Jimmy Carter: Fool's Mandate

Arguably the worst president in US history, Jimmy Carter now believes that his views represent the majority of Democrats. The sad part about this is, he is probably right. In an interview with Der Spiegel that is fraught with softball-questions and mutual tch-tching, Carter bemoans:
--Israel's "unjustified attack on Lebanon."
--How the Bush administration "has not attempted at all in the last six years to negotiate or attempt to negotiate a settlement between Israel and any of its neighbors or the Palestinians."
--Blah blah blah.

Short memory you got there, Jimmy.

Touting his own Camp David accords between Israel and Egypt, Carter concludes that negotiation is the only legitimate course of "action" for any crisis. When the interviewer responds with "But negotiations failed to prevent the burning of Beirut and bombardment of Haifa," Carter's reply is "I'm distressed."
Read it if you want. I've got better things to do, myself...

(Carter caricature courtesy of Cox & Forkum)

The Mysterious "Green Helmet Guy"

He has most recently appeared in "news photos" taken in the aftermath of Israel's attack on Hizbollah missile launcher sites in the Lebanese town of Qana, which is a known Hizbollah stronghold. The most widely distributed picture of GHG showed him holding up a dead child so that all the reporters and photogs could get a better shot (widely believed to be an intentional propaganda pose, I refuse to show this picture). Then more pics of GHG were found dating from a similar Israeli strike on Qana in 1996. Who is this mysterious man with the olive-drab skid-lid?

After extensively googling this issue, I have learned agreat deal about the Green Helmet Guy.

For instance, he used to be an actor, but he wound up here.




I discovered that GHG is a "cat person" too... one of those annoying types who like to play Kitty Dress-Up:


As GHG's fame spreads far and wide, the marketing possibilities appear to be endless. Isn't this how Spiderman got his start?


Don't forget the toy market too!



Let me conclude this post making a promise to everyone in the Wambulance Nation that, before I decide to do another post like this in the future, I will first save my nickels and buy PhotoShop, instead of hacking images with MS Paint. Cross my heart.


Update: GHG now has a blog of his own.

Wambulance Ethics Corner: The 3 Ways to Lie

First of all, let me state for the record that lying should rarely be the preferred course of action. There are all kinds of drawbacks and pitfalls that await the liar. Your could get caught in a lie, and damage the hard-earned trust that is the foundation of most significant inter-personal relationships. But most importantly, you should avoid lying for these reasons:

• Lying isn't truthful.
• Lying isn't honest.
• Lying requires a very long and accurate memory.
• Do you like being lied to?
• Me neither.

At some point, however, the need to lie will arise. Perhaps you will want to spare the feelings of a friend or loved one, or deflect an uncomfortable, albeit innocent, question from a child. But more than likely, you will lie to save your own miserable hide. You will need to know the 3 Ways to Lie.

1. The Basic Falsehood
This is a lie that is utterly devoid of any truth. The key here is to keep it simple. Don't elaborate at all, because its the details that will trip you up. Can you remember all the particulars of any conversation you have had longer than a month ago? What makes you think you will remember any of that creative fiction you just conjured on the fly to cover your ass? Also, the person you lied to will always remember at least one detail you won't, and nail you with it later. The Basic Falsehood perfectly illustrates the point that, if you have a lousy memory, you are better off not lying at all.

2. Tell The Truth, But Leave Out The Bad Parts
If the lie is a minor part of a larger narrative, then it is best to be completely honest in all details, but just don't mention the parts that will get you in trouble. The advantage here is that you lessen the burden on your already over-taxed memory (especially if you lie a lot), and any detail that is later brought up will be one of the true parts, which are much easier to remember. The key here is that your lie of omission must be about a small detail in order to work. If you are out until 2:00 AM and you tell your spouse that you just went to the corner store for some cigarettes, the timeline will not fit, and your lie will fail. If your spouse thinks you quit smoking, then tell him/her what you were really doing until 2:00 AM but leave out the part about getting the cigarettes. If you were being naughty until 2:00 AM then refer back to The Basic Falsehood or move on to the final Way To Lie.

3. Tell The Truth, But Act Like You Are Lying.
This is the method of last resort. Here is the situation: You have been caught in a lie. They know you did something. Your guilt is evident, but the particulars are still uncertain. You can't escape, but you can mitigate the situation in this way: tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Tell the truth in as much minute detail as you can muster, and omit nothing. They will eventually become convinced that you are lying. They are already predisposed to disbelieving you anyway, so its easy to believe that you are lying again.
The down side is that you will lose some or all of the other party's trust, but that has already been damaged at this point anyway. The upside is, by employing this method of lying you might be able to keep a bad situation from turning into a complete disaster.

To better illustrate the 3rd Way To Lie, here is a short tale:
A married businessman spends the afternoon in a hotel room with his mistress. When he finally looks at his watch, he sees that it is very late and he knows that his wife will be furious. He borrows some of his girlfriend's blue eyeshadow and smears a little on his shirt sleeves and under his fingernails, dusts talcum powder on his hands and pants, then goes home. His wife angrily demands, "Where the hell have you been all this time?" He responds, "Honey, I have been in a hotel room with another woman making wild monkey-love all afternoon." She grabs his wrist, points to the blue smudges and powder residue, and replies, "Bullshit! You've been playing pool with the boys again!"

I hope that this helps any of you in the Wambulance Nation who find that, in spite of your best intentions and contrary to your upstanding personal nature, you must tell a lie.

Not that I ever would, of course.

My memory is shot to hell...

So, You Want To Destroy The Earth...

A simple concept: poof, no earth. It has long been a staple of sci-fi B-movies (and A-movies based on B-science), but how hard would it be to actually do it, really? Keep in mind, we aren't talking about wiping out all life from bacteria on up, or merely destroying mankind. The issue here is, how does one go about actually removing the entire planet Earth from existence? Turns out, it ain't gonna be easy.

Sam Hughes has given it a lot of thought, and compiled the essential guide to destroying the Earth. The only prerequisite of the various methods he lists is that they must be theoretically possible. Feasible, however, is quite another matter, as you will see.

Exxon Mobil 2Q Profit Jumps 36 Percent

Exxon Mobile has reported quarterly profits 36% higher than this time last year. This report coincides with all-time record high gas prices across the country, which the oil companies blame on high oil prices. Now, I am as capitalist a pig as the next guy, but I have some problems with this.

Increased profits of this magnitude cannot be adequately explained by increased sales alone. I believe (and this is just my opinion) that the oil companies are raising their gas prices far more than the increase in oil prices warrant. As the price of oil rises, the oil companies are also expanding their profit margins. It is, of course, good business practice to charge what the market will bear. The oil company shareholders are no doubt thrilled with the dividend checks they are receiving, and the executives are doing a fine job enhancing shareholder value.

Here is the problem: As gas prices rise, so too do the prices of everything else. I'm no socialist, but when the price of a single product or commodity has such a far-reaching impact on the entire economy, it makes me pause. Gasoline appears to have moved from being just another product for consumers to consume, to something more.

Electricity, natural gas, telephone service, all are considered to be utilities. They are recognized as essential, necessary services that our civilization relies upon heavily. Due to this fact, they are regulated by the government to ensure that they don't price-gouge their customers. The price of these utilities directly affects the price of everything else and loss of these utilities, even briefly, can have enormous economic consequences. So I ask, how is the gasoline supply any different?

Gasoline has the same importance and impact on our society as any utility. But the price of gasoline is free from any regulation which might reasonably be applied to electricity, etc. Can the public interest be entrusted to corporations whose only goal is to make the most money possible?

I know that history has shown that government price regulation doesn't work, and attempts to do so invariably fail due to a lack of agility on the part of said regulations to adapt to changing market and economic conditions. The most glaring example is California's price cap on consumer costs which was imposed on electricity providers a few years back. As wholesale energy prices went up, the utilities were powerless to pass the increases on to their customers, resulting in mounting debt and potential insolvency of the electric utilities, rolling blackouts statewide, and ultimately the downfall of governor Gray Davis (and the ascendancy of Ahhnold).

The California mess is an example of an ill-conceived attempt to control prices and the unintended consequences thereof. Prices cannot be artificially set in a market economy, but what about profit margin? Isn't that the basis of utility price regulation? And why can't profit margin control be applied to some extent on oil companies? Some might argue that such controls would stifle exploration and development of additional refining capacity, which this country desperately needs. My response would be that huge dividends paid to shareholders aren't doing much to develop resources or increase capacity either.

So what am I missing here? Isn't it inherently perilous to leave the complete control of a strategically critical resource entirely in the hands of the executives of multi-national conglomerations whose sole interest is enhancing shareholder value and earning multi-hundred-million dollar bonuses? Should there be some kind of control on the exorbitant profit margins that come at the expense of everything else? I don't want to redistribute wealth here, I just want to get Exxon Mobile's pump nozzle out of my pipeline, if you get my drift.

Dick Morris: True Friends Of Israel Cannot Let The Dems Take Power

Dick Morris used to work for the Clinton administration as chief strategist during the 1996 campaign, and later as Clinton's pollster. It is a telling fact that, after working for the Clintons for so long, he has emerged as one of their staunchest critics, and has penned two books about them. Its like he is some kind of archetypal Karl-Rovian spy before there was a Karl Rove.

Mr. Morris published a column today that compares and contrasts the Clinton administration's handling of Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1996 with the Bush administrations handling of the current Israeli incursion:

Clinton’s willingness to use American power to force a cease-fire on Israel before it had fully eradicated Hezbollah stands in stark and sharp contrast to George Bush’s insistence on letting Israel proceed with its attacks until the terrorist group is neutralized.

In a nutshell, this illustrates the difference between the Democratic and Republican approaches to Israeli security.

Bush and his administration clearly see the Israeli attack as an opportunity to clean out terrorist cells that have come to be pivotal in Lebanon. With Hezbollah’s power extending into the cabinet in Beirut, it is clear that Israeli military action is necessary to forestall the creation of a terrorist state on its northern border.

While Clinton said he embraced the need for Israeli security, when the going got rough, he bowed to world opinion and called for a cease-fire. When the United States asks Israel to stop fighting, it is like a boxer’s manager throwing in the towel. The bottom line is that true friends of Israel cannot afford to let the Democrats take power in Washington.

Here is the whole thing.

This guy must drive the Clintons nuts, especially Hillary. I can't help but like him for that.

Michelle Malkin Wants Everyone To Call Me!

Somehow I always knew she was a fan of mine.

Sour-Grapes Armchair Quarterbacking The MidEast Conflict

John "Bush must have stolen Ohio" Kerry tried to tell America I Told You So when he was in Detroit on Sunday, slamming Bush on his handling of the conflict in Israel and Lebanon, claiming "If I was president, this wouldn't have happened."

He goes on to blame Bush's preoccupation with Iraq for keeping him from going after Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaida and the Taliban. So, how do you suppose Kerry and the KosKids would have reacted if Bush had invaded Lebanon instead of Iraq? He is such a, a, a liberal!




(caricature courtesy of Cox & Forkum)

Breaking: Israeli Troops Find Body Of Missing Soldier

Al Reuters reports:

DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Arabiya television said on Friday the Israeli army had found the body of an Israeli soldier who had previously been reported missing. It later said the body was found in southern Lebanon, but gave no more details.

There is no indication that this is one of the two soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah, but then one would expect Al Reuters to paraphrase "kidnapped" with "reported missing" so the question remains.

Update: This was not one of the kidnapped soldiers:

Jerusalem - Israel's army has found the body of a soldier who was reported missing in south Lebanon during fighting with Hezbollah guerrillas last week, a spokesperson said on Sunday.

Why Elites are AWOL

Patrick Poole of FrontPagemag.com has a review of the new book AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America’s Upper Classes from the Military – and How It Hurts Our Country (HarperCollins), in which authors Kathy Roth-Douquet and Frank Schaeffer analyze "a severe illness in our body politic, noting that the children of the cultural elite – whether from families involved in politics, business, academia or the media – have almost entirely abandoned the military, leaving the defense of our Country and our freedoms to the children of the working class."
Poole writes:

The authors present several sobering statistics to help illustrate the problems associated with the cultural elite abandoning the military:

• Of the Princeton University Class of 1956, more than half of the graduates went on to serve in the military (400 of 750); in 2004, that number was less than one percent (9 graduates). Sadly, among Ivy League schools, Princeton is in the lead for ROTC participation.
• During the 1956 school year, Stanford University had 1,100 students enrolled in ROTC; today, there are only 29.
• In 1969, seventy percent of the members of Congress were veterans; in 2004, only twenty-five percent were, with that representation falling rapidly.
• The percentage of members of Congress with children serving in the military is only slightly above one percent.
• While the old political clans of the Kennedys, Roosevelts and the Bushes have had many family members previously serving in combat, none of these privileged families (Democrat and Republican alike) has any relative in the military today.

These statistics paint a bleak portrait of an entire class that has eschewed military service, which is problematic in itself, but particularly since this class comprises America’s opinion makers and cultural leaders. The authors identify several concerns raised by this almost universal trend:

We believe that the increasing gap between the most privileged classes and those in the military raises three major problems: It hurts our country, particularly our ability to make the best policy possible. It undermines the strength of our civilian leadership, which no longer has significant numbers of members who have the experience and wisdom that comes from national service. Finally, it makes our military less strong in the long run. (pp. 10-11).

What is most troubling is that this military desertion is neither an isolated nor a passive trend. The authors document a mindset amongst the cultural elite that is clearly anti-military. A testament to the outright contempt that many bear to our military is seen in the public response to an op-ed by the authors published a few weeks ago by the Boston Globe, A Call to Serve. The op-ed is a suggested commencement address that could be given by leaders of either political party promoting the virtues of military service.

But the Letters to the Editor to that op-ed demonstrate a virulent, almost rabid, reaction to the mere suggestion that Americans from all walks of life should feel compelled to serve in the military. One reader said that the innocuous op-ed was “sadly reflective of a seemingly ubiquitous primitive mentality”, and another attacked our civilian military leaders, saying “no clear-thinking, loving parents should entrust their child to these cynical ideologues.” These diatribes could easily be entries appearing any day on Daily Kos or the Huffington Post.

The Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest Results for 2006!

This is one of those days I eagerly await all year. If you have never heard of the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest before, it is basically about writing the worst single disjointed, run-on sentence with which to begin a book, and is named after Edward George Bulwer-Lytton, the author of the infamous (the first part, at least) line, "It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents--except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.""

Here is this year's grand prize winner (The prize? A pittance.) :

Detective Bart Lasiter was in his office studying the light from his one small window falling on his super burrito when the door swung open to reveal a woman whose body said you've had your last burrito for a while, whose face said angels did exist, and whose eyes said she could make you dig your own grave and lick the shovel clean.

All of the 2006 winners can be viewed here. And here is a list of all the grand prize winners through the years.

I'll end this post with a few of this year's runner-ups:

Sex with Rachel after she turned fifty was like driving the last-place team on the last day of the Iditarod Dog Sled Race, the point no longer the ride but the finish, the difficulty not the speed but keeping all the parts moving in the right direction, not to mention all that irritating barking.

Frank took one look at Tina's moderately shapely legs, her adequate waist, her decent bosom, and her not-unattractive face, and said to himself "Well, hello Miss You'll-Do-Until-Something-Better-Comes-Along!"

Withdrawing his hand from her knee, the English professor stormed, "Ending a sentence with a preposition is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put," although she had merely looked at his hand and asked, "What are you doing that for?" in a sentence intended to end the proposition.

Yet again Imelda was exacerbated, or at least she assumed she was, as she was never sure exactly what the term meant though when she felt bloated and crampy as she was now, she was pretty sure she was, exacerbated that is.

P.J. O'Rourke: How to Explain Conservatism to Your Squishy Liberal Friends: Individualism 'R' Us

Here is a throw-down post. Most conservatives have liberal family/friends/acquaintances who invariably love to debate their views. Get your conservative talking points from P.J.:

The Bill of Rights tries to protect our freedom not only from bad people and bad laws but also from the vast nets and gooey webs of rules and regulations that even the best governments produce. The Constitution attempts to leave as much of life as possible to common sense, or at least to local option. The Ninth Amendment states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Continues the 10th Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It is these suit-yourself, you're-a-big-boy-now, it's-a-free-country powers that conservatism seeks to conserve.

Read it all here.

Jack Murtha: Veteran Ex-Marine Hero or Lying Cowardly Crybaby REMF?

I ran across a reference to an interesting post by Techniguy, in which he describes the results of his own investigation into Jack Murtha's background. Here are the highlights:

I found a man with a couple of years of active duty, and the rest of his 37-year career spent in the Marine Corps Reserve.

I found a man who served in the Marines during Korean War, yes, but somehow never actually made it to Korea.

I found a man with one year in Vietnam, not 'up front' but in the rear area, as a staff intelligence offer.

I found a man who's no more been in combat, or is a war hero, than I am.

Even John Kerry has more combat experience than Jack Murtha.

I know flight attendants who have spent more time in Danang than him.

Techniguy then posts a letter from Congressman Don Bailey to Murtha, whose disgust with Murtha is loud and clear. Congressman Bailey, apparently duped by Murtha into helping to clear House Ethics Committee charges over Murtha's involvement in the ABSCAM scandle (in which Murtha was not charged but was named as an unindicted co-conspirator), details admissions by Murtha to him that his Purple Heart was thoroughly undeserved, among other things:

I'm writing on matters of joint concern. A number of weeks ago I was talking with someone who is a mutual acquaintance and your name came up. It was an unusually frank discussion and I considered it private. I did relate some opinions about you and shared some recollections about experiences with you in Congress. I was, to be honest, critical about how you misled me about ABSCAM where you convinced me you had voluntarily told federal agents about the offer of money to you and I learned later, after I had successfully defeated the ethics charges against you, that you had merely manipulated the system to cooperate with federal agents to avoid prosecution.

I also shared my recollection of when you admitted, back in our corner, that you didn't earn your purple hearts (you indicated you had small scratch on your cheek that wasn't even directly related to an APC that ran over a small anti personnel mine that was behind you). The other purple heart you even declined to explain.

At the time you were feeling particularly vulnerable, because it wasn't too long after you had called me crying and sobbing, thanking me for "saving your life" before the ethics committee. There was no doubt in my mind that you were expressing to me that you did not believe you did anything sufficient to earn the purple heart, and that you didn't want to be active in my efforts to laud Vietnam Veterans that served with us.

Jack Murtha is beneath contempt. He has shown himself to be the archetypal self-centered, self-serving, lying, dishonest, stupid politician. This former REMF should have been booted out of Congress twenty years ago, and now does everything he can to further his own ambitions, and in the process aiding and abetting America's enemies. Shame on him.

Murtha is opposed for re-election by Republican Diana Irey, who says that she has received donations to her campaign from people in 48 states - an amazing fact, considering this is a small congressional district in Pennsylvania. Let's hope that she is successful in relegating Murtha to the same ashheap as Tom Daschle.

Update: Techniguy has this open letter to Murtha from Kurt G. - Gunnery Sergeant, USMC, Retired. It is a thorough and much deserved lambasting by somebody who remembers what it means to be a Marine.

HotAir Cleans House, Throws Yours Truly Out With The Bathwater

Apparently I am just too clever for my own good. As a result, I find myself banned from posting comments on Hot Air (something that I kinda enjoyed doing, and it added a trickle of traffic to Wambulance too). The sad part is, its all just a misunderstanding. That is, I would prefer to believe that it is a misunderstanding rather than a case of HotAir's AllahPundit being too dense to comprehend nuanced irony when he sees it. Here are the facts...

On June 20, 2006 HotAir's AllahPundit posted this item regarding the tragedy of the 2 US soldiers who had been kidnapped and whose brutally murdered and horribly mutilated bodies were later found. Understandably, the overall reaction in the comment section to this atrocity was heated, to put it mildly. Some commenters expressed their frustration by calling for massive retaliation in the form of carpet bombing the areas of insurgent activity. AllahPundit challenged these assertions, which the commenters then vigorously defended. After following the thread for awhile, I crafted and submitted my own comment:

In the struggle to acquire the hearts and minds of the Iraqis, the only option for success after carpet bombing is to use a sponge and a mop.

inmanjh on June 20, 2006 at 5:04 PM

Is this statement that hard to understand? All I meant was that carpet bombing would kill innocents and eliminate any possibility of support from the Iraqi population. My wife understood what I meant immediately (one of the reasons I married her), as did anyone else with whom I discussed this matter. Hey, I'm obtuse but I'm not that obtuse!

After posting this comment, I went on about my business and didn't give it another thought. The next day I was perusing HotAir and noticed that, instead of a text box for me to enter my comments, it merely stated "You are not allowed to leave comments." Hmm?

I sent an email to AllahPundit inquiring whether my posting privileges had been revoked, and he responded:

"Yes, Jay, it's been revoked. We appreciate your participation but
we're trying to change the tone in the comments section. No hard
feelings."

No hard feelings? Thats easy for him to say. WTF is this all about? I mull it over while I continue to browse HotAir until I find this comment from AllahPundit in this item (emphasis added):

See-Dubya — Yeah, in quantity. But if you want to kill thousands of Kurds, you could also carpet-bomb them the old-fashioned way. Are the chem shells that much more lethal?
You know, like some of our (ex-)commenters want to do to the Iraqis.

Allahpundit on June 21, 2006 at 6:07 PM

Ok, now that rings a bell. I go back to the post in which I left my "sponge and mop" comment and read further down into the comments section. Patterico weighs in (emphasis added):

I haven’t read all the comments here, but I have read enough to get the idea that some commenters would like the United States to carpet-bomb civilians, or randomly kill civilians.
You should be deeply ashamed of yourselves. We’re there to help the Iraqis — now you want us to randomly slaughter them like the terrorists do to us?
I shouldn’t have to say this, but that is despicable and outrageous.
I think it comes from you seeing all Iraqis as less than human.
Have any of you met Omar and Mohammed, the folks who run Iraq the Model?
Well, I have. They are inspirational people, fighting for freedom in a land that has known far too little of it, for far too long.
The actions you advocate could kill them. Indeed, you suggest *targeting* people exactly like them.
If you had met them, you wouldn’t be saying this.
I hope that the commenters making suggestions like this get banned.
Patterico on June 21, 2006 at 1:07 AM

This is immediately followed by AllahPundit:

A bunch of folks who have commented in this thread will no longer be joining us in the Hot Air comments section. It’s been a long time coming, frankly; Bryan and I have talked with Michelle about the tone of the comments at some length in recent days and none of us are happy with it.
I’m not going to lecture anyone. You’re all entitled to your opinions, but you’re not entitled to use our space as a platform. There are a million other conservative forums out there.
Registration at Free Republic is indeed free, and they seem to have a higher tolerance for this sort of thing.
Thanks all for your contributions, and best of luck in your new digs. To the rest of you guys: I mean what I say about changing the tone here. If you can’t muster anything except “it’s the goddamned media’s fault” or “we need to let our troops off the leash” or “Michelle looks HAWT,” you have two choices: (a) refrain from commenting until you have something substantive to say or (b) sign up for one of those Freeper accounts I mentioned.
Okay?
Allahpundit on June 21, 2006 at 1:08 AM

Now, I can assure you, gentle reader, that your humble correspondent has never wasted his time posting anything as inane as “it’s the goddamned media’s fault” or “we need to let our troops off the leash” or “Michelle looks HAWT.” I pride myself on my measured, carefully crafted posts. So what gives here? Why have I been lumped in with the type-before-you-think-and-then-don't-even-think-that-much-anyway crowd?

I traced it back to my "sponge and mop" post. The only conclusion I can reach is that AllahPundit cleaned house with a very broad brush and swept away more than perhaps he should. Or maybe I'm just deluding myself regarding the quality and content of my own writing. That is a distinct possibility.

At any rate, I will continue to believe that I was unjustly revoked from posting on HotAir until somebody convinces me otherwise. Any takers?

If you should happen to read this post (and I readily concede that not many will) and you feel that I have a legitimate beef, drop AllahPundit a line and give him what-for in my behalf. He isn't answering my mail any more.

P.S. - Like my graphic, above? Nothing inspires like righteous anger, ya know.

"Hadji Girl"

And now, a brief musical interlude...