings' closed fist mean strike three (that was dropped) or did it mean a strikeout?

Either way, with 40,000 Sox fans screaming, Josh Paul can't take anything for granted.

The Los Angeles Angels catcher should have checked with Eddings and made sure what the call was. Instead of trying to "sell" the inning-ending strikeout by rolling the ball back to the mound, Paul should have taken the extra second to either tag out Pierzynski or make the throw to first base.

It's impossible for any home plate umpire to make a call on a low pitch like that. He'll wait to see what develops afterward – whether the catcher asks him if he caught the ball, or tags the batter out, or steps out and throws to first. There's usually communication between the catcher and umpire. In this case, none of the above was done by Paul, who assumed Pierzynski had struck out.

I learned as a rookie not to be an umpire while I was playing. More often than not, if I tossed my bat to the dugout on a pitch that I thought was ball four, I would hear the umpire call a strike before I could leave the batter's box.

Also, while covering second base on steal attempts, we are told to "sell" the out by trying to convince the ump that we made the tag. We pop up and act like we're getting ready to throw the ball around the horn, or if there are two outs, we start running toward the dugout. However, in any of those cases, I would never just roll the ball back to the pitcher's mound. I would keep the ball in my glove and show that I got the out.

You can blame Eddings for his miscommunication, but it is also part of Paul's responsibility to understand what call is being made. He can't take a chance in that situation. Even if it was a blown call by the umpire, Paul showed poor basic fundamentals.

I agree...whether or not the call is blown the catcher (Paul) should not have taken anything for granted. Never assume the call goes your way until the next play starts.

Yahoo's Dan Wetzel obviously has not done much time as an umpire in any fashion...even in sandlot games. He claims a couple of things that are just plain wrong.
1) "Apparently, those umps run tighter than the mob. Not only did home plate umpire Doug Eddings stick to his call and his non-call against overwhelming evidence, all his buddies in blue backed him up."
All his buddies backed him up for two reasons. First, that is not their call to even pay attention to. Second, what overwhelming evidence? I saw a head-on replay over and over and still think it was a traped ball (or a short bounce that was covered/caught quickly). There is a lot of grey area in officiating...go try it some time.

2) "None of the other five umpires on the field would admit they saw Eddings incorrectly rule that the ball hit the dirt after A.J. Pierzynski swung and missed for strike three. And none agreed that the motion Eddings made – that looked about as much "out" as is imaginable – looks like an out signal."

There is an awful lot being made of the "deceiving signal". But think about this. Even if the umpire did make a misleading signal why would that have any bearing on either the catcher's actions? I mean, of ALL of the people in the ballpark there is only one who cannot see the plate umpire's signals: the catcher. So in order to buy this "phantom out signal" line of whining then you must somehow convince us that the catcher would have seen the correct signal (given by a person position directly behind the catcher) and thus would not have thrown the ball back to the mound. An impossible arguement and thus I have to say that this "phantom signal" is a waste of any more discussion.

Dan's article continues on being extraoridinarily harsh on the umpires (both this specific crew and umpires in general). For that reason I have one thing to say to this mindless chimp with column on an internet site.

Hi, Dan, get your ass behind a plate and then come back and say how clearly easy that call was to make. Even in little league with basically straight pitches the simple ball-strike call is not that easy. Based on how narrow-minded your column is I am willing to bet that you not only have never officiated baseball but you have never played beyond t-ball.

Until then, lay off the umps.

Raj to run for Congress

I used to like watching The Apprentice. The first two seasons were very good. From what I hear the current season is also pretty good.

Anyway, one of the best candidates on the show was Raj Bhakta. He was unquestionably intelligent and possessed a sharp wit with a great sense of humor. Oh, and for the keen observer he was conservative in his views. You could tell that from day one as he bashed, among other stupid ideas, political correctness in the feel-good name of the team he was on (Mosaic, to represent diversity).

Now it seems that he will be running for Congress.

Can he please come and run for office here in Minnesota? Please!

Al Qaeda has learned from Vietnam

This is for those who think we should have a set deadline for when we pull the troops out of Iraq.

In a letter to his top deputy in Iraq, al-Qaida's No. 2 leader said the United States "ran and left their agents" in Vietnam and the jihadists must have a plan ready to fill the void if the Americans suddenly leave Iraq.

"Things may develop faster than we imagine," Ayman al-Zawahri wrote in a letter to his top deputy in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. "The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam _ and how they ran and left their agents _ is noteworthy. ... We must be ready starting now."

You see that! The Democrats have been trying to make Iraq like Vietnam. From the simple creation of angst toward the whole cause to the actual piss-poor plans for Iraq they have been working diligently to turn Iraq into a 100% replica of Vietnam...at least Vietnam's mistakes.

By accepting the Democrat's ideas for withdrawal from Iraq we would be mimicing the mistakes of Vietnam. That would be the insurgents dream scenario...their only chance at victory.

Do you still want to "cut and run"?

Sports builds Vikings character

How does this affect the Vikings bid for a new stadium?

The Hennepin County Sheriff's Department is investigating allegations of criminal sexual conduct by Minnesota Vikings players after a boat cruise on Lake Minnetonka turned into an out-of-control party that included lap dances and sexual acts, an attorney for the charter boat company said Tuesday.
...
A woman called Mound police Thursday night to report "possible prostitution, drugs and live sex acts" on the two boats. According to the police report, the woman said she and her brother's girlfriend served as hostesses on the boats.

Doyle said he didn't learn details of what allegedly happened until he met with six of the eight crewmembers Tuesday.

Doyle said about 90 people were on the two boats. According to a Vikings player who spoke on the condition of anonymity, about 15 Vikings players were on a charter as part of what he described as a "team event." The player said he was unaware of any sexual acts and that the cruise lasted less than 90 minutes. Doyle said he believed it to be a tradition for Vikings rookies and first-year players to take their teammates out.

OK, one of the people renting the boats was Fred Smoot. His response was:

Contacted Tuesday afternoon, Smoot said the allegations are exaggerated.

"It's slanderous," he said. "If (Doyle is) bringing my name up like this, I'm going to sue them. Other than that, I ain't got nothing else to say."

Asked if he was denying involvement in the alleged incidents, Smoot said, "It ain't even what they're talking about."

Alright, Freddy, what did happen?

It looks like the Vikes are closing the portcullis. 'We have no comment and we'll be providing our spin later' seems to be the road they are taking.

The Vikings released a statement Tuesday night, saying, "The organization has been made aware of the allegations involving our players, and we take these allegations very seriously. We are working diligently to gather as many facts as possible. At this time, we have no further comment."

The police have an investigation.

Sgt. Haans Vitek of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Department said the investigation is ongoing.

"At this point, we're still trying to sort out who was there," Vitek said. "We understand there may be some Vikings personnel involved. We're not sure who they are and what they were doing."

It is Minnetonka...what are the odds of ANY charges coming about? They seem willing to protect the hometown team.

The boat company's lawyer describes some of what happened.

"They were out for a bit, and then the crew was serving drinks and hors d'oeuvres and stuff," he said. "I think the first thing they noticed was some of the women that were on board seemed to be either changing clothes or undressing. And then they went into a galley, and there were three of them in the nude that were changing clothes. That was followed by them coming out and some of them doing lap dances. … That's where it started, and then it just progressed to just bizarre."

[Company attorney] Doyle said the crew, in accordance with company policy, reported what was happening to the captain of each boat, who called the home base and were told to return.

"Now they're still 40 minutes out, and they're getting frightened," Doyle said. "Some of the Vikings are yelling at the waiters and waitresses … and wanting drinks faster and trying to take over parts of the bar, trying to pour their own drinks. … It's just really bizarre, bad, terrible behavior.

"Like I said, these kids are petrified. They're afraid for their own safety. There are people doing sexual acts with toys in the middle of the floor. They're on a boat here, having to walk around and serve a drink, afraid to stop serving drinks because they're afraid that people will hurt them. It's just really unacceptable what they did — the arrogance and the rudeness and all of those things combined.

"They get them into the dock and eventually get off the boat. We're talking about a scene with used condoms on the boats laying around, handy wipes used by the women laying around, drinks thrown and poured in places. It's amazing."

He was also on KFAN AM 1130 last night for an interview and what he described there was a little more graphic.

At this point is sounds like there were about 17 Vikings on the boats.

The NFL may potentially take action.

An NFL spokesman declined to comment on the allegations against Vikings players, but the league's personal conduct policy clearly states that league employees can be subject to discipline.

"Engaging in violent and/or criminal activity is unacceptable and constitutes conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League," the policy summary reads. "Such conduct alienates the fans on whom the success of the league depends and has negative and sometimes tragic consequences for both the victim and the perpetrator."

People charged or arrested with conduct prohibited by this policy will be "required to undergo a clinical evaluation and, if appropriate, additional counseling or treatment as directed."

Failure to comply with evaluation and counseling obligations could be considered conduct detrimental to the NFL, punishable by "fine or suspension at the discretion of the commissioner."

Why do I bring this up? Because one of the only real arguements of the taxpayer-funded stadium proponents is that "sports builds character" and the professional athletes are role models for the kids.

Ya still think so?

********** UPDATE **********
Just this via e-mail:

(To the theme song from Gilligan's Island)

Come sit right back and you'll hear a tale
A tale of fateful trip
That started from a small lake town
Aboard two tiny ships

The mates were a bunch of pole dancers
But the waitstaff was too pure
The Vikings team set sail that day
For a three hour tour, a three hour tour

The action started getting hot
The dancers strutted their stuff
If not for the prudes in the fearless crew
There wouldn't have been such a huff

The boats turned around and went back home
The authorities came aboard
But fear not friends, 'cause all's not lost
The Vikings finally scored!

New Contributor to ARUC

I want to officially welcome to the blogging world AND to this blog JRJ. You may have noticed his "Mensa question of the day" (for which we are still waiting for some of the answers).

Jon was a regular reader of the blog. He would send to our circle of friends a daily e-mail with a MENSA question and a daily e-mail with a Simpson's trivia question. Finally I showed him how to post the MENSA questions and he has been doing so. Thank you very much for that.

Now Jon may be helping an aspect of this blog that is a little lacking. He will be contributing with Sports, Entertainment, Movies and general non-political stuff. Please welcome Jon, the new ARUC co-author.

UN is bombing Smurfs

Not that I have a problem with killing Smurfs but UNICEF is airing an anti-war commercial that is "graphic and disturbing".

The Belgian office of the U.N. children's fund said it has decided to use the creations of late Belgian artist Peyo to shock a complacent public into backing its fund-raising efforts for ex-child soldiers in Africa.

The 20-second video commercial clip now being shown on Belgian TV aims to show that war can happen in the most innocent of places, Henon said.

"We get reactions from all over the place," said Henon. "People are shocked and want to know the reasons behind this cartoon image."

The appeal is meant to raise money for UNICEF projects in Burundi, Congo and Sudan, Henon said. However, due to its graphic and disturbing scenes, this cartoon is not for everyone. The advertisement is aimed at an adult audience and is only shown after 9 p.m. to avoid upsetting young Smurfs fans.

The video is peacefully introduced by birds, butterflies and happy Smurfs playing and singing their theme song when suddenly out of the sky, bombs rain down onto their forest village, scattering Papa Smurf and the rest as their houses are set ablaze.

The bombs kill Smurfette leaving Baby Smurf orphaned and crying at the edge of a crater in the last scene of the video and finishing of with the text "don't let war destroy the children's world."

It calls on viewers to donate.

If you're trying to raise money for a cause (Burundi, Congo & Sudan) then maybe, just maybe your ad campaign should mention those goals. Otherwise you are deceiving the benefactors of your cause.

The UN sucks.