Tuesday, 23 December 2008
YOU GET TWO SIDES WITH DINNER. TONIGHT THEY'RE SEX AND VIOLENCE
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
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
"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
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
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.
JIMMY THE JEW-HATING JERK
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:
FROM WND'S JERUSALEM
Terrorists lack 'defense' against Israel
Recounts last week's
'peacemaking' trip to Middle East
Posted: December 22, 2008
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
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
"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
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
DAN RATHERGATE CONTINUES.......
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
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:
Media | Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 8:49:35 am
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
(Hat tip: Occasional Reader.)
UPDATE at 12/23/08 10:57:34
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
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
In 1905, it was distributed to an ignorant, gullible, and
already anti-Semitic Russian population as an authentic
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?
QUEEN CAROLINE DEIGNS NOT TO DISCLOSE
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
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:
Kennedy Declines to Make Financial
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
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
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
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
DARWIN AWARD NOMINEE
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
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
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
All I can say is, he's lucky he didn't decide to smoke a cigar
RICHARD COHEN STARTS HIS LEARNING CURVE
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
By Richard Cohen
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
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
"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
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
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
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
on Blacks for decades and will continue to do so unless
they start losing Black votes: Why would gays expect any different
Now, what don't you see? You don't see Richard Cohen even
considering the possibility that he was wrong about Barack
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