An American Communist Organization of Radical Nitwits called ACORN (a super-liberal and very race-oriented political action group whose raison d'etre is signing up new voters), is again guilty of signing up dead, fictional and otherwise illegitimate 'new voters'.  They keep getting caught doing this, and they never actually get a proper government intervention.  They claim it was rogue workers, the cards get turned in anyway, and without a doubt at least some of the illegitimate ones get onto the rolls, votes which somehow will come in, as 'rogue workers' get into different polling places signing in as these illegitimately registered fake people.  And their votes will count.  This haul netted over 300 phony voter registrations, in an area that got 35,000 votes in the last presidential election.  That means just the bad registrations that were CAUGHT this time was equal to almost 1% of the electorate, and there is NO doubt that many more are already in the system and that it's already gamed for 2008.  Wisconsin's been ugly; last year lots of Canadians somehow ended up coming across the border and voting, all Democrat of course.  And there was the incident in which Republican vehicles used for bringing voters in to the polls were sabotaged, tires slashed, etc., and it ended up being a son of a local Dem politician who DID IT.

Four other organizations are involved in this latest embarrassment, and of course all five of them are liberal democrat organizations.  And I read this week that ACORN is one of the beneficiaries of a newly passed spending bill allotting 10 billion taxpayer dollars for various purposes, and some of it goes to them. 

I am paying for an organization whose self-appointed task is to cheat at elections so that my side loses. 

Today I read that far more lefty blogs are filled with blue language than the blogs from the right.  After I got over my shock at this fact, I concluded that this is the least harmful of their pursuits and I wish it was all they were up to. 

But their more serious activities can even get a curse out of ME.

Read this quick update from Kate Norley, another of America's finest, the Iraq war veteran turned war correspondent, ready now to go back to where she saw so many friends die and saved so many more. 

Kate is one of many who are managing, with help from friends and determined bloggers like the Blackfive bunch, to bring America the real news from the middle east without the 'filter' of the MSM, which has turned to ignoring Iraq now that the bad news is being outshined by the good.

Ask yourself if you can ever imagine George Clooney, George Soros, Harry Reid, Susan Sarandon, Matt Damon, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Charlie Rangel or any of the starlets of Hollywood or congress bending down with tears in eyes and kissing the sweet soil of America the beloved. 

Not gonna happen.  Their entire fame and fortune is inextricably bound up in the 'badness' of America, as contrasted by THEIR OWN 'essential goodness', so that we the stupid voters will realize we need to put THEM in charge of 'fixing' this nation.

Well, they're in charge now. 

So how's that workin' out for 'em?

I believe America is a force for good in the world, and that the world is far better off for our existence and our engagement of the nations, at peace and at war.  We are an anomaly in history, a nation formed in its foundations by careful consideration of what is right and good.  No other nation is like us, and many want to be, in spite of the modern trendy international pastime of speaking ill of us.

Democrats believe America is essentially wrong and bad, and must be fixed.  They speak of our greatness grudgingly, and of our goodness not at all.  But people like Kate and Jimbo and the Blackfive circle are proof positive that America is good and Democrats are wrong.

Subsunk over at Blackfive, my favorite milblog, has put together an unimpeachable case in support of the late Dr. Ivins.

That is to say, he has proven to my satisfaction, if his facts are right (and they are), that the anthrax attacks of a few years back could not have been committed by Dr. Ivins.

The anthrax spores were simply too sophisticated.  They were created in a government laboratory, Soviet or Chinese.  That's the bottom line.  America's bio weapons programs have been shut down for more than thirty years, and ours were unable to produce a product like this even at their peak. 

These spores had a coating designed to improve the likelihood of inhaling, a weak electric charge to make them float away from each other in air, and were not 'milled', were not reduced in size by machining.  They were MADE small to begin with.

Ivins did not have the equipment at his lab to make this.  He was analyzing spores, not manufacturing them.   If he had even tried something like this, many other people would have known he was doing it.  And in any case, the equipment to do such a thing was not available to him, or anyone else in America.

Now that they're closing the case, we probably will never know publicly who actually did this.  And the sad case of Dr. Ivins, a man who apparently had some real psychological problems, will never satisfactorily conclude.  He died before he was charged, and the trial won't happen.

As Subsunk says, the FBI owes it to the public to provide a real explanation of how Ivins could have done this.  Right now, it looks impossible. 

And of course one must consider that if somebody had a desire to put an end to this inquiry, nothing could have suited them better than a plausible suspect committing suicide.  Dr. Ivins' psych problems, his stalker tendency, his desire for revenge killings of women who have dismissed him, were a part of his psychotherapy record and would have been known by the FBI.  These things have become public at a convenient time, and Dr. Ivins is also conveniently DEAD.

But he could not have accomplished the anthrax attacks; the weaponized anthrax was far more sophisticated, in a host of ways, than he could have managed as a 'lone renegade scientist' in a government lab, where the equipment was not available and where every step is recorded and assessed for proper procedure and protocol. 

Someone would have known of his 'extracurricular' activities.

I'm waiting for Obama's presser in which he says "that's not the Asbahi I thought I knew".

A campaign adviser, the guy who handled 'outreach' to Muslim Americans, has quit the campaign.  It seems a guy who was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a recent terrorism fundraising trial served with this guy on the board of an investment fund eight years ago.

The article goes to great lengths to point out that it was only a few weeks, and it was a long time ago.  Amazing how nobody said that about the alleged Bush drunk driving charge from the 1970s, or his alleged cocaine use from the 1980s, or even in the recent NYT 'story' about McCain's supposed affair (which, interestingly enough, was supposed to have happened eight years ago).

Not to mention Barack Hussein Obama's own admitted drug use, dope and blow, as he says in his own voice on the audio book.  It was ongoing for a period in his life, not just 'a few short weeks' as this guy says his board service with the imam was.

It's amazing how the press diminishes the problems with Democrats and builds up the same sort of problems with Republicans.  Or it USED to be amazing.  Now it's just par for the course.

If we passed a law permitting drilling in the various parts of the USA which have plentiful oil, the price would drop significantly, immediately.

The purchase of oil is a futures market, and everyone is a speculator.  When a refinery buys oil, when an airline buys fuel, when a gasoline distributor tops up his big tanks, they're all CONTRACTS FOR FUTURE DELIVERY, with terms that vary according to time length and price and so forth.

Southwest Airlines is highly profitable at present, while every other airline is near fiscal death.  The reason?  Southwest committed very large amounts of money a long time ago to a 'future contract for delivery' of fuel at those present day market prices.  Consequently, they are paying prices MUCH lower than we have now.  They contracted for it, tying up 'present' money a couple of years back in a bet that prices would go up and their use of that money would turn out to be a good risk.

They were right.  In essence, while we pay $4 a gallon they're paying $2.50 over at Southwest Airlines.  Because they contracted for it, and they are fulfilling their end by paying while the fuel company fulfills their end by delivering fuel at that price.  (yes, I know it's Jet A, yes I know the price is different... I"m just metaphoring here.)

EVERYONE who buys fuel commercially does this.  They all make contracts for future delivery.  It might be next week, or next year, or next decade.  But it's all 'futures' speculation.  Anyone who owns a contract for delivery, if that contract should happen to become a valuable document, can sell it to someone else at a profit. 

And everyone is speculating on the FUTURE.  Those who buy big contracts for long terms are betting, speculating, the price will be higher in the future.  And the purchasing of large contracts today ties up supply in the future, reducing it, making supply lower and demand proportionately higher.

Today's buying of oil and fuel CHANGES the price tomorrow.  Even if today's buying won't be delivered 'til next year.

Can you IMAGINE what the traders will think about the future price if the United States takes steps to add a trillion barrels of SUPPLY to that future?

I can.  They'll assume future prices will be LOWER.  And that means the contracts bought today will slack off, as people realize they don't need to 'lock in' a price, that it will be lower later. 

And THAT will lower prices TODAY, as the future supply will be seen to be plentiful because the present buying has slowed down.

THIS IS HOW THE MARKET WORKS.

Liberals try to say it won't make any difference for ten years, so we shouldn't do it now.  But doing it now is precisely how we change the future, and thus change the way the future is viewed by buyers and sellers.

Prices have skyrocketed because nobody has seen a way to match the supply to increasing demand.  Now people are seeing it.  Prices have dropped $15 or more on a barrel of oil in the past couple of weeks.  In my humble opinion, it's PRECISELY because the Dems appear to be losing their battle against the American people, and it looks more and more like the future will see more supply on the market. 

Prices can change quickly, just on today's events.  The stock market has been falling lately because, in my view,  investors know Obama will raise taxes punitively and hurt business by it, and the stocks will be less valuable, so they're selling NOW to take away their future risk of an Obama presidency.   I predict, here and now, that if McCain is elected the stock markets will rally BIG TIME.  Bets on the future will increase, because future risks will be limited, as McCain is promising to oppose tax increases.  (campaign promises are another post altogether, of course, but Obama has promised to raise taxes and no politician has ever broken THAT one.)

Oil prices have been falling lately too, because the future of supply is beginning to look brighter; the polls say the people want it, and as we found out two summers ago with the immigration 'reform' bill, if the public pressures congress enough, congress will eventually have to act to please them.

So don't believe anyone who says it makes no difference today.  Investors and buyers and sellers of today make their decisions based on what they think about tomorrow.  If tomorrow looks different, today's decisions will change too.

Since I write mostly for my own practice and amusement, I'm going to spend a few minutes writing about oil, and if you stumble across it and can improve upon it, let me know.  :-)

Oil is the foundation of worldwide energy and thus the worldwide economy.  There is no infrastructure in place for transportation or distribution of energy which can come anywhere close to replacing oil, and to a lesser extent coal.

Oil powers the monster engines that drive the house-sized propellers of the big tankers as they move it around the world, and of course the transport ships that move goods internationally as well.  It powers the big diesel engines that generate the electricity to drive the wheels of the big trains of America and many other parts of the world.  (Europe has electric trains for the most part, but then European electricity comes at least in part from nuclear power plants.  Also, the Europeans have spent money for decades on infrastructure, rail networks, power distribution, etc., because they haven't had to shoulder their own defense spending burden.  We did that.  Lucky Europe.)  And it powers the big trucks that handle the final distribution of products to local retailers and local sale points, on America's interstate highway system and in Europe as well.  You'd be surprised how similar a German or French highway is to an American one in terms of small cars being blown around by big semi trailer drafts.

In America, the distances are so vast that electric trains are out of the question in many parts of the nation.  Electricity is very difficult to distribute over large areas, because physics dictates that long distances of cable provide too much electrical resistance and too much power is lost.  It is inefficient.  Electricity is, because of this, a largely local affair.  The power generation and the customer can't be all that far apart.

But of course oil can be and is transported everywhere in its various forms; it is completely portable energy.  This is one of the reasons it is far and away the most economical form of energy in large scale use today.

Oil production, distribution, refinement and product distribution and sale has a large, complex and expensive infrastructure, paid for and in place except for the newest and most ambitious discovery and production projects.   Other infrastructure, such as the windmill farms being built by ole' T Bone Pickens, require massive initial investments at the very least, and have unknown ongoing costs which are guaranteed to be higher than any proponent says they will be.  Such is life.  Pickens can afford the massive investments.  I wonder if the taxpayers can afford the ongoing subsidies he is after.

Wind power is intermittent.  There is no such thing as storage of the massive amount of electricity that is required to run a nation.  Pickens claims we can use technology that is in place now, and he is right.  It is not, though, the story we think we are hearing from him. 

You see, when the wind is not blowing, the grid still needs power, and so power generating stations must still exist and operate.  They are not easy to start up and to shut down, and it is a costly and slow process to do either.  It would be physically impossible to have power generation stations 'switched off' until the wind stops blowing and then 'switched on' to fill the gap.  And the grid cannot handle 195 % of its capacity; it would melt down and burn up.

This means that wind power on the whole is stunningly inefficient.  Those who see the world covered with big towers and propellers and believe this means no more nuclear stations or oil or coal burning stations are completely misinformed and ignorant.  The estimate by experts is that 95% of power requirements must be constantly 'online'.  That is, for practical purposes, indistinguishable from 100%; as an estimate it's probably wrong, as it doesn't account for population growth or ongoing demand increase.  Either way, sustained large scale power generation from OTHER than windmills would be mandatory, and rather than making old fashioned powerplants redundant, it would make the windmills redundant.

And of course, we are many decades away from anything like replacement capability from other sources, solar or tidal or hydrogen or what have you.  It's all promising, and companies with their eyes on the future are constantly at work on these things.  It requires no taxpayer dollars, only the promise of a possible money-making opportunity.

Do NOT believe that ole' T Bone Pickens is being altruistic; he is investing in the windmills and plans to make money from them, including any subsidies the government might pay in the future to encourage this sort of change.  He is the Nebraska corn grower of tomorrow, with taxpayer dollars in mind and a less than honest presentation of his 'plan'.  After all, to say 'we should develop all possible sources of power in order to free ourselves from the need for foreign oil' isn't a plan, it's just common sense.  It is in the details of the 'possible' where the devil resides.  Do we develop something that is theoretically possible but economically foolish?  Or does 'possible' include affordable or sensible?  Pickens demurs, and builds more windmills.

And speaking of Nebraska corn growers, let's dispense with ethanol as the 'fuel of tomorrow'.  It is now proven (no links here but you can find them) that from beginning to end of the ethanol process, including the farm operation to grow and harvest the corn, the transport to the ethanol making plants, the distribution and the consumption and burning of it, there is more CO2 and more general pollution emitted than in the same process with oil.  Ethanol pollutes MORE than oil, contributes MORE to man-made catastrophic global warming than oil.  (I do not endorse that particular scam, of course; I only mention it here to show the folly of ethanol as a solution to a leftist-promoted 'problem'.)

Ethanol is a non-answer to the environmental question leftists have been asking, and that is unfortunate; at this stage there are massive subsidies in place here and abroad, and just the bureaucratic process of directing the flow of the taxpayer money is a gazillion dollar business with rampant corruption, which by definition is criminal waste of taxpayer money.  This fiscal irresponsibility causes food price increases on a worldwide scale, as farmers are paid by taxpayers to grow corn for ethanol rather then the corn for food or other crops they had been growing.  Competing in the open market to sell your food crop is less attractive than handing over your corn for a guaranteed government check.   And, as usual, the American taxpayer pays for the same product twice.  He pays for the corn subsidies for the dubious 'solution' of ethanol, then he pays again for his own food, at the higher prices his subsidies caused.

It is, of course, the poor who are harmed the most by increases in the price of food.   A rapid tripling of tortilla prices (made from corn) in Mexico recently cause tens of thousands of people to take to the streets in full riot.  If a meal costs $6, and the price goes to $8, the well paid middle class person notices and perhaps complains, but the poor person suddenly cannot afford lunch.

This corn ethanol subsidy racket is mostly driven by the Democrat party.  Yes, this is the party that claims to be the voice of 'the little guy', the poor, the minority, the hardworking blue collar American who needs help surviving the predations of the evil rich, the peasants in other countries who are exploited by evil oil companies and slaughtered needlessly by evil American soldiers. 

Likewise for the socialists of Europe, where the political left is the driving force behind what is an existential threat for hundreds of millions of people who survive from day to day, barely able to afford to eat.

So far, not a word has been said about food prices by any leading Democrat here.  Of course, nothing can be said.  Their position is untenable, and it serves them best if the subject never comes up and the public never puts two and two together on this topic.  Likewise the truth about the inefficiencies and redundancy of windmills, and the unlikely notion that any other source of power except the evil nuclear plant is going to 'break us from our addiction to oil'.  A word on that word, if I may.

We are no more addicted to oil than to food.  It is simply a resource we use to our own benefit.  "Addiction" implies no valid good purpose, only a degradation and slow destruction of ourselves due to an unambiguously bad habit we know we must break but which we cannot.  Oil has good and bad points, and at present the good far outweighs the bad.

More to come when I have another moment to write..... 

I do not believe that this is difficult to understand. 

I do believe that Democrats understand it, which means they lie and slander and misrepresent on purpose.  Yes, I do believe that.

ExxonMobil reports a record quarter of profits, over 11 billion greenbacks.

What they do not report, and what you will NOT hear in the news, is that in the same time period they paid over 32 billion dollars in TAXES.

Democrats, after having smugly held out their hands to take over THIRTY BILLION DOLLARS from ExxonMobil in THIS QUARTER ALONE, now claim that eleven billion dollars was too much to let them KEEP.

That's close enough to a three to one ratio.  After all the work, all the manhours, all the research, all the negotiations, all the COLOSSAL investments and risks taken by this company to develop, bring in and refine oil and gasoline for Americans to use in the process of doing business, the Democrat party believes, BARACK OBAMA believes, that three for the government and one for the company means the company is getting TOO MUCH MONEY.

Three for Uncle Sam, one for the evil rich company.

What's wrong with this picture?

Because this needs to be read by as many people as possible, left, right, and everywhere in between.

A highly successful Wall Streeter who has been counted on as a large donor by the DNC in the past two elections has said thanks, but no thanks.

Because Barack Obama is a hustler, an arrogant self-promoter who cares for his own success far more than for his country.

This from a DEMOCRAT, a faithful supporter, a woman who makes it big in a man's world.  Yes, a Hillary fan, but not blindly. 

More like an American who sees the danger that few on the left can see.  Too much glare from the spotlights and flashbulbs, too much celebrity glow, too much coolness.

HT to Atlas and of course to the blog hosting this linked letter.  Read 'em both.

The Iraqi government sent people to Switzerland to try to rescue these Olympics for the sake of a handful of athletes and the hopes of a nation.  The story is here, and it's getting goofier by the minute.  The IOC is demanding the reinstatement of the old corrupt Iraqi olympic committee-- even though FOUR of its members were kidnapped years ago and their whereabouts are currently unknown!

The IOC still stinks in this.  Their chief reason for offense appears to be that they were not consulted by Iraq when it rejected its old corruptocrats on the national committee.  A secondary reason could be, and probably is, that they are trying to make Iraq a sad failure story so that it can reflect badly on Bush.

Iraq says it's not retreating on its selection of new committee members.  They ask the IOC, 'if you never rejected any of Saddam's personally appointed committee members, how can you claim that we, a democratic government, were choosing friends or installing favorites?' 

Good question.  Reminds of of all the corruption Mitt Romney had to work past for the winter games in Utah a few years back.  I think it's also similar to Wolfowitz' forced retirement from the World Bank.  Old time kleptocrats protecting their positions and their cash flows.  This time, though, they've encountered plenty of vocal and public opposition to their scam, and it looks like they'll reverse and claim they didn't.

The news is sad today, from the archives of "Extreme Makeover Home Edition", the popular ABC TV show in which the happy crew shows up at the doorstep of American misery and donates, in the form of hard work and expensive materials, a 'new start', a remodeling and problem-solving session which is filmed for television. 

The biggest job they'd ever done was three years ago, when they demolished an entire home and built a new one from the ground up.  The happy family was the beneficiary of $450,000 worth of new home and a $250,000 fund to help them maintain it and 'get a new start'.

Now read how well they did with their new start.  Read especially the comments of the volunteers and staff of the show, the bitter disappointment at having expended great effort and ceremony to give this gift, only to have it wind up in the proverbial dumpster.

I have long understood these facts of human nature--

People tend to be in the place their effort level and attitude puts them.  People who are happy, energetic, self-believing and humble will prosper, generally speaking.  People who insist on being unhappy, blaming others for misfortune, feeling as if the world isn't treating them right, those people generally do not prosper.

And people tend to place a lower value on things given to them than on things earned through work and effort. 

This family tried to leverage their gift into fast wealth, rather than accepting it humbly and striving to be worthy of it.  The mayor of the town is one of the people who worked hard as a volunteer in the construction, one of the 'team members'.  His opinion reliably reflects those of others.  They are verging on angry; the people threw this away, wasted it, made a mockery of a serious and intense effort by many many people.

One of the reasons I am a conservative is that I understand this aspect of human nature.  I do not feel as if it's my DUTY to financially support people who make bad decisions and do not respect or appreciate the help they get.  Their lives are THEIR problem, not mine.  They should try harder, learn better from their mistakes, take RESPONSIBILITY for their own futures.  Whatever 'social injustice' or other cultural issue is quoted at me does not fill my heart with sympathy; I simply did not do those things, did not cause those problems, have not been unjust.  I've never treated anyone different, never looked down my nose at anyone, and I spent much of my own life in unpleasantly tight financial condition.  I understand being in debt and working to pay my way out of it.  I have personally reached out to several individuals, helped with money and time, and in all but ONE case was rewarded by the wasting of my money and the end of my friendship.  It appears, judging by anecdotal evidence, that helping family is the worst of these ideas.  But friends are next on the list.  :-)

Democrats insist that everyone in need is equally innocent and deserving, and my lack of desire to give is due to my innate cruelty and greed.  Now, politicians know human nature very well; they would not be where they are without that knowledge.  But they take this position which they know is untrue, that poor people are angelic and innocent and rich people are evil and greedy.  They do this in order to win over the poor as voters, knowing there are simply more of them than of anyone else.  It is totally cynical; NOBODY is actually helped by this system.  The poor are kept poor and told it's someone else's fault.  They get just enough to make it, just enough food, just enough of a roof over their heads, just enough to keep them from starving to death.  And they are constantly told that the evil rich conservatives are working to take even THAT away from them, so they'd best vote Democrat if they don't want to be hungry. 

The rich (which is a lot of people, and the more Dems raise taxes the richer you get) are essentially victims of government theft of their hard earned money, to be used for the purpose of purchasing votes for the party they OPPOSE.  

Conservatives say (or at least I say it, and Rush Limbaugh, but not enough politicians say it) that the best way to help everyone is to have such a vital economy that everyone has the opportunity to make it.  Everything should be tailored to help business, big and small.  Personal productivity is the key, whether in your own family or as a citizen of a nation.  And people do work harder when they have a better chance of prospering as a result of their efforts.  The best 'government assistance' we could give ourselves is a zero percent unemployment rate, a perfection that is unachievable but serves as the top end of a 'better, worse' scale.  The lower the figure goes, the more people are able to care for themselves and the fewer need 'charity'.

I cry at TV news stories about real suffering, hungry and miserable victims.  I am a sponsor of a child in Honduras.  I cry about suffering dogs and cats, for heaven's sake.  I find myself constantly shoving bills into this and that charity canister, using paypal to make donations to whatever need has caught my attention online, etc.  Half my junk mail is from charities who share donor lists.  It doesn't bother me.  I know they all need money, and I do what I can. 

I am first in line to give to those in need, but most in this country who receive taxpayer largesse are NOT those people. 

They are, instead, people with bad attitudes who do not try and cannot be bothered.   I feel about them the way the show's staff feels about this family; bitter, disappointed, stung.   How can they take the fruits of my labor and then BLAME me for their problems?  But they do, and it hurts.

The show's staff won't get suckered like this again.  I only wish, as a taxpayer, I had that option.

Lefties love to point out anecdotal weather activities to 'prove' that manmade global warming is going to kill us all.  Al Gore said, even while thousands were dying in Asia, that their cyclone was caused by global warming.

Nobody ever mentions the snow that fell in Baghdad this spring, and I predict nobody will mention the snow that fell in Sidney, Australia, this week.  Granted, it IS winter down under, but this is the first snow they've seen since 1836.

Surely it counts for SOMETHING.

I know the rules of both chambers are accretions; they've been built over a long time period, with approval from many people in many different situations.  The House and the Senate have their essentials laid out in our founding documents, but almost all the actual working rules have come since then, and most without any sort of public approval.

I frankly do not believe America wants David Obey, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to have the power in their hands to stifle the firmly expressed will of the vast majority of American citizens to pursue our own resources in order to lower energy prices.

But Obey is successfully staving off Republican attempts to amend a bill to include directives to increase American drilling.  He just bangs the gavel and declares the committee no longer in session. 

Remember the summer of 2006?  Wasn't it just amazing how hard both parties tried to get their immigration 'reform' bill through, against the firmly expressed will of the vast majority of Americans, even a majority of Democrats?  And they still haven't given up; parts of their 'reform' bill continue to be introduced in both chambers.  Against the will of the people.

The people want American oil added to the markets, so that supply keeps up with demand and so that we don't have to buy oil from those who are trying to engineer our weakening and eventual destruction.  The people DEMAND it.

But David Obey, for some reason, has the power to prevent it.....?

It's just wrong. 

Looks like the 'international community', represented this time by the International Olympic Committee, has decided to stick a finger in the President's eye.

The Iraqi government, in good faith so far as I can tell, acted three months ago to dissolve its own national Olympic Committee because, in their own words, it was 'corrupt and nonfunctioning'.  But the IOC refuses to accept their new committee, and they blame Iraq for failing to resolve this. 

As if the Iraqi government has nothing better to do than travel to Europe and meet with the IOC.

So, in return for the attempt by Maliki's government to root out corruption and bring a fresh start to its national Olympic committee, for the good of the young Iraqis training and hoping to be a part of it all, the IOC says "stay home".

Take that, you evil Bush.  This failure you spawned with your evil unilateralism and wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time is not going to be part of our international show, no sir.  And it's all your fault.

If I was a manager of a business which lost 82% of its year-on-year quarterly revenue in an economy which continued to grow as ours has, I would be fired so quickly that I'd get whiplash and two cracked ribs from my impact with the far wall of the elevator.

And if I OWNED a business which had done that, I would fire the manager, the sales staff, and everyone else but the janitor.  Or I'd hold a fire sale and take whatever I could get for the whole business, so it would be someone else's problem.

Apparently there is NOTHING that will cause the New York Times to change their management or their way of doing business.

82% down, year on year, quarterly revenues.  Staggering.  And still they refuse to publish McCain's op-ed response to the Obama column they already published.

This is a business which essentially sells itself to an audience.  But this business is determined, from ownership on down, to ignore what the audience is telling them about what it wants to read.

Ideology is so much more important than revenues or even survival, the Times is going to financially self-destruct, like the Predator pressing the nuclear bomb button on his wrist and laughing as Arnold tries to escape.  I'm goin' down, but I'm takin' Bush with me, by thunder!  

Well, as often as we're told that there's something SPECIAL about the media--  "Tom Brokaw, NOW more than EVER"-- the truth is they are perfectly ordinary people.  Flawed people.  In some cases, twisted, obsessive and borderline EVIL people.

Try to remember, when the media attempts to lecture us or condescend to us or explain how we need only look up to them and listen to them and everything will be fine, sometimes there are dark secrets.

I'm reminded of the email I got from Charles Jaco, famed CNN Gulf War I correspondent and currently at Fox TV in St. Louis, in which he expressed sardonically his 'pleasure' that I was able to get on the web from my mom's basement -- "or do they have basements in Texas?", he sneered.

Jaco demonstrates the idea most mainstream media people have about most Americans who aren't elite east coasters or Californians who host Obama fundraisers at their mansions.  We're all losers, sitting in pajamas at Mom's basement computer, unable to hold a job or speak properly or deal with that persistent acne or underbite or cleft palate.

And every local anchor in a large American city is just a network anchor waiting to be discovered.