MommaBare wrote in to let me know about this story (already mentioned by the Instapundit). It would be nice if it is true.

Spent the whole day researching, so again the posts have been light. I will post more tomorrow.

At any rate, I had intended to savage Will Hutton today, but I was alerted by reader and fellow blogger that he had already undertaken the task. Not exactly what I would say, but any dung flung in Hutton’s face is a good thing.

There were particular sentences that really irked me, including these gems.

Dangerous dictator he may be, but the unilateral decision to declare war upon another state without a casus belli other than suspicion will upset the fabric of law on which international relations rests, as well as destabilising the Middle East.

God forbid we destabilize the Middle East. How a region already drowning in violence (violence usually overlooked by our EU friends), and ruled by a string of petty dictators, theocrats, and cruel autocrats can be further destabilized is a conundrum in itself, but far beyond Hutton’s delicate insight.

The Supreme Court’s suspension of the Florida recount in December 2000, to gift the presidency to Bush, is part of the same story.

Really. I just do not have the energy tonight for this loathesome loser. Just go read his bile here.

I don’t know why I even read the Guardian anymore. All it does is infuriate me. When I have energy tomorrow, I will dissect this latest piece of dumpster grunge offered up by Will Hutton.

An interesting article in the NY Times about the popular support Charles Pickering has from black Mississippians. This goes a long way to show how the NAACP and Congressional Black Caucus are just not mainstream organizations anymore but knee-jerk mouthpieces for the race-baiting loony left.

Doing lots of readings on trait dominance today, so no real time for posting. Maybe tonight, after a late dinner.

At any rate, Natalija is trying to give me a cleavage inspired heart attack at the Libertarian Samizdata, and Perry has a Oscar oversight I had not thought of.

Glenn Reynolds has an InstaHangover, but Rand Simberg, William Quick, have lots of good stuff up today. Sgt. Stryker and Steve Den Beste are still fighting WWIV.

Sin of UNFORGIVABLE sins.

I thought I had Permalinked Will Warren of Unremittingverse A LONG TIME AGO.

I had not, and it has been corrected. PLEASE go check him out.

Also, I have added Richard Bennett’s Omphalos, which is a fantastic site.

I am now to the point that I have so many links that I am going to have to come up with some sort of hierarchy. I will deal with that this weekend

Kudos to Ted Barlow for being the Lone Man on the Left to diss Ted Turner’s last remarks.

Ted Turner says his comments about how the terrorists were “brave” and “a little nuts” “were reported out of context, and I deeply regret any pain they may have caused.”

BZZZZT! Wrong answer! When Jerry Falwell said that his comments immediately after September 11th were taken out of context, I was furious, and I absolutely did not accept the “out of context” explanation. It’s no different here.

I think he is wrong, however, in another post in which he cites Jonathon Cohn. Cohn states:

“Unions and environmental groups can call upon millions of Americans who can write small, hard money checks or influence politics via more traditional means–i.e., by writing letters, marching in rallies, etc. Big corporations generally can’t do that. And while the Republicans can certainly count upon their own large membership organizations to do the same–I’m thinking here of the NRA and Christian Coalition–maybe McConnell worries their numbers and enthusiasm aren’t large enough to overwhelm the Democratic groups.

But if that’s the case, it’s quite a damning admission. It means that unless business groups are allowed to use their money to sway political debate, over the long run, popular opinion will nudge politics toward the left–and, more or less, in the direction of the Democrats. Or, to put it more simply, it means that Republican ideas don’t really have that much popular support.

No wonder McConnell is so worried.”

I think this is wrong for several reasons. The first reason I believe this is wrong is because Unions simply do not ‘call’ on people to write small checks because they choose to. They confiscate the money in the form of UNION dues, then spend them on whomever they choose. Landmark Legal Foundation currently has several lawsuits against the NEA doing precisely this (and there is much more invovled in this case, lest you think I am oversimplifying). This is the whole gist of the ‘Paycheck Protection” you hear Republicans screaming about in concert.

The second reason I disagree with this is that Mr. Cohn (got do these lefties love doing this) determines that he knows why McConnell is opposed to McCain-Feingold, and then goes ahead and tells us. I challenge anyone to prove that Mitch McConnel has not ALWAYS been a proponent of the 1st Amendment, even in cases in which it would be advantageous for him not to be…..