Friday, February 13, 2004

The Kerry Thing

Instapundit, as usual, has the best round-up of reactions to the whole thing. Not necessarily the most links, just the best.

One thing I cannot recall seeing in all the sturm und drang over who released the rumor is this:

What if it was released by Chris Lehane?

If he is the culprit, he's just burned ALL of his bridges. The GOP would never hire him because he's a scumbag leftist. Democrats will never hire him because he destroyed the Kerry campaign (out of spite?) and can't possibly concoct a suitable explanation for his actions.

The usual suspects are already fingering Rove. Atrios and Hesiod (no links for them) have painted themselves into a corner in their frenzied rush to blame the GOP, despite the significant evidence that it's coming from the now defunct Clark campaign, run by Chris Lehane, who was canned by Kerry in September.

I consider Lehane to be pond scum; I make no effort to hide my contempt for him. I really hope that it is proved that he was the one who leaked the rumor, as it would mean one less snake in the garden of politics, and that's always a good thing.

UPDATE: I need to clarify one thing. I don't think Clark himself was in any way responsible for the leak. I seriously doubt he'd throw his support behind Kerry at the same time that he was attempting to destroy his campaign. I am fully of the belief that Lehane acted on his own.

posted at 03:49 AM | permalink | Comments (1)

Unless Clark was doing a favor for Kerry at the Massachusettes Senator's request by leaking a false allegation intended to immunize Kerry from future credible (real) allegations of sexual dalliances. I doubt it, but...

What I find curious is how the young lady's parents went from calling Kerry a "sleazeball" a few days ago to now saying they look forward to voting for him. Hmm. If I was the cynical type...

posted by Lawrence on February 17, 2004 12:20 PM

Thursday, February 12, 2004


Yup, that's right, at least according to the filtering software used at Doctor Weevil's school.

The good doctor was checking links on his blogroll yesterday, and 20 of them were blocked for allegedly pornographic content, mine included. (Amusingly, two blogs with not-safe-for-work content were not filtered.) Even more perplexing were the fact that some of the blogs are rather dignified, high-culture blogs that steer away from contentious political or risque topics.

Does anyone know how filtering software works, and what might have caused my site (and some of the others) to be blocked? Is there a way to override the filter? Inquiring minds want to know.

posted at 08:45 AM | permalink | Comments (1)

I was just told that my blog was blocked at a school. Based on a trip to Google, I see that a former owner of the domain name was, in fact, a purveyor of Pr0n.

I wonder how often the filtering folks update their block lists?

posted by Daniel Morris on February 17, 2004 09:02 PM


I'm an idiot.

No need to be so quick to agree...

I just discovered that one of my Dead Pool picks, Pierre Trudeau, died in September of 2000.

I've notified Lair, and I am sure he will (deservedly) mock me.

Oh, well. This might explain why I was the only person to pick him. :)

posted at 08:38 AM | permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, February 11, 2004

interesting test

The BBC science page has this interesting test, asking you to determine whether 20 videotaped smiles are real or fake. It's interesting, and only takes a few minutes. (Warning: you have to pay attention, as each video clip can only be viewed once.) I scored 13/20.

(Link courtesy of Beth, whose score was better than mine.)

posted at 08:29 AM | permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, February 10, 2004

Update on Challenge

Since I issued my challenge 11 days ago, I've watched as it slowly gathered a bit of steam in the 'sphere, picking up contributions as it went. Bill Hobbs, Darren Kaplan, Michael, Chuck, and "Edward Boyd" have all pitched in, and now the award is for $310.

As Bill's site is by far the most trafficked, the best comments threads are at his site. In this thread, the second at his site, we hear a number of unfounded assertions:

1. My goal is fundamentally dishonest, and I don't plan to pay out a cent.

2. Nobody has claimed that Bush linked 9/11 with Hussein.

3. Richard Perle said it, and he's a high-ranking official in the administration.

My responses:

1. I fully intend to pay, if someone finds a quote that meets the specified criteria.

2. I'm not even going to try to document that one. My first post had a direct link to a column that stated it quite clearly.

3. Richard Perle is not, and has never been, a "senior administration official". As I pointed out in the comments on my original post (and in the second thread at Hobbs), the Defense Policy Board (on which Perle served as an unpaid member) is far down the chain; in fact it is five levels below the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, which means it's not a major panel. The only reason Perle received so much time on TV is that he is interviewable. He is interesting, readily agrees to apperances, and is at least a recognizable name (despite the fact that his highest position in any administration was as Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration). Some people get lots of publicity, totally out of balance with their real influence, and Perle is one of them.

In any case, the quote (being pushed by well-known blogroach Jade Gold) doesn't meet the criteria, even if it had been uttered by Bush himself.

The offer still stands, although I doubt that anyone will ever find a quote.

posted at 09:47 AM | permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, February 9, 2004

Kerry takes another body blow

The Associated Press reports that John Kerry pocketed over $150,000 in speech fees before the senate stopped allowing members to speak for money.

Back when federal lawmakers legally could be paid for speaking to outside groups, John Kerry collected more than $120,000 in fees from interests as diverse as big oil, tobacco, the liquor lobby and unions, records show.

I don't know, but the media's tendency to play gotcha with the leader in a crowded field must be tiresome to those with serious candidacies. I have little sympathy with Kerry; his two-faced stance on this issue left him ripe for abuse. however, if Dean were still in the lead (or Edwards or Clark), I doubt this would have been brought up.

A longtime federal election regulator said Kerry's extensive speaking efforts after he arrived in Washington followed a path taken by many new lawmakers who were not wealthy. With congressional salaries half what they are today, many lawmakers pressed to find outside income from special interests.

The only difference is that Kerry was wealthy, by any stretch of the imagination. His family was wealthy, and his first wife had an estimated net worth of over $300 million. (They were separated when he was elected, and divorced in 1988).

posted at 07:59 AM | permalink | Comments (0)

Israeli Groups sue to stop fence

This article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer contains two interesting points. The first paragraph reads:

JERUSALEM -- The Supreme Court heard petitions from two Israeli human rights groups against the West Bank separation barrier Monday, a day after the government said it would change the route to minimize hardship for Palestinians.

Can you imagine the Palestinian Authority allowing a case against them to be brought to court? For that matter, can you name any Arabic nation that would allow such a thing to happen?

Even more interesting, however, is the endpiece of the story.

Meanwhile, a new poll found that Palestinian support for violence and suicide bombings against Israel has reached a low during more than three years of fighting.

Only 35 percent of respondents support continuing the violence, down from 43 percent in November and 73 percent in November 2000. The Palestinian Center for Public Opinion poll surveyed 500 Palestinian adults and had a margin of error of 4.4 percentage points.

This seems to be in direct contradiction of some other polls I have seen cited, but it is interesting if it's true. Maybe Hamas and Islamic Jihad have overplayed their hand, and the Palestinian people are tired of the whole intifada thing. It would be nice if Arafat and his cronies saw the numbers and sat down with the Israelis for some real negotiation, as opposed to the current "all concessions have to come from the Israelis; our position is non-negotiable" stance they have held. I'm not going to hold my breath, however.

posted at 07:13 AM | permalink | Comments (1)

Doesn't surprise me if support for the Intifada is at an ebb.

After all, it's visibly not working, and seems unlikely to start working again in the forseeable future. (Where "working" means "getting the Israelis to give in in some way", of course.)

The Intifada's support is always strongest when the Israelis cave or waffle, and the Intifada is killing lots of Jews. When neither of those happens, support fades... not because (so far) of any real desire for lasting coexistence and peace, but from a dislike of ineffective policies.

At least, that's my analyis.

posted by Sigivald on February 9, 2004 01:04 PM

Good Time in Gitmo

Jim Miller links to an interesting piece in the Telegraph, an interview with a now-releashed 13-year old detainee and his pleasant experiencewith the US military. Of course, since it flies in the face of the constant media (and leftist NGO) barrage of criticism, it will be ignored.

posted at 05:23 AM | permalink | Comments (0)

Back to Horologium