The UK Telegraph reports that the Prince of Wailers plans a visit to America to teach us to be tolerant of Islam.
Short of it: He blathers that we in America should appreciate Islam more for all it offers the West. "Prince Charles, who is about to embark on his first official foreign tour since his marriage to the Duchess of Cornwall, wants Americans - including Mr Bush - to share his fondness for Islam."
Well, you can be as fond as you wish, we however, aren't quite as fond of it right now.
Monday, October 31, 2005
The UK Telegraph reports that the Prince of Wailers plans a visit to America to teach us to be tolerant of Islam.
Two stories appeared in Philippine newspapers over the weekend. Their trustworthiness is not known to this blog, although relatives live in The Republic. A story from the Daily Tribune dated October 31 states that President Arroyo prayed to Allah at a political event earlier in the week.
"'I am praying to the Lord Allah, that the peace process with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front is at a high point and maybe bring us to the end of a bold and fruitful journey. Ramadan does not only signify physical restraint, it means a deeper reconciliation with God and I have taken the opportunity on this holy month to call for a period of national renewal in the Philippines. For Catholics, they should mean a nationwide program, for by all should seek the sacrament of reconciliation and penance. For Muslims, observing the annual start of the Ramadan for celebrating the greatness of God, and for other denominations, similar programs in their churches,' she said."
This doesn't sound like someone who is reliable in the war against Islamism. Of course President Bush continues to stress that Islam is a religion of peace, and America doesn't have a violent separatist movement constantly killing civilians as the Philippines does. However, for a self-identified Christian to pray to Allah is a sign of weakness, and indeed, it certainly could embolden the Moro movement to consider escalating action to achieve their ends. If a Christian prays to Allah, that would make the militants believe that she believes that they are correct in their views, and she accepts a humiliated second place for her faith.
As usual for muddleheaded thinking like this, as soon as the words of peace are out of her mouth, the Islamists make a mockery of her prayer. "Ramadan does not only signify physical restraint...." Then perhaps she can explain why attacks on people, even Muslims, continue to take place during this supposed holy time? Are those three Christians beheaded in Indonesia a figment of her imagination?
Unfortunately, the story continues with this bit of information from Arroyo's Executive Secretary, "Eduardo Ermita, for his part, hinted that it is next to impossible for the political opposition to succeed in destabilization efforts as the Chief Executive is now being guided by two Gods including Allah." Hmm, interesting statement. Does Arroyo think she can avoid her political problems by allying herself with the separatists who have killed many Filipino citizens? This source may be hostile to the Arroyo administration, however, this could be a troubling development. If Arroyo is trying to use the Moros to improve her political position, it could undermine her resolve to fight the GWOT.
More troubling is this statement by Ermita, "'The President is a very prayerful (person). I believe she is guided (by God) and I am sure all of you are. Whatever Allah says will happen, and if it is the fate of the President to lead this country forward then it will happen,' he said." Could you imagine President Bush or one of his administration saying something like this? The outcry from leftists and Christ-haters would be deafening. Why again is Ermita bringing up Allah unless the Arroyo administration is planning to use a peace plan with the Moros to gain allies against her opposition?
Perhaps the other newspaper account will shed some light.
The Manila Times reported on October 27 that "The Philippine government appears intent on granting the Moro Islamic Liberation Front its own territory to govern despite seething opposition by politicians worried about the dismemberment of the resource-rich southern Mindanao region. Under the peace agreement being negotiated with the MILF, the government will designate lands that the secessionist group could administer."
If true that is a very dangerous development in the struggle against Islamism. Allowing a group to rule that has allegiance to something other than the federal government is a recipe for disaster. Also, how could the Philippine government continue their prosecution of terrorist acts if the group committing them are now part and parcel of the government of the area? Perhaps this is a tactic to allow the Philippine President to move in and destroy the separatist movement under cover of restoring public government if the Moros continue their attacks on the Filipino people.
The story states that some people are opposed to the reported plan. But the government spokesman claims they are in the minority. "Low-level government and rebel negotiators have agreed on how to award ancestral lands for the MILF to govern although the final package has yet to be approved by their higher-ups. However, a number of Mindanao politicians, led by Mayor Celso Lobregat of Zamboanga City, have criticized the plan. Lobregat said the concession will open the doors for the MILF to eventually take over the whole of Mindanao under the banner of ancestral lands."
This is a dangerous plan that may backfire on the Arroyo government. How could the Philippines continue to coordinate with countries fighting Islamic terrorists when part of the country has been turned over to a violent faction of them?
Could America and the West be affected by this apparent appeasement by the Philippine government? Would the Moro ruled areas become safer havens for those planning murders and other actions against free countries? Perhaps and perhaps not, however, it behooves the Arroyo government to reconsider these actions. Perhaps the quoted sources are organs of her political opposition, but if these events did take place, as reported, the ability to fight against Islamism will be crippled in the Philippines and elsewhere just because a politician wants to hold on to the reins of power. Maybe the extremist Democrats in American can take a lesson.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Thursday, October 27, 2005
From Fox News. It seems that a would be stick up artist didn't learn the rules of gun crime at criminal school.
After a successful hold up, the robber managed to get himself run over by his apparent accomplice, who barreled up in the alleged getaway vehicle, hitting the robber and his victim in the process. The less than useful partner then drove away, leaving the robber at the mercy of another driver.
It seems the hold up was seen by a friend of the victim, and she proceeded to play bumper tag with the suspect. Four times.
To make matters worse for the bad guy, he attempted to draw his gun, but only succeeded in shooting himself.
Perhaps during his next stint in the state's school for criminals, he may learn the correct way to carry out a crime. Or with his luck, maybe not.
Alan Colmes of Fox News had an interview with failed presidential candidate and national embarrassment John Kerry after a speech at Georgetown University.
Regarding the so-called outing of non undercover agent Plame, Colmes asked if the Senator expected someone in the White House to be indicted.
"SEN. JOHN KERRY: I don't have a clue. (The understatement of the century so far, perhaps that's why you lost the election?) I read what everybody else reads. Honestly, I don't know." (But I deserve to be President....)
Colmes hopes to bring out some vitriol, so he asked about resignations.
"KERRY: Well, I said about two years ago that I thought Donald Rumsfeld should resign because his management of the war has really been inexcusable. (Yes, quick victory is inexcusable) Every prediction made has been proven to be wrong. (Yes, Saddam's not out of power, the Iraqis aren't freed, it really is a quagmire, oh, and the constitution isn't acceptable to the majority of the Iraqis who approved it) He neglected the most important thing, which is do all you can to protect the troops. And still, there are problems with up-armored Humvees or armor. I think it's a disgrace, and I think he should have long ago resigned." (Right after I do because my whole career has been based on not supporting the troops)
Colmes has apparently forgotten the Democrat talking points from earlier in the war as he asks Kerry if he feels responsible because he voted to authorize the war. He forgot that the talking point is "not enough boots on the ground," but he and the buffoon Kerry get it backwards.
"KERRY: We're partly responsible, and I accept that responsibility. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't open our minds and our eyes to see the way forward. I believe that a change in our policy is a way to be successful, to be able to get our troops out of there while still standing up the Iraqis and while providing for the transformation that we need in terms of their responsibility and their ability to run the country. Right now, the large presence of American troops, according to General Casey, according to Melvin Laird, Richard Nixon's secretary of defense...(crosstalk)...are part of the problem. And many of us have felt that for some time, that so many American troops in this aggressive fashion on the ground are not helping what we're trying to achieve...." (You idiot Kerry, we're supposed to be short of troops! That's all you talked about during the campaign. Did you forget what you said? Now, according to the comic genius, we have too many troops there! It appears that BDS has discombobulated the left so much that they can't keep their story straight)
It's all wrong according to the silly Senator. He brings up the old discredited leftist lie about the world being behind us after 911 but Bush bungled it away; how our actions have angered one billion muslims, except apparently for the over fifty million freed in Afghanistan and Iraq; and again "Not putting in enough troops," (You just said the opposite jackass, can't even remember what you said one minute ago?) "not bringing our allies officially to the table...." (yeah, the coalition doesn't count)
Alan Colmes then tries puffing up the loser and ask him if he plans to lose again. Kerry is evasive, but he then launches into a speech about how he is willing to work with anyone for the country, although he never has. "Our job is not to fight with each other. Our job is to find the common ground and get good policies in place. And I think there are a lot of people of good will, here in the Senate, here in Congress, who are prepared to do that, but we need to have an administration that really wants to work in concert with us." Right, the president has never done any reaching out, like appointing Democrats to his cabinet, working on an education bill with Ted Kennedy, no President Bush did none of this stuff.
He also flaunts his international connections again, "As I said, I'm prepared to work to help get leaders in other countries, (Who, Castro, Chavez, and Kwazy Kim of Korea?) to help push -- we ought to have a bipartisan delegation that goes over there on behalf of the president and helps to make these things happen. But we've never been asked. (Perhaps because it's not your job? Dolt)
The interview ends with Kerry trying to sound above it all. "I don't want to go backward; I want to go forward. We've got some big issues. We've got a country that desperately needs to be energy independent. (Drill in ANWR then) There's so much we could do to create new jobs in America, to put people to work, to reduce the cost of gasoline for people. We're not doing it." Because it's not the job of government to do these things! Same old stuff, same old socialism, same old lack of ideas, same old fool.
John Kerry, go away. No one listened to you before, no one's listening now.
It appears that Halloween scares some of the half-men in Europe reports the Enemy Press AP. "So the mayor of Rankweil, a town near the border with Switzerland, has launched a one-man campaign disparaging Halloween as a 'bad American habit' and urging families to skip it this year." Post-Christian and Anti-American, is there something else to make it a trifecta?
"'It's an American custom that's got nothing to do with our culture,' (Mayor) Kohler wrote in letters sent out to households. By midweek, the mayors of eight neighboring villages had thrown their support behind the boycott. So had local police, annoyed with the annual Oct. 31 uptick in vandalism and mischief." Well, perhaps someone should set the mayors straight. Halloween isn't an American invention...it was first developed in... Europe!
Can't expect the Euros to remember anything these days apparently.
"Halloween 'undermines our cultural identity,' complained the Rev. Giordano Frosini, a Roman Catholic theologian who serves as vicar-general in the Diocese of Pistoia near Florence, Italy. Frosini denounced the holiday as a 'manifestation of neo-paganism' and an expression of American cultural supremacy. 'Pumpkins show their emptiness,' he said." For all that however, this little tidbit stands out. "To be sure, Halloween is big business in Europe. Germans alone spend nearly $170 million, on Halloween costumes, sweets, decorations and parties. The holiday has become increasingly popular in Romania, home to the Dracula myth, where discotheques throw parties with bat and vampire themes. In Britain, where Halloween celebrations rival those in the United States, it's the most lucrative day of the year for costume and party retailers. 'Without Halloween, I don't think we could exist, to be honest,' said Pendra Maisuria, owner of Escapade, a London costume shop that rakes in 30 percent of its annual sales in the run-up to Oct. 31. Metropolitan Police, meanwhile, haven't logged any significant increase in crime."
Well, it seems that money trumps anti-Americanism, even in Europe.
Court TV reported that a bodyguard (lover?) of Roy Horn of Siegfried and Roy fame is being treated like a woman, except for the pregnant part. "Siegfried Fischbacher is a 'tyrant' who overmedicates and humiliates the ailing Horn, who is still recovering from a tiger-mauling incident...'Siegfried was a tyrant and had loud, explosive outbursts at the plaintiff and at Roy,' says the civil suit filed by Louis Mydlach, a former Siegfried & Roy insider. '[Fischbacher] forced Roy to take medication, even when Roy begged to not be medicated, the suit claims."
Looks like Mr Mydlach has some issues with Siegfried...cat fights can be so eeeevil. "Mydlach says his role changed from that of security guard to caretaker, 'in all the undignified matters....'" Really?
"Mydlach, 34, met Siegfried and Roy as a child when they hired his father's company for security services. He says he has a 'close and almost familial relationship,' with Horn, but presumably not close enough to give him legal rights over Horn's care." Yeah, they don't have those kind of "rights" in Nevada, say like San Francisco....
"Mydlach could not be reached for comment, but he told the Las Vegas Review Journal that he had photos, video and documentation to support his allegations." Hmm, perhaps it wouldn't be such a good idea to view those "videos," who knows what you might see.
Siegfried will contest the suit "zealously." And get all hot and bothered no doubt.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Poor Lileks. He had such a bad experience for jury duty in his hometown. He had to stay available for two weeks! Fortunately, in Parts Unknown, jury duty is "One Day, One Trial."
Reporting For Duty:
I parked a few blocks from the courthouse and walked through the "seedy" part of downtown. The City of Parts Unknown has done an amazing job of cleaning up the sidewalks and cleaning out the people who used to inhabit the area. I walked by what I thought was a little drainage ditch, it turned out to be a little oasis park. That's not the only thing out of place. I saw a knot of people standing outside what appeared to be a copy shop, like a Kinko's or something. After a quick perusal of the area, I recognized a foreign flag from Parts Unknown that's a little south of Parts Unknown. Yes, right near the detention center and the Courthouse was an outpost of illegal alien documentation. Right outside the court was a group of people who had no right to be here. I wonder why the police didn't come by and arrest them? I guess we don't do that anymore.
When I reached the courthouse I noticed that the new usual safety devices were in order. Reading the sign was an eye opener. It said "Firearms Prohibited," and right under that it said "knives, chemical weapons, and sharp objects must be checked here." What?! I guess they're not prohibited, just check them at the door please. Oh, and by the way, you know how foreign languages are also put on the bottom of the sign? Well, here the foreign language was on the top! Does that mean that the court is usually used by those who don't belong here? Appears to be.
While walking through the building I noticed that the designers had cut quotes into the face of the stone walls inside the court. I read quotes from Hammurabi's Laws, Roman Law, Socrates, Gandhi and others. All the inscriptions were considering Justice. I continued along looking at the words of Justice and then I was hit by a jarring note. A large inscription from the Koran. What? Please, talk of Justice has nothing to do with the Koran. The "Justice" from the Koran doesn't apply to non-Muslims, while all the others were universal. Oh, there was a quote from the Bible, but it was hidden in the corner and was only two lines, while the Koran inscription was in the middle of the wall and at least five lines long. Can't be partial can we?
The Jury Room
Reaching the Jury Room wasn't hard, although, they forgot to put signs up. I checked in with the clerk, was given a badge and a jury handbook and took a seat. I was told to leave it where it was, so I just sat down. After a few minutes of waiting around looking at those other inmates of the jury room, the clerk stepped to the front of the room. She gave us some information about jury duty and then introduced a short film about the jury system in Parts Unknown. The title was I, The Jury or something like that. So we were indoctrinated into how noble and right it was to serve on a jury. If so, why do so many people try to avoid it?
About thirty minutes later a bailiff came in and a list of names was read off and these inmates trooped off to a courtroom to learn their fate. After about an hour of listening to my neighbors talking about their law practices, the clerk came to the front of the room and read off a list of names again. These poor unfortunates were not picked to go to a courtroom however, they were let off for lunch. A three hour lunch. Then back to the jury room. After that group left the room, the clerk stood up in front again and read a list of names, one that had my name on it. I hoped that we were being freed from service because no other court needed jurors that morning. However, no such luck, lunch for us too. Three hours. Out we trooped to our various locations.
Return To The Jury Room
After lunch, the Jury Room filled with new inmates who were ordered to appear in the afternoon. Did that mean that the early groups would be allowed to leave? No soap. My group was lined up like Bugsy's men on Valentine's Day and lead to the slaughter, er courtroom.
The Jury Box
We were led by a bailiff to the courtroom of the Honorable. After being seated in the gallery, the bailiff listed a group of names to sit in the box of twelve. My number was near the last of the line, so I didn't get called in the initial grouping. Twelve poor unfortunates were seated and then the proceedings began. The players introduced themselves then the exams began. Each potential juror was asked a set of questions by the Honorable, who you are, what you do, do you think you would be a fair juror? Then the prosecutor asked some questions of each juror, then the defense did their turn. All twelve were passed for cause by both sides! A wave of relief passed through the rest of us.
But wait, there's so much more! Now the peremptory challenges began. Each prospective was asked another set of questions by the sides. Some people played stupid, some played gung ho, each in their way apparently trying to get excused. One dumb kid acted like he wouldn't be unbiased, he got his wish, he was excused. Another, ex-military was let go for his strong beliefs. So on until all the peremptory challenges were over. Heh, unfortunately for them, the Honorable sent them back to the Jury Room, they thought they were on their way home. There were still seven people on the list ahead of me. Whew! Dodged a bullet. Not so fast said the Honorable. We still need alternates. Grrr. Well, there were only two needed. So the procedure began again. The next two were seated and the questioning resumed. Hooray! Both were passed for cause! We might have some winners. Of course the peremptorys began, each side has one. Beads of sweat began forming on the foreheads of us remaining. Please let them pass. And they did! The alternates were sworn in. The jury was complete! All those who found a way out of it were put back in the jury pool downstairs. Ha! But those of us who didn't get excused, were told our service ended and we could go back to the Jury Room and be released!
The giddy group made its way to the clerk's desk and gladly turned in our badges and received a letter stating we were free for the next three years! We cast a sorrowful eye towards those still waiting and laughed, laughed as we made our way outside to freedom.
Found through Fausta at The Bad Hair Blog.
Despite the ravings of the Brazilian government and the murderous thugs at the UN, the people of Brazil overwhelmingly voted to maintain their rights to self protection by rejecting a gun ban referendum.
Of course as the report is from the Enemy Press BBC, the slant is obvious. "Last year, there were 36,000 shooting deaths. The UN says guns are the biggest cause of death among young people in Brazil. The immediate consequence of the referendum is that gun shops will remain open." Actually, the immediate consequence is that the people there are still able to protect themselves.
The BBC is surprised that the ban vote failed miserably, "given the horrific scale of gun violence in Brazil." As seen in America numerous times, the press can't fathom that people might want access to firearms for self protection. They believe that people don't want them, but the forces that support the right to bear arms are always able to trick the voters. "The defeated 'Yes' campaign had enjoyed an early lead in the opinion polls, but it was quickly outmanoeuvred." Outmaneuvered. Not defeated on its lack of merit, but voters were duped into voting against it. "The 'No' campaign convinced voters that the proposed ban would have no effect on criminals, on the grounds that criminals do not buy guns legally in shops." Convinced that criminals don't obey laws? Really? How many times have we heard from criminals that they indeed do not purchase guns legally? Multiple times, yet the press seems to think they do.
The Enemy Press BBC quotes one slum resident who was opposed to the ban. "'If I had the money, I would have a weapon to try to protect myself and my family... The police are never going to arrive in time.' Maria, Shantytown resident." Hmm, same outlook as here. She understands that she cannot count on help arriving in time so she must be responsible for herself. We have seen courts in America rule that the police have no duty to protect individuals, but are for general safety purposes.
"It also argued that a gun ban would be a breach of civil rights." Correct. All people have a right to protect themselves, even non-Americans! "Beni Barbosa, the 'No' campaign spokesman, said: 'We managed to get our message across that Brazilians have individual rights which the state cannot take away. Here, people were not choosing whether to have a gun or not. They were voting for their rights to choose.'"
Of course, the gun grabbers deny this reason for their failure. "Anti-gun campaigners said the swing away from a 'Yes' vote was the result of people's desire to protest against the government's security policy. 'We didn't lose because Brazilians like guns. We lost because people don't have confidence in the government or the police,' said Denis Mizne, of anti-violence group Sou da Paz. 'The 'No' campaign was much more effective. They are talking about a right to have a gun - it is a totally American debate.'" Wrong, it's a totally Human Right, not some false right that the Turtle Bay Tyranny Society or the US courts find each week. The right to self protection exists everywhere for everyone. These people know it, they just don't like it because an armed populace anywhere is a threat to their tyranny.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Monday, October 17, 2005
Saturday, October 15, 2005
A new way to see Rome as it was. This is a great idea. Walk through the crowded streets and into the city's shops in three dimensions. Unfortunately it's only available in Trajan's Forum. Perhaps someday a version will be available in America.
Friday, October 14, 2005
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Saturday, October 08, 2005
Thursday, October 06, 2005
The Enemy Press AP wrote this silly headline: "High Court Clashes Over Assisted Suicide."
So it appears that the Justices were engaging in a free for all in the courtroom. Maybe Ginsburg faced off with O'Connor in a swordfight. Maces at ten paces for Scalia and Kennedy.
No, it's just the usual from the Enemy Press. The Court is considering the role of government in physician assisted suicide. The AP apparently doesn't like the fact that Chief Justice Roberts "stepped forward Wednesday as an aggressive defender of federal authority to block doctor-assisted suicide, as the Supreme Court clashed over an Oregon law that lets doctors help terminally ill patients end their lives." Clashed! Clashed they say! Was it anything of the sort? No, there is nothing in the story that implies any clashes between Justices. The implied clash is between what was supported before by the thuggish former Attorney General Janet "Waco" Reno and former Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Here we see more bias from the Enemy Press. "The new case is a turf battle of sorts, started by former Attorney General John Ashcroft, a favorite among the president's conservative religious supporters. (And what does that have to do with anything? Oh, wait, Christians and Bush bad, blow jobs and forcing Cubans back to Castro's hellhole, good) Hastening someone's death is an improper use of medication and violates federal drug laws, Ashcroft reasoned in 2001, an opposite conclusion from the one reached by Attorney General Janet Reno in the Clinton administration." And? And? Perhaps Reno's conclusion was incorrect? Well, it can't be, can it? She was Clinton's Attorney General.
AP also puts in this little nugget from a court watcher, "...Van Aelstyn says John Ashcroft failed to address public interest before imposing his 2001 directive to arrest doctors who assist patients in the process of dying." Yup, just imposed his ideas on everyone else without so much as a by your leave. What a dirty trick, making people not kill someone!
Apparently the AP wants physician assisted suicide to pass as seen by the presentations of Justice Ginsburg and Souter as soft hearted heroes who only want to ease the pain of cancer afflicted citizens. "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has had colon cancer, talked about medicines that make a sick person's final moments more comfortable. Justice David Souter, in an emotional moment, said that it's one thing for the government to ban date rape drugs and harmful products but 'that seems to me worlds away from what we're talking about here.'" Let's see, forbid to rape good, forbid to kill, bad.
Now here's the other side. "Roberts and Antonin Scalia appeared skeptical of Oregon's claims that states have the sole authority to regulate the practice of medicine. Roberts, 50, was presiding over his first major oral argument and thrust himself (ooh, he thrust himself) in the middle of the debate. Over and over he raised concerns that states could undermine federal regulation of addictive drugs. Before Oregon Senior Assistant Attorney General Robert Atkinson could finish his first sentence Roberts interrupted with the first of many questions. 'Doesn't that undermine and make enforcement impossible?' he asked Atkinson. (The nerve of Roberts! Asking questions! And interrupting, interrupting!) He posed just two questions of the Bush administration lawyer. (That settles it, he's bought and paid for by President Bush, he's the president's man...oh, yeah.) At one point, a flustered Atkinson said, 'I'm starting to be backed into a corner.'" (And I'm going to cry, sniff.) Just gotta bring out the "I'm threatened by conservative speech" excuse. Perhaps you were just unprepared.
There is one important bit of information that the Enemy Press does include in the story. It appears that "It was a wrenching debate for a court touched personally by illness. Roberts replaced William H. Rehnquist, who died a month ago after battling cancer for nearly a year. Three justices have had cancer and a fourth has a spouse who counsels children with untreatable cancer.... The two justices who seemed most conflicted were Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer. Breyer's wife counsels young cancer patients. Besides Ginsburg, the justices who have had cancer are O'Connor and John Paul Stevens." Should any of these then, be deciding this case? It appears that all of these justices listed has a bias one way or the other. Can we get a fair ruling? Justices have recused themselves for lesser things than this. For such a charged question, it seems that all the Justices listed above must recuse themselves. We must rule according to the Constitution, not our feelings and personal situation. It's clear this must be done, no matter how much it hurts the Enemy Press and the supporters of each side.
Physician Assisted Suicide
It appears that the envious French still can't take defeat like men. Yet another attempt is being made to link Lance Armstrong with banned substances.
"The International Cycling Union has appointed a Dutch lawyer to conduct an independent investigation into allegations Lance Armstrong tested positive for EPO during the 1999 Tour de France. The cycling body said Thursday that Emile Vrijman and his law firm would 'undertake a comprehensive investigation regarding all issues concerning the testing conducted by the French laboratory of urine samples' from the '99 Tour."
As seen below, a French paper declared Lance guilty of doping because it said it had test results proving positive tests came from Armstrong's urine samples. It was later revealed that the original samples have been destroyed, and corroborating the alleged positives is now impossible.
Therefore two competing organizations now have declared their intent to find the real killers, er, determine the truth of the allegations. The World Anti-Doping Agency and the International Cycling Union "have been engaged in a bitter feud over the case. Last month, WADA chief Dick Pound accused former UCI president Hein Verbruggen of leaking documents about the alleged positive tests to L'Equipe. He also questioned UCI's willingness to fully investigate the allegations. UCI denied Pound's accusations and claimed he was blocking its investigation by withholding information." We'll find out, no we'll find out, no we will, no we will, blah, blah, blah. Let them go round and round in circles. If they haven't noticed, Lance Armstrong has retired and even if they decide he did have a banned substance, it has been reported that nothing will happen anyway. Ah, the ineffectual French....
Reports from Hollywood indicate that Tom Cruise and a woman not yet his wife are expecting a child. Well, it appears that's good news, but the question remains...who's the real father?
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
The Titanic or The Minnow?
Quisp or Quake?
Hamburgers or Pizza?
Matt Dillon or Wyatt Earp?
Pat Buttram or Gabby Hayes?
Hoppy or Durango Kid?
Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid or Hannibal Heyes and Kid Curry?
Books or Movies?
Liberal or Conservative?
Second Amendment or Gun Control?
Carter or Reagan?
Monday, October 03, 2005
Sunday, October 02, 2005