The good news from Iraq.

I’ve already written about the liberal bias in the Red Star but what about other news outlets? It’s fair to say that there are some right-leaning papers and broadcasters out there but it’s equally fair to say that they are vastly outnumbered by left-leaning papers and broadcasters. Dan Rather went to the air with a phony story about President Bush’s military records. The people around him were fired but he got a pass. If that’s not convincing, how about the fact that he did Democratic fundraisers in Texas? Were we getting impartial information from him? What about the current breed of journalists? Don’t hold your breath.

Alan Greenblatt writes (in this article) of a speech given by Norman Mailer in Cambridge, Massachusetts in which he attacked the President. The crowd went wild with every attack and he left the podium to thunderous applause. So what’s the problem, this is America right? The problem is that most of the people in attendance were journalists; the people we get our news from. The American Society of Newspaper Editors published a report in the late 90s showing 61% of journalists identifying themselves as “Democrat or liberal” compared to 15% as “Republican or conservative.” That’s four times as many admitted liberals as conservatives. Last year’s report from the Pew Research Center for The People and The Press found that five times more national journalists (this includes not only newspaper journalists like the report above but also television and other media source journalists) identify themselves as “liberal” (34 percent) than “conservative” (just 7 percent). This is compared to a study taken of the general public in the same year which found 20 percent of the public saying they were liberal and 33 percent saying they were conservative. To summarize, more Americans view themselves as conservative than liberal but the representation in the media is tilted way to the left.

So what’s this all have to do with Iraq? Well… think about it: I bet with some research you can tell me the total amount of American soldiers killed in combat. You can probably do some research and tell me the names of the hostages that were recently taken captive. You know who Daniel Berg is. You know every time a car bomb goes off and kills people.

Do you know how many schools have reopened in Iraq since we’ve been there? Do you know how many Iraqis have returned from exile, how many families have been reunited? Do you know who Samaad from Umar Bill is? Of course you don’t – you’re not getting those stories. Reporters are failing in their job. They have left a gaping void where the news doesn’t jibe with their personal political preferences.

I bring this up because of the continuing flap over whether or not we should pull our troops out of Iraq. Some of the good news is actually starting to filter out. Take this story for example. The troops are confused, even annoyed, at the way the media is portraying the war, focusing on death tolls rather than progress made. Lieutenant Richard Malmstrom tells of the bond the Iraqi soldiers feel with their American counterparts. An Iraqi says, “Marines are not friends; marines are brothers.”

A more notable voice is that of journalist Michael Yon. He does not answer to a large media conglomerate. He was in Iraq as an independent journalist, free to report anything he saw. So what did he see? Bravery and progress. You would be doing yourself a great favor if you went to his website: michaelyon.blogspot.com. Spend some time reading what the America soldiers are really going through and really accomplishing – he does it far greater justice than I could ever hope to.

Remember when I mentioned Samaad from Umar Bill? If you don’t believe me that Americans are being welcomed by the greater Iraqi population, than you can take his word for it. This is directly quoted from Yon’s “Hello Ameriki (from the Kurds)” dispatch:

He [Samaad] fell somber and disappeared for a moment into memory. Emerging with a slight smile tinted by sadness in his eyes, he said, "The Kurds are so happy to see you. The Americans are like the angels from God." But his expression changed dramatically to one of hidden anger: "The Arabs accuse the Americans of being murderers and criminals," he said with finality, "but when Americans came, they brought justice."

Greatest. Picture. Ever.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to announce that I have discovered the greatest photograph known to man. That photo of the sailor kissing the woman after the then end of WWII was announced? Nope. The Vietnamese girl running naked from her bombed village? Don’t think so. The Afghani girl with the haunting green eyes? Try again folks. Cast your eyes above to the greatest piece of art in the photographic medium.

Let’s explain something first: midgets are always funny. Always. Midgets and monkeys are guaranteed laughs every single time. What was in Happy Gilmore’s happy place? A hot chick, beer and a midget riding a wooden toy horse. Monkeys are also sure fire comedy, like the smoking monkey, the monkey doing kung fu, the monkey smelling the finger that’s been in his butt and falling out of the tree and the monkey drinking its own pee.

Sadly, the midget is often underutilized as a comedic tool. Aside from the Happy Gilmore midget, the only examples I can think of are the Lollipop Guild midgets and the midget from Seinfeld.

Until today.

Let’s explain why this photo is the greatest thing I have ever laid eyes on. First, notice the theme: Snow White and the Five Dwarves (the other two were clearly doing something funny out of the frame). Check out the midget on the left with the pimp hat. His fingers are so small and sausage-like that they’re funny by themselves. They are much funnier when you consider that they’re small enough to prevent him from holding a bottle of beer normally. He’s carrying it like a football! Then there’s “Cocky” living up to his dwarf name with the smuggest look I’ve ever seen on a midget. Maybe he’s cocky because his head almost looks like a full size person’s head and doesn’t have the usual midget features. Whatever dude. Next is “Busty” and there isn’t too much that’s funny about her except that the arm she’s using to get the beer to her mouth looks like a turkey wing or something. The dude on the right is also pretty normal by midget standards. The Holy Grail of Funny is the midget on his left. Notice that she’s supposed to be “slutty” but actually went out of the house without spell checking her shirt. Sluty? What the hell is that? Say it phonetically – Slooty. I almost died laughing. Notice “Sluty’s” neck – or lack thereof. Come on, even midgets are supposed to have necks! Then check out her chimpanzee arms: they can reach all the way to the floor! She got the smallest body and arms that belong to a full size person. What she lacks in neck, she makes up for in arms. Awesome.

The last thing the casual observer might miss is the fact that they’re all wasted. That’s not too unusual until you consider that they’re probably all on their first beers. A bottle of beer would get you FUCKED up if you were only two and a half feet tall. Look again at “Horny.” The beer is legitimately a quarter of his size. That would be like me drinking a beer that was from the floor to up past my knee. Maybe that whole two ounces of beer is what’s giving “Cocky” his beer balls and attitude.

Call the Nobel Prize committee. If there’s a category for photography we have our winner; cancel all other submissions. If there isn’t, there fucking should be.

The Red Star.

The Arizona Daily Star is a left leaning paper, there is no doubt about it. I mean, just read the positions their editorial staff* takes – not a conservative thought to be found. They may as well call themselves the Arizona Daily Worker or the Arizona Red Star. While their editorials are usually “in your face” leftist, there are more subtle ways they and other journalists go about revealing their slant.

Take today’s paper for example. They have a headline in today’s paper in big, bold letters: “’Greenhouse gases’ at highest level in 650,000 years.”

Holy shit! We must do something! The article states, “levels of carbon dioxide have climbed from 280 parts per million two centuries ago to 380 ppm today.”

That’s a lot, right? That’s pretty drastic, isn’t it? Read it again: over two centuries, carbon dioxide levels have risen by 100 PARTS PER MILLION. Let’s examine what that means. 380 parts per million isn’t even one percent of the total makeup of the atmosphere. It isn’t even a tenth of one percent. It isn’t even one hundredth of one percent. Shit, it’s not even one thousandth of one percent. If you do the math, the total amount of carbon dioxide in the air according to this article is 0.00038%. That’s up from 0.00028% two centuries ago.

Put it this way: if we consider the carbon dioxide “unpure” and everything else “pure” (for simplicity’s sake and for illustrative purposes) the air with CO2 levels at 380 ppm is 99.99962% pure. Two centuries ago, at 280ppm the air was 99.99972% pure. All of a sudden that’s not so bad is it? If we maintain the current rate, the air will be 99.99952% pure by 2205. Oh-fucking-no!!! Shit, if we double the last two centuries’ rate, the air will only be 99.99942% pure by 2205. Terror!!!

And I’m still pissed about yesterday’s editorial on Thanksgiving. It states:

“Thanksgiving is the best holiday of the year.

A pure, simple holiday, there are no lights to be hung, presents to buy, eggs to color or hide, fireworks scaring Fido, costumes to make and wear, or midnight kisses and champagne toasts.”

Fireworks scaring Fido? What holiday could that be? What holiday is most commonly associated with fireworks? The Fourth of July is. Gee, I’m sorry Red Star staffers – sorry if celebrating the independence of our nation is an inconvenience to you. Bah.

*Note: I said STAFF. Not guest opinions or guest columnists.

Dude... stay home and jerk off next time!

It was a couple of years ago when I first noticed it in Las Vegas. I was walking the corridor between the Luxor and the Mandalay Bay when I noticed the mannequins modeling women’s clothing now had nipples. My reaction was a quiet chuckle to myself. “Is that not excessive?” I thought. I mean, I’m sure you want the mannequins to give a reasonable estimation of what the clothes would look like on a female body but… nipples? At least we know what the clothes would look like in cold weather.

I bring this up because I thought it was curious but I did NOT for a second think it was erotic. Nor did I wonder if the mannequins were anatomically correct in the groin region. Never occurred to me…

Apparently some people are much more curious. Take this dude for example. He was caught trying to bump uglies with one of these female mannequins. How hard up do you have to be to try and have sex with a mannequin? And how on earth do you ever, ever, ever live that down? This unlucky fellow’s name is in the paper: Michael Plentyhorse. His friends have to know about this by now. I can imagine the scene a few years from now when Mr. Plenyhorse is at a job interview: “Ok Mr. Plentyhorse, your work experience seems to be in order, your educational background is good and… uhhh – wait a second. Michael Plentyhorse? As in, Michael Plentyhorse the mannequin fucker? Sorry but you can walk dude. I don’t think you’ll fit in here.”

One thing about the article strikes me as unfair though. Unfair to the mannequin. Check out this quote: “Police spokesman Loren McManus said: "There was inappropriate activity between him and the mannequin. That's the only way I know how to put it."

What the hell did the mannequin do that was inappropriate? That quote makes it seem like the mannequin was a co-conspirator in the act. As if she had a choice in the matter.

I said before that I wasn’t curious as to whether or not these mannequins had the correct parts in the groin area. Now I have to wonder: where was Plentyhorse planning on sticking his dork? Did he fashion his own hole or are the mannequins that accurate? I mean if there are nipples, shouldn’t camel toes be represented too? Is that a common enough phenomenon in women’s clothing that it has to be represented on the dummies? So many questions that I’m afraid to know the answers for…

Republicans still firing back...

Repulicans continue to respond to the war critics. Below is the full text of Vice President Cheney's speech this morning. I recommend reading it in its entirety but have bolded the more relevant parts:

"Good morning, and thank you all very much. And thank you, Chris. It's great to be back at AEI. Both Lynne and I have a long history with the American Enterprise Institute, and we value the association, and even more, we value the friendships that have come from our time here. And I want to thank all of you for coming this morning and for your welcome.

My remarks today concern national security, in particular the war on terror and the Iraq front in that war. Several days ago, I commented briefly on some recent statements that have been made by some members of Congress about Iraq. Within hours of my speech, a report went out on the wires under the headline, "Cheney says war critics 'dishonest,' 'reprehensible.'"

One thing I've learned in the last five years is that when you're Vice President, you're lucky if your speeches get any attention at all. But I do have a quarrel with that headline, and it's important to make this point at the outset. I do not believe it is wrong to criticize the war on terror or any aspect thereof. Disagreement, argument, and debate are the essence of democracy, and none of us should want it any other way. For my part, I've spent a career in public service, run for office eight times -- six statewide offices and twice nationally. I served in the House of Representatives for better than a decade, most of that time as a member of the leadership of the minority party. To me, energetic debate on issues facing our country is more than just a sign of a healthy political system -- it's also something I enjoy. It's one of the reasons I've stayed in this business. And I believe the feeling is probably the same for most of us in public life.

For those of us who don't mind debating, there's plenty to keep us busy these days, and it's not likely to change any time soon. On the question of national security, feelings run especially strong, and there are deeply held differences of opinion on how best to protect the United States and our friends against the dangers of our time. Recently my friend and former colleague Jack Murtha called for a complete withdrawal of American forces now serving in Iraq, with a drawdown to begin at once. I disagree with Jack and believe his proposal would not serve the best interests of this nation. But he's a good man, a Marine, a patriot -- and he's taking a clear stand in an entirely legitimate discussion.

Nor is there any problem with debating whether the United States and our allies should have liberated Iraq in the first place. Here, as well, the differing views are very passionately and forcefully stated. But nobody is saying we should not be having this discussion, or that you cannot reexamine a decision made by the President and the Congress some years ago. To the contrary, I believe it is critical that we continue to remind ourselves why this nation took action, and why Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, and why we have a duty to persevere.

What is not legitimate -- and what I will again say is dishonest and reprehensible -- is the suggestion by some U. S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of his administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence.

Some of the most irresponsible comments have come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein. These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence materials. They are known to have a high opinion of their own analytical capabilities. (Laughter.) And they were free to reach their own judgments based upon the evidence. They concluded, as the President and I had concluded, and as the previous administration had concluded, that Saddam Hussein was a threat. Available intelligence indicated that the dictator of Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and this judgment was shared by the intelligence agencies of many other nations, according to the bipartisan Silberman-Robb Commission. All of us understood, as well, that for more than a decade, the U.N. Security Council had demanded that Saddam Hussein make a full accounting of his weapons programs. The burden of proof was entirely on the dictator of Iraq -- not on the U.N. or the United States or anyone else. And he repeatedly refused to comply throughout the course of the decade.

Permit me to burden you with a bit more history: In August of 1998, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution urging President Clinton take "appropriate action" to compel Saddam to come into compliance with his obligations to the Security Council. Not a single senator voted no. Two months later, in October of '98 -- again, without a single dissenting vote in the United States Senate -- the Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act. It explicitly adopted as American policy supporting efforts to remove Saddam Hussein's regime from power and promoting an Iraqi democracy in its place. And just two months after signing the Iraq Liberation law, President Clinton ordered that Iraq be bombed in an effort to destroy facilities that he believed were connected to Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs.

By the time Congress voted to authorize force in late 2002, there was broad-based, bipartisan agreement that the time had come to enforce the legitimate demands of the international community. And our thinking was informed by what had happened to our country on the morning of September 11th, 2001. As the prime target of terrorists who have shown an ability to hit America and who wish to do so in spectacular fashion, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to keep terrible weapons out of the hands of these enemies. And we must hold to account regimes that could supply those weapons to terrorists in defiance of the civilized world. As the President has said, "Terrorists and terror states do not reveal ... threats with fair notice, in formal declarations -- and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide."

In a post-9/11 world, the President and Congress of the United States declined to trust the word of a dictator who had a history of weapons of mass destruction programs, who actually used weapons of mass destruction against innocent civilians in his own country, who tried to assassinate a former President of the United States, who was routinely shooting at allied pilots trying to enforce no fly zones, who had excluded weapons inspectors, who had defied the demands of the international community, whose regime had been designated an official state sponsor of terror, and who had committed mass murder. Those are the facts.

Although our coalition has not found WMD stockpiles in Iraq, I repeat that we never had the burden of proof; Saddam Hussein did. We operated on the best available intelligence, gathered over a period of years from within a totalitarian society ruled by fear and secret police. We also had the experience of the first Gulf War -- when the intelligence community had seriously underestimated the extent and progress Saddam had made toward developing nuclear weapons.

Finally, according to the Duelfer report, Saddam Hussein wanted to preserve the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted. And we now know that the sanctions regime had lost its effectiveness and been totally undermined by Saddam Hussein's successful effort to corrupt the Oil for Food program.

The flaws in the intelligence are plain enough in hindsight, but any suggestion that prewar information was distorted, hyped, or fabricated by the leader of the nation is utterly false. Senator John McCain put it best: "It is a lie to say that the President lied to the American people."

American soldiers and Marines serving in Iraq go out every day into some of the most dangerous and unpredictable conditions. Meanwhile, back in the United States, a few politicians are suggesting these brave Americans were sent into battle for a deliberate falsehood. This is revisionism of the most corrupt and shameless variety. It has no place anywhere in American politics, much less in the United States Senate.

One might also argue that untruthful charges against the Commander-in-Chief have an insidious effect on the war effort itself. I'm unwilling to say that, only because I know the character of the United States Armed Forces -- men and women who are fighting the war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other fronts. They haven't wavered in the slightest, and their conduct should make all Americans proud. They are absolutely relentless in their duties, and they are carrying out their missions with all the skill and the honor we expect of them. I think of the ones who put on heavy gear and work 12-hour shifts in the desert heat. Every day they are striking the enemy -- conducting raids, training up Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers. Americans appreciate our fellow citizens who go out on long deployments and endure the hardship of separation from home and family. We care about those who have returned with injuries, and who face the long, hard road of recovery. And our nation grieves for the men and women whose lives have ended in freedom's cause.

The people who serve in uniform, and their families, can be certain: that their cause is right and just and necessary, and we will stand behind them with pride and without wavering until the day of victory.

The men and women on duty in this war are serving the highest ideals of this nation -- our belief in freedom and justice, equality, and the dignity of the individual. And they are serving the vital security interests of the United States. There is no denying that the work is difficult and there is much yet to do. Yet we can harbor no illusions about the nature of this enemy, or the ambitions it seeks to achieve.

In the war on terror we face a loose network of committed fanatics, found in many countries, operating under different commanders. Yet the branches of this network share the same basic ideology and the same dark vision for the world. The terrorists want to end American and Western influence in the Middle East. Their goal in that region is to gain control of the country, so they have a base from which to launch attacks and to wage war against governments that do not meet their demands. For a time, the terrorists had such a base in Afghanistan, under the backward and violent rule of the Taliban. And the terrorists hope to overturn Iraq's democratic government and return that country to the rule of tyrants. The terrorists believe that by controlling an entire country, they will be able to target and overthrow other governments in the region, and to establish a radical Islamic empire that encompasses a region from Spain, across North Africa, through the Middle East and South Asia, all the way to Indonesia. They have made clear, as well, their ultimate ambitions: to arm themselves with weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate all Western countries, and to cause mass death in the United States.

Some have suggested that by liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein, we simply stirred up a hornet's nest. They overlook a fundamental fact: We were not in Iraq on September 11th, 2001 -- and the terrorists hit us anyway. The reality is that terrorists were at war with our country long before the liberation of Iraq, and long before the attacks of 9/11. And for many years, they were the ones on the offensive. They grew bolder in the belief that if they killed Americans, they could change American policy. In Beirut in 1983, terrorists killed 241 of our service men. Thereafter, the United States withdrew from Beirut. In Mogadishu in 1993, terrorists killed 19 American soldiers. Thereafter, the U.S. withdrew its forces from Somalia. Over time, the terrorists concluded that they could strike America without paying a price, because they did, repeatedly: the bombing at the World Trade Center in 1993, the murders at the Saudi National Guard Training Center in Riyadh in 1995, the Khobar Towers in 1996, the simultaneous bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and, of course, the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000.

Believing they could strike us with impunity and that they could change U.S. policy, they attacked us on 9/11 here in the homeland, killing 3,000 people. Now they are making a stand in Iraq -- testing our resolve, trying to intimidate the United States into abandoning our friends and permitting the overthrow of this new Middle Eastern democracy. Recently we obtained a message from the number-two man in al Qaeda, Mr. Zawahiri, that he sent to his chief deputy in Iraq, the terrorist Zarqawi. The letter makes clear that Iraq is part of a larger plan of imposing Islamic radicalism across the broader Middle East -- making Iraq a terrorist haven and a staging ground for attacks against other nations. Zawahiri also expresses the view that America can be made to run again.

In light of the commitments our country has made, and given the stated intentions of the enemy, those who advocate a sudden withdrawal from Iraq should answer a few simple questions: Would the United States and other free nations be better off, or worse off, with Zarqawi, bin Laden, and Zawahiri in control of Iraq? Would we be safer, or less safe, with Iraq ruled by men intent on the destruction of our country?

It is a dangerous illusion to suppose that another retreat by the civilized world would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone. In fact such a retreat would convince the terrorists that free nations will change our policies, forsake our friends, abandon our interests whenever we are confronted with murder and blackmail. A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for the terrorists, an invitation to further violence against free nations, and a terrible blow to the future security of the United States of America.

So much self-defeating pessimism about Iraq comes at a time of real progress in that country. Coalition forces are making decisive strikes against terrorist strongholds, and more and more they are doing so with Iraqi forces at their side. There are more than 90 Iraqi army battalions fighting the terrorists, along with our forces. On the political side, every benchmark has been met successfully -- starting with the turnover of sovereignty more than a year ago, the national elections last January, the drafting of the constitution and its ratification by voters just last month, and, a few weeks from now, the election of a new government under that new constitution.

The political leaders of Iraq are steady and courageous, and the citizens, police and soldiers of that country have proudly stepped forward as active participants and guardians in a new democracy -- running for office, speaking out, voting and sacrificing for their country. Iraqi citizens are doing all of this despite threats from terrorists who offer no political agenda for Iraq's future, and wage a campaign of mass slaughter against the Iraqi people themselves -- the vast majority of whom are fellow Arabs and fellow Muslims.

Day after day, Iraqis are proving their determination to live in freedom, to chart their own destiny, and to defend their own country. And they can know that the United States will keep our commitment to them. We will continue the work of reconstruction. Our forces will keep going after the terrorists, and continue training the Iraqi military, so that Iraqis can eventually take the lead in their country's security and our men and women can come home. We will succeed in this mission, and when it is concluded, we will be a safer nation.

Wartime conditions are, in every case, a test of military skill and national resolve. But this is especially true in the war on terror. Four years ago, President Bush told Congress and the country that the path ahead would be difficult, that we were heading into a long struggle, unlike any we have known. All this has come to pass. We have faced, and are facing today, enemies who hate us, hate our country, and hate the liberties for which we stand. They dwell in the shadows, wear no uniform, have no regard for the laws of warfare, and feel unconstrained by any standard of morality. We've never had a fight like this, and the Americans who go into the fight are among the bravest citizens this nation has ever produced. All who have labored in this cause can be proud of their service for the rest of their lives.

The terrorists lack any capacity to inspire the hearts of good men and women. And their only chance for victory is for us to walk away from the fight. They have contempt for our values, they doubt our strength, and they believe that America will lose our nerve and let down our guard. But this nation has made a decision: We will not retreat in the face of brutality, and we will never live at the mercy of tyrants or terrorists.

None of us can know every turn that lies ahead for America in the fight against terror. And because we are Americans, we are going to keep discussing the conduct and the progress of this war and having debates about strategy. Yet the direction of events is plain to see, and this period of struggle and testing should also be seen as a time of promise. The United States of America is a good country, a decent country, and we are making the world a better place by defending the innocent, confronting the violent, and bringing freedom to the oppressed. We understand the continuing dangers to civilization, and we have the resources, the strength, and the moral courage to overcome those dangers and lay the foundations for a better world.

Thank you very much."

Sivlitz adds "crime fighter" to his resumé.

I didn’t go out Saturday. Instead, I went to hang out with some buddies over at Randy’s house. That in and of itself is not unusual but the story of what happened when we went to buy beer most certainly was.

We stopped at the liquor store so we could find something good to drink. Everyone picked out what they wanted and I left with a sixer of New Belgium’s Summer Wheat. The next stop was to the convenience mart to pick up snacks. I settled on some beef jerky, Andy bought some hot chocolate and we both headed outside with our loot and waited for Randy and Nelson to wrap up their purchases. While we were waiting outside, we noticed a man walk into the store and head to the beer section. No big deal, right? Well, Randy and Nelson were already in the checkout line when this dude entered the store. A short while later, Andy and I notice him walking out of the store with two cases of Bud Light while Randy and Nelson are still in line. It hadn’t dawned on me yet, I thought to myself, “damn, that guy sure checked out real quick.” The next thing I thought was, “wait a second… I don’t think he checked out at all. Perhaps he has some sort of arrangement with the clerk.” I looked at Andy and he asked, “Is that guy stealing that beer?” Well, after processing the info – it sure as hell seemed like that. I looked in the window and see Randy and Nelson with these goofy incredulous looks on their faces. I look at the clerk as he’s gesticulating trying to get my attention in a “hey, stop that guy!” kind of way.

I have to say, it was very surreal. I’ve seen other beer runs before but they usually involve younger guys grabbing the beer and running for their lives. Well this was an older dude and he just grabbed the beer and ambled out like it was the most normal thing in the world. That’s why it just didn’t register at first. Unfortunately for this guy, a police officer happened to be pulling into the parking lot just as he was walking to his getaway car. I noticed the thief quicken his pace and Andy and I start waving at the cop and pointing at the thief. Well, he wasn’t registering anything unusual either, outside of me and Andy motioning like a couple of epileptics. He rolled by me with his window down and I had to communicate what was happening to him. I was on the spot and had to verbalize what was happening. This was the best I could manage:

“Hey… that dude didn’t pay for his shit!!”

Apparently that was good enough as the officer moved to block the car which was now trying to make its escape. The thief was arrested and cuffed and his accomplice was busted too. The police officer got information from me and Andy and told me that my quote was going in his official report.

I suppose those words are as good as any other to be remembered by.

Awesome. Simply awesome.

Ho-lee. Shih-tah.

I can’t speak to the real political ramifications of what the Republicans did to the Democrats today but in my novice opinion they laid absolute waste to the demos. If you have a “D” in front of your name, you got owned today.

A little background: the whiny, pissy Democrats have had their panties in bunch about the war recently. Now – no one is saying that the transition to democracy in Iraq has gone smoothly; that it’s an all out success so far or anything of the sort. As a matter of fact, Bush and his administration are starting to come under fire from other Republicans for their handling or the situation over there. But the Democrats have been especially noisy lately. The latest salvo was fired by John Murtha of Pennsylvania.

Before going into what he’s said, let us remember one thing: many of the people calling for a quick exit, etc. are the same folks that voted FOR the war using the same intelligence reports that the Bush people had. Murtha was one of those that voted to approve the use of military forces and just this week he reversed course and called for our troops to be pulled out of Iraq. He has instant credibility, right? He’s someone that saw the value of military action now realizes the futility of the struggle and wants to cut and run. Well, yes and no. No one doubts that this former Marine was a bad ass and, most likely, still is. But they are questioning his POLICY. People – an immediate withdrawal now would be an absolute disaster. Period. Almost all American realize this (80% of the public – even counting those that disagree with the war – believe an immediate pull out would be a catastrophe by the last report I saw today). Nevertheless, the Democrats have been posturing to keep their kook base happy; to keep the misguided 20% happy. “We should pull out now!!” they carp. It’s simple political posturing and they haven’t been called on it.

Until today.

What the Republicans in the House did was say, “you want out of Iraq? Fine. This is a democracy, let’s vote on it.”

In other words, put your money where your fucking mouth is or shut the shit up.

This is one of the boldest political moves I’ve ever been witness to. So what happened? The vote to pull troops out of Iraq immediately got shot down 403-3.

403-3.

Where’s your conviction now, demos?

The article explains, “Republicans hoped to place Democrats in an unappealing position -- either supporting a withdrawal that critics said would be precipitous or opposing it and angering voters who want an end to the conflict.” The Republicans knew that any Democrat that voted to pull troops wouldn’t ever get elected again and that’s why this was a brilliant move to me. The 3 that did vote for the pull out must have been from the butt fucking-est parts of San Francisco or something, where that kind of radicalism is commonplace. Those that voted against the pull out now look like all talk and no action in the eyes of the constituents that are against the war.

Awesome.

There was some controversy specifically regarding Murtha. I say again, this dude was a bad ass and I’m not questioning his service or his love for his country but, dude – this statement from a Marine Colonel currently serving in Iraq (who called in to his representative in Ohio: Jean Schmidt) had to sting: “[the Colonel] asked me to send Congress a message -- stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message -- that cowards cut and run, Marines never do.”

Republicans voted out of office, HAHAHAHA!!!

Why, given my political leanings, would I be happy to see Republicans losing elections? Because they back intelligent design, that’s why. Voters in Pennsylvania sent a clear message that: 1.) people in the U.S. still have some common sense and 2.) stupidity from elected officials will not be tolerated. I don’t believe idiocy should be tolerated from Republicans any more than it should be tolerated from Democrats.

Voters in last Tuesday’s elections gave eight Republicans the boot in Dover, Pennsylvania. The positions up for grabs were seats on the local school board. The eight Republicans in question had come out as publicly backing a prepared statement on intelligent design to be read in the school biology classes. They lost to eight Democrats who wanted ID to be removed from the curriculum. Good for the Dover citizens.

I’ll say it again – if you believe in intelligent design and want to have your children learn it, you’re an idiot and that’s your choice. The rub is that it must be done at home or in Sunday school because it does not belong in science classes. Its hypothesis cannot be tested and it certainly cannot be proven. Teaching something that basically amounts to, “we’re not sure what’s up so it must be god” simply isn’t acceptable as science. I mean really, gravity is – in scientific terms – just a theory. Why don’t we have nutjobs saying things like “we can’t prove the theory of gravitation so we should teach children that god’s love keeps us from floating into space”? The answer to that question is simple: no one would take them seriously. And they shouldn’t.

My question is: why do we give the intelligent design idiots any credence?

Now if only Kansas would join the rest of us in the 21st century.

A note for Oscar.

Oscar - I may consider setting up a fund to help you acquire glasses. Janet Jackson's tit was revolting. Not in a "moral outrage" sort of way; more like a "I'd rather stab a red hot iron through my skull than have to see that floppy bag of oatmeal again" sort of way. I reckon it was like an eyeball after having been poked out of the socket, both in terms of appearance and sex appeal.

Robert Paulson had nicer jublies.

God DAMMIT!!

Last weekend ruled. I woke up Friday to participate in the UA’s Greek Golf Tournament. I had prepared the night before by preparing a flask full of Dead Nazi, my favorite shot mix (half Rumpleminze and half Jägermeister). On the day of the tournament I gathered my yard sale golf clubs up, tossed my liquor into the golf bad and headed out to the course. On the course I proceeded to get hammered and shoot some of the worst golf this side of man with both arms amputated. It was a great time though with my foursome, Craig, Eric and Tony included, taking home the Worst Team trophy to jokes of just having them rename the trophy in our honor.

Saturday was an even better day. I headed out to the tent on the mall for some pre-game drinking, headed back to the old fraternity house for more beer and to catch some quick football scores and then made my way to the game. What followed was one of the happier moments in my life as a UA football fan: a 52-14 drubbing of then #7 ranked UCLA. After the game, a celebration was in order so I headed back to the fraternity house where I ran into some old friends that I hadn’t seen in years. Good times all around.

I mention all this because that weekend put a goofy smile on my face that I carried all week long. As it relates to UA football, it felt as if a corner had been turned and freshman phenom Willie Tuitama was going to take the team places. It looked as if the UA was primed to win out and finish near .500 and have all the pieces in place for a decent team next year. The odds makers saw it that way too: they made Arizona a 13 point favorite in tonight’s game versus Washington.

So what happens? Well, if you are familiar with Arizona football, it shouldn’t surprise you to know that they took a huge bite out of a giant shitburger and dropped tonight’s game 38-14. Last week they demolished a ranked team and within one week’s time they were getting demolished on their home field by a team they were actually favored to win. To top it off, Tuitama played like the freshman he is, throwing 3 interceptions and losing a fumble. The atmosphere in the stadium was somber indeed. I found myself wondering if anyone would notice if I headed into the UA locker room, suited up and hit the field to play some defense. I mean – what was the worst that could happen? I’d get steam rolled by #22 and not make the tackle? That would have made me UNDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE REAL UA LINEBACKERS!! God dammit!! What about offense? How about letting me get some reps at tailback? I mean, I’m sure I’m not anywhere near as fast as Mike Bell or Gilbert Harris but really – how quick do you need to be to rush for NEGAVITE YARDAGE ON ALMOST EVERY GODDAM PLAY!! Damn you UA football. Rooting for you is like rooting for the Titanic not to sink at the end of the movie.

A rebuttal!

I finally got a rebuttal response to my letter in the Daily Star:

“Re: the October 29 letter to the editor ‘Right achieves; left in dreamland.’”

I am writing to comment the parents of this letter writer for the excellent job they did of home schooling.

If their son had been unfortunate enough to have had no alternative but to attend public schools, where those folks who ‘can’t do’ teach, the readers of the Star would not have had the opportunity to read such a thoughtful, articulate and well-written letter.

I feel very fortunate to have managed to acquire the necessary skills even to read the Star or his letter given that I was educated by liberal public school teachers in a dreamland.

I appreciate the writer’s letter, because, if I had any doubt about the fact that I am an achiever, unlike the losers in my family who chose to waste much of their lives teaching, I don’t now. I have not been ‘left’ in that wasteland

Betsey Woodbury
Photographer, Tucson”

Honestly, my first reaction was: huh?

My second reaction was: what a fucking moron you are! Notice that Ms. Betsey doesn’t once counter anything I said in my letter. She merely tries (and fails) to introduce effective sarcasm into her response and misses my point entirely. For those keeping score at home, that point was simply this: liberals infest academia because that’s the only place their ideas really have any relevance anymore. Those on the left have had their styles of government implemented (communism and socialism) and have witnessed less than spectacular results. The more right wing model of libertarianism and unregulated free-markets has been a smashing success (cough *USA* cough).

In the world of thought without action, theory without implementation (academia), liberals are sure to be found. Historically, we owe liberals and leftists a great deal but to quote floppy tittied Janet Jackson, “what have you done for me lately?” You know, besides murder 100 million or so people under communism and drag Soviet Russia, Cuba and Eastern Europe into economic ruin.

Betsey assumes I was home schooled. Wrong Betsey. I went K-8 in the public school system and the last time I checked, the University of Arizona was a public university. The four missing years were spent at a private school with – gasp – teachers!

Furthermore, I never meant to impugn the motives, desire or even the ability of our teachers in a classroom setting and it completely escapes me how anyone could have taken it that way. I never claimed that the liberals were ineffective as teachers; just that teaching – standing behind a podium and pontificating – is a refuge for those who are never asked to produce tangible results. It doesn’t help her case that I was specifically speaking to the situation in our universities and not the K-12 system anyway. But who knows, maybe she is making the point she thought I was trying to make. What I mean is: maybe public school teachers did indeed fail Betsey because she seems unable to grasp my point. Reading comprehension is a bitch, you know?

When failure doesn't matter

I was published again in the Daily Star. Word.

A while back they did a feature on the imbalance between liberal v. conservative thought on university campuses. It’s no secret to anyone that the vast majority of professors on America’s college campuses are unrepentant liberals. Whatever. It’s not too terribly inconvenient if you know this going in ahead of time and are able to take certain things with a grain of salt. Not to mention the fact that it is a GOOD thing to challenge yourself and the ideas and ideologies you hold dear. Without questioning yourself you’d never be able to grow mentally. Nevertheless, the great disparity has caused a great deal of consternation in certain circles. The question is: why are there so many more liberal professors?

Some wahoo wrote in to the paper responding the way the liberals always respond: Duh! Liberals are smarter than conservatives and are therefore more qualified to teach university level courses. I beg to differ. My response?

“The real reason there are so many liberals in academia isn't that they are inherently smarter than conservatives, as Mr. Hlavacek suggests. It is because the realm of theory and idle thought is the only place that leftist ideas still have validity or relevance.

Conservatives achieve while liberals retreat back to their safe refuge, free from the real world consequences of implementing their agenda. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.”

That should be enough to ruffle feathers but look at the evidence: the proletariat paradise that was communism has been a demonstrable failure everywhere it’s been tried. European socialism is another product of leftist thought but many European countries are imploding economically under the weight of their social programs which demand high taxes and provide little to no motivation to better your situation in life (after all, why work and bust your ass when the government will provide for you?). The free market model, on the other hand, has been a remarkable success. The point in providing these examples is to illustrate that liberals care more about what motivates policy rather than the results the policy produces. And it often turns out that liberal policy fails spectacularly. That’s why the leftists retreat back to universities when the real world slaps them in the face. They are free from the demands of results produced. When you deal only in theory, failure doesn’t mean that much…