At one point during yesterday's awesomely crazy speech by Khadafy the voice of the translator changed. I joked they had to go to the bullpen but I honestly thought it was just a shift change or something.

Turns out, the guy lost it and had to be replaced.

After struggling to turn KhadafyÂ’s insane ramblings at the UN into English for 75 minutes, the Libyan dictatorÂ’s personal interpreter got lost in translation.

"I just can’t take it any more," Khadafy’s interpreter shouted into the live microphone – in Arabic.

At that point, the U.N.Â’s Arabic section chief, Rasha Ajalyaqeen, took over and translated the final 20 minutes of the speech.

"His interpreter just collapsed – this is the first time I have seen this in 25 years," another U.N. Arabic interpreter told The Post.

Breaking with protocol, Khadafy brought his own interpreters from Tripoli for WednesdayÂ’s speech rather than use one of the 25 Arabic translators supplied by the United Nations, staff interpreters said.

We owe the crazy Colonel a debt of gratitude. There was nothing better than the juxtaposition of Obama's call to make the UN and international law the centerpiece of America's foreign policy and Khadafy's incoherent ramblings.

Any place that takes Khadafy seriously isn't an organization we should pay any attention to.

Posted by: DrewM at 04:56 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.

Here.

Is It Real? So it would seem to be.

I know I'm sloppy and naive but in this case I knew it was real based on allah and Andrew Levy checking it out first.

UPDATE [Jack M.]- Because I'm a giver, a hot hooker photo appears after the jump. You can thank me by not calling out my name in your bunks. more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:11 PM | Comments (2)
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

"Meep, meep."

From Jonah Goldberg's twitter account, but he himself is relying on an email for that news.

That completely ends the controversy, because we all know that minor flunkies in the communications offices of government sub-agencies originate, design, and plan policy.

Done and done. Whew! Thank goodness that's over and no one remains in the White House remotely connected to this scandal.

Except of course Kal Penn and Buffy Wicks and... oh, probably President Barack Obama.

Posted by: Ace at 01:43 PM | Comments (1)
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.

More shovel-ready projects votes bought with tax dollars.

Fourteen of the top federal agencies responsible for spending under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act say they've hired about 3,000 workers with stimulus money. That's helped fuel the continued growth of the federal government, which increased by more than 25,000 employees, or 1.3%, since December 2008, according to the latest quarterly report. During that time, the ranks of the nation's unemployed increased by nearly 4 million, Labor Department statistics show.

This is going to be like California on a macro-scale, the same crap that bankrupted California (284,000 to 340,000 full time public employees since 1997)

Why would we asplode the federal payroll in a cratering economy? Because shut up that's why!

I hereby denounce the racism of this post.

I am banning myself now.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 12:38 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.

Compare and contrast this talk with Obama's Hopey Changey obsequiousness at the UN yesterday.

Me? I'm with Bibi.

More righteous UN butt kicking here (via mere_rhetoric)

It a very sad day when America's friends have to say the things we should be saying. Worse still, those same friends are under attack by our own administration.

Yesterday in my Obama at the UN post I wondered whether Obama was simply naive or if he really wants to see the US brought low to atone for what he sees as our past sins.

Michael Ledeen comes down on the side of the latter....

. I think that he rather likes tyrants and dislikes America. I think he'd like to be more powerful, I think he is trying to get control over as much of our lives as he can, so that he can put an end to the annoying tumult of our public life. As when he said (about health care) to the Congress, "Okay, you've talked enough, now it's time to do the right thing (my thing)." And he's trying to end American power in the outside world. He's saying "I'm going to stop us, before we kill again."

More at the link.

Given Obama's speech yesterday (and those that came before), his lack of action in support of Iranian protesters and continueed desire to engage Iran, his abandonment of our allies in eastern Europe and the shameful support of tyranny over liberty in Honduras, there's really no other conclusion to reach, is there?

I have some vague childhood memories of the Carter years and never thought I'd see us go down that path again. And yet here we are. Worse still, we're only 8 months in to the Age of Obama

More: Rich Lowry disagrees with Ledeen. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 11:58 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 516 words, total size 4 kb.

A census worker was found hanged with the word "fed" carved in his chest on 9/12, the day of the tea parties.

The left is eager pushing this as of course a violent bit of rightwingery all caused by Glenn Beck and our other rabid spokesman.

Confederate Yankee dispels some myths. Including the implication the leftwing media and bloggers wish to advance, that he was killed on 9/12.

No, he was found on 9/12. In a state of advanced decomposition.

And also largely ignored: He was working in a dangerous area filled with drug-dealers. It's very possible he simply knocked on the wrong door and discovered a meth lab.

The theory postulated by the irresponsible, unvetted, amateur leftwing media is not implausible. It could be the case that this was some demented anti-government weirdo who took the opportunity to kill a "fed."

But there are many possibilities right now, aren't there?

But some are very, very eager to see racists, facists, and/or racist fascists behind this, well in advance of any facts.

Consider this your LGF post for the day.

Posted by: Ace at 11:21 AM | Comments (2)
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

Ah, yes. That civil, reasonable style of debate which does not encourage political violence -- claiming that the Republican Party literally wants to kill you.

The quote is at 5:20.

Maybe Chris Matthews can instruct me on how we're all poisoning the debate and recreating "Texas '63." You know, Texas '63, where right-wing Soviet emigree and Castro fan Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy.

Posted by: Ace at 10:27 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.

RedState seemed to state (or I assumed them to state) was that the snippets of legal opinion cited established the proposition that when someone in a business or organization is dealing with "the public," he can't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that discussion.

Zero Sheep says that's not the case at all. And that the cases cited stand only for the proposition that if X and Y are having a conversation but they know (or should know) a third party Z can hear them, they can't have an expectation of privacy.

In which case, it's not true that just dealing with "the public" generally ends the expectation of privacy.

And in that case the analysis from a commenter -- that the ACORN employees could not have an expectation of privacy, because they knew one third party (their employer, charged with making sure they didn't misuse private customer information) had a right to eavesdrop -- would be the argument to make.

Response from RedState's Leon Wolf: He says no, that's what it means.

I don't know myself so I can only quote people arguing with each other.

But... now that I think of it, Leon's broad exception seems, well, seriously broad. As in overbroad. It is an exception, as they say, that eats the rule. If his argument is correct, you cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy with anyone except, it seems, someone you have known personally for some undefined period of time.

If I knock on a stranger's door and start talking to him, by Leon's reasoning, the guy I'm talking to has no reasonable expectation of privacy because I'm a member of the public and I can tape him all day, consent or no.

That doesn't sound right.

For one thing, I don't know how, by this rule, one would separate members of "the public" from people who are not members of "the public."

Posted by: Ace at 10:24 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.

A follow up on this morning's post...

The school district says it was produced as part of Black History Month but wasn't supposed to be recorded or released.

No apology, no admission this was wrong and no sign that the people responsible will be censured.

Hey school district, I'm real happy for you and Imma let you finish, but ACORN had some of the best tapes that weren't supposed to be recorded or released of ALL TIME.

Posted by: Kanye at September 24, 2009 01:50 PM (5WqvK)

Move along now, nothing to see here.

Unwritten subtext...shut up or you're racist.

via @michellemalkin

In case you missed it earlier, the video is below the fold. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 09:37 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.

As Peter Venkman said, "Back off man, I'm a scientist."

And as Dean Yeager said to Venkman: "Doctor... Venkman. The purpose of science is to serve mankind. You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle. Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman!"

Worth reading in full. The gist is this:

Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, ..politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.

Now since then, FOIA requests for the data have been filed, and an increasing number of scientists have been curious to see precisely what exactly the evidence is of the much-heralded 0.6 degree Centigrade rise in temperature this century we've heard so very much about.

The new answer?

We lost all the old data so we can't provide it to you.

You'll just have to take our word for it that it existed at one time, and when we "adjusted" it to correct for what we thought were errors, our corrections were proper and accurate.

Thanks to EdwardR.

Venkman Quote corrected.

Posted by: Ace at 09:06 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.