How stupid are they at the NY Times?

Beldar fills us in on the latest failure to think coming from the Times. In short, the Times tipped off terrorists that the Feds were coming on a raid. The government wants to find out who leaked and whether a crime was committed. The Times won't let their reporters cooperate by testifying about the source of the leak. So the government has to get the phone records. The Times is upset that the government might get access to the phone records because other sources might be identified. Government says no problem, the Judge can go throught the calls with the cooperation of the Times' employees to identify the relevant calls.

So the Times is upset that this process is too burdensome. Thankfully, the Court said tough -- you made this process necessary by refusing to cooperate. You can cooperate by testifying or you can cooperate by going through all the records, but you can't seek refuge behind the burden that you, yourself, created. (This is a version of the child who murdered his parents seeking mercy from the court on grounds he's an orphan.)

Ricky Proehl can't help Colts

The Colts have apparently added the veteran wide receiver for the last part of the season. This cannot possibly work for Indy.

As even the most casual NFL fan knows, Tom Brady has been hampered all season by the fact that some of his receivers are new to the team this year. They can't seem to work out the timing of their routes. At least that is the reason given for Brady throwing so many incompletions. If Brady has been unable to get on the same page with new receivers over a period of several months, what possible chance does Peyton Manning have to do it in a week or two? After all, Brady has three rings and we are told repeatedly that he is the greatest QB to ever play.

I think it incredibly foolish for the Colts to even attempt something that is beyond the magical powers of the annointed one.

They really are that stupid at the Times

When does the journalism get so incredibly bad that it no longer qualifies as journalism?

A well-deserved smackdown

Via RCP, John Edwards gets a richly deserved encounter with facts. He doesn't fare well.

Where are the moderate muslims?

LGF provides a glimpse.

Treason? NY Times wants to help.

Great news! Beldar is back. And he has a great post on the latest development in the efforts by the NY Times to facilitate criminality in general and terrorism specifically:

Here it is in two sentences: The FBI was prevented from freezing terrorists' assets and catching terrorists because somebody leaked what they were about to do to the New York Times, and the NYT proceeded to warn the terrorists themselves! Now the NYT says that because it was just promoting the "public's right to know" and the First Amendment, its phone company should be immune from having to give evidence to permit a grand jury to decide whether any crimes were committed as part of this debacle.

And here it is in a mere ten words: Someone committed treason, and the NYT is okay with that.

Fight the Imams

Muslim clerics are engaged in a deliberate effort to damage our national security. It is critically important that we not allow political correctness make us weaker in the face of the next terrorist act.

More lying and incompetence by MSM

I know this story is all over the blogs, but I wanted to chime in with my two cents. The MSM has been spreading lies about Iraq. This stuff confirms again that not only are they corrupt, but incompetent. They can't even lie intelligently.

Of course, anyone who has been paying attention to the NY Times over the last ten years knows that dishonesty and incompetence in the MSM is standard operating procedure.

Three terrorist missiles downed TWA 800

Jack Cashill outlines a report put together by an airline industry insider on how the evidence indicates that 3 missiles shot down TWA 800.

I wonder if anyone will follow up on this.

Paul Campos -- sla

Apparently Paul Campos has caught the sla disease sweeping the left. It's an epidemic.

Charlie Rangel --sla

At Baseball Crank, this quote makes it clear that Charlie Rangel is a stupid, lying, ass:

I want to make it abundantly clear: if there's anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.

Tom Brady* -- asterisk man

With growing amazement each week, I note that the national sports media has made Tom Brady the only QB in NFL history who is entitled to a weekly asterisk. It seems that the media is so committed to the idea that Brady is one of the great all-time QBs that they can no longer simply report on his many failings. Thus, the development of the verbal asterisk which is the "excuse" which always follows the report of his weekly efforts.

When reporting on the efforts of the other QBs in the league, the media simply give us the numbers (e.g. "player X threw for 248 yards with 2 TDs and an INT"). We don't get told if the INT was really the fault of a receiver who ran the wrong route, had the ball stolen by a DB, or whatever. Just the numbers.

Brady, however, gets the verbal asterisk. For example, he threw 4 interceptions against the Colts earlier this year, but we were told that 3 of those were "deflections". The implication being that Brady wasn't really at fault. The reality is that each of his first 3 INTs were unquestionably his fault and the last one was the fault of both his RB and him (the RB let the ball skip off his hands, but Brady threw the short, easy pass much too high, thus putting his teammate in a bad position).

Yesterday, Brady threw 2 picks and both were his fault. He threw both into coverage where defenders were able to make plays on the ball. The hits by the defenders batted both balls in the air. Those are usually caught by the defense and these were. Of course, sports commentators at ESPN and elsewhere felt compelled to remind us that the balls were "deflected".

In fact, last year against KC in another 4 INT effort where Brady was lucky he didn't throw even more, one of his passes went straight at a DB who let the ball bounce off his hands and into the hands of another DB. Again, since it was "deflected", we got the asterisk treatment in order to make us believe that somehow Tom wasn't at fault.

Another example of the verbal asterisk this year has been the excuse that Brady has had to get used to some new receivers (not all, just some). We hear it every week. What a crock! New teammates are a constant in the NFL. Drew Brees joined a new team this fall and has played great despite having to learn to play with new receivers (as well as a new center, new backs, new coaches, a new offensive system with new terminology, and a new home in a new city).

Last night, Peyton Manning threw a pass to Marvin Harrison who caught the ball only to let his defender wrestle the ball away from him. Statistically, the perfectly thrown ball ends up as an interception charged to Manning (his only one). You won't hear an asterisk for Manning from the media today. His pass ended up as an interception -- end of story.

Joe Buck -- say what?!

I know Joe Buck is just a talking head whose way into the business was greased by who his dad is. But even with the low expectations one has for him, you'd think someone with his experience would have learned to engage his brain before opening his mouth. Just heard him say "Tom Brady is far and away the best QB in the National Football League".

Given how sorry Brady has played in so many games this year, what does Buck actually do when the games are on the monitors in the studio? Does he even watch? And if he does, why doesn't he get someone who understands football to explain what is going on?

Big Ten Bias?

Michigan, ranked #2, loses a regular season game. And doesn't drop a single spot. I don't care if they lost to #1, it is unfreakingbelievable. I haven't researched it, but I don't recall that ever happening before. You can absolutely bank on the fact that if two SEC teams were ranked 1 and 2 and played each other, there is no possible way that the loser would still be ranked #2 after the loss.

In the case establishing that the media has a huge bias in favor of teams from the north and east (i.e. Big Ten, ND, and those major schools in the northeast), please mark this as plaintiff's exhibit #7954.

Testosterone Blues (this is funny)

Heh. Heh, heh, heh. Heh, big time.

This is a great take on the declining testosterone levels in American males. Read it all, but here is a flavor:

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that all is lost. There are plenty of manly Americans still around and if we focus on their example we can save the next generation. It's important that we separate the real men from the pretenders so the youngsters understand the qualities of true masculinity. Norman Schwarzkopf, Colin Powell, Peyton Manning and Hillary Clinton are all fine examples of American manhood.

And:

Contrary to what women may tell you, a real man does not fear commitment. He may lack the attention span to commit for very long, but he doesn't fear it. A truly masculine American is not intimidated by a strong successful woman - in fact, he finds her earning potential very attractive. All successfully married men are tough guys. Any wimp can get a divorce, but it takes a real man to keep a woman interested when he's losing hair on his head and growing hair in his ears.

Are sports important?

You gotta love this.

I disagree with the CW

.. on why we lost. McCain is wrong. While we may have irritated some small government conservatives by not reining in spending, I have a hard time seeing that they voted for the Democrats.

We lost because we didn't fight back against the MSM and didn't get serious about clearing up vote fraud. More when I get some time.

A new star

College hoops fans may want to check out Davidson freshman Stephen Curry. He put up 32 points on Michigan and gathered 9 boards. In the Cats last game, he put up 27 points and added 9 rebounds against Ill-Chicago. For someone only 6-0, the rebounding numbers are astounding.

After 4 games, he's averaging 22.5 with 7.3 boards a game.

Did Miers Opposition Lose Congress?

At the time that NRO led the charge to bork Harriet Miers, I noted that none of the borkers seemed to have bothered doing a cost-benefit analysis before going after her scalp. I wrote:

I am really shocked and appalled at the failure of the anti-Miers bloggers to appreciate the costs of killing her nomination. All they seem to focus on is the benefit they perceive. Surely, they can't be so blind to the potential costs?
...
The anti-Miers forces saw a Supreme Court nominee who failed to meet their standards. They hammered and hammered the president until Ms. Miers' nomination was withdrawn. And now, everything is all better.

At what cost? Is it possible that some damage might have been incurred somewhere? Doesn't anyone have any interest in exploring what that damage might be? Or even admit that it exists. In fact, wouldn't it have been a good idea to think about the cost side a little before the borking commenced?

The most important cost I focused on dealt with the war. And I still think that the biggest negative impact from borking Miers was the damage done to our war effort. But I pointed out potential political costs, as well:

There are, of course, many other potential costs. For example, political initiatives which conservatives favor are likely to be damaged because the president has been weakened. And the perception of weakness cannot be helpful for GOP election efforts in 2006.

I don't have the numbers at hand, but my recollection is that President Bush's approval ratings took a serious hit as a result of the Miers borking and basically never really recovered. More importantly, the self-inflicted damage to the GOP served to really energize Democrats. It was at that point a little over a year ago, that the Democrats really started to believe they could make serious headway in the 2006 mid-terms.

And now we know what happened on election day. Anyone looking for reasons can find a lot more than the Miers borking upon which to blame the GOP losses. But given how close some of the elections were and how closely the Senate is split, any single one could have been a difference maker.

I have no doubt that the borkers are still adamant that their opposition to Miers was the right thing to do. Alito will likely be a more conservative vote on the Court than Miers would have been. I just want history to hold them fully accountable for the costs, as well as the benefits, which resulted from their actions.

Compare and Contrast

Tom Bevan pointed out the incredible race-baiting of the Atlanta Democrats. What is even more amazing is the brazen refusal to even acknowledge that they did anything the least bit wrong.

But of course, the MSM has absolutely no intention of covering this. Unlike the bizarre allegations of racism in the ad about Harold Ford's party with Playboy.

Playing the race card

If you want to find racism, you will always find it. Even when it's not there.

What he said

My libertarian instincts were juiced by this article about the admirable qualities of malt liquor and the rank hypocrisy of the rich bluebloods who legislate against selling it in the hood.

And I post it here because it made me laugh, even if the folks who run that website are certifiable horses' asses.

Quick Thoughts

Some thoughts on the election:

1. The Dems got the house because of conservative candidates winning in red areas (see e.g. Heath Shuler in the NC mountains). I just cannot imagine Shuler going along with Pelosi on very much. Let's see how this all plays out over the next two years.

2. The MSM kicked ass. They proved they can lie with the most egregiously slanted propaganda imaginable and conservative bloggers were powerless to do a damn thing about it. The triumphalism of some blogs proved wrong.

3. Looks like vote fraud in places like St. Louis will have been the difference if Mo goes blue. The GOP cannot afford to ignore election stealing any longer.

4. The failure of the GOP to use 527s to buy media ads throughout 2005 and 2006 cost them the House and maybe the Senate. If the GOP wants to counter the MSM's free propaganda for the Dems, they are going to have to pony up the cash thru outside 527s and buy ads.

Dem: allege voter intimidation without evidence

The Anchoress reminds us of all the vote fraud activities of the Democrats. I was surprised I didn't remember this one from 2004:

A 66-page mobilization plan to be issued by the Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee states: “If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a ‘pre-emptive strike.’”

Repealing the Laws of Science

The environmental wackos pushing the global warming scare for the UN:

undervalued the sun's effects on historical and contemporary climate, slashed the natural greenhouse effect, overstated the past century's temperature increase, repealed a fundamental law of physics and tripled the man-made greenhouse effect.

And admitted their scientific book-cooking in an e-mail.

Thanks to Don Luskin for pointing out this article by Christopher Monckton.

You need to read it all. And next time one of the wackos gets himself in a froth, show it to him.

In the Voting Booth

My wife and I voted early this afternoon. Today was the last day for early voting. The polling place in our town hall was packed. This is a very strong GOP area. I've never seen turnout so heavy.

Don't want to make any predictions based on what we saw today. I did drive by a couple of times over the last few days to see if I could get in and out quickly. No such luck, so we just chose to endure the wait today.

At a minimum, I would expect that Bob Corker enjoyed a large net increase in votes today at Farragut Town Hall.

A Scorecard you need to read

With all the moaning and groaning, perhaps a different view of the facts would be helpful in evaluating Congress.

Manufacturing the news, again

I see that the Anchoress has posted on Patterico's exposure of how the NY Times fabricates Kerry's quote. Unfreakingbelievable. Yes, no matter how low the Times goes, it seems they can't wait to sink even lower.

Just making it up for political propaganda purposes. Makes you wonder if there is even one honest person left working there who has the decency to be embarassed.

Even if you were a extreme leftist, it would be stupid to depend on the Times for your news. Because it is fiction. What kind of fool deliberately chooses to be misinformed?

Why do leaves have color?

As I understand the argument by those who oppose intelligent design, all the different qualities of plants and animals are due to evolution.

The leaves on the trees are green due to chlorophyll. When the cold weather hits and the leaves die, the chlorophyll is no longer there to turn the leaf green and we see the spectacular yellows, oranges and reds of autumn. While we love the beauty, our appreciation does not qualify as a sufficient reason for the evolution of the trees.

How are these different colors supposed to benefit the trees?

Stupid soldiers and racist cops

After 9/11, it was suddenly no longer kosher to bash cops as evil and racist. Those of us with longer memories, however, remember how liberal newspapers and politicians once regularly stereotyped the police as a bunch of vicious racists.

Do lots of liberals today, as Bill Clinton once wrote about his own feelings, loath those who serve in the military? Of course. The reactions of liberal bloggers to the Kerry gaffe demonstrate this quite well. This is just another episode in a long sordid history --just like the embrace by liberals of Michael Moore with his open hatred of this country.

My point is that the way that liberals think of our military personnel today is no different than the way they regarded cops pre-9/11 (and probably still do but can no longer voice openly). For them, our people in uniform who show the courage to stand up for and defend the USA will always be stupid and racist, Bull Conners and baby-killers.

It's all part of the same mind-set.

Tennessean -- Kerry was correct

Bill Hobbs points out that Nashville's The Tennessean agrees with John Kerry and doesn't think he should apologize.

According to those who have the stomach to peruse the internet sites where the vicious left-wingers congregate, half of the left maintains that Kerry was right because the Army is made up of losers. The other half maintainst that he was obviously telling a joke and the whole mess is just the GOP being mean.

Our "violent, murderous army"

AJ has this quote from Seymour Hersh, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist:

“In Vietnam, our soldiers came back and they were reviled as baby killers, in shame and humiliation,” he said. “It isn’t happening now, but I will tell you – there has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq.”

News Manufacturer

Once upon a time journalism was about reporting the news. Some journalists engaged in propaganda by slanting what they reported or refusing to report news that would favor politicians with whom they disagreed.

Today, propaganda in journalism is so rampant that simply slanting or boycotting stories isn't enough. Now we have the NY Times, which no longer reports news, it manufactures news.

News Manufacturer

Once upon a time journalism was about reporting the news. Some journalists engaged in propaganda by slanting what they reported or refusing to report news that would favor politicians with whom they disagreed.

Today, propaganda in journalism is so rampant that simply slanting or boycotting stories isn't enough. Now we have the NY Times, which no longer reports news, it manufactures news.

Kerry harassed soldiers' families at funerals

Wow. John Kerry is even more despicable than I thought. I didn't think that was possible. This story says he approached grieving families at the funerals of their sons to ask them to campaign for him against W.

What a classy guy.

Why did Dems want Kerry to campaign for them?

John Kerry is a stupid, loathsome, elitist snob. No one likes him. His latest bit of ugliness is totally in keeping with what we expect of him. The really interesting question has to be why Democrats running for office all over the country had him on the campaign trail with them over the last few weeks.

Either the candidates are stupid, or they think their supporters are stupid.

C'mon, who wants to go hear John Kerry give a speech? Who opens their checkbook because of the chance to meet John Kerry? John Kerry?!!!

How pathetic are they?