Ummm... Not only did she commit adultery, but she apparently did so within 24 hours or so of sleeping with her husband.

Mia Washington decided to get some expert advice when she and her partner noticed that twins Justin and Jordan had different facial features.

Paternity tests then revealed what had happened — two eggs had been fertilized by two different sperm and there was a 99.99% chance the twins had different dads.

Doctors at the DNA lab in Dallas, Texas had never seen such a result.

Washington later admitted she had had an affair and got pregnant by two different men at the same time.

"Out of all people in America and of all people in the world, it had to happen to me, she told myfoxdfw.com. “I'm very shocked."

Scientists believe the strange situation is best explained by the fact that Mia Washington is a dirty, dirty whore.

Again, added that last part.

The world's first case of half-twins. (Correction: First scientifically documented case, I mean. Of course this must have happened many times in the past, as commenters point out.)

Thanks to DrewM.

Posted by: Ace at 12:28 PM | Comments (139)
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

Remember Cheney's famous "undisclosed location"?

Somehow he managed to keep it undisclosed.

Joe Biden, who I am assured is much smarter than that idiot Sarah Palin, decided to disclose it, apparently.

He actually gives details. And the precise location. Which is right under his home.

Vice President Joe Biden, well-known for his verbal gaffes, may have finally outdone himself, divulging potentially classified information meant to save the life of a sitting vice president.

According to a report, while recently attending the Gridiron Club dinner in Washington, an annual event where powerful politicians and media elite get a chance to cozy up to one another, Biden told his dinnermates about the existence of a secret bunker under the old U.S. Naval Observatory, which is now the home of the vice president.

The bunker is believed to be the secure, undisclosed location former Vice President Dick Cheney remained under protection in secret after the 9/11 attacks.

Eleanor Clift, Newsweek magazine's Washington contributing editor, said Biden revealed the location while filling in for President Obama at the dinner, who, along with Grover Cleveland, is the only president to skip the gathering.

According to Clift's report on the Newsweek blog, Biden "said a young naval officer giving him a tour of the residence showed him the hideaway, which is behind a massive steel door secured by an elaborate lock with a narrow connecting hallway lined with shelves filled with communications equipment."

...

In December 2002, neighbors complained of loud construction work being done at the Naval Observatory, which has been used as a residence by vice presidents since 1974.

He also divulged the nuclear launch codes allowing for silo commanders to launch their missiles independently of presidential authority. He offered these codes as part of a dirty limerick, designed to "win over the crowd."

Okay I added that last paragraph. But still.

Thanks to EdwardR.

Posted by: Ace at 11:07 AM | Comments (160)
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.

“I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom,
responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free.” – Military Code of Conduct

A new group has been formed to serve as the voice of those who have served and those still serving, the Warrior Legacy Foundation. Matt has a post up at BLACKFIVE telling the whole story, but basically those of us who didn't feel the warrior class and those who support them were being heard have formed this group. We will be ensuring that the stories that have been ignored are told to all Americans and the world and that the service and sacrifices of our troops are recognized and honored. Membership is open to anyone who believes this cause is worthy.

Posted by: Uncle Jimbo at 10:51 AM | Comments (21)
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

As a Dennis Miller joke goes, Ayers and Wright are a lot like a Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin reunion. I wasn't a fan of their earlier work, and I'm not sure I want to see the new stuff, either.

The day before President Barack Obama was to meet with Israel's prime minister, community activists, clergy and residents marched through Oak Park on Sunday to call for a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

And they were led in their efforts by a politically provocative pair from Chicago: Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. and William Ayers.

...

They urged a rethinking of the Mideast conflict, a shift in perspective that's not unlike the view espoused by Obama.

...

"We can't be squelching viewpoints because they are unpopular or because someone has a reputation through Fox News," said Caren Levy Van Slyke, a spokeswoman with the group.

Wright drew parallels between Trinity's part in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa and the current campaign to bring about peace in the Mideast.

...

The remarks earned Wright a standing ovation and a handshake from Ayers, an education professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, who spoke of the need to create a curriculum of questioning that reveals a "reality that is always messier, always more complicated."

The instant question is whether Israel is right to call for Hamas to demonstrate seriousness about reducing terrorist attacks before a genuine peace -- real peace, not a hudna during which weapons are stockpiled and more attacks plotted -- can go forward.

Shockingly, Bill Ayers finds this fundamental question -- whether terrorist attacks on civilians is a legitimate tactic in the quest for "peace" -- "more complicated" and "messier" than many.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

A Just Peace with Holocaust Deniers and Israel Eliminationists: 40% of Israeli Arabs -- Israelis themselves -- don't think the Holocaust happened, and just barely 50% grant that Israel has the right to exist as a state at all.

And that's their state, incidentally, so a good chunk of that "support" for Israel is of course predicated upon full and total control of the state formerly known as Israel by Muslims.

Which isn't really support of the state of Israel's right to exist at all.

Posted by: Ace at 10:51 AM | Comments (50)
Post contains 395 words, total size 3 kb.

File this under, "Governing Is Harder Than Pandering To The Left, Part 2,594".

Sen. James Webb, an influential Democratic voice on national security issues, raised questions over the Obama administrationÂ’s plan to shut down the controversial military- detention center at Guantanamo Bay by early next year.

The Virginia senator, who sits on the Senate’s Armed Services Committee, told ABC News’s “This Week” on Sunday that the White House shouldn’t “be creating artificial timelines” to close down the facility in Cuba.

“We should close down Guantanamo at the right time,” he said. “I think what’s happened is Guantanamo has become the issue, rather than how we process these people who were detained there.”

You don't say.

I seem to remember someone else saying something similar, oh yeah, this guy.

Meanwhile according to a Fox News poll, 55% of Americans think bringing terrorists to the US is a bad idea. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 10:39 AM | Comments (34)
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

Aw. That stinks. How will we know who to vote for without their able assistance?

Can The New York TimesÂ’s ownership and business be sustained into the teeth of historic changes in the media?

First to the broader issue of ownership: Several reports have suggested that the capital structure of The New York Times Company, with $1 billion in debt and declining revenue, means it will be kicked into play. It makes for a tangy news narrative but lacks logic. The company is well within its existing debt covenants, and two transactions — a sale-leaseback of the building and a $250 million loan that included warrants from the Mexican industrialist Carlos Slim Helú — probably have given it the wherewithal to operate into 2011.

Probably. And this is from the NYT itself. Which is weird.

Posted by: Ace at 09:59 AM | Comments (57)
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

Politicizing justice?

Nah, not if you're a Democrat.

John Edwards admits federal investigators are asking him questions. Federal subpoenas were issued Friday related to Mike Easley.

As the separate federal probes into a former senator and the former governor are emerging, Democrats are taking steps to replace the Republican prosecutor who is spearheading the inquiries about the highest-profile North Carolina Democrats of the past decade. . . .

Nancy Pelosi didn't fight the War in Iraq for this.

Posted by: Ace at 09:53 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

God help us, the fact that Jennifer Granholm's name can even be mentioned in the same breath as other potential Supreme Court nominees is a bad joke. But, somehow she's on the list and she'll be at the White House tomorrow, which is leading some to wonder since TOTUS said he wanted to make the announcement this week or next.

Allah eeyores:

Granholm has distinct weaknesses as a nominee, but probably no fatal ones. She has no prior judicial experience. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) withdrew his support for her, though one would expect him to back her if Obama actually nominated her. Moreover, Granholm has had tax problems, though at this juncture that seems more like a prerequisite for Obama than a disqualification. Besides, with the Senate Republicans already lowering expectations that they are planning any major political fight, Obama has a relatively free hand.

She's a graduate of Harvard law and former Michigan A.G. Her most well-known job, however, has been Grand Destructor of the State of Michigan. She's been governor there for the state's precipitous slide into poverty and ruin.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:42 AM | Comments (43)
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

Maureen Dowd plagiarized Josh Marshall for this point.

Dowd:

What Dowd wrote:

"More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when the Bush crowd was looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq." Marshall:

"More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when we were looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq."

She only changed "we" to "the Bush crowd," note.

But that was covered already by DrewM. The point I want to make is the left is busy, busy, busy pushing this meme. Jonathan Alter, a member of "JournoList," pushed the same claim on, I believe, Olbermann (of course) a few weeks back. Joe Klein, who's not as far as I know a member of JournoList but keeps his eyes on all the lefty blogs, pushed the idea in his Time Swampland blog last week.

So why the drumbeat?

Because the left has had a problem: Even if waterboarding were deemed "illegal," there is no corrupt motive for doing so. If Bush, Cheney, and etc. had taken illegal steps, well, they were doing so to defend the country, not to line their own pockets. They may have erred, but they erred with good intentions.

The left cannot tolerate this state of affairs. The Demon Bush must have also have had a corrupt motive in undertaking his corrupt acts. Maybe Halliburton was paying him. Maybe those Truther claims about a Trans-Capsian pipeline are true. Maybe...

Nah. Too hard to make those cases.

Hmmm... what if we just claim he was only interested in "torturing" Al Qaeda in order to prove the insane case that terrorist-supporter, would-be Presidential assassin Saddam Hussein were involved in 9/11? Then we can claim that's a personal -- and therefore corrupt -- motive for his actions, and thereby strip him of the inconvenient defense that he didn't personally profit from his "crime."

Well. I mean, he still didn't really personally profit, but the left takes it as an Established Fact that Bush had some enormous psychological need to take out Saddam, because 1) his father didn't and 2) Saddam tried to kill his father in the early years of the Clinton Administration.

(The left, note, takes that latter bit to be important as regards Bush's psychology, but when we discuss Saddam's psychology -- specifically, whether or not he was "contained" and "deterred" by American power such as that he would not make any big moves against us -- they conveniently forget that he arranged for the assassination of a former president just months out of office. And the murder of his wife and anyone else traveling with him, too.)

At any rate, this meme seems to have originated on the lefty blogs and/or JournoList as the diehard lefties attempt to spin some corrupt motive for EITs which personally benefits George W. Bush.

As usual, it's half-baked. For one thing, the left takes it as an article of faith that of course Saddam could not possibly have been involved in 9/11. That seems to have been the case, but I don't quite get this insistence that of course everyone should have known that, and the question shouldn't even have been investigated. The left behaves as if simply asking the question "Is there any evidence Saddam was involved?" is and always has been illegitimate and lunatic.

Personally, given the fact that Saddam supported terrorists and attempted to kill a US president, I'd say the question warranted investigation.

Further, Dowd -- by which I mean Josh Marshall, from whom she plagiarizes -- seems to forget a little something about the "timeline" she claims proves this corrupt motive.

We practiced EITs the most during the period from September 11, 2001 to about 2003, she says, ergo it must have been just about linking Saddam to 9/11.

Um, maybe it was just linked to 9/11, period. She -- and Marshall, and Alter, and Klein -- all seem to forget that 9/11 had just happened, the Anthrax letter murders were still entirely unsolved, and that fears of a "Second Wave" were at their highest. And, also -- um, this is when we caught the biggest AQ fish.

So, yes, we "tortured" the most from 9/11 to sometime around 2003 or so... which implies to me we were the most serious about terrorism in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and not so much anymore.

But for Dowd, Alter, Klein, Marshall, and the rest of the JournoList pinheads-- this is evidence not that 9/11 had just happened, but that the Demon Bush must have had some prosecutable motive for EITs.

Update: I Got It From "A Friend," Says MoDo: Yes, I'm sure she did. And all of her friends are reading from the same hymnals, so of course the sermons often sound exactly alike.

Posted by: Ace at 09:37 AM | Comments (49)
Post contains 872 words, total size 5 kb.

For your lunchtime reading enjoyment, how about a snarky review of Honda's newest hybrid?

Much has been written about the Insight, HondaÂ’s new low-priced hybrid. WeÂ’ve been told how much carbon dioxide it produces, how its dashboard encourages frugal driving by glowing green when youÂ’re easy on the throttle and how it is the dawn of all things. The beginning of days.

So far, though, you have not been told what itÂ’s like as a car; as a tool for moving you, your friends and your things from place to place.

So here goes. ItÂ’s terrible. Biblically terrible. Possibly the worst new car money can buy. ItÂ’s the first car IÂ’ve ever considered crashing into a tree, on purpose, so I didnÂ’t have to drive it any more.

It gets better. Some of the comments are good too.

Thanks to alexthechick.

Incidentally: I have nothing against hybrids so long as they work well. And aren't subsidized out the wazoo. And aren't driving like grandma in front of me all the damn time. Also, hybrid drivers appear to be much more prone to putting retarded stickers all over the back.

But I don't have anything against hybrids. In fact, if I could afford the Toyota Highlander Hybrid, I'd get one. (I have a thing for SUVs since one saved my life once.) Since I can barely afford my monthly metro pass, however, I'll just admire from a distance.

And in related news: Obama will announce new emissions standards for cars tomorrow. The new standards will "harmonize" (read: replace?) CAFE standards with the EPA's greenhouse gas standards. Or something. The Governator will be on hand for the announcement, hopefully while weeping over the failure of his budget props out here.

While I'm thinking about the props: Someone asked me how I planned to vote. There are no difficult choices here:

• Prop 1A -- State Budget. Changes California Budget Process. Limits State Spending. -- No; it requires a tax increase.
• Prop 1B -- Education Funding. Payment Plan. -- No; requires increased spending.
• Prop 1C -- Lottery Modernization Act. -- Yes; I have nothing against idiots buying more lottery tickets and no problem dedicating that money to paying down debt rather than schools.
• Prop 1D -- Protects Children's Services Funding. -- Yes; this is simply moving money around, but will help balance the budget (this year) without a tax increase.
• Prop 1E -- Mental Health Services Funding. Temporary Reallocation. -- Same.
• Prop 1F -- Elected Officials' Salaries. -- Very very yes; prevents salary increases for certain elected officials when there is a budget deficit.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:39 AM | Comments (103)
Post contains 431 words, total size 3 kb.