Tuesday, 23 December 2008


Ken Berwitz

Here is another entry in the "You can't make this stuff up" department.  It comes to us from the American Bar Association journal, via www.freerepublic.com:

Posted Dec 22, 2008, 04:07 pm CST
Martha Neil

Attorney Aimee Marie Dias, 35, just wanted to use the women's room at an upscale restaurant in Tampa, Florida.

But when she entered the women's restroom at SideBern's, at about 11 p.m. on Saturday, she says she saw a man and a woman having sex there, reports the St. Petersburg Times. The man, a local schoolteacher, contended that there was no sex and that Dias threw the first punch, at him, sparking a fight between Dias and his girlfriend, Jodi Jacolow, 32, that spilled out of the restroom into the restaurant bar.

"According to Dias' account, she verbally confronted the pair before she was assaulted," the newspaper writes, relying on a Tampa police report, and a fistfight ensued: " 'Ms. Dias said she and Ms. Jacolow went to the floor rolling around exchanging punches, pushes, etc.,' the report states."

Then, as police were trying to sort out the situation, another attorney entered the fray: Brent Warren Yessin, 45, who was waiting at the restaurant for a valet to bring him his car. Pictured today in the newspaper with a bandage on his chin, he was wrestled to the ground by four officers after he kept insisting that he represented one of the suspects and refused repeated requests to leave the restaurant, the Times reports.

Yessin was charged with obstructing an officer without violence, and apparently jailed for four hours until he posted $1,000 bail. Both Dias and Jacolow were initially arrested for battery, but agreed to drop the charges against each other.

Dias and Yessin declined to discuss the incident with the newspaper.

If doing it in an airplane bathroom means you joined the mile high club, what's this?  The between courses club?

Isn't this carrying the idea of an off-the-menu dessert a little bit far?

Now that's an early-bird special!

Lucky the guy remembered to take his viagra.  Otherwise the charge could have been assault with a dead weapon.

Ok, that's my contribution.  Now you do a few.



Ken Berwitz

jimmy carter is at it again.

Now he's upset that hezbollah - a group whose mission is the destruction of Israel via the killing of its Jews - isn't sufficiently armed to defend itself against the Israelis.

While you're busy picking up your jaw from the floor and trying to reattach it, I will post the article with carter's quotes - quotes that are unknown to you if you rely on the New York Times, the Today show, or probably just about any other mainstream media:

Carter laments: Terrorists lack 'defense' against Israel
Recounts last week's 'peacemaking' trip to Middle East

Posted: December 22, 2008
9:27 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
 2008 WorldNetDaily

TEL AVIV The Lebanese Hezbollah terrorist organization lacks missiles to "defend" itself from Israeli aircraft, former President Jimmy Carter claimed upon returning from a trip last week to Lebanon.

"The general showed us a graph of the many flights of Israeli planes over all parts of Lebanon, averaging about a dozen each day. Neither Hezbollah nor the Lebanese Armed Forces have any anti-aircraft weapons for defense," wrote Carter in a first-person report posted on his Carter Center website.

Carter was recounting how upon his trip to the region, Italian General Claudio Graziano, chief of the UNIFIL international forces deployed in southern Lebanon, brought him on a tour of the Israeli-Lebanese border.

"At one site near the border, two different Israeli tanks came about 70 yards from us to observe our group," Carter wrote, before claiming Hezbollah lacks anti-aircraft weapons for "defense" against Israeli over flights.

The information may not be accurate. Israel has some intelligence indicating Hezbollah may have smuggled anti-aircraft missile batteries along the Syrian-Lebanese border. Also, the London Sunday Times reported in August in an unconfirmed report that Brigadier-General Muhammad Suleiman had been supplying Hezbollah with advanced Syrian SA-8 anti-aircraft missiles. Suleiman was a key aide to Syrian President Bashar Assad and was assassinated that month under mysterious circumstances.

Regardless of whether Hezbollah possesses anti-aircraft missiles, Israeli overflights, which have been ongoing since the end of the Second Lebanon War, have not targeted or endangered any Hezbollah operatives. Israel says the overflights are crucial to collect intelligence on the continued smuggling of mass quantities of weaponry to Hezbollah across the Syria-Lebanon border an area that is supposed to be patrolled by UNIFIL.

Israeli security officials complain the Israel Air Force routinely provides UNIFIL with exact smuggling routes backed up with photographic evidence but that the international force has done almost nothing to stop the regular smuggling.

Let's see if we've got this right.  hezbollah, a terrorist group which controls southern Lebanon and is specifically dedicated to the destruction of Israel , has an unfair disadvantage?

Well, there's a new Democratic administration coming in.  Maybe carter can prevail upon Mr. Obama to arm hezbollah sufficiently for ti to have a 50-50 chance of decimating Israel.  He'll certainly have at least some support among the Israel-hating left in his party. 

I don't use the language necessary for an appropriate response to jimmy carter in this blog.  But the end of the appropriate response is "where he breathes". 

Got it?



Ken Bewitz

Would you believe that Dan Rather is still trying to sell you on the 100% discredited premise that those fake documents from 2004 that "proved" George Bush missed a few national guard meetings in the early 1970's, were legitimate?

Well, he is.  And Rather is being abetted in this idiotic fraud by NPR.

Charles Johnson of www.littlegreenfootballs.com was the first guy I know of who caught on to the fact that the documents Rather presented were fakes.  Here is his account of this latest attempt to foist them on the public:

NPR Rewrites Rathergate History to Cover Up Fraud

Media | Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 8:49:35 am PST

National Public Radio does their best to rewrite history in this shockingly disingenuous piece on the Rathergate affair, told from Dan Rathers perspective as he openly states (and NPR doesnt challenge) that the memos in his infamous 60 Minutes II piece were never proven to be fakes: Dan Rather Hopes To Tell His Bush Story In Court.

The Sept. 8, 2004, report was aired just eight weeks before Election Day. Conservative bloggers slammed CBS and Rather immediately poring over decades-old typefaces and fonts to charge the documents were forgeries. Former Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, the key source who provided the copies of the records supposedly from the personal files of young Lt. Bushs commanding officer changed his story about how he got them. Other sources, seemingly vouching for the records, said they were taken out of context. ...

Before the report was concluded, Rather announced he would voluntarily relinquish the anchors desk the next spring. But he now says he was called in the day after the election and told he was out as anchor. After a bit more than a year as a little-used correspondent, Rather left CBS in 2006. He now says the story about Bushs military service record was true.

Nobody has ever proven the documents to be anything but what they purported to be, Rather says. What the documents stated has never been denied by the president or anyone around him.

Rathers attorneys also point to public statements by Michael Missal, a lawyer in Thornburghs law firm who helped conduct the investigation.

Its ironic that the blogs were actually wrong when they had their criticism, Missal said in a speech back in March at Washington and Lees law school.

We actually did find typewriters that did have the superscripts, did have proportional spacing, and on the fonts, given that these are copies, its really hard to say, Missal said. But there were some typewriters that looked like they could have some similar fonts there, so the initial concerns didnt seem as though they would hold up.

Theres no polite way to put it; this is a steaming pile of unvarnished crap. The documents were indeed proven to be frauds, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and Rather and his lawyers know it. Its disgusting to watch these people try to lie their way back into respectability.

There was no poring over decades-old typefaces. It was obvious to me that these documents were not created on a typewriter within seconds of the first time I saw them.

They never found a typewriter that could produce a match for those documents, and they never will because such a typewriter does not exist. The documents were created in Microsoft Word and printed on a modern printer.

And heres the simple, undeniable proof, obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain that hasnt been warped by the dishonest media; our animated GIF alternating between the CBS version of the 18 August 1973 document, and the version we created in Microsoft Word using its default settings:

As I wrote on September 9, 2004:

The spacing is not just similarit is identical in every respect. Notice that the date lines up perfectly, all the line breaks are in the same places, all letters line up with the same letters above and below, and the kerning is exactly the same. And I did not change a single thing from Words defaults; margins, type size, tab stops, etc. are all using the default settings. The one difference (the th in 187th is slightly lower) is probably due to a slight difference between the Mac and PC versions of the Times New Roman font, or it could be an artifact of whatever process was used to artificially age the document. (Update: I printed the document and the th matches perfectly in the printed version. Its a difference between screen and printer fonts.)

There is absolutely no way that this document was typed on any machine that was available in 1973.

Curious, isnt it, that none of these articles trying to rehabilitate Rather ever mention the actual bloggers who exposed the fraud by name? Instead, theyre just unnamed conservative bloggers or if its the New York Times, right wing bloggers.

None of the writers ever contact me, and none of the articles ever include the animated GIF that demonstrates the fraud conclusively.

The reason why they leave out this important information is simple: if they tell people where to find the debunkers and their proof, the pathetic tissue of lies theyre constructing would fall apart because people could go on the Internet and see the truth with their own eyes.

(Hat tip: Occasional Reader.)

UPDATE at 12/23/08 10:57:34 am:

Some more thoughts:

Whether superscript, proportional spacing, or some other typographical detail was possible on a typewriter in the 1970s is actually irrelevant, because the output produced by Microsoft Word is as distinctive as a fingerprint.

I did an experiment and entered the 18 August 1973 into Apples TextEdit program, after changing the defaults to match MS Words as closely as possible, and the resulting document was completely different. You can see the results in this post.

Word processing programs make all kinds of decisions about how to display and print fonts, and they are not all the same. Each program has its distinctive ways of determining what the document is supposed to look like, and its really difficult to get them to match with the degree of accuracy we see in the throbbing memo GIF, even with lots of tweaking and adjusting of settings. You can even see differences in different versions of the same program.

And since its so difficult to get a close match even with a similar modern word processor, to maintain that a 1970s-era typewriter could have done it is ludicrous.

In 1897, portions of "Biarritz" were translated into Russian, renamed "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and presented not as fiction but as fact. 

In 1905, it was distributed to an ignorant, gullible, and already anti-Semitic Russian population as an authentic document.   

Since then, no matter how many times this forgery has been exposed, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" continues to be presented as a historic document which blueprints how Jews intend to dominate the world.  To this day it is a best seller in Muslim countries, and even in supposedly enlightened countries such as Japan.

If Dan Rather keeps this up, I'm going to start referring to his so-called documents as "The Protocols of the Rather of Lyin'".   They have the same credibility, so why not the same name too?



Ken Berwitz

What is this garbage?

Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg wants to be annointe....er, carefully selected as a United States Senator by New York's accidental Governor David Paterson.  But she doesn't want to disclose anything about her finances .  However...she promises she will do so after becoming a senator. 

I kid you not.  This is what she is saying.  And to prove it, here are the key excerpts from an article about her breathtakingly elitist attitude from the New York Times - which, I assure you, is no enemy of the Kennedy family:

December 23, 2008

Kennedy Declines to Make Financial Disclosure

If she were applying to be, say, an undersecretary of education in Barack Obamas new administration, Caroline Kennedy would have to fill out a 63-item confidential questionnaire disclosing potentially embarrassing text messages and diary entries, the immigration status of her household staff, even copies of every rsum she used in the last 10 years.

If she were running for election to the Senate, Ms. Kennedy would have to file a 10-part, publicly available report disclosing her financial assets, credit card debts, mortgages, book deals and the sources of any payments greater than $5,000 in the last three years.

But Ms. Kennedy, who has asked Gov. David A. Paterson to appoint her to succeed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and who helped oversee the vetting process for Mr. Obamas possible running mates is declining to provide a variety of basic data, including companies she has a stake in and whether she has ever been charged with a crime.

Ms. Kennedy declined on Monday to reply to those and other questions posed by The New York Times about any potential ethical, legal and financial entanglements. Through a spokesman, she said she would not disclose that kind of information unless and until she becomes a senator.

The Senates self-imposed ethics rules do not require any disclosure by potential appointees, although sitting senators are required to file financial disclosure statements by May 15 each year. (The latest filing by Ms. Kennedys uncle, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, showed a net worth of at least $43.8 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which ranked him the seventh richest senator.)

But several ethics experts, good-government advocates and scholars, who called Ms. Kennedys situation highly unusual because of her overt pursuit of the job, her celebrity and her lack of previous political experience urged her to reveal information on her finances now, if only for appearances sake.

Precisely because there is no campaign or election, she should be more willing to disclose and subject herself to a greater level of public scrutiny than is required, said Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union, a nonpartisan watchdog group. He noted that other major contenders for the Senate seat officeholders like the attorney general, Andrew M. Cuomo, and Representative Kirsten Gillibrand have mounted runs for office and filed public disclosures before.

If this were an open primary, and all the people seeking that position had to run, shed have to make all those disclosures, so why not in the appointment process? said Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, a watchdog group that lobbies for tighter ethics rules. She cant simply ride in on her name recognition or place in history. The voters and people of New York deserve that full disclosure.

So far, on her tour, Ms. Kennedy has taken just 11 questions from reporters, has granted no interviews, and responded only in writing to inquiries about her positions on significant issues.

Ms. Kennedy also has not had to disclose the names and salaries of the people working for her in her bid for the appointment. Lawyers have assured her that federal campaign-finance rules do not apply in this situation, her aides have said.

Ms. Kennedy also avoided disclosing any information about her finances while working as chief fund-raiser for the New York City Department of Education. She took the three-day-a-week job director of the Office of Strategic Partnerships in October 2002 at $1 a year, intending at the time to step up to a $90,000-a-year salary, but she later decided to forgo the salary. Taking it would have required her to file disclosures with the citys Conflicts of Interests Board, officials said.

You have to wonder what else Queen Caroline expects.  Maybe a throne - a small one, of course - instead of the seat provided to lesser beings in the senate chamber.  A modest tiara and robe would be nice too. 

Personally, I have always sort of liked Ms. Kennedy Schlossberg, precisely because she didn't do this.  I always felt that she went about her business without trading on the media's adoration of her family name.  Or so I thought until she decided it would be nice to be in the senate with uncle Teddy. 

Now I see that when Queen Caroline wants something, that family name is a tool to be shoved in our faces.  She is disgusting me.

But don't you doubt that Paterson, a corrupt, limited little dweeb in his own right, is going to appoint her.  Hey, this is all a game, isn't it?  You become lieutenant governor based on your father's political pull, you use your campaign funds for restaurants, clothing and motel rooms to get laid because your wife isn't enough, and nothing happens to you.  So why not make a despicably unfair senate appointment too?  Who's going to blow the whistle?  MSNBC?

It is so good to have that D after your name.............


Ken Berwitz

You won't need me to explain why this genius should make it to the finals.  Here are the particulars from www.southcoasttoday.com:

Man using cutting torch to thaw ice accidentally sets house on fire

NEW BEDFORD A home-owner using a blowtorch to melt ice on his back porch accidentally set fire to his North End triple-decker Monday, officials said.

The blaze at 107 Davis St. caused $20,000-$30,000 worth of damage and displaced several residents, Fire Capt. Scott Kruger said.

Those who were home escaped safely after being alerted by smoke alarms, he said.

Firefighters responding to the call around 1:39 p.m. saw flames and smoke coming from the tenement's second and third floors. It took 25 firefighters about 30 minutes to subdue the fire.

Snow and ice the fire trucks' mobility. Firefighters guarded against hoses freezing and prevented streets from icing over from the running water.

Capt. Kruger said the building's owner was trying to melt the snow and ice on the back porch using a large torch hooked up to a 20-pound propane cylinder.

He got too close to the building's wood frame and ignited the vinyl siding. The fire quickly spread into the building's uninsulated exterior wall and chased into the second and third-floor apartments, Capt. Kruger said.

The fire damaged the rear bedrooms in the second- and third-floor apartments, and caused extensive damage to the structure and electrical wiring.

Occupants have all made alternative housing arrangements.

No firefighters were injured.

The homeowner will not be charged in the accidental fire.

"This is an example of how you should not use a cutting torch to thaw out frozen water pipes or anything else," he said. "When you have wood framing, it will cause a fire."

All I can say is, he's lucky he didn't decide to smoke a cigar first.


Ken Berwitz

Richard Cohen is a very well known and very reliably liberal/left columnist for the Washington Post.  He is also an Obama supporter, along with his mother and, until now, his sister. 

But things have changed.

  Here is Mr. Cohen's latest column, which explains why.  The bold print is mine:

Warren On? Party Off.
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, December 23, 2008; A17

Not that he was planning to attend, but Barack Obama should know that my sister's inauguration night party -- the one for which she was preparing Obama Punch -- has been canceled. The notice went out over the weekend, by e-mail and word of mouth, that Obama's choice of Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation had simply ruined the party. Warren is anti-gay, and my sister, not to put too fine a point on it, is not. She's gay.

She is -- or was -- a committed Obama supporter. On the weekend before the presidential election, my sister and my mother drove from the Boston area, where they both live, to Obama's New Hampshire headquarters in Manchester. There my mother made 76 phone calls for Obama, which is not bad for someone who is 96, and gives you an idea of the level of commitment to Obama in certain precincts of my family.

I should say right off that my mother feels less strongly about Warren than my sister does. But I should add immediately that my sister feels very strongly, indeed. She's been in a relationship with another woman, the quite wonderful Nancy, for 19 years, and she resents the fact that Warren has likened same-sex marriage to incest, pederasty and polygamy.

"I'm opposed to redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage," Warren told Beliefnet.com's Steve Waldman. "I'm opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage."

Waldman asked, "Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?"

"Oh, I do," said Warren.

There you have the thinking of the man Obama has chosen above all other religious figures to represent him in this most solemn moment. He likens my sister's relationship -- three children, five grandchildren, so loving as to be envied and so conventional as to be boring -- to incest or polygamy.

The conventional thing to say is that Obama has a preacher problem -- first the volcanic Jeremiah Wright and now the transparently anti-gay Warren. But the real problem has nothing to do with ministers and everything to do with Obama's inability or unwillingness to be a moral leader. Sooner or later, he just might have to stand for something.

This was apparent to me almost a year ago when I reported that Obama's church, the Trinity United Church of Christ, had given a major award to Louis Farrakhan, the anti-Semitic leader of the Nation of Islam. The award was presented in Wright's name and featured in a cover story in the church's magazine, Trumpet. When I asked the Obama campaign about this, I was told that Obama himself did not agree with Farrakhan. What a relief!

And what a joke. I never for a moment thought Obama viewed Farrakhan any differently from the way I do. But I also thought that as a U.S. senator, as a presidential candidate or even as a mere citizen, he had an obligation to denounce the award -- maybe quit the church. Do something! He did nothing.

Now we have a repeat of that episode. This time it is not Obama's preacher who has decided to honor a bigot, it is Obama himself. And, once again, we get the same sort of rationalizations. Obama says he does not agree with Warren about all things. Obama says he himself is not anti-gay and, in fact, although he does not support same-sex marriage (as opposed to civil unions), he has been a stalwart champion of gay causes. Therefore, it seems to follow, he can honor an anti-gay activist.

I can understand Obama's desire to embrace constituencies that have rejected him. Evangelicals are in that category and Warren is an important evangelical leader with whom, Obama said, "we're not going to agree on every single issue." He went on to say, "We can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans." Sounds nice.

But what we do not "hold in common" is the dehumanization of homosexuals. What we do not hold in common is the belief that gays are perverts who have chosen their sexual orientation on some sort of whim. What we do not hold in common is the exaltation of ignorance that has led and will lead to discrimination and violence.

Finally, what we do not hold in common is the categorization of a civil rights issue -- the rights of gays to be treated equally -- as some sort of cranky cultural difference. For that we need moral leadership, which, on this occasion, Obama has failed to provide. For some people, that's nothing to celebrate.

The party's off.

The column is fascinating for what you see....and for what you do not see.

What you see is how amazed Mr. Cohen is that Mr. Obama has no problem sandbagging gay people. 

Why would he feel this way?  Obama lied repeatedly about one thing after another after another throughout his his campaign.  Why would anyone realistically expect him to be honest to or about gays?  

Heck, didn't the last Democratic President, Bill Clinton, do exactly the same thing to gays by immediately reneging on his promise to end "don't ask-don't tell" in the military?  This is nothing new, is it?

Democrats have learned that if they say the right things in the right way, they can screw major constituencies and still retain their loyalty on election day.  They have been pulling this on Blacks for decades and will continue to do so unless they start losing Black votes:  Why would gays expect any different treatment? 

Now, what don't you see?  You don't see Richard Cohen even considering the possibility that he was wrong about Barack Obama.   

Is Cohen enraged by Obama's selection of Rick Warren to make the invocation?  Yes.  Is he enraged by Mr. Obama's church honoring the racist, anti-Semitic scum louis farrakhan?  Yes. 

But does he at any point in his column even wonder whether Barack Obama might be insincere in his beliefs?  Unforthcoming?  Flat-out full of crap?  Nope.

Read it until your eyes pop out.  For all of Cohen's outrage and hurt indignation, not one time does he suggest that he may have been had.  He still believes that Obama stands for the things he wants Obama to stand for.

That is how people like Barack Obama keep people like Richard Cohen like puppets on the end of their strings.  And it is why, after all is said and done, he is still a wholly owned subsidiary of Obama, Inc.

Albeit belatedly, Richard Cohen's sister finally gets it.  When does her brother wake up?

Maybe this is the start of his learning curve.  We'll see.

free` What i find disgraceful is the outright lies by people like cohen. Warren is against homosexuality not homosexuals. All Christian ministers are or should be against homosexuality, it is a sin. you can't just take the parts of the bible you like and disregard the ones you don't like and call yourself a Christian. These people need to wake up and if they don't agree with the religion then don't join it. (12/23/08)

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!