I wasn't going to bother posting on this topic, as some of the "biggie" blogs have it covered. But this is war.

Al Qaeda is sucking wind in Iraq per a transmission intercepted by CENTCOM who's author bemoans the deteriorating situation of the "jihad" movement against the forces of Democracy. Captain Ed has an excellent analysis.

They are unorganized, running out of ammunition and failing in their attempts to manipulate the U.S. media. They are slowly but surely diminishing from a threat to a nuisance. In other words WE ARE WINNING and THEY ARE LOSING. Big Time.

So desperate are these mujahidin thugs that they are resorting to hacking blogs with Denial-Of-Service attacks. Such an attack went after the Mu.nu and Blogspot sites this morning. Dr. Rusty Shackleford has the details.

Nice try, scumbags.

Posted by: Gary at 12:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.

WaPo columnist Richard Cohen dared express an opinion that Stephen Colbert was not funny at the White House correspondent's dinner and the Lefty fever swamp overflowed with bile - filling his email inbox with raw sewage.

Cohen, a Liberal, recognizes this seething anger from the Left. It seems all too familiar to him:

"This spells trouble -- not for Bush or, in 2008, the next GOP presidential candidate, but for Democrats. The anger festering on the Democratic left will be taken out on the Democratic middle. (Watch out, Hillary!) I have seen this anger before -- back in the Vietnam War era. That's when the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helped elect Richard Nixon. In this way, they managed to prolong the very war they so hated.

The hatred is back. I know it's only words now appearing on my computer screen, but the words are so angry, so roiled with rage, that they are the functional equivalent of rocks once so furiously hurled during antiwar demonstrations. I can appreciate some of it. Institution after institution failed America -- the presidency, Congress and the press. They all endorsed a war to rid Iraq of what it did not have. Now, though, that gullibility is being matched by war critics who are so hyped on their own sanctimony that they will obliterate distinctions, punishing their friends for apostasy and, by so doing, aiding their enemies. If that's going to be the case, then Iraq is a war its critics will lose twice -- once because they couldn't stop it and once more at the polls."

Posted by: Gary at 11:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.

The political strategery of Darth Rove, Lord of the Sith, is becoming clearer. First, get Senate Democrats back on their anti-NSA surveillance jag. Appointing the architect of that program as head of the CIA ensures that the hearings will once again reinforce an important concept in the minds of swing voters: Republicans want to protect the lives of your children from Al Qaeda and Democrats want to protect the lives of Al Qaeda from Republicans.

The other hot-button issue: judicial nominations. Now Lord Rove has prepared a list of twenty judicial picks to send to Capitol Hill for confirmation, which will surely cause Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to raise the Filibuster issue...again.

It's incredible to me how these people always fall into the trap. I guess they just can't help themselves.

When an unnamed White House official questioned the strategy, Rove is reported to have said: "I have foreseen it. Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design. Now...witness the full firepower of this fully-armed and operational White House!"

Posted by: Gary at 09:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 182 words, total size 1 kb.

The President announced today that Tom Hayden Sterling Hayden Hayden Christensen Michael Hayden (that's General Hayden to you) as the new Director of the CIA, replacing Porter Goss.

Hey, I've been paying no attention to this since Friday so I don't know Gen. Hayden from Adam but the folks at Wizbang are high on this appointment:

"General Hayden is a superb choice for several reasons:

1) He used to run the NSA and the terrorist surveillance program, so he is an expert in these areas.

2) His nomination will bring to the surface those lawmakers who are for a strong national security, particularly the terrorist surveillance program, and those who are not. With the November elections approaching, the American people will need to know this information.

3) He is a military man. In spite of the claims from Rep. Pete Hoekstra that this is a problem, many military men have run the civilian CIA. I'm hoping General Hayden can infuse into the CIA two very important things it needs: discipline and loyalty."

Posted by: Gary at 12:14 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

This week's edition is hosted by Environmental Republican!

Posted by: Gary at 10:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

Announcement just came in.

Well, we need a replacement who'll go in and purge the agency of Clinton-toady leakers. And I have a suggestion: more...

Posted by: Gary at 02:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

SecDef Donald Rumsfeld was confronted by conspiracy-theory spinning former intellingence analyst Ray McGovern at a press conference yesterday.

AllahPundit chronicles prior incidences of when this moonbat was off his meds.

"General, sometimes there just reaches a moment when I can no longer suffer fools like that one gladly. Soon as this presser is done, I want you to get me Jack Bauer on the phone."

Posted by: Gary at 01:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

Even though we're two full years out from the 2008 Presidential primary season, the name of Arizona Senator John McCain is the subject of much discussion as the potential 2008 nominee. The MSM have all but anointed him but most Republicans and Republican-leaning voters have some definite feelings about his candidacy.

I'll likely repeat this poll every few months and track the responses for any trends. So go sound off about the "straight talk express".

Note: I've moved the Weekly Poll a little farther down the sidebar, after the "Day By Day" cartoon.

Posted by: Gary at 09:00 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Oh! How exciting! I am the first vote!

Posted by: Georgia Girl at May 05, 2006 08:40 AM (ZMwFa)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Painter uses his johnson to paint a portrait of Australian PM John Howard.

Tim Patch also used his penis to paint opposition leader Kim Beazley, reports the Sydney Morning Herald.

He unveiled both portraits at the opening of the Sexpo exhibition in Perth.

Mr Patch, from Queensland, admitted his family were a little surprised by his new painting technique.

He said: "My dad is not too impressed. He shook his head and said: "Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear"."

Posted by: Gary at 08:31 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

Picked up a copy of this book at lunch today:

Well, I've never been much of a wine drinker. I'm more of a beer guy with the occasional tequila or vodka cocktail. The reason I've never really been into wine is simply my lack of familiarity with good wine. And I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm more used to the mass-produced crappy variety that's so full of sulfites it makes my head feel like it's going to implode.

I did NOT buy this book because I want to be a wine expert or try to pass myself off as one. I DID buy it because life is all about learning and lately I've come to believe that one thing in life that it's useful to have is a basic understanding and appreciation of what a decent wine should taste like. I don't know. I think there are just certain things that are meant to be enjoyed. Maybe it has something to do with recently seeing the movie "Sideways" or maybe I'm just tired of being clueless in certain situations that call for ordering wines, serving wines and picking out a wine to bring to someone's house.

I think the potential benefit is at least worth such a minimal investment of time and money.

Posted by: Gary at 01:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.

A little over a year ago, seven Democrats and seven Republicans banded together to hammer out the infamous "Gang of 14" deal on President Bush's Judicial nominations. I was on vacation at the time and I remember seething over my complimentary copy of "USAToday". I even clipped out the list of names so I could try and memorize the particular Senators that were involved. Of course, the ringleader was AZ Sen. John McCain.

All in all, while solid judicial candidates like Miguel Estrada were hosed in the deal, the long-term effects probably helped two Conservative Justices make it onto the Supreme Court - John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

Not content to simply wallow in their failure, many Democrat Senators are now throwing around the Filibuster idea yet again. Aside from re-energizing the Republican base, these ass-clowns are determined to show swing voters that they never learn how negatively such blatant partisanship hurts their party in the long-run.

After three years of limbo, Brett Cavanaugh's nomination to the D.C. Court of Appeals is coming to a vote before the Senate Judiciary Committee today. The editors at the WSJ's OpinionJournal.com look at how this may play out over the next few weeks.

"As for a filibuster, it's possible Democrats will hold fire on Mr. Kavanaugh in favor of filibustering Fourth Circuit nominee Terrence Boyle, whom Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist also wants to vote on by Memorial Day. Mr. Boyle, a federal judge in North Carolina, has been waiting even longer than Mr. Kavanaugh. He was in Mr. Bush's first group of nominees announced on May 9, 2001.

In either case, Republicans would then have the chance to resort to the "nuclear option" of changing Senate rules to do away with the filibuster against judicial nominees. A majority of 51 votes would be enough to confirm, which is what the Constitution's advice and consent power anticipates. A filibuster fight would be exactly the sort of political battle Republicans need to energize conservative voters after their recent months of despond. Senator Schumer, make Bill Frist's day."

"Last year we argued that the Republicans got the better of the filibuster compromise, and we think events have borne us out. But for strategic reasons, the GOP may want to go nuclear now, with an election just six months away. The filibuster compromise expires at the end of this Congress, so all Democrats will be free to join partisan filibusters again. And every Senate seat the Republicans lose is one fewer defection they can afford if the nuclear option comes to a vote.

As of this moment, Republicans appear more likely to lose Senate seats in November than to gain them. The University of Virginia's Larry Sabato rates only one race, Pennsylvania, as "leaning" against the incumbent party; Democratic challenger Bob Casey is favored to beat Republican incumbent Rick Santorum. An additional four seats are "toss-ups": Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Rhode Island. Three of these are held by Republicans, one by a Democrat.

If we assume that Pennsylvania switches, that the four toss-ups split evenly between the parties, and that all Sabato's other predictions pan out, the GOP will be left with a 53-47 Senate majority. If all four toss-ups go Democratic, the Republican majority would shrink to 51-49, almost certainly not enough to go nuclear, given that Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine have said they oppose the option."

Posted by: Gary at 11:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 660 words, total size 4 kb.

I came across this interesting piece in Time Magazine online by Liberal (and non-Bush fan) essayist Caitlin Flanagan who complains that the Democrat Party is pushing aside SAHMs (stay-at-hom moms) - including those that would normally vote for them.

"Most of the 60 million people who voted against George W. Bush have lifestyles more like mine than the Democratic Party would like to admit. Most of us aren't the Hollywood Elite or the nontraditional family. Many of us do what I do, which is go to church on Sunday, work hard and value my marriage. Again, it's not so much my party's platform that rejects the family; God help us all if Bush's brutality to the poor continues much longer. It's a small but very vocal minority, the Democratic pundits, who abhor what I represent because it doesn't fit the stereotypical image of the modern woman who has escaped from domestic prison. Fifty years ago, a stay-at-home mom who loved her husband would not automatically be assumed to be a Republican. The image of the Democratic Party that used to come to mind was of a workingman and his wife sitting at the kitchen table worrying about how they were going to pay the bills and voting for Adlai Stevenson because he was going to help them squeak by every month and maybe even afford to send their kids to college.

The Democrats made a huge tactical error a few decades ago. In the middle of doing the great work of the '60s--civil rights, women's liberation, gay inclusion--we decided to stigmatize the white male. The union dues--paying, churchgoing, beer-drinking family man got nothing but ridicule and venom from us. So he dumped us. And he took the wife and kids with him.

And now here we are, living in a country with a political and economic agenda we deplore, losing election after election and wondering why.

It's the contempt, stupid."

Posted by: Gary at 12:05 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 2 kb.

Regular visitors know that a little less than two months ago I signed up with NetFlix. And for the most part, I'd say my expectations have been met. But silly clueless me wasn't aware at the time that the online DVD rental service was being sued by its customers for a practice known as "throttling" - delaying shipping of DVDs for frequent users.

On Monday, a settlement was announced in the class-action suit that bought off a huge number of plaintiffs by giving them one free month of service. This of course means that NetFlix is free to continue "throttling" customers just as long as they are "upfront" about it by burying it in their terms and conditions list.

This guy does a good overview of the situation. And here is a site that chronicles the trials and tribulations of Netflix. In a nutshell, here's the issue. The most popular NetFlix plan is $17.99 per month for "unlimited" DVDs - three at a time. The company figures that if a member gets nine DVDs during a given month then that works out to about $2.00 per title - an acceptable cost/benefit ratio for their bottom line. Any more than nine DVDs, however, and the number goes under $2.00 per title. If a member gets as many as fifteen that means NetFlix only earns $1.20 for each DVD that goes out the door (less than the total $1.56 shipping cost - .78 cents each way - to and from the member's mailing address).

So what's a poor little company to do? Well, first they can not acknowledge that they're received the DVD for an extra day or two. Then they can "process" it so late in the day that it takes two (or more) days to deliver your next DVD in queue. And on top of that, they can send the DVD from a distribution center farther away than they normally would. All of these activities can add up to stretch out the turnaround time. And it's all kept track by a computer system rather than live people. So it's nothing personal, right? And if the DVD in question is damaged or they send the wrong one it gets even worse.

Now the average person is not likely to go through so many DVDs in a given month, but it so happens that I'm watching all the past seasons of "24". Theoretically, I can get a four episode disc, watch all of the episodes in one night (though usually it's over two or three nights), and return it the next day.

NetFlix doesn't like that. I've already been living the consequences of fast viewing. A little less than two weeks ago, the last disc from the season that I was watching took a week to deliver. Screw that, I went to Blockbuster and picked up a copy.

***Update***
First thing this morning, I got a notification that they received a DVD that I had sent back and that they expected to ship the next title in queue today. Guess what? A few hours later, I was notified that it would ship Thursday (tomorrow) instead. Why the sudden change? I have a theory. Later this morning, they probably also received the one I mailed out Saturday morning, which set off bells and whistles and bumped the release of my next DVD. Not that they've acknowledged receiving the other one. I'll probably get a notice about that one tomorrow and it'll probably ship Friday at the earliest. See how this works?

The reason I suspect that they received the other one (but aren't telling me) is that it took three business days for me to get it in the first place (shipped Tuesday the 25th and received Friday the 28th). When you return a DVD, it goes back to the same distribution center it came from so it should take three days for NetFlix to get it back, no? Well, after watching it on Friday night, I mailed it early on Saturday the 29th at the post office and here we are three business days later - May 3rd. Coincidence? Hmmm.
***End Update***

***Update II (5/4/06)***
Ha! I knew it. First thing this morning, NetFlix notifies me they received the one I sent Saturday morning. If it really came in this morning, they wouldn't normally notify me until after 10:30am at the earliest - which means they probably had it in their hands yesterday, just as I figured. They say they'll ship the next title today. How much you want to bet they don't?

Oh and they keep dangling this extortion offer in front of me that tries to prod me into upgrading to the four-a-month plan: "Get another movie for only $3.39 and we'll send it Thursday". Why don't they just come out and say, "hey, we know you're desperate for us to get you that next title, so c'mon pay us a little more and you can have your precious "24" disc tomorrow. You know you want to"? The four-a-month plan is $23.99, six dollars more a month. If I'm that desperate to get that one extra disc sooner, I'd rather pay $4.75 to Blockbuster and have it today. Nice try, guys.
***End Update II***

NetFlix CEO Reed Hastings has got you right where he wants you - bent over.

So why am I bitching? Why don't I just cancel NetFlix and go with another service. Well, two reasons. First, it won't be long before I'm finished with "24" and I'll be going back to a "normal" pace for getting DVDs. Second, the competition isn't much better. All of them, except for GreenCine.com, resort to the "throttling" process and most have plenty of service complaints against them from dissatisfied members. While GreenCine promises not to "throttle" their customers, their selection is a lot smaller, the monthly fee higher and they admit that their turnaround for East Coast customers is slower than for West Coast customers.

Now I understand if you have a start-up operation (NetFlix began in 1999) and you're struggling to stay afloat until you get the necessary volume. But NetFlix pulled in $42 million in net profit last year. Far be it from me to criticize an enterprise for making money, that's the point isn't it? But it's bad business to increase profits at the expense of satisfied customers. NetFlix better be careful because they're in danger of losing a lot of good will that they've built up over the years. One of the reasons they are getting closer to reaching their goal of five million members is because of all the free advertising they get from people who sign up and get the royal treatment during the two-week free trial period.

But if they keep this crap up, a lot of people - myself included - are going to jump to other services and bad-mouth NetFlix to anyone who'll listen (or read). They may have pioneered the process, but it's not rocket science as to how they're able to do what they do. And the competition is only going to get tougher. Can you say digital downloads?

Posted by: Gary at 10:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1209 words, total size 7 kb.

ABC cans "Commander-In-Chief".

The ratings were so bad they're not even going to show the final three episodes during May sweeps. Even in an April full of "ER" repeats, it went off the radar. In it's Thursday 10pm spot, ABC will air its newsmagazine "Primetime". The remaining new episodes will be played sometime during the summer, when no one is watching TV anyway.

Contrary to the Hollywood hand-wringing, I firmly believe America is ready for a female President. What they won't accept, however, is a Liberal bleeding-heart touchy-feely female President. The Left Coast will be mourning this one. No more President Allen. No more President Bartlet. Just two more years of Chimpy McBushitler. Even in the world of make-believe, they can't win. Heh.

More cowbell!!!

h/t: the Llama Butchers

Posted by: Gary at 09:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.

A couple of minutes ago, this blog rolled over into the six digit column in hits. And talk about irony, hit number 100,000 originated from France. I don't point this out as some kind of victory dance. I understand all too well what the driver is behind this number. A huge portion of those hits have come from weirdos in Europe and the Middle East doing Google image searches for Diane Lane, Melissa Theuriau and Elisabeth Shue. And, hey, I'm not above engaging in the occasional google chumming.

The fact is that I don't really have any particular traffic or exposure expectations, although I'm continually surprised at how fast those numbers have risen since February 2005. But what's always been the most important measurement to me is whether or not I enjoy doing this. I don't expect to be the driving force behind exposing some major screw up by the MSM. I don't expect to offer some "must read" post that everyone forwards to their friends and family around the country. And, frankly, I don't really care all that much whether or not I change any minds of those who disagree with me.

This site is, has always been, and will always be just a repository for my random thoughts and musings about things political, cultural and (at times) personal. Some of you may have noticed that the posting frequency has dropped off a bit lately. There are many reasons for this but the overriding one is that lately I've come down with a mild case of "idontgiveacrap-itis".

Now usually at this point, a long-time blogger will say "so I'm going to take a break" or "this blog is on hiatus". It happens all too frequently. Some bloggers even hit the proverbial wall and drop out altogether. That's not where I'm going with this, however. I just wanted to point out that, as with any form of writing, the juice ebbs and flows. Right now I'm kind of ebbing but at any time I could start flowing again.

I'd like to take the opportunity to thank all of those folks who for some strange reason keep coming back to see what new nonsense I've posted. More importantly, I want to offer huge cyber hugs 'n kisses to those other bloggers who've steered traffic my way via links and trackbacks. It reminds me to try and be on my best behavior. :wink:

Posted by: Gary at 09:30 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 403 words, total size 2 kb.

Expect a run on your local Taco Bell soon.

For the love of God, people. Think about it!!!! Oh, the humanity!!

note: this was not photoshopped

Posted by: Gary at 09:17 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Uhhh, aren't Burritos a young burro? Hummmmm. I didn't want one anyhow

Posted by: TICKETPLEASE at May 02, 2006 08:37 AM (MF225)

2 Phew! If he would have held up a sign about no enchiladas, I would have broken out in a panic, and would have to do some serious soul-searching on where my loyalties stand.

Posted by: Wordsmith at May 02, 2006 03:52 PM (nrGCx)

3 Just stumbled here by link. This is the funniest blog name I've ever seen. I thought burritos were invented in San Fransisco.(CA.)

Posted by: Mike C. at May 06, 2006 10:46 PM (y6n8O)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I came away from this movie with three main observations:

1) The film answers a lot of questions about what happened that day. There isn't anything revealing in terms of new information but rather it presents these events in a way that shares the perspectives of everyone involved just as it happened. Even though what took place on the plane was pieced together mostly from transcripts of phone conversations between passengers and their loved ones as well as recordings from the cockpit, everything else that took place with the air traffic controllers, the FAA and NORAD are all painstakingly laid out so that we get a feel for what was going on behind the scenes while the rest of us could only watch and listen to news reports.

You canÂ’t underscore enough how different a situation it was back then. Today, the idea of this kind of attack is so ingrained in our psyche as a reality of the world we live in. But before that day, the concept of a commercial aircraft being used as a weapon was inconceivable. It was a true sucker punch. While I canÂ’t imagine something like that ever happening again knowing what we know now, no one could have dreamed of it happening in the first place up until after that moment.

2) The film was very well done. Presented in real time, it represents the last 90 minutes in the lives of everyone aboard that plane. Even though we all know the ending, since the editing is so tight and the information presented in the same way as it unfolded during those moments we, the audience, almost feel like there is a slight chance that the result will be different. It's completely free of politics or finger-pointing. It's practically a documentary.

3) This is an extremely important film. Because the result wasn’t different. It was as horrible as we remember. And for those who see this movie, every emotion and memory you had from that day – no matter how much they have receded into your brain’s long-term storage - will come back to you. You will relive that morning. As painful as it may be, it’s important that we all do that.

The greatest value "United 93" offers is not so much a reminder to those who lived through it of what happened or the kind of enemy we face. Rather, it will better serve those too young to remember or who were not yet born. Because we will still be fighting this enemy in the decades to come. And they need to understand what happened that day; not as a couple of paragraphs in a social studies text but as it actually happened and what it meant for this country.

If you have kids who are now teenagers and better prepared to handle the intensity of these events, I recommend that they see it as well. Be aware that there is some violence aboard the plane and some harsh language used by those on the ground who are trying to come to grips with what's going on (a few f-bombs were dropped out of frustration by folks at NORAD). You know you're own kids best. If they can handle "Saving Private Ryan" they can handle this.

"United 93" came in #2 at the box office this weekend. But as was the case with "The Passion", I think that word of mouth will keep this film in the top five for the next month or two. Anyway, thems my two cents.

Posted by: Gary at 11:10 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 595 words, total size 3 kb.

Saw the film on Saturday but I've been away from the 'net. Soon as I get my bearings, I'll post the review.

Note - now that the "80's Crush Tournament" is over I will be featuring a weekly poll on whatever strikes my fancy in the sidebar. I'm leaving it where it is for now but I'll be moving it lower so keep an eye out for it.

UPDATE:
Welcome "Blue Crab Boulevard" readers! The review is HERE.

Posted by: Gary at 09:04 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.