From the Boston Globe:

Addressing the crowd, Kerry's wife, Teresa, took a swipe at the Bush administration. "You cannot solve problems by throwing stones, and you cannot solve problems by telling lies, and you cannot solve problems by wishing ill to other people," she said. "The only way you solve problems is by holding hands and talking about it, and that's what we want to do in this campaign."

Marie Antoinette in the age of Oprah. Fascinating.

Via Viking Pundit.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar on John Kerry’s record at the Committee, a cornerstone of Kerry’s supposed foreign policy expertise.

“…This has not been an area where he has sought to take leadership. He has been a faithful attender…"

Translation: He showed up at meetings.

Ouch.

Is cigarette smoking a generally dangerous pastime? Of course it is. And there are many good arguments available for those inclined to dissuade people from taking up, or continuing with, this often self-destructive habit.

The problem, alas, is that the anti-tobacco jihad has long ceased to be about health. These days it’s little more than a vehicle for those who wish either to proclaim their own virtue or, quite simply, enjoy bossing people around – or both. This change in motivation has, unsurprisingly, been accompanied by a sharp deterioration in the intellectual quality of the arguments made by those who would stub out the cig forever.

We’ve seen this, for example, in the use made by these zealots of ‘passive smoking’, a junk science first developed by the ethically flawed (passivrauchen was, let it not be forgotten, a concept first dreamt up by scientists in the Third Reich – a regime led by history’s most notorious anti-smoker), then refined by the scientifically inept, and now used by the intellectually dishonest and morally corrupt claque now at the forefront of the war against tobacco.

The latest instance of the degradation of anti-tobacco activism comes from the American Cancer Society, an organization that, when it comes to this topic, has long since turned malignant. Radley Balko (a CATO employee, it should be noted) has the details here, but the essence of the story is that this charity is now resorting to ad hominem, and inaccurate, slurs in its attempt to discredit those who oppose the proposed FDA regulation of tobacco products. The allegations center on whether the CATO Institute, an opponent of the proposals, is influenced by mysterious corporate donations from the likes of Philip Morris. Pointing out that Philip Morris actually supports the proposed extension of authority to the FDA, Radley makes short work of the ACS claims, but this controversy is a reminder of another point.

Organizations such as the American Cancer Society and, more importantly, their paid employees, have a vested interest themselves in maintaining the hysteria over tobacco at an appropriately intense level. It attracts donations – and it pays salaries. That’s something that’s worth remembering the next time you hear about supposed conflicts of interest in this debate.

We hear a lot these days from the current Russian government about the wrongs that Russians suffer at the hands of Ukrainians, Balts and other nations strangely ungrateful for what Moscow did to, oh sorry, for, them in the course of the Twentieth Century, but this story shows just how seriously the world should take those complaints.

It begins with the mass murder by the Soviets of thousands of Polish officers at Katyn in 1940, a crime that was nothing less than an exercise in social and cultural genocide, a savage attempt to decapitate Polish society. Warsaw has long wanted an accounting. Moscow has long responded with lies and evasion. Not enough, it seems, has changed.

”Kieres, head of Poland's Institute for National Remembrance of the War, came to Moscow this week with Polish war crimes prosecutors. He was cruelly disappointed. Russian prosecutors told him that the crimes took place too long ago to be acted upon and refused to even divulge how many of the suspects were still alive. While promising to share some information with Warsaw, the Russians insisted that the crime could not be classified as genocide, a move that would allow prosecutions to go ahead. The Polish side was furious. "This was genocide, whether they want to call it that or not. That is the reality, the painful reality for us and for them," Anna Wolinska, who lost her father and uncle in the massacres, told TV Polonia."

As the Independent points out, this is the second Russian insult to the Poles in as many second weeks. Another of the squalid chapters in the Soviet Union’s very mixed record between 1939 and 1945 was the decision of the nearby Red Army to watch passively as the Germans crushed the Warsaw Rising in 1944. Conveniently for Stalin, the slaughter of yet more of Poland’s best and brightest by the Nazis removed another obstacle to the communist takeover of Poland that he had planned for so long.

Moscow is also refusing to apologize for this betrayal of a supposedly allied country. Russia’s foreign ministry merely contents itself with the comment that it considers " it inappropriate and blasphemous to the memory of the fallen to get into public polemics on this score." In reality, of course, it is the failure of the current Russian leadership to acknowledge the horrors of the Soviet past that is the real blasphemy.

A Soviet Nuremberg remains long overdue. Without it, Russia can never truly become a ‘normal’ country.

We know from the way that Nurse Bloomberg mauled math, statistics and science to justify his smoking ban, that New York City's billionaire mayor has an, uh, flexible way with figures. Now he's at it again. In today's New York Times he's reported as claiming that "the vast majority of New Yorkers by every poll want the games to be here."

Well, Nurse, that's not altogether true is it? Yes, one recent poll, the Quinnipiac University Poll, did find that 67 percent of New York City voters said they supported the city's bid to host the summer games (25 percent were opposed), but there's a catch: 55 percent said they would not approve of holding the 2012 Olympics in the city if tax revenues were used (and only 37 percent were in favour). Look at the figure for Manhattan, and the opposition rises still further - to 64 percent.

Send the Olympics where they belong - Paris 2012!

Harold Stassen, eat your heart out.

"He began his political career in 1951 when he attempted to stand against the Prime Minister in the General Election. Unfortunately he stood for the wrong seat, Walthamstow East rather than Attlee's Walthamstow West. He then stood as the ADMIRAL candidate - an acronym that stood for "Association of Democratic Monarchists Representing All Women". He received 174 votes, a startlingly good performance by his later standards. Clearly people were not yet wise to the threat of Boaksism."

Enjoy the whole thing.

From Arianna's Blog, a site that redefines empty boasting:

"I ran into Bobby Kennedy, who was there with the entire Kennedy clan, and he told me that on Tuesday morning at 9:15 am, he'll be on the Today Show to talk about his just-released book, Crimes Against Nature-- the ultimate indictment of the Bush administration's environmental policies. Tune in. "

Well, now there's this...

"ISLAMABAD, Aug 6 (Reuters) - Al Qaeda member Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan e-mailed contacts in Osama bin Laden's network while in custody as part of a sting operation by security agencies, a Pakistani intelligence source said on Friday. A series of arrests in Britain this week resulted from Khan's capture in Pakistan early last month. A high alert for U.S. financial institutions against a possible al Qaeda attack was also prompted by information gathered from the Pakistani computer engineer, according to intelligence and government sources..."

Yes, this story is from an 'unnamed source', so some skepticism is appropriate (and Pakistan's interior minister wouldn't comment either on the story or, even, Khan's very existence) but it's a nice example as to why a week or two's 'delay' could make perfect sense.

I missed this on C-Span, but I'll take this reader's word for it. What dismays me is that none of the college kids asked whether I was getting a raise. Once again the youth disappoint:

Regarding the young conservative group that Rich addressed last night (on CSPAN), I happened to tune in during question and answer session. It was impossible to miss the young female questioners who had fallen under his spell, as if Lowry had exchanged "mojo" with the Hollywood hunk of the week.

Particularly the blonde junior from Furman...Rich tried to squirm out of her question (and her batting eyes) ASAP.

Wait, I've got it....he is the Bono of the young conservative movement!!!

I just returned from Yei, Sudan on Wednesday of this week while conducting a political training session with the SPLM on an International Republican Institute program funded by the State Department. The people of southern Sudan are grateful for the Bush Administrations support in bringing Khartoum to the table. The only way Khartoum will implement the agreed to protocols in the cease-fire and what will eventually become a peace treaty will be with continued pressure from the US, UK AU and UN. The entire country is in a tragic situation, but I admire and respect the southern people's will to fight for their freedom, independence and self determination.

"CARLSON: A lot of entertainers have come out against the war in Iraq. Have you?

"SPEARS: Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.

"CARLSON: Do you trust this president?

"SPEARS: Yes, I do."

During the primaries, in a speech to the Arab-American Institute, [Kerry] denounced the fence Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was building on the West Bank. "We don't need another barrier to peace, " he said. Eight months later, with the Democratic nomination safely tucked away, he sang a different tune: "The security fence is a legitimate act of self-defense erected in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israeli citizens."

Basic Instinct star Stone, 46, was keen to enjoy an intimate moment with Oscar-winning co-star Halle Berry, but believes a puritanical streak running through the country put an end to any potential girl-on-girl action.

Stone says: "Halle's so beautiful and I wanted to kiss her. I said, 'How can you have us in the movie and not have us kiss? That's such a waste.'

"That's what you get for having George Bush as president."

Not everything in this New York Times editorial is made up of cheap shots and innuendo (for instance, the criticism of the amount of resources dedicated to anti-terror activities in New York is entirely fair - and I'm not saying so just because I live here), but this passage takes some beating:

"Finally, there is the matter of politics. The Bush administration expressed outrage at the suggestion that there could be any politics behind any of its warnings, but the president has some history to overcome on this issue. "

Oh really?

With the President then (supposedly) pushed onto the defensive, the editorial writer has this to say:

"There is nothing more important for Mr. Bush to do every day until Nov. 2 than to make it clear that he would never hype a terror alert to help his re-election chances."

Nothing?

Of course, if there is a list of people to blame for Americans not taking future warnings as seriously as they should, writers at the New York Times will be right near the top (along with crazy Dr. Dean, but he, poor man is, quite clearly, no longer responsible for his actions). For example, let's take a look at this comment from an editorial in the Times on Tuesday, August 3rd:

"The Times reports today that much of the information that led to the heightened alert is actually three or four years old and that authorities had found no concrete evidence that a terror plot was actually under way. This news does nothing to bolster the confidence Americans need that the administration is not using intelligence for political gain."

Here is what the same paper (admittedly within the context of continuing criticism of the White House's handling of this matter) has to say today, two days later, about that same information:

"The administration was obviously right to warn the country that Al Qaeda had apparently studied financial institutions in three cities with the idea of a possible attack."

This link is not for office use and will annoy a great many readers. I would tell you how/why it's annoying but that would spoil the fun. The question is, Can you spot the differences between these photos?

Update Okay, okay. It's more than annoying. But if I told you how much more it would have given it all away. Still, oldsters and those drinking hot beverages should not view the above link.

From a reader:

One of the more interesting things I've learned thus far in college was learnt last summer during my golf class (PSU requires students to take two "gym" classes for any degree). While watching a video on the history of golf, I was amazed to see how the sport was revolutionized during the immediate post-war era. While there were, of course, lots of great players who made the game more easily accessible to more and more people (up to and including Tiger Woods), the biggest change in the game was the availability of cheaper irrigation and ground-repair equipment (namely, tractors). Their near-universal availability following WWII created an explosion in the sport, resulting in an average of one new golf course opening nationwide every single day from 1950-1960. Now, if that isn't an example of technology trickling down wealth, I don't know what is.

From my BRG responding to my syndicated column on Sharpton:

Let me set a few things straight that the mainstream media never appears to get right or bother reporting, black people by and large, but especially middle class and upper income blacks -neither respect nor care what Sharpton or Jesse think or say about anything. Like anything they occasionally say something I may agree with, no one can be wrong 100% of the time. Poor under-educated blacks may but anyone that champions their cause or says that their plight in life is not entirely their fault would be get their attention- some people like to hold the victim blanket tightly and they exploit that. Most of us, think of Sharpton as a witty buffoon and Jesse as a hustler out for himself and his children at all times. However most blacks do have a tendency to avoid attacking other black people (obviously liberals make the exception to attack conservative black people) publicly but that isn't support. Also mainstream papers would not care to report or investigate intra-racial politics- such as how blacks feel about our supposed leaders.

Perhaps its because I spend so much time at work that I missed the last gathering our black folks to elected our leaders, but as far as I know and my friends (most of whom are liberal) -we don't have any black leaders- Sharpton's voice is heard because he is loud and democrats and media pay attention to his antics, ignore him and he would go away ....eventually- there are lots of other prominent black people, but they are frozen out because they don't have Jesse's history or rhyming ability or Sharpton's history and quick wit. Or perhaps the liberal media can only have one or two black "leaders" at a time- quota filled no opening until one of them fades away or dies. I live in Chicago, and Barrak may be my senator this fall, but he is not my leader, he does not speak for me and other blacks any more than any particular white politician or talking-head speaks for you as Jewish white guy. And its really annoying when people act like each year one black man or woman is "elected" who can speak for the race and we listen to that person. I don't think I have ever heard you or anyone else refer to a person as a white leader or Asian leader..why do we blacks have a leader(s). When Jesse Jr.- noted the pressure that will be on Barrak its pressure from the NAACP and liberal groups to be their voice, not the voice of all blacks. Oh- we also by and large don't care about the NAACP either -they have lost their collective mind -at least on the national level and don't represent middle-class or upper income blacks' views (which range).

your black conservative republican guy (if you don't have one)

Checked out the image of the hamburger in question. As an artist/art teacher, I am not too sure this image deserves the press it has been recieving. I took nothing of 9-11 away from the image. Subway has been railing against traditional fast food for years, but I am unsure that this image depicts said meaty-goodness as terrorist. I think people are over-reacting a bit. It is almost as if people are imagining that the marketing folks for Subway sat down and hatched a plot just to offend Americans. I think the image is silly, at best. I think the image says "beware of the burger! It can do harm to you. Eat healthy." Or it could mean, "American's are scum and they deserved 9-11."

K-Lo, you sound crazy on this one. First of all, the first e-mail in that series was "What we're fighting for: security and freedom." They're just continuing the theme.

But do you honestly think this rhetoric is unique to the Kerry campaign? Look around the BC04 web site! A quick search turned up:

"President Names Leader in Global Fight Against AIDS"
"Mrs. Bush Salutes Those Dedicated to Alzheimer's Fight"
"Human trafficking is one of the worst offenses against human dignity. Our nation is determined to fight that crime abroad and at home."
"The fight against domestic violence is a national movement. I urge people to join the movement."
"... recognizing faith-based and community groups as full partners in the fight against poverty ..."

I imagine that amendments declaring marriage to be a one-man, one-woman affair would pass in most states, but I'm not sure how much of a bellwether Missouri is on this issue. I've always had the impression that it was more socially conservative than your median state, and that its Democratic voters (many of them rural) were more socially conservative than their counterparts in many states.

As for whether the FMA will "take off like a rocket," as Stanley suggests: Senator John Cornyn, interestingly, tells Terry Eastland that the FMA will be enacted only when courts make more rulings in favor of same-sex marriage. In particular, he thinks that federal-court decisions that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act or imposed same-sex marriage on a state would cause it to be enacted.

Such decisions, at least if made in the next year or so, would increase the likelihood of enactment. If you were a legal activist working for same-sex marriage, or a judge looking to promote the same cause, the cautious thing to do would be to avoid seeking or issuing those decisions. Concentrate on the state courts, where there have already been successes. Get same-sex marriage imposed on several states and hope that it becomes normalized and opposition softens. Wait a few more years before moving to the federal courts, so that when the federal courts do move there will be less chance of a backlash.

I think that would be the most prudent strategy. But then, I thought last fall that the Massachusetts court would better advance the cause of same-sex marriage by settling for civil unions for the moment. I'm less confident of that judgment now, but in any case it did not help to predict what the court would actually do.

From the Washington Post:

"Paul Brown, deputy commissioner for public affairs at the New York Police Department, said Commissioner Ray Kelly learned about the emerging information late Friday. Brown said the details were alarming. "It doesn't take a genius to know that bin Laden would like to hit Wall Street," Brown said, referring to Osama bin Laden, leader of the al Qaeda network. "Now we go to last Friday. We hear very good reconnaissance, and we put it together with what we know and our past experience, and I'd say that our response was rational from our point of view."

Brown, of course, is 'just' a cop. Doubtless the New York Times and Howard Dean think that they know better.

HANNITY: All right. Let's start with one. First of all, you start with, in your book, page 193, you talk about, "communism is the control of business by government, fascism is the control of government by business. My American Heritage dictionary defines fascism as a system of government that exercises dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of the state and business leadership together with belligerent nationalism. Sound familiar?" Are you accusing this president of being -- and this administration of being fascist like, Nazi-like?

KENNEDY: No, what I -- the point is that if you read that in context, is that Americans have to understand that there's a huge difference between free market capitalism, which is great for a democracy, which democratizes our country, that brings efficiencies, and the corporate crony capitalism that has been embraced by this administration, which is as antithetical to democracy in America as it is in Nigeria. Today, you have polluters running the agencies that are supposed to protect Americans from pollution. The second in command at EPA is a Monsanto lobbyist. The head of the air division at the EPA is a -- is a utility lobbyist.

HANNITY: I...

KENNEDY: Let me finish.

HANNITY: Go ahead. Go ahead.

KENNEDY: Who for his lifetime has been defending the worst polluters in America. The head of the public lands now, Sean, is a mining industry lobbyist. The head of forest service a timber industry lobbyist, and on and on and on.

HANNITY: I understand your point.

KENNEDY: These people did not enter government for public service. They entered to undermine and subvert the very laws that they're charged with enforcing.

HANNITY: This is fundamental. Because I say the left today, your leadership, including your uncle, uncle Ted, or Ted Kennedy, have said irresponsible things about our president and about our country. And I find it here.

Now I'm going to read a very long paragraph for the sake of our audience, because I don't want to take it out of context, and I want to make sure I get the full context in here. OK? This is from your book.

KENNEDY: Sure.

HANNITY: You said, "these elected governments use the provocation of terrorist attacks, continued wars" -- you're talking about Nazism and fascism on page 193, OK?

KENNEDY: No, no, no now you're...

HANNITY: Wait a minute, right here I have it in the book, 193 and 194, and you talk about Spain, Germany and Italy reacting to the economic crises.

KENNEDY: Sure.

HANNITY: And then you say the following: "These governments use provocation of terrorist attacks, continual wars, invocations of patriotism and homeland security to privatize the commons, tame the press, muzzle criticism by opponents, turn the government over to corporate control.

'It's always a simple matter to drag people along,' noted Hitler's sidekick Herman Goering, whether it's a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked, denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism, and expose the country to danger -- and exposing the country to danger. And it works the same in any country," is what you say.

Then you go on to say -- you're talking about fascism and Nazism -- and the next line in this book of yours says, the White House has clearly grasped this lesson. That is disgraceful to make that comparison.

KENNEDY: Well, you know, Sean in this -- you know, look at the comparisons. Look at our -- what is -- look at the terror alert, for example, that we -- that was...

HANNITY: Nazism and fascism? That we're using the tactics of fascists and Nazists? That's what you're saying about your president? You can't disagree without being that obnoxious?

KENNEDY: We can disagree with each other, Sean, and that's something that we ought to be able to do without calling each other names.

HANNITY: You're the one calling them fascists and Nazis, comparing them to fascists and Nazis.

KENNEDY: Well, I never called the president a fascist or a Nazi.

HANNITY: You found a nice round-about way to compare his tactics to the fascists and the Nazis.

KENNEDY: And the point that I'm making, which is very clear in that book, is that control of government by corporations is as dangerous as control of government by communism.

HANNITY: That is unbelievable.”