That’s the gist of this nasty little anti-troop rant written by uber-lefty William Arkin in response to this NBC video that is circulating around the Internet in which some troops on the ground expressed frustration about how Americans are acting here at home as it relates to ‘supporting the mission’ (or not supporting it).
Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive is not amused and lets Arkin have it (some colorful language is used, so if you’re sensitive to that sort of thing …).
Hat tip: Hugh Hewitt
Via the AP:
PEQUANNOCK, N.J. — Teens who drink alcohol could be caught three days later under a high school’s new testing policy for students.
The test, which will be given randomly to students at Pequannock Township High School, can detect whether alcohol was consumed up to 80 hours earlier. The legal drinking age in the United States is 21.
Other districts already use the test. Middletown began using it last spring for students suspected of using drugs and alcohol. This month, the district expanded it to include a random pool of about 1,800 students.
Pequannock Superintendent Larrie Reynolds said the policy approved last week should be a deterrent to students who feel peer pressure to drink.
Under the program, students who test positive will not be kicked off teams or barred from extracurricular activities, Reynolds said. Instead, they will receive counseling — and their parents will be notified.
The ACLU of NJ isn’t too happy about this:
Critics have said the testing does not work and invades students’ privacy.
“Medical care and treatment are issues between parents and children,” said Deborah Jacobs, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey.
That line of thinking on the part of the ACLU-NJ apparently doesn’t extend to minors regarding abortion, though, natch.
(AP link via Best of the Web)
Because of morally bankrupt, exceptionally puerile ‘arguments’ like this one, which, as so much other radical feminista propaganda does, encourages women – especially those who are virgins – to lower their standards and have sex because “Sex is amazing, liberating and a power to be exerted over others”, among other things.
And here I thought the feminist movement was not supposed to be defined by our sex (and having sex) but instead who we were as human beings rather than sex objects …
Hat tip: Daniel Gelernter at Phi Beta Cons
Related: Here’s a must-read from Dawn Eden, who provides some very valuable insight on the ‘sexual revolution.’
My oh my oh my! I wonder if he’ll be issuing ‘apologies’ over what he said about Obama and black people for the next several years?
More: Michelle Malkin asks a couple of good questions:
Question A: Who will press Joe Biden to name the names of the inarticulate and dim and dirty and unattractive African-Americans he was thinking about when he, um, complimented Barack Obama?
Question B: Will the Washington Post give this coverage equal to its Macacaphony over George Allen’s racial blundering?
We shall see …. or not.
Update: Brightcove has the audio.
CNN is reporting that the Pentagon is investigating the possibility that Iranian operatives (or those trained by Iranians) attacked and killed US troops in Karbala back on January 20th:
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) — The Pentagon is investigating whether a recent attack on a military compound in Karbala was carried out by Iranians or Iranian-trained operatives, two officials from separate U.S. government agencies said.
“People are looking at it seriously,” one of the officials said.
That official added the Iranian connection was a leading theory in the investigation into the January 20 attack that killed five soldiers.
The second official said: “We believe it’s possible the executors of the attack were Iranian or Iranian-trained.”
Five U.S. soldiers were abducted and killed in the sophisticated attack by men wearing U.S.-style uniforms, according to U.S. military reports. (Watch how attackers got into the compound )
Both officials stressed the Iranian-involvement theory is a preliminary view, and there is no final conclusion. They agreed this possibility is being looked at because of the sophistication of the attack and the level of coordination.
“This was beyond what we have seen militias or foreign fighters do,” the second official said.
The investigation has led some officials to conclude the attack was an “inside job” — that people inside the compound helped the attackers enter unstopped.
Bill Roggio, who is embedded with a Marine and Army transition team in Iraq, writes:
The United States had planned to detail Iran’s involvement in supporting the Shia death squads, as well as the Sunni insurgency, al-Qaeda in Iraq and Ansar al-Sunnah during a press briefing with Major General Bill Caldwell on Wednesday at 7:00 am Eastern. The briefing was purported to have detailed “specifics including shipping documents, serial numbers, maps and other evidence which officials say would irrefutably link Iran to weapons shipments to Iraq.”
The Bush administration has decided to put the briefing “on hold for several reasons, including concerns over the reaction from Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — as well as inevitable follow-up questions that would be raised over what the U.S. should do about it,” according to FOX News.
Read more via Captain Ed, Greg Tinti, James Joyner, Dan Riehl, Tigerhawk
Abu Ghraib “paintings.” Zombietime shares photos from the “American premiere” of Colombian artist Fernando Botero’s “artwork.”
Clay Waters reports on the tale of two NYT reporters who went on PBS’ Charlie Rose show (each on a different occasions) and expressed an opinion about the war in Iraq. The reporter who expressed that he wanted us to win in Iraq was publicly chastised after a complaint from a reader, whereas the reporter who expressed that we were “rushing bombs to this part of the world. And it just erodes and erodes and erodes America’s reputation” received no public rebuke.
Irked with blatantly obvious double standard? Let Byron Calame know what you think: email@example.com
We know it’s not being in favor of victory in Iraq, so what could it possibly be? Mary Katharine Ham explains.
This new periodic feature at Slate is absolutely priceless. Slate’s Tim Noah starts things off by mentioning the latest puff piece on Obama, as written in the LATimes. Larry Gordon, staff writer for the LAT, writes:
In [poli-sci professor Roger] Boesche’s European politics class, [classmate Ken] Sulzer said he was impressed at how few notes Obama took. “Where I had five pages, Barry had probably a paragraph of the pithiest, tightest prose you’d ever see. â€¦ It was very short, very sweet. Obviously somebody almost Clintonesque in being able to sum a whole lot of concepts and place them into a succinct written style.”
Just what you wanted to know about a potential president of this country, eh? The rest of the piece reads like an Obama-informercial. I don’t recommend reading it if your diet calls for you to avoid eating or drinking sugary substances.
Hat tip: Ann Althouse
More: Dave Pierre at Newsbusters points out that this isn’t the first fawning piece the LAT has written about His Honor.
Update: Herman Cain takes on black liberal ‘leaders’ – and the mediots – who are obsessed with Obama’s race.
Any of you gents out there who are unsure of what a woman means when she says it, please read below for clarification
Words Women Use:
1.) FINE: This is the word women use to end an argument when they are right and you need to shut up.
2.) Five Minutes: If she is getting dressed, this means a half an hour. Five Minutes is only five minutes if you have just been given five more minutes to watch the game before helping around the house.
3.) Nothing: This is the calm before the storm. This means something, and you should be on your toes. Arguments that begin with nothing usually end in “fine”.
4.) Go Ahead: This is a dare, not permission. Don’t Do It!
5.) Loud Sigh: This is actually a word, but is a nonverbal statement often misunderstood by men. A loud sigh means she thinks you are an idiot and wonders why she is wasting her time standing here and arguing with you about nothing. (Refer back to #3 for the meaning of nothing.)
6.) That’s Okay: This is one of the most dangerous statements a women can make to a man. That’s okay means she wants to think long and hard before deciding how and when you will pay for your mistake.
7.) Thanks: A woman is thanking you, do not question, or Faint. Just say you’re welcome.
8.) Whatever: Is a women’s way of saying SCREW YOU!
9.) Don’t worry about it, I got it: Another dangerous statement, meaning this is something that a woman has told a man to do several times, but is now doing it herself. This will later result in a man asking “what’s wrong” and for the woman’s response to that, refer to # 3.
Hat tip: Ro