This is what I get for taking a left wing blog at face value.

A police source said Rhodes never filed a report and never claimed to be the victim of a mugging. Cops from Manhattan's 17th Precinct called her attorney, who told them Rhodes was not a victim of a crime, the source said.

Rhodes' lawyer told the Daily News she was injured in a fall while walking her dog. He said she's not sure what happened, and only knows that she fell down and is in a lot of pain.

Gravity is racist.

Same Joke... made by Confederate Yankee. Better, though: Newton was a fascist.

You know a Truther movement is going to start over this, don't you? Because once the left gets a "fact" stuck in their pointy little heads it's in there forever. They cannot be wrong; they've extended the doctrine of papal infallibility to all believers in the Church of Liberalism in the spirit of egalitarianism.

How did Bush "get to" Randi Rhodes and get her to change her story (or rather not change her story, as she herself didn't allege an assault, supposedly)?

There's no way Randi Rhodes could be corrupted in such a fashion. Leading to the horrific deduction: Randi Rhodes has been exchanged for an exact-duplicate ConBot, our equivalent of a FemBot.

A computer simulation of what Randi Rhodes might look like
after extensive maxillo-facial reconstructive surgery and years of
more conventional cosmetic surgeries...
wait, that's what she looked like before her fall?
You're shitting me. Really? Oh, okay.
Well, I'm sure she's funny. Or nice.
Or into anal or something.

First-Hand Account From a Gawker Reader: Supposedly.

But I buy it.

Randi Rhodes was no more assaulted by a right-wing fanatic on Monday than Dick Cheney was. She, in fact, fell down and injured her teeth outside of a Midtown Irish bar at around 6 o'clock Sunday evening after downing about fourteen Ketel One Bloody Marys. She was abusive to the barstaff and generally gross, crass, loud, and pretentious. I genuinely hope she has a speedy recovery. I never would've disclosed this (I believe that anyone should feel free to hang out at Irish pubs at any time and not be concerned about someone publishing their behavior) if Air America hadn't grossly interpreted a drunken indiscretion and allowed it to be morphed into some bullish rhetoric on air. Whatever journalistic integrity the station may have ever had is now completely compromised. The manipulation of the public diminishes any cause, whether just or fabricated.

More... Some lefties gleefully comment on the coming purge of Republicans, rounded up at LGF. I'm surprised their posts aren't more riddled with typos, given the fact that they're obviously masturbating over sexual fantasies while typing.

And That's Not All... Now How Much Would You Pay? Priceless comment at Taylor Marsh's blog. Thanks to Enlightened for this.

I think the folks on our side better wake the fark up and realize we are in basically a slow boil civil war here in the good ol USSA. It's one you don't hear about in the corporate media but look back over the last TWENTY years. Abortion providers murdered, womens health clinics bombed, gay bars bombed, liberal radio hosts murdered and assualted with attempts on lives. Sixty gazillion dollars of attack adds on rightwingnutospere shows(comperable worth) publishing of addresses of radio liberals who DARE speak up. It IS a war and we'd better farkin wake up to that fact.

They're not anti-war. They're jonesing pretty hard to fight a war against their fellow countrymen, whom they consider enemies, as they don't consider "country" a worthy concept to be loyal towards. Their "country" is ideology and ideology alone, which is why there is so little self-awareness about their perpetual claims to "patriotism" while simultaneously calling for jihad against their fellow citizens. They're patriotic, but not towards America: towards the transnationalist progressive collectivist Nation of Earth.

And we're enemies of that "country," and hence we are their enemies in war.

Screenshots of more weapons-grade crazy and strangely pro-civil-war "patriotism" at Michelle Malkin.

Thanks to RobG for that.

Posted by: Ace at 11:38 AM | Comments (142)
Post contains 741 words, total size 5 kb.

it's my little itty bitty titties.

Now, I haven't followed the whole Madelynn McCann case. As callous as it sounds, I just don't care one whit about this case. Yes, it is tragic that an innocent little girl has apparently fallen victim to some sort of foul play. But when it gets to speculating about whether she was sold to Arab slave traders, or killed by her parents, or moved to Paradise Island to be raised by Natalie Holloway and a bunch of Amazons, I. just. don't. care.

But I may have to rethink my position about what happens to the children of foreigners I'll never meet at vacation locations I have no interest in going to. That's because the on-again, off-again suspect (Kate McCann) has offered a wonderful defense straight out of a L'Oreal commercial:

"Don't hate me because I'm beautiful my breasts are small."

The mother of missing British 4-year-old Madeleine McCann believes she's being persecuted because of her looks, and thinks that if she "had a bigger bosom and looked more maternal, people would be more sympathetic," a London newspaper reported Tuesday.

The parents of Kate McCann, in a remarkable interview in the Liverpool Daily Post, said their daughter "feels persecuted, not by the general public who have been extremely supportive, but by some sections of the media."

Hmmmm.....this deserves a closer inspection.

In case you couldn't tell by their chests, she's the one on the right.

What do you think, True Crime afficionados. Does her defense hold milk water? Is she a victim of her underdeveloped mammary glands? Would you be less likely to think she was Patti Ramsey with a British accent if she had hooters?

Make me interested in this case, morons. Put me some f'n knowledge in the comments.

Posted by: Jack M. at 11:33 AM | Comments (64)
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

Remember, she had nothing to do with the founding of Soros' creature Media Matters. And she certainly doesn't share in Soros' enthusiasm for full-on socialism.

Meanwhile Hillary! has been accused of spying on political opponents -- listening to their intercepted mobile phone calls -- by Pulitzer Prize winning reporters and no one seems interested in any follow-up.

In their book about Clinton’s rise to power, Her Way, Don Van Natta Jr., an investigative reporter at The New York Times, and Jeff Gerth, who spent 30 years as an investigative reporter at the paper, wrote: “Hillary’s defense activities ranged from the inspirational to the microscopic to the down and dirty. She received memos about the status of various press inquiries; she vetted senior campaign aides; and she listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack.

“The tape contained discussions of another woman who might surface with allegations about an affair with Bill,” Gerth and Van Natta wrote in reference to Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton. “Bill’s supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions.”

A GOP official said, “Hillary Clinton’s campaign hypocrisy continues to know no bounds. It is rather unbelievable that Clinton would listen in to conversations being conducted by political opponents, but refuse to allow our intelligence agencies to listen in to conversations being conducted by terrorists as they plot and plan to kill us. Team Clinton can expect to see and hear this over and over again over the course of the next year.”

Gerth told The Hill that he learned of the incident in 2006 when he interviewed a former campaign aide present at the tape playing. He has not revealed the aideÂ’s identity. ClintonÂ’s campaign has not disputed any facts reported in the final version of his book, which became public this spring, he said.

...

“It hasn’t been challenged,” said Gerth. “There hasn’t been one fact in the book that’s been challenged.”

...

Clinton... addressed the controversy over government surveillance.

“Every president should save those powers for limited, critical situations,” said Clinton, according to a copy of the speech posted on her campaign website. “And when it comes to a regular program of searching for information that touches the privacy of ordinary Americans, those programs need to be monitored and reviewed as set out by Congress in cooperation with the judiciary.

“That is the essence of the compact we have with each other and with our government, and we cannot ignore it.”

In August, Clinton voted against an emergency law that temporarily expanded the governmentÂ’s power to conduct surveillance on American soil without a warrant. The bill was criticized for being overly broad and sidelining the role of a special court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act....

ClintonÂ’s chief political strategist, Mark Penn, became embroiled recently in a controversy over intercepted electronic communications. Mitchell Markel, a former vice president at PennÂ’s firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland, filed a lawsuit against Penn accusing him of intercepting e-mail. Markel claimed that the firm illegally monitored messages sent from his BlackBerry after he joined another company.

Odd. They wish to fight political campaigns like wars, and wars like PR campaigns.

Seems kind of backwards to me.

Posted by: Ace at 11:23 AM | Comments (7)
Post contains 578 words, total size 4 kb.

Or simply attacked by a decided non-fan, as many liberals suspect. If the reports about the severity of her beating are true -- she lost teeth in the pummeling -- one wonders if a wallet was the object of the crime.

Though I hate snarking about political violence, RightWingDuck at IMAO makes a good point: Shouldn't liberals be examining the "root causes" of this beating rather than demanding punishment? Won't catching the perpetrators of this act of purported terrorism simply "make more terrorists"?

Why do the rules change when the victim is one of their own -- or, perhaps more accurately, why do the rules change when the alleged perpetrator is conveniently one they wish to be at war with?

Maybe it's too soon to ask that, but really, at some point the Angry Left has to square why it's angry about this -- which I grant, they should be angry about -- but takes a rather more casual attitude towards political violence generally, especially from the left itself and their newfound allies the Islamofascists.

Thanks to Alice H. for the latter.

Posted by: Ace at 10:54 AM | Comments (31)
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

Not sure if the analysis here, offered mostly by family-values type lobbyists, is correct. The theory is that by signing the law prohibiting any sort of discrimination as regards sexuality, the law effectively bans the concept of mom and dad, husband and wife, as being discriminatory words, at least if not used with reference to same-sex parents.

Is that true? I sort of think that will end up being the result -- the claims from the academics and corner-case sexuality mavens is that any such language is "heteronormative" and thus implicitly discriminating. And of course people with degrees in education like to pretend they're actually part of the academic community, so they will slavishly follow these sorts of diktats.

A lot of the rhetoric in this article is overwrought, but I think they'll wind up being right about the legal effect.

"Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" effectively have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose.

"We are shocked and appalled that the governor has blatantly attacked traditional family values in California," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.

"With this decision, Gov. Schwarzenegger has told parents that their values are irrelevant. Many parents will have no choice but to pull their children out of the public schools that have now become sexualized indoctrination centers."

...

Analysts have warned that schools across the nation will be impacted by the decision, since textbook publishers must cater to their largest purchaser, which often is California, and they will be unlikely to go to the expense of having a separate edition for other states.

The bills signed by Schwarzenegger include SB777, which bans anything in public schools that could be interpreted as negative toward homosexuality, bisexuality and other alternative lifestyle choices.

...

England told WND that the law is not a list of banned words, including "mom" and "dad." But she said the requirement is that the law bans discriminatory bias.

"Having 'mom' and 'dad' promotes a dicsriminatory bias. You have to either get rid of 'mom' and 'dad' or include everything when talking about [parental issues]," she said. "They [promoters of sexual alternative lifestyles] do consider that discriminatory."

...

Thomasson said SB777 prohibits any "instruction" or school-sponsored "activity" that "promotes a discriminatory bias" against "gender" – the bill's definition includes cross-dressing and sex changes – as well as "sexual orientation."

"Because no textbook or instruction in California public schools currently disparages transsexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality, the practical effect of SB777 will be to require positive portrayals of these sexual lifestyles at every government-operated school," CCF noted.

The laser-like focus on children, and Orwellian language, is pretty creepy.

I'm reminded of this scene from Life of Brian.

This is all symbolic of the Lorettas of the world and their struggle against simple biological reality. Straight or gay, raised by one parent or two, living with one's biological parents or not -- I've got news for Loretta. You've got a mom, and you've got a father, at least a biological one.

Maybe we can outlaw reality next as inconvenient and often hurtful.

Thanks to Roland.

Posted by: Ace at 10:25 AM | Comments (33)
Post contains 556 words, total size 4 kb.

Not sure if the analysis here, offered mostly by family-values type lobbyists, is correct. The theory is that by signing the law prohibiting any sort of discrimination as regards sexuality, the law effectively bans the concept of mom and dad, husband and wife, as being discriminatory words, at least if not used with reference to same-sex parents.

Is that true? I sort of think that will end up being the result -- the claims from the academics and corner-case sexuality mavens is that any such language is "heteronormative" and thus implicitly discriminating. And of course people with degrees in education like to pretend they're actually part of the academic community, so they will slavishly follow these sorts of diktats.

A lot of the rhetoric in this article is overwrought, but I think they'll wind up being right about the legal effect.

"Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" effectively have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose.

"We are shocked and appalled that the governor has blatantly attacked traditional family values in California," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.

"With this decision, Gov. Schwarzenegger has told parents that their values are irrelevant. Many parents will have no choice but to pull their children out of the public schools that have now become sexualized indoctrination centers."

...

Analysts have warned that schools across the nation will be impacted by the decision, since textbook publishers must cater to their largest purchaser, which often is California, and they will be unlikely to go to the expense of having a separate edition for other states.

The bills signed by Schwarzenegger include SB777, which bans anything in public schools that could be interpreted as negative toward homosexuality, bisexuality and other alternative lifestyle choices.

...

England told WND that the law is not a list of banned words, including "mom" and "dad." But she said the requirement is that the law bans discriminatory bias.

"Having 'mom' and 'dad' promotes a dicsriminatory bias. You have to either get rid of 'mom' and 'dad' or include everything when talking about [parental issues]," she said. "They [promoters of sexual alternative lifestyles] do consider that discriminatory."

...

Thomasson said SB777 prohibits any "instruction" or school-sponsored "activity" that "promotes a discriminatory bias" against "gender" – the bill's definition includes cross-dressing and sex changes – as well as "sexual orientation."

"Because no textbook or instruction in California public schools currently disparages transsexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality, the practical effect of SB777 will be to require positive portrayals of these sexual lifestyles at every government-operated school," CCF noted.

The laser-like focus on children, and Orwellian language, is pretty creepy.

I'm reminded of this scene from Life of Brian.

This is all symbolic of the Lorettas of the world and their struggle against simple biological reality. Straight or gay, raised by one parent or two, living with one's biological parents or not -- I've got news for Loretta. You've got a mom, and you've got a father, at least a biological one.

Maybe we can outlaw reality next as inconvenient and often hurtful.

Thanks to Roland.

Posted by: Ace at 10:25 AM | Comments (37)
Post contains 572 words, total size 4 kb.

Given this, one suspects that maybe those treacherous oceans have more to do with this than man does.

...greenhouse gas in the atmosphere in mid-2005 had reached about 455 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent -- a level not expected for another 10 years.

"We thought we'd be at that threshold within about a decade," Flannery told Australian television late on Monday.

"We thought we had that much time. But the new data indicates that in about mid-2005 we crossed that threshold," he said.

"What the report establishes is that the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is already above the threshold that could potentially cause dangerous climate change."

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 10:19 AM | Comments (17)
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

Unbelievable.

U.S. intelligence officials got mired for nearly 10 hours seeking approval to use wiretaps against al Qaeda terrorists suspected of kidnapping Queens soldier Alex Jimenez in Iraq earlier this year, The Post has learned.

This week, Congress plans to vote on a bill that leaves in place the legal hurdles in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - problems that were highlighted during the May search for a group of kidnapped U.S. soldiers.

...

A search to rescue the [three kidnapped] men was quickly launched. But it soon ground to a halt as lawyers - obeying strict U.S. laws about surveillance - cobbled together the legal grounds for wiretapping the suspected kidnappers.

Starting at 10 a.m. on May 15, according to a timeline provided to Congress by the director of national intelligence, lawyers for the National Security Agency met and determined that special approval from the attorney general would be required first.

For an excruciating nine hours and 38 minutes, searchers in Iraq waited as U.S. lawyers discussed legal issues and hammered out the "probable cause" necessary for the attorney general to grant such "emergency" permission.

Finally, approval was granted and, at 7:38 that night, surveillance began.

"The intelligence community was forced to abandon our soldiers because of the law," a senior congressional staffer with access to the classified case told The Post.

"How many lawyers does it take to rescue our soldiers?" he asked. "It should be zero."

This is absurd. Apparently Democrats think the law should protect inanimate phone switchers rather than people:

The FISA law applies even to a cellphone conversation between two people in Iraq, because those communications zip along wires through U.S. hubs, which is where the taps are typically applied.

Partly because 90% of the world's international calls are routed through US switches. An intelligence goldmine we lucked into due to economic and technological preeminence, but which, apparently, should be held against us. Wouldn't want any unfair advantages over the jihadis.

Here's a little Absolute Moral Authority for Maureen Dowd:

"This is terrible. If they would have acted sooner, maybe they would have found something out and been able to find my son," said Jimenez's mother, Maria Duran. "Oh my God. I just keep asking myself, where is my son? What could have happened to him?"

Duran said she was especially frustrated, "because I thought they were doing everything possible to find him."

"You know that this is how this country is - everything is by the law. They just did not want to break the law, and I understand that. They should change the law, because God only knows what type of information they could have found during that time period."

Posted by: Ace at 10:12 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 484 words, total size 3 kb.

But there are some limits:

"But their sexuality must also be socialized, so they are not, for example, allowed to masturbate while sitting and eating. Nor can they be allowed to pressure other children into doing things they don't want to."

Allowing them to whack off of their buddy's hand-turkey drawing is necessary, it is claimed, because it's wrong to limit their sexuality.

But then they claim that four and five year olds' sexuality must be "socialized" to prevent uncouth exhibitions.

If we're going to impose limits on them at all, wouldn't a simple, commonsensical limit be that you can't masturbate in public? I think there's wide acceptance of this form of "socialization of sexuality," even in Norway.

Dirty Filthy Scandis: Oh right, I forgot how much I hate them. And how much you hate them, too, as seen in the comments here.

We have so much hate it's hard to keep track of it all. If only we could bottle it and use it to kill brown people and/or pale people.

Posted by: Ace at 09:28 AM | Comments (42)
Post contains 214 words, total size 2 kb.

Nuance.

Even Allah himself isn't persuaded:

What makes this doubly unbearable is the mediaÂ’s endless preening self-congratulation about how indispensable they are as a check on power. Vilks is literally facing death over a piece of art, a sentence that would rightly kick up an international storm if it was the Swedish government or a Christian group that was trying to carry it out. Because the Perpetually Aggrieved donÂ’t fit the narrative mold of what constitutes the kind of Power to which Truth should be spoken, though, CNN slides effortlessly into apologizing for violent cretinism.

Posted by: Ace at 09:21 AM | Comments (18)
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.