It's funny to me that people like Michael Kinsley seem to be willing to throw the Iraqi people over the side just to beat George W. Bush. Doesn't anybody on the left think about what they're saying? I guess if you were raised during Vietnam and demonstrated against the war, you've already drunk the poison, so it's not hard to hope we lose this one, too. Of course, nobody had better question their patriotism, but it's getting harder and harder to avoid that conclusion.

I've been puzzled by the vehemence of the left for some time, but now I see that they developed the anti-war reflex so long ago that it just can't be broken. Their goal is not to do what is necessary for the safety of this nation, but to win back power at all costs. I can only hope there is some way to reach all those voters who get their news from the Elsworth Toohey media.

Now, I know what I think about McConnell v. Federal Election Commission. It's irrational.

Quoting Justice Scalia:

Who could have imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, tobacco advertising, dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, and sexually explicit cable programming, would smile with favor upon a law that cut to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government.

If you agree with me, go to this site and contribute.

Payback's a bitch. Eh, boys? Of course, a lot of the companies who aren't allowed to bid on rebuilding Iraq have IOUs for work they did for the Saddam regime. They've made their money, if they can collect it.

Somebody needs to read these people the story of the Little Red Hen. Or maybe it should be the little Red, White and Blue Hen.

This is why I read blogs. They get big stories fast and with a spectrum you can't get from tradional media.

I'm not sure what I think about this SCOTUS ruling upholding the McCain-Feingold law.

Why do people think the NYTimes is biased? This story illustrates. It starts out telling us that Donald Rumsfeld is touring Iraq to see how things are going. He's told that "ttacks against American and allied troops had dropped more than 50 percent in the past two weeks," due to better intelligence.

Then the third paragraph tells us "But neither Mr. Rumsfeld nor Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of allied forces in Iraq, would declare that the allied military had fully defeated a guerrilla offensive that began with the Ramadan holy season in late October and November."

This isn't reporting; it's argument. Do articles about the Democratic Primaries tell us that no one has won yet? Are readers asking "Does the reduction in attacks by 50% mean that we've defeated the guerrillas? I wasn't. If Rumsfeld had made that claim, it would have been in the headline, not stuck in the third paragraph. Why add that bit of negativity unless you are looking to put a negative spin on the good news? If the Times wants to opine this way, fine. Just don't portray it as news.

After last night's Big Twelve Championship game and today's announcements, I'd say the BCS has pretty much lost whatever credibility it had. Hugh Hewitt will be touting the Ohio State as the new #1, but the whole thing shows how futile it is to try to pick a national champ without a playoff. The coach's polls are still as good as we're likely to get. The BCS computers obviously weren't able to factor in how badly Oklahoma got beat. The BCS is nothing but a money making scheme designed to lock in the big audiences for the big bowls.

I'm no expert in Farsi, but this report that Iran's biggest student movement is called "the Office to Consolidate Unity" sounds like a bad translation. Anyway, the group is demonstrating against the lack of basic rights. 1,000 demonstrators doesn't sound like much, but considering how much they're putting on the line, it's important.