Err, so to speak. See here. A new military robot will be able to feed on dead bodies in the battlefield. I'm not sure if this is more of a robot zombie thing, or something like the human batteries of the Matrix [minus the lifetime hallucination]. I'll stick with Robot Zombies from the Future for now.

I have never taken seriously the theory that some of the more red-meat conservatives out there have about Barack Obama, that he was actually born in Kenya and thus ineligible to be President. This theory, in addition to having no evidence to back it up, just doesn't make any sense. Why on Earth would Obama's parents decide to travel to Kenya with the mother nine months pregnant? Just to see the old family back home? Why go to so much trouble to do this to their as-yet unborn son, only to return to Hawaii to forge whatever documents were necessary to get the released birth certificate form, in addition to sneaking a birth notice into the local paper? [Ordinarily, being foreign-born wouldn't be a problem with American citizens being the parents, but the case that's made is that supposedly, under the laws that existed at the time, Obama's mother would've been too young to confer citizenship, and Obama's father's Kenyan citizenship would have made Obama a dual-citizen at best, which, under at least one interpretation of the Constitution, would also make Obama ineligible.] It makes no sense and is unsupported by any evidence.

That said, after reviewing the World Net Daily article summarizing the case made so far (in relation to the recent case of an Army guy who refused to deploy on the basis that Obama is not his legitimate Commander-in-Chief), I had a thought. The case, such as it is, is mainly circumstantial, and the strongest part of their case is actually not evidence in a positive sense at all, but the absence of evidence going the opposite direction. Assuming WND has their facts straight, and there's not much reason to assume that, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt, that there are two kinds of birth certificates one could receive in Hawaii. Obama has released the "short form," one that can be obtained without proof of the birth occurring in Hawaii, but not the "long form," the document which cannot be obtained without the signature of the attending physician and other evidence of the birth. Obama should have access to the "long form," but neither the hospital where he was born nor the Hawaiian state government nor Obama himself have been forthcoming with this particular document. Again, even assuming all of this is true, this is the absence of evidence, which is not the same thing as the evidence of absence.

But the question remain, why not simply release the long form, and be done with it? Failing to release it makes these people believe that there must be a "cover-up," and where there's a cover-up, there has to be something up, just as with smoke, there's fire. I have two speculations here. One is probably the more simple and likely of the two - that it was simply lost. Perhaps it was lost by Obama's parents, by the hospital archives, or whatever - it's just not there. And this would be embarrassing to admit, and only fan the flames of the conspiracy nuts further, so it's simply just being ignored. But Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii. The other theory I have is probably less likely, but more interesting. It's precisely that Obama wants these tinfoil hat types to keep making this very case. Doing so makes them look foolish and conspiracy-minded, perhaps only a few steps removed from the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. The more conservatives find favor with this theory, the more they marginalize themselves, because the mainstream doesn't take the notion seriously, as well they shouldn't. So Obama could be, as they say, crazy like a fox. Keeping the document locked up also keeps these people focused on this non-issue instead of, say, socialized health care, crap-and-trade, and other more salient issues. Or related to that could just be the issue of pride. Just as I would refuse to release my Netflix subscription records to prove to someone accusing me of enjoying porn that I don't actually rent any porn, Obama may not want to dignify these requests with any serious reaction. That, I could certainly understand, but I can't help but observe that it also makes people like Joseph Farah and Jerome Corsi look wacky, which, even if not intentional, is probably a welcome benefit.

Damn! What's with these women going nuts and killing their kids? Here's one I hadn't heard about - a woman from DC named Banita Jacks killed all four of her kids, aged 5-17, because they were being possessed by demons. That's right - demons. See, this is why I sometimes worry about people reading Chick tracts a little too seriously, or taking this asshole seriously.

Perhaps Andrea Yates or Dena Schlosser ought to be her new cell-mate - they seem to have a lot in common. [And, I kid not, Schlosser and Yates were actually cell-mates for a while.] And of course, let's remember that it's atheism or Darwinism that's to blame for immorality.

The idea here is that when you are reading anything from Xinhua or other Chinese media, or the comments area on a western newspaper article that was probably targeted by the Golden Shield Project, you should take a swig whenever any of these things happen.

1. Someone is accused of trying to split China.
2. Someone is berated for intruding on internal Chinese affairs.
3. Drink twice if #2 is followed up by a call for other countries to recognize the Uyghur/Tibetan threat.
4. It is claimed that an act or statement from someone in the west has offended all 1.3 billion Chinese people.
5. Anti-government activity, whether violent or non-violent, is equated with terrorism.
6. The claim that China's government is oppressive in some way answered by saying other people do it too, so why can't we?
7. The Chinese government is portrayed in a positive light.
8. Opposing groups and ideologies are lumped together as unified forces out to hurt China, e.g. Rebiya Kadeer and the ETLM.
9. Groups and individuals outside of China are blamed for a problem in China.
10. John and Jane Doe's on the street are quoted approving of the government's policies. [Twice if the individuals are minorities or foreigners.]
11. The government is credited for creating prosperity.
12. Xinjiang, Tibet, Taiwan, the Spratley Islands, Inner Mongolia, et al, have ALWAYS been inseparable and inalienable parts of China, or at least since the Triassic Era.
13. Uyghurs, Tibetans, and others are portrayed as ungrateful.
14. International human rights organizations who investigate China are guilty of "meddling" in internal affairs, even if they only gather information.
15. Other countries, including the US, are jealous of China's growth, prosperity and harmony.
16. Euphemisms for state executions are used, e.g., "severe punishment."
17. There are three united evil forces - separatism, terrorism and extremism - and that must be combated.
18. Foreigners who are critical of the PRC government are said to be racists and/or imperialists.
19. Internet censorship exists only to protect children from porn, and otherwise promote morality.
20. The Chinese media and/or government lacks an appreciation of humor.
21. The Chinese people are said to be unified.
22. Someone who said something not fitting the official government narrative is called a "liar."
23. One of the following propositions is implied: Freedom is slavery, War is peace, and/or Ignorance is strength.

Am I wrong to think there's something a little odd about this combination of headlines in Xinhua?

China urges int'l community for united stance on terrorism
BEIJING, July 9(Xinhua) -- Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang Thursday urged the international community to abide by a single standard in dealing with terrorism. Qin was speaking at a ministry press conference about the deadly riot in Urumqi, capital of northwest China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, on Sunday, which left at least 156 people dead and more than 1,000 injured. Full story
China opposes Turkey's call for UN talks on Xinjiang
BEIJING, July 9 (Xinhua) -- China on Thursday dismissed Turkey's proposal of discussing Xinjiang's riots in the United Nations Security Council, saying the incident was a domestic issue. "The Chinese government has taken decisive measures according to the law. This is purely China's internal affair and doesn't demand a UN Security Council discussion," Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang told the regular briefing. Full story

Okay... So we need to see terrorism, especially of the kind that created the Xinjiang riots, as an international issue. But the UN shouldn't talk about it, because it's purely an internal, domestic affair. Pardon me if I'm a little confused.

In other news, the drinking game is almost finished, and I should have that posted here momentarily.

Quoth Qin Feng, in the Chinese government-controlled media outlet, Xinhua:

Media reports need to be objective and balanced. As reporters we should tell the truth instead of being driven by prejudice or sympathizing with those who sabotage social order.

Of course. Mr. Qin would probably know a thing or two about objectivity and balance. This explains why people the Chinese government hates are interviewed and asked for quotations so frequently in Chinese media. Coming soon - a Chinese media drinking game.

I've just written out an article about the Xinjiang/East Turkestan riots, and I'm not sure what to do with it. Publish it here on my blog, sure. Elsewhere? Submit to Reason, or perhaps the Atlasphere? Anyway, here it is. Comments, criticisms, thoughts etc. would be much appreciated!



There's a news item that's being underreported in the west, so I thought I would mention it here and comment on it. You might not know it, from all the coverage of Michael Jackson's death and memorial, the Sarah Palin resignation, and other stories competing for attention, but there's been an outbreak of violence in the East Turkestan (Xinjiang Province) area of China, that now qualifies as the most violence seen in China since the Tienanmen Square Massacre. As I write this, there have been 184 people officially reported killed in East Turkestan, and over 1,000 injured, and this is just what is officially being reported in Chinese state-controlled media. Some non-government Uyghur sources have claimed at least 400 dead.

As with the Tibetan protests and riots in spring of last year, the Chinese government is blaming the oppressed ethnic group caught in the crossfire, or to be more precise, exiled activists known for bringing their plight to the attention of the west, who of course cannot defend themselves from such charges in the Chinese media. The Dalai Lama was blamed for the Tibetan riots, so now it's Rebiya Kadeer, and the World Uyghur Congress, who supposedly “masterminded” the riots, according to the Chinese government and government-controlled media outlets like Xinhua.

( Click here to read the rest! )

I was thinking about writing something about the Sarah Palin resignation, but I've found that Roger Simon (not to be confused with Roger L. Simon of Pajamas Media fame) already beat me to the punch. I doubt very much that I could say substantially more than he, or put it better than he, as I was going to make more or less the same points. Except, perhaps, that I don't understand why, for so many, it's a foregone conclusion that Palin intends to run for President in 2012, or would even want the position were it handed to her on a silver platter. I could see her being happy to be out of the limelight, perhaps going on speaking tours and writing books, or perhaps just taking some party leadership role outside of elected office, as the successor to Michael Steele, shall we say. She remains an intriguing person, and I have to wonder if there's anything to the idea that if she really is yesterday's news, and she has no hope of a political future, why it is that so many still seem to fear and loath her. It would be scary indeed, for example, if Dennis Kucinich were to ascend to the Presidency one day, but given how marginal of a figure he is, I doubt many Republicans would even deign to notice were he to resign from Congress tomorrow. This is because, at worst, he's a clown, not a serious threat. So my suspicion, which I don't think I can prove even to my own satisfaction, is that Palin remains a formidable player on the political scene, one who, to her credit, engenders fear and loathing in her political opponents. Take that as at least one measure of one's political potency.

Anyway, more soon on the riots in Xinjiang/East Turkestan, the Pat Buchanan hoax, and updates on wedding and life stuff.

I really liked this one. I'm sort of busy right now, but if I have time, I'll try to write up something about Pat Buchanan's latest missive, this one on Darwinism. In the space of one column, he manages to commit virtually every major clichéd fallacious attack against evolutionary biology and Charles Darwin, which is actually kind of impressive in its own way. If I didn't know better, I'd think that, as with Ann Coulter, he's actually writing a parody of Creationist rhetoric rather than creating his own, creating a Sokal-like hoax to expose Creationism for what it is. You know, now that I think about it...

I don't believe I've read enough about the situation in Hondoras to have an especially well-formed opinion about it. What little I can piece together, based on what I've heard so far, is that the military removed the President from power after he made it clear that he had no intention of stepping down from office as the Hondoran constitution specifies, nor that he would follow the ruling from the supreme court that reiterated this necessity. While I can't say that I'm a big fan of the military having any kind of role in this, if all they are doing is enforcing the Hondoran constitution and law, I don't see why this is a big deal, especially because no bloodshed was involved, not even of the President, who was essentially just asked to leave the country. And I find it troubling that the American President, Barack Obama, has chosen to side with this would-be dictator, supported by Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers. If one can judge a person by their friends and enemies, we certainly know enough to know this Manuel Zelaya fellow is no friend of liberty.

Yesterday, Allison made a full Central Asian meal, with bread that she made from scratch. The bread is called Kazakh family loaf. In addition to the Kazakh bread, she also made a Uyghur stir fry, and a Uyghur salad. Click on the photo or the link to see more...


( Read more... )

Like many of you, I'm sure, I have an aunt who likes sending humor and "inspirational" mass email forwards, many of dubious authenticity. As a matter of course, I looked up one she just sent me on Snopes, and discovered that it dealt with a now-dead Air Force captain that I actually knew in high school! The link to the Snopes version is here. So the short version goes something like this - some fellow who lives near an Air Force base in Arizona complains in the paper about morning exercises jets performed that made a lot of noise, in a very sarcastically-written letter. The following day, someone from the base chastises him, explaining that the maneuvers were part of a memorial service for one Capt. Jeremy Fresques, who the Albuquerque Journal points out was a Farmington native, a graduate of Farmington High School. The name sounded familiar to me, so I checked my yearbook, and sure enough, this was a guy I knew. Not well, but well enough to recognize his face. He was a junior when I was a senior. Until now, I didn't think I knew anyone who died in Iraq, but Jeremy, it seems, died in a crash about 80 miles outside of Baghdad. Now, the email forward had some odd stuff thrown in with it - like how the American soldier sacrifices for your freedom, and how Jesus sacrifices for your soul, and that you owe both. But the nugget of the story was true, and involved the death of a guy I knew. What a strange way to find out!

Oh my. You know, I haven't read any of the Twilight books or seen the movie, though Allison has well under way on the former. It seems she thinks Bella's a nutcase for preferring an unreliable 100 year old vampire to a sincere and honest werewolf who's just a year or two younger than she. I tell you, what is it with women having such disrespect for men who are younger? But I digress. My point is that this new product is not actually making me want to see the film or read the books anytime soon. I was already a bit concerned that Mormon Vampire Teen Romance was not going to be a viable genre, and for some reason, this only makes me more doubtful.



And so the lion fell in love with the lamb. Twilight has quickly become a worldwide phenomenon developing a strong core base of dedicated fans who are drawn to the story of a Romeo & Juliet style romance between mortal (Bella) and vampire (Edward). Who better to capture the young star-crossed love of these two characters than Barbie & Ken. Edward is luminescent with a shimmering complexion and trademark gold eyes. Bella doll sold separately.

Indeed. Who better? Mind you, I'm all for playing with the rules for what vampires can and cannot do. The original Bram Stoker Dracula had no problem walking around in the middle of the day in London, though it seemed he was a bit weaker then, and far more powerful at night. It was Murnau's Nosferatu that introduced the notion of vampires who cannot survive contact with sunlight. But this is ridiculous. Instead of dying, or just being able to tolerate the sun, these Mormon vampires... sparkle. And consequently, we have a Ken doll who sparkles. At this point, I'm beginning to think Count Chocula or the Count from Sesame Street may be more scary than the Twilight vampires.

I'm sort of amused by this story about President Obama going to a lot of trouble to kill a fly, so that he can add the title "Slayer of Flies" to his impressive list of credentials which already includes Savior and Conqueror of the Automotive and Financial Industries. I wondered why he might've done it - was this list not impressive enough? But then it occurred to me that this wasn't the first time that a liberal President sought the center by squashing a bug of little consequence. You may recall in 1992, Bill Clinton seemed at first to step into a hornet's nest by ragging on the fairly obscure female rapper Sister Souljah. Sure, she was in in a Public Enemy video or two, but I don't think she was known to have legions of fans or people who agreed with her radical views. But by ragging on her, Clinton was able to portray himself as a sensible centrist, somewhere in that mush middle between radical racialist leftism and conservatism. Take this as utter speculation for an event that received too much press attention as it was - but I wonder if Obama's fly-slaying antics weren't a similar move, to tweak PETA and thereby appear more sensibly centrist in contrast? If I'm right about this, it appears that PETA swallowed the bait: hook, line and sinker:

PETA is sending President Barack Obama a Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher, a device that allows users to trap a house fly and then release it outside.

"We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals," PETA spokesman Bruce Friedrich said Wednesday. "We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals."

Of course, PETA consists of such rabid publicity whores that this was too good an opportunity for them to pass up. But this does at least illustrate that they can be just as much tools as the media outlets they've gotten so good at attracting, and that they certainly don't understand the difference between good, bad, and ridiculous press.

Now let me tell you something. We are still beautifying God's house, and I need 100 people to write me this week, and send in a little offering of fifty dollars or more. Let God use you this week, for his glory. Let us beautify the house of God together. I am excited about the house of God. I am excited! And I believe it's time that all of us fall in love with the house of God. Oh, we love all the houses, but it's time to fall in love with God's house, to fall in love with doing something, for the house of God. I need at least 100 of you listening now, to write me and send me fifty dollars or more this week, for the ministry itself. For the work of God, for the beautification of the house of God. And when you send something for God's house, God's gonna put a miracle in your house.

This is awesome. There's that Christian kindness and charity in action!



Also, check out this comparison between Christian and atheist billboards. The contrast between tones is striking.

Answers in Genesis, the people who put together the billboard above, also did this cute little 15 second commercial with the same kid. Lovely. Is it wrong for me to note the irony of this ad campaign a week after an abortion doctor was murdered [in his church!] by a Christian fanatic? Answers in Genesis, by the way, is Ken Ham's outfit, also behind the Creationist museum in Kentucky.



I don't suppose I need to supply any further evidence that for people who promote Creationism, what they care about isn't really about science, or even metaphysics, as much as it's about morality. Answers in Genesis is, after all, a group that primarily promotes Creationism, not Christianity as such. Here's a blog post that may have given AIG the idea for the billboard.

It looks like the Grass Mud Horses are not as secure as they thought. The wild and beautiful Ma Le Desert is about to be flooded with those 3-watch wearing River Crabs again, only this time, they seem to want to strike from inside the Ma Le Desert itself. The New York Times has the full story. It seems that the River Crabs want to place a "Green Dam" in and around the Ma Le Desert in order to stop the Grass Mud Horses. Hopefully, the Grass Mud Horses will prove as wily and resourceful as ever, and drive away the River Crabs and their Green Dam once and for all! Oh, and The New York Times also originally reported on the Grass Mud Horses' noble struggle here.

And watch the beautiful song of the Grass Mud Horses yourself here below:

How lovely. If you haven't heard, there's been an article published and promoted by Playboy, and subsequently withdrawn without explanation, that details 10 conservative women that the author believes deserve "hate fucks." True, some have mischaracterized this as a set of rape fantasies. This isn't a call for rape, but certainly, like that fictional blog posting about sex with Ann Coulter, it's reflective of a desire to use sex as a tool of degradation against people the author doesn't like. While, fortunately, some liberals condemned this thing, at least one didn't seem to think it was such a big deal for Michelle Malkin, who, you know, is just getting what she deserves:

First, I probably disagree politically with much of SmartGirlPolitics.org's agenda--I know I disagree completely with the group's position on abortion rights. But as a nonpartisan, I'm also a firm believer in supporting all members of my gender when attacked due to their gender. I am supporting these women herewith. I also want to note that at least one woman on the list is so venom-spewing, she unfortunately invites venom to be shot back at her: Michelle Malkin. Her posts and her "routine" are so venomous and predictable, in fact, I stopped paying attention to her years ago.

Ms. Erbe, I don't think this was a matter of mere venom. I have serious issues with Malkin too, and even when I agree with her, I tend to find her arguments sloppy and embarrassing. But I think you'd agree that something would be wrong here if, after condemning a similar list of liberal women appearing in The Weekly Standard, a conservative were to say something like this:

First, I probably disagree politically with much of The Nation's agenda--I know I disagree completely with the group's position on abortion rights. But as a nonpartisan, I'm also a firm believer in supporting all members of my gender when attacked due to their gender. I am supporting these women herewith. I also want to note that at least one woman on the list is so venom-spewing, she unfortunately invites venom to be shot back at her: Naomi Klein. Her posts and her "routine" are so venomous and predictable, in fact, I stopped paying attention to her years ago.

Charitibly taken, sure, it doesn't sound like you'd be advocating rape, or even endorsing the use of hate sex fantasies made explicit. But like those people who act as apologists for terrorism in Israel, "condemning" the act, while throwing in the obligatory, "Well, you know, Israel's policies bring this stuff on itself." No, Ms. Erbe - this is seriously wrong, period.

Yesterday was the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre. Twenty years later, the Chinese people are still under one of the worst tyrannies on Earth, but they are at least better off when it comes to economic liberty. One statistic I heard was that 200,000,000 Chinese citizens are now in what we might call the middle class - unthinkable until only very recently. And even with regard to civil liberties, things are at least a little better today. Dissidents don't face automatic execution or life in prison (unless they are Uyghur or Tibetan, or practice Falun Gong or other "illegal" religions). Now, it's going to be more like 5-10 years of "reeducation through labor" or other imprisonment. Hua Ji's wife and baby are merely under house arrest, while he's in prison for 3 1/2 years. Progress, yes, albeit very pitiful progress.

And most Chinese do not know that Tiananmen Square even happened, much less about the government's official rationale for the killings. Still, 10 years ago, the Square was closed entirely to the public during the anniversary, whereas this year, it was open, but surrounded with police in and out of plainclothes. The video above shows some of the obnoxious stuff they did to a CNN crew filming a report there. What gets me here is that if the Chinese government was acting appropriately by suppressing the protests as it did, why does it feel the need to hide it? According to one article I found, though, some stuff about the Tank Man and the Massacre is leaking out.

I'll also post a photo here of the Tank Man - identity, still unknown. I hope, whoever this fellow is, that he's okay.

Says the college dropout: "I am not a fan of books. I would never want a book's autograph. I am a proud non-reader of books." Also: Kanye's authored a new book and would like you to buy it.

This according to Reuters. For what it's worth, I agree with Kanye. I'd rather not have a book's autograph either, given that books, as inanimate objects, typically lack the arms, hands, or wherewithal to sign anything. Perhaps an author's autograph would be more appealing. Anyway, this is a surprising development coming from a guy who was far, far too smart for college, being such a musical genius and ultimately the spokesman of our generation. Who would have thought that such a brilliant musical genius would care so little for reading books?

Hat tip - Stereogum.

Ah, Thom Yorke. The voice behind Radiohead, and all around interesting musician. No, Radiohead was never even in contention for the greatest band of our generation (and nor was Coldplay, either), and they've yet to top The Bends as their best album, but they are respectable in my book. But like many artists, Thom Yorke feels the need to brandish his leftie credentials, because, you know, he cares so much about the environment and the little people. Sorry, Thom, but you're hardly anything new. Hating the "Bourgeois" has been fashionable amongst artists since at least the 1840's, and even before then, there was certainly animosity toward the "nouveau riche," who didn't have the decency to stay in their proper class strata and earned enough money to compete with aristocrats for the patronage of great artists. Artists, I'm guessing, probably were horrified by this, believing their aristocratic patrons to be more worldly and cosmopolitan, but the nouveau riche to be uncultured Beverly Hillbillies. But I digress. Why do I bring up Thom Yorke in this regard?

Well, it's because like many actors, artists and musicians, he feels the necessity to comment on political, economic and scientific matters he knows next to nothing about. His brief little post, interestingly, shows that there's a lot of stuff white people like that Thom Yorke also likes. I'll list those that are directly and indirectly implied: 12) non-profit organizations, 18) awareness, 50) irony, 55) apologies, 82) hating corporations and 101) being offended, to name but a few. Here's his entire blog posting:

for US citizens (mostly)

stop global warming petition

an online petition with over a million names.. including President Obama.
currently there is talk of a climate change bill in the US similair [sic] to the one we have passed in the UK.
thats a BIG deal.
but i have been reading how the oil industry is investing millions of dollars in a PR campaign against it!
how utterly dumbass is that? how do these people look their children in the eye?

in [sic] have now stepped down from todays soapbox. byebye

"Dumbass" - how classy, Thom! (Though shouldn't it be "dumb-arse?") Well, that would be pretty dumbass, of course, if it were as obvious to them as it is to you that the particular global warming legislation at hand would actually save the world, and failing to pass it would doom it, and that no other policy proposals would ever work. In one respect, this is just typical of the folks who were recently in the Bush-Hate club, who seem to think that modern liberal and welfare statist ideas are so obviously true that even people like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney know it too, but willingly do the opposite because they are that evil. Or, in the case of Bush 43, perhaps because he's just too stupid. It couldn't possibly be the case that anyone with more intelligence than peanut brittle could sincerely believe something else, much less the case that modern liberalism/welfare statism could be mistaken.

It would be like if I said to you, Thom, "These crazy musicians actually want people to be poor, especially in undeveloped third world countries! How utterly idiottech is that? How does Mr. Yorke look his children in the eye?" Of course, that would be silly - you don't want that, and you probably don't think that your favored policies would result in mass poverty. (Even though they would.) You probably mean well, and think that your economic, political and environmental beliefs, if acted upon, would make us all better off. But how constructive is it if we go around calling each other dumbasses simply because we disagree on certain complex, contentious issues? So as it's been said before, shut up and sing. Stick to your area of expertise - music. Otherwise, if you need to get preachy, just follow common standards of decency in public debate, okay? Don't be such a dumbarse.

Hat tip - Pitchfork.

Oh dear, not again...



North Korea Claims Successful Nuclear Bomb Test

Time to send out Hans Bwix? People do seem genuinely pissed off about this, but I don't know that there is much else that can be done to North Korea short of either war or sending them a very angry letter from the United Nations.

Of course, there's still my idea, but they aren't going to do it. That idea being, to inform North Korea and China that we intend to withdraw from South Korea, but not before helping them, Japan, and Taiwan to develop their own nuclear stockpiles. After all, if North Korea insists that it has the right to nukes, why not these other countries as well? My guess is that China would have a cow, get really pissed, but finally tell North Korea to cut it out, or it's going to stop providing the resources it needs to stay afloat. The notion of these three countries, especially Taiwan, going nuclear, would be unacceptable to China, and therefore, North Korea would thereby be putty in our hands. Essentially, it would fight fire with fire. Rather that having us play appeasement with them, we'd turn the tables and blackmail them for a change, forcing them to appease us. How'd they like those apples? :-)

From one of my new favorite comic strips, Jesus & Mo. By the way, Reiki is a kind of woo healing system based on crystals, chi and vitalism. And yes, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops just condemned it as "unscientific." I hope your irony meters are well-maintained these days.

She's not a politician I particularly care for, especially after her recent warnings about "right-wing" extremists. So I can't say I was surprised when this photo hinting at her true self surfaced. Ladies and gentlemen of the world, submitted for your approval, I give you, the true face of Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. This explains a lot, I'm afraid, especially any future successes of Sky Net. I wonder how many other photos of Obama administration figures we can expect to surface?

I don't know how long this will be up, but I thought I'd mention that L. Brent Bozell III's Wikipedia article mentions, near the top, that "The guy is a total douche." I just watched the episode of South Park that he and his front group criticized, "The Ring," the episode skewering Disney, Christianity and the Jonas Brothers. I have to wonder if there's a connection there. Anyway, I got a screen capture, in case the douche reference vanishes.

Update: Sure enough, it's gone now. But it's preserved for posterity here.