Elephants Never Forg..uh...For...

AcademicElephant again.

In a post "Nancy Pelosi's 100 Hours Meet Reality," Mr. Elephant writes:

Reality crashed the party today in the form of the razor-thin democrat majority in the senate, which could not muster the votes necessary to pass the house (minimum wage) bill without attaching related tax cuts to moderate the burden of this wage increase on small business owners.

Actually, there were enough votes--54--to pass the bill, but not enough to invoke cloture and end debate, denying all 100 Senators an opportunity to engage in an "up or down vote."

Republicans used to have a word for this. Fil...Filla...Filibus...

UPDATE: Mr. Elephant is not amused. He forwards this link via email.

UPDATE 2: Haw! I neglected to read all the way through the link Mr. Elephant sends--until now. He links to a comment by Redstate enforcer Strieff who ends with this:

Moe was charitable enough to merely ask for an apology. I think it's your turn to become a contributor on this website

...which links to us! Thanks, fellows! Send me your tired, your huddled masses...

Easy to Follow?

Just prior to last night's State of the Union address, Redstate regular "AcademicElephant" reveals The Story I Would Like to Hear the President Tell Tonight.

Mr. Elephant explains:

"The details are easy for all Americans to follow from the cities to the heartland--after all, this plot was to be hatched in the middle of fly-over country, so no one is safe."

The story Mr. Elephant wanted to hear was this one:

ABC News has a story detailing an al Qaeda (Iraq) plot to send terrorists to the United States over the summer in the hopes of hatching an attack on our homeland

According to Mr. Elephant:

11 Egyptian men "disappeared" from Montana State University

The men planned an attack in "the heartland"

The men were apprehended and deported from the U.S.

"We" took the order from Ayman al Zawahiri to Abu Musab al Zarqawi to plan such an attack seriously, and started to watch for the pattern of behavior displayed by the 19 9/11 hijackers

However, the details apparently aren't so easy to follow. Mr. Elephant managed to get most of the key facts wrong.

The story Mr. Elephant links reports that coalition forces raided an al-Qaeda safe house in Iraq and discovered documents describing a planned attack in the U.S. However:

No one "disappeared" from Montana State. The eleven Egyptians received student visas--just like the 9/11 hijackers--but never showed up at the university

The story says the plan was discovered in the early stages. It does not say where the terrorists planned to strike. The men had student visas to attend Montana State. That doesn't mean they weren't going to strike someplace else.

According the the ABC story, the men never actually entered the U.S., so they could not have been deported. (Why in the world would U.S. authorities deport them if they had them in custody?) The story does say the men were apprehended. It doesn't say where.

The story doesn't say that the discovery of the plan six months ago led to increased vigilance and the capture of the Egyptians. According to the report, "U.S. officials now require universities to closely track foreign nationals who use student visas to study in the United States. University officials must report international students who fail to arrive on campus or miss class regularly." (One hopes that this policy was put into effect long before the middle of 2006).

They say an elephant never forgets. In this case, however, we'll have to make an exception for Mr. Elephant and his "easy to follow" details.

Napkingate, or How to Spot a Bollixed Redstate Story

There's one way you can always tell that a Redstate contributor has bungled his facts and is about to completely bollix a story. The story always includes a spectacular detail that's both weird and entirely irrelevant.

It works like this:

Redstate writer gets wind of a story that sounds like it might be mildly negative for Democrats

The writer realizes the facts of the story aren't strong enough to gin up outrage among the site's readers

The writer hunts for a single detail to "prove" Democrats are inept (or corrupt or hypocritical or just plain baaaad)

The writer hypes the detail far beyond its actual signifigance

The writer forgets to get the actual story right and spends his time hollering about the detail

Example? Sure, you bet.

Redstate honcho "Erick" posts Dems to Stay Up Late Tonight to Defend Culture of Corruption!

Here's the nut of the story, according to Mr. Erick:

House Democrats, in a brazen attempt to defend the Culture of Corruption, are set to alter House Ethics Rules in a way openly supportive of Democrats who might be found guilty by courts of law of corruption or bribery related to the passage of legislation.

In the remainder of the post, Mr. Erick asserts:

Under present House rules, members stand to lose their pension if convicted of some crimes

Democrats intended to use H.R. 476 to change the rules to create a two-year period during which convicted members of Congress could keep their pensions

The GOP-led Congress cut off pensions to convicted members

Dems wrote an amendment (ON A PAPER NAPKIN!!!) to change the effective date of the bill

Dems were forced to delay a vote on the measure because of GOP maneuvering

On Monday night, Redstate bumped this item to the top of the page, complete with the patented Redstate flashing red Outrage Beacon to tell their readers that the story is Real Important. But it's a sure bet Mr. Erick has the story entirely wrong. Why?

Because the part about the napkin is in large type, underlined, and featured as an "update" to the story. It's weird and irrelevant, therefore the story is bollixed.

So how did Mr. Erick do? Let's see, that would be:

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

Half credit (but only if one is generous), and

Wrong

In a word, bollixed.

Here's what Mr. Erick would have learned had he not been so fascinated with that paper napkin:

Current House ethics rules do not deprive a member convicted of a crime of his pension. Duke Cunningham will get his pension. Bob Ney will get his as well. Jim Traficant and Dan Rostenkowski can collect too.

There were three bills before the House that would change federal law (not House ethics rules) to take away pension benefits from members convicted of certain crimes--H.R. 14, H.R. 466, and H.R. 476. They differ in the list of crimes covered and some administrative details. The bill that eventually passed--H.R. 476 had 30 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle.

The GOP-led Congress did not cut off pension benefits to anyone, even when they had the chance. A 1996 bill that would have done so passed the House 390-32, but the GOP-led Senate failed to even take it up.

There was indeed an amendment that changed the effective date of the new law, and it was made by agreement with Republican house leadership.

(Was the amendment written on a paper napkin? It's not clear. According to the Congressional Record, Mark Kirk (R-IL) asks the presiding officer, Jim McGovern (D-MA) if the amendment is written on a napkin. McGovern directs Kirk to go to the clerk's desk and see for himself. Kirk says he takes that to mean yes. The question is never answered by the chair, but it's both weird and irrelevant and therefore the right stuff to amp up the story.)

The final vote on the bill was delayed by a day, but not because of Republican maneuvering or Redstate's glaring spotlight on Democratic misdeeds. In fact, when Steny Hoyer (D-MD) moved to table the bill, most of the votes to keep debate open were from Republicans. The real reason is far more mundane. And it's on the record. Mr. Hoyer:

This bill is straightforward and, as I
say, for all intents and purposes has
been passed. I want to tell everybody, I
think we are going to roll the vote on
this bill because we don’t want anybody
to miss it. There are 11 Members
on each side absent because of planes
that have not flown on schedule because
of weather. And it is an equal
number on each side, so we are going to
wait. (CR H813, 1/22/2007)

The story wasn't a total washout for Redstate's Mr. Erick, however. He did get one key fact right. The original bill called for an effective date two years out--January 2, 2009. Why?

Because the Senate's version of the same bill set the effective date of the law as January 2, 2009. (John Kerry is the sponsor! Fire up the Outrage Beacon!) However, it's not a "brazen attempt to defend the culture of corruption" as Mr. Erick would have it. Instead, it's a brazen attempt to observe the plain language of the 27th Amendment to the Constitution:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Does the new law "vary the compensation" for Senators and Representatives? I suppose one could argue it doesn't, but Hoyer provides a plausible--and documented--reason for the language of the Senate version of the pension bill:

The bill was amended, the gentleman
is correct, within the last few hours.
The date was changed at the request of
Mr. BOEHNER. I happen to agree with
Mr. BOEHNER that the date of 2009,
which was in the bill, and I know Mrs.
BOYDA, I talked to Mrs. BOYDA about
it, she agreed with the change as well.
The change was made because it was
Mr. BOEHNER’s feeling, and I think the
minority’s feeling, that the bill ought
to go into effect immediately.
The reason the date was put in as
2009 because that is what the Senate
bill does under the constitutional provision
of the 27th amendment, where
compensation of a Member may not be
changed during the course of their
term. So it was made effective at the
next term.(CR H813, 1/22/2007)

Hoyer goes on to explain that after speaking with Mr. Boehner and Mr. Blunt, he agrees with the date change. Although the new law may violate the 27th Amendment, the three of them (and the bill's sponsor, Nancy Boyda (D-KS)) agree to let some joker who has just lost his pension for being a crook try to take it to court.

House Democrats like the change in the effective date. House Republicans like the change. Everybody likes the change. But it might have been written on a napkin, therefore, Democrats are Real Bad.

Banned.

Banned: acbonin
Offense: Pointing out that Michael Steele didn't have oreos thrown at him.
Banned By: Thomas
Last Straw: "You've got a lot invested in the sham "thrown Oreo cookie" allegations ("Steele told WTOP that he was never hit with Oreos and said the incident has been exaggerated"), but they're similarly without merit."
Coup de fin: "That was your last non sequitur, mis-directed, facially dishonest shot!

"Johnny, tell him what he's won!

"Well, Adam, you've won a luxury cruise back to the Land of Banned! That's right, you're set for an all-expenses paid, six-day and seven-night (for a start!) trip to the land of those unable to comment here! For you, the Price Was Right!"

Twofer! Commentor "crown" objects to the banning of acbonin:
"someone pokes holes in one of your "known facts" and you ban them. wonderful.
please ban me also."

Thomas Replies: "That you think it's because of his link and quote that he's gone alone suggests your wish should be granted. We aim to please."

The Sky is Yellow, the Sun is Blue, and....

Senate bill 1 will...

"most likely require bloggers, community activists, preachers, and others to register as lobbyists if they encourage 500 or more people to contact their elected representatives on a matter."

Or at least that's the conclusion the sharp-eyed legal eagles at Redstate reached yesterday. Regular contributor "Erick" issued a Late Day Urgent Request for all good Redstaters to take to their phones and keyboards to stand fast against the latest Democratic perfidy.

Trouble is, Mr. Erick took the plain language of S. 1 and turned it entirely inside out. Here's how:

The Lobbying Reform Bill adds new language to the definitions section of an existing law, USC 2, sec. 1602. The bill adds a long definition of "grassroots lobbying" and this is what seems to alarm Mr. Erick. But this language is in the bill not to include grassroots activists as lobbyists, but specifically to exclude them.

Here's the text from S. 1:

(1) in paragraph (7), by adding at the end of the following: `Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots lobbying.' [emphasis added]

What about that "500 or more people" business? That's part of the bill's definition of "paid lobbying activities." The definitiion, in general, says:

`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' means any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole...

But once again, the bill says this definition doesn't apply to everybody:

(B) PAID ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR SEGMENTS THEREOF- The term `paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof' does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public. [emphasis added]

In short, the bill says that even if you take money for your efforts, you're not included in the definition of paid lobbying activity if you address fewer than 500 people. Mr. Erick turns this on its head to mean that if you address more than 500 people, you're a paid lobbyist even if you didn't take a cent!

Nevertheless, the call to arms went out. How did it go?

The measure passed around 9 p.m. by a vote of 96 to 2. Senators Orrin Hatch of Utah and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, both Republicans, were the only members to vote against the bill.

UPDATE: Mr. Erick proclaims Victory!! Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) successfully amended S.1 to remove the entire provision. While Redstate celebrates, the net effect of the amendment isn't clear. With the language removed, the definition of paid lobbying activities may actually be broader than before.

Driving Miss Emily

In a breathless frontpage post, Redstate contributor "bluey" announces:

Democrats are about to raise your taxes!!

That headline grabs your attention, doesn't it? So lets go looking for the tax increase.

The U.S. House hasn't voted to raise taxes for 13 years, but that streak is about to come to an end -- less than three weeks after Democrats took control of Congress.

Wow. Sounds like it's going to happen pretty soon. But from the front page, you have to look below the fold for the details. Mr. bluey provides a quote and a link. Now we're getting somewhere.

Dan Clifton of the American Shareholders Association reports that Democrats will bring an end to the "golden era" of taxpayer-friendly policies this Thursday.

This Thursday!! Holy cats!! What taxes are going up? Good thing Mr. bluey is going to tell us. Here's the quote he lifts from the the ASA's Mr. Clifton:

It took just 15 days of new found power for the Democrats to raise taxes. The first vote of the 110th Congress removed the 3/5 supermajority to raise taxes. The following day was a vote to enact a new rule requiring offsetting tax increases for every tax cut.

So it was only a matter of time before the first actual vote to raise taxes came up. The significance of this should not be underestimated as Thursday's vote is the first step in reversing what could be considered the best run for American taxpayers since the creation of the income tax.

The dirty bastards! Raising my taxes!! But wait. He didn't say which tax would be increased. Hm. Hafta keep reading.

Oh, no! It must be really bad. Mr. bluey says the Heritage Foundation predicts a disaster:

Just how disastrous would the Democrats' plan be for our country? A new report from the Heritage Foundation reveals the threat to America's prosperity.

Any tax increase on top of this rising burden would put America well on the way to European-level taxes, causing European-style economic stagnation, slow income growth, and unemployment. Even France has begun to recognize how damaging such levels are, and French President Jacques Chirac has proposed to cut France’s corporate income tax rate from 33 percent to 20 percent. Congress must ensure that the U.S. does not take even one step down the road to higher taxes and a slower economy.

Omigod! Omigod! "European-style economic stagnation?" AIEEEEE!! The dollar could go plunging like the Euro!!! Quick, Mr. bluey. Tell us what taxes are going up! Whuh? Oh. I see. I hafta click the link. OK, no problem. I'll look at the ASA link first.

Shoot! Clifton doesn't say what tax is going up either. But hold on!! He provides this link:

On Thursday, the House of Representatives will vote on legislation to increase taxes for the first time since 1993.

Aha! This takes us to the House Ways and Means Committee Website. It's all true! The Democrats are raising taxes!!! Now let's get to the awful truth. What does Ways and Means have to say?

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As part of House Democrats’ first 100 hours legislative agenda, Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall (D-WV) and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) today introduced a bill to curb taxpayer-funded subsidies to oil and gas companies and to invest those funds in renewable energy.

H.R. 6, the Creating Long-term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN) Act, includes two components that will roll back the unnecessary tax benefits and costly federal oil and gas leasing provisions included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The legislation would also help to correct the botched leases issued by the Interior Department between 1998 and 1999 – which, if left unchanged, could cost the Federal Treasury an estimated $60 billion over the next 25 years

See?!? See?!? The Democrats are raising the tax on...on...wait a minute. They're ending subsidies to oil and gas companies? The ones reporting all-time record profits? And they're making them start paying royalties that they've skated on for the last 8 years because of a screwup?

That's the tax increase? But...but...what about the "European-style stagnation"? If the change in oil and gas subsidies is going to cause an economic disaster, it must be a really, really bad thing. I'll check Mr. bluey's Heritage Foundation link. Here we go:

Meanwhile, federal taxes as a proportion of GDP are also scheduled to rise sharply under current law—from today's 18.4 percent, which is just above the post-World War II average, to almost 24 percent by 2050—well above the highest levels the nation has ever experienced.

What? The year 2050?!? I thought we were talking about this Thursday!!

So no tax increase? No "European-style stagnation"?

Oh. Nevermind.

Blam!

Banned: Godshammer
Date: January 10, 2997
Offense: Mocking Redstate commenters' lack of credentials as military strategists.
Last straw: I Stipulate [t]he war college is chump change next to you all. see you all next time. :) I Hope.
Banned by: Leon Wolf
Coup de fin:"Re-registering under a different username is a violation of our terms of service. Yes, we know it's you. If you come back again, we will be forced to block your IP and notify your ISP. Cheers. BLam."

About Face!

A report from the Associated Press? Check.
Unnamed and uncorroborated sources? Check.
Grisly accounts of sectarian violence? Check.

The guys at Redstate won't believe a word of it, right?

Not so fast.

It seems all is forgiven now that the fevers of Jamilgate have waned. Redstate writer California Yankee takes approving notice of an AP report on the seizure of Iranians at a not-yet-a-consulate building in the Kurdish city of Irbil.

"BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- U.S.-led forces detained five Iranians Thursday after a raid on a government office flying an Iranian flag, Iraqi officials and witnesses said, as President Bush vowed to isolate Iran and Syria as part of a new strategy to quell violence in Iraq.

The multinational forces entered the building overnight, detained the Iranians and confiscated computers and documents, two senior local Kurdish officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information."

Strangely, Mr. Yankee links to the AP without so much as a perfunctory snipe or sneer. No "Associated 'With the Terrorists' Press". No "al-AP". Not even a blind-pig-and-acorn jape.

Of course, this AP story props up one of Redstate's favored tales: that Iran is to blame for everything gone wrong in Iraq. Mr. Yankee links to the AP account approvingly because it shows that "George Bush meant it" when he promised to disrupt the networks giving aid to Iraqi sectarian militias.

Mr. Yankee carefully steps around the inconvenient fact that the militias being aided by Iran are the same ones propping up the Maliki government.

He also looks the other way when, as part of the very same story, the AP reports this:

"On Thursday, police reported at least 45 people were killed or found dead from bombings and shootings, including a 10-year-old struck in a mortar attack in the northern city of Mosul and 37 tortured bodies found in Baghdad.

Gunmen ambushed a minivan carrying Oil Ministry employees in a predominantly Shiite area of Baghdad, kidnapping six of the passengers and the driver after separating people according to their IDs, police said."

Suddenly, Mr. Yankee finds the AP and it's unnamed, unofficial police sources credible again. I wonder if the boys at Redstate made up for their recent spat with AP by sending flowers or just by promising "Baby, you know I didn't mean it."

When You Got Nothin', Bash Gore.

Today's post from Redstate regular "Erick" is almost beneath notice. Lacking anything of substance to say, he resorts to calling names: Sissy. Girly-man.

This half-hearted hectoring would be entirely forgettable except for one thing. Mr. Erick leads off by trotting out an old lie from the 2000 campaign:

"Remember Algore hiring Naomi Wolf to show him how to be a man, instead of a she-man?"

Oh boy. There they go again. When all else fails, if there's nothing else to write about, repeat some favorite well-worn lies about Al Gore. The charge that Mr. Gore hired Naomi Wolf "to teach him how to be a man" is a slander that sprang from the pen of Time's Michael Duffy in 1999.

It was, like so many other tales bruited about by the press corp during the campaign, invented.

The truth of the Naomi Wolf saga is easy to find. Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler has meticulously documented the genesis of this and many other Gore-bashing legends. There are two major tales that make up the "hired a woman to teach him how to be a man" lie--the "alpha male" invention and the "earth tones" groaner. Here's just a taste of Somerby's reporting on the "earth tones" flap:

Let’s go back and review the way this iconic claim unfolded.

As noted, Michael Duffy’s story in Time didn’t mention “earth tones” (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 3/4/03). According to Duffy, one unnamed Gore adviser had “downplayed” Wolf as a “wardrobe consultant.” But Duffy stressed the fact that most Gore advisers didn’t know what Wolf was doing for the campaign. (Wolf lived in New York, where she worked with Gore’s daughter; the Gore camp was based in DC and then Nashville.) Simply put, there was no way to tell from Duffy’s piece if Wolf had ever consulted on wardrobe. But Duffy didn’t say a word about “earth tones.” There’s no sign that anyone ever told Duffy that Wolf told Gore to wear tones.

But earth tones popped up one day later, offered as a “speculation” in a piece by—who else?—Ceci Connolly. One day after Duffy’s piece appeared, the Gore-bashing spinner wrote a page-one piece about Wolf in the Washington Post. She spoke with former Clinton aide Dick Morris, who had worked with Wolf in the’96 campaign (later praising Wolf for her mainstream advice). Here’s the sentence in which “earth tones” got its start:

CONNOLLY (11/1/99): Morris speculated that Wolf, who has long contended that earth tones are more “reassuring” to audiences, is the person behind Gore’s recent wardrobe change.

That’s the sentence in which Naomi Wolf told Gore to wear earth tones was born.? It was born in a “speculation” by Morris, offered to the egregious Ceci Connolly.

The whole business about "earth tones" began as rank speculation by Dick Morris, a former Clinton advisor who had himself hired Ms. Wolf for advice. But by Campaign 2000, Mr. Morris had a fat contract offering his observations on cable "news" channels and no tale was too ridiculous to tell, at least not when it was about Mr. Gore (or "Algore" as Mr. Erick writes, unmistakably revealing his Dittohead colors).

On a day when there's not a new sensation to occupy Redstate's lesser lights, the old tales still serve well.

Dan Burton (and haystack) Against the World

Redstate blogger "haystack" says he's already seen enough in the first 24 hours of the 110th Congress to write off any and all talk of bipartisanship?

Why?

Apparently, according to his newest post, because:
1) In 2001, Tom Daschle asked for a chance to make changes to the President's proposed energy bill and was ignored.
2) Daschle, in 2002, compared a Bush budget to Enron accounting practices
3) Daschle, in 2002, supported increased price supports for corn growers
4) Nancy Pelosi, in 2003, noted that President Bush's proposed budget did not fully fund his own signature initiative "No Child Left Behind".
5) Daschle, in 2002, said he wanted to know more about the now-infamous Presidential Daily Briefing "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." before making any judgments about it.
6) Daschle, in 2002, said the Bush administration's proposal to spend $500 million for the global fight against AIDS was welcome, but not enough.
7) Pelosi, in 2004, noted that things aren't going as well in Iraq as the White House promised.
8) Pelosi, in 2006, was insufficiently enthusiastic about the President's State of the Union address.

Yep. All these events from the past five years provide clear, convincing evidence that "bipartisanship" is just another name for date ra...um, a sneaky, conniving, Democrat trick! Yeah, that's it.

And for that reason, Mr. haystack declares that he will renounce any and all bipartisanship talk and then he busily scampers forth to draw a line in the sand, drive a stake in the ground, sound the battle cry, and nail his ten true-believing theses to the minority leader's door:

Top ten "New Rules of Engagement" with Liberals and Democrats for the next two years:
10- Challenge.
9- Resist.
8- Attach Amendments.
7- Fight.
6- Obstruct.
5- Vote NO.
4- Filibuster.
3- No Prisoners, no Compromise.
2- ACT like a minority.

And #1 goes to:
Be Conservatives.

Or prepare to be replaced in '08 by those willing to stand up against this tide of swill.

Unfortunately, it seems Mr. haystack's message has gone unheeded. Today, the proposed House ethics reforms, the bipartisan House ethics reforms, passed by a vote of 430 to Dan Burton.

The other 199 Republican members of Congress who failed to heed Mr. haystack's warning had better watch their backs.

POSTSCRIPT: Uh-oh. Looks like even Dan has bailed.

Another rule change, adopted 430-0, would curb past abuses in which GOP leaders held votes open for hours and excluded Democratic lawmakers from House-Senate negotiations on the language of final bills sent to the White House for enactment.

You're on your own, Mr. haystack.

Google Search "Banned from Redstate" - No. 2 in a Series

"I was banned from redstate a while back for calling a racist out. (Here's the link: http://www.redstate.com/story/2005/11/8/132151/390 )"

Commenter Banned: Reece

Date: November 8, 2005

Infraction(s): Insisting that Redstate diarist Maximos had not "discuss[ed] the legacy of the history of Islamic conquests, and the rootedness of the doctrines which legitimated those acts in the fundamental structures of Islamic theology"; suggesting that Maximos relied on a thesaurus as a source for "five-dollar words".

The Last Straw: "Maximos, I'll go one step further and concede that this entire thread, everything you've written here, is perfectly cromulent."

Banned by: Leon Wolf

The coup de fin: "What a way to end your posting career at RedState. Sorry you weren't able to take hints very well."

Post-Ban Insult: by Thomas - "It is to my eternal discredit That Leon beat me to this. You have neither sufficient credibility nor sufficient wit to engage in this sort of dialogue. Had I not been swamped this week, I would have banned you sooner."

(Actually, this thread gave Thomas a two-fer. He also banned "midcan5" for posting this link.)

A Brand You Can Trust

You know what made Roadrunner cartoons so funny?

You always knew the coyote was going to meet with disaster. No matter what Acme products he employed, they always landed him in exactly the wrong spot--just before the anvil landed.

For reliability, Redstate is compiling a record that rivals that of the Acme Corp.

Example? Of course.

Redstate had kept its distance from the "Jamilgate" saga--admirably so--until just a couple of days ago.

Redstate writer Charles Bird on January 2:

"Jamil Hussein has appeared as an AP source in 60± news stories. The most spectacular item was the one about four mosques being destroyed and six Sunnis being burned alive. As it turns out, at worst, one mosque was destroyed and there is no evidence that anyone was murdered via torching.

"When challenged on the veracity of the story, AP editors went on the offensive and attacked those who questioned its sources, playing the typical motive-impugning game that we see all too often from the hardline Liberal-Left. Apparently, to AP, the motives of government sources are always in question yet the motives of its own sources are pure as the driven snow. AP executive editor Kathleen Carroll still stands by Jamil Hussein, even though the man cannot be located anywhere, and even though both Iraqi and American government officials deny that Jamil Hussein is a police captain or spokesman for the Iraqi police." (emphasis added)

You just know what happens next, don't you?

Here comes the anvil:

BAGHDAD (AP) -- The Interior Ministry acknowledged Thursday that an Iraqi police officer whose existence had been denied by the Iraqis and the U.S. military is in fact an active member of the force, and said he now faces arrest for speaking to the media.

Ministry spokesman Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, who had previously denied there was any such police employee as Capt. Jamil Hussein, said in an interview that Hussein is an officer assigned to the Khadra police station, as had been reported by The Associated Press.

There was no word on why it took so long to find Mr. Hussein, and no word on when the error was discovered.

Also, no word on whether Mr. Bird is out painting fake tunnels on the side of cliffs near AP headquarters.

Redbait at Redstate

Redstate unfurls a new banner today in observance of the new Democrat-controlled Congress. The banner proclaims: "Democrat-Socialists Take Back Congress". This, over a collage of a red star, a hammer and sickle, and a photo of the evacuation of Saigon.

You do have to admire their restraint. They stopped short of rechristening the site Redbait.

Under this banner, Redstate contributor bradnmegs rehashes a two-year-old chain email (you know, the one with the shamelessly doctored quotes that proves Hillary, Kerry, and Pelosi all wanted war! by golly). More interestingly, he admits that hardline conservatives are in a world of hurt:

"Starting tomorrow, weakness will be leading our Congress, and the President is all that is keeping us from all out surrender to our enemies. We must support him regardless of what you may think of him...he truly is all we have."

W. is all they've got? Almost makes you feel sorry for 'em, don't it?

Unintended Irony - Decaf Division

How many Redstate writers does it take to change a light bulb?

Only one, as long as it's Moe Lane.

Today, Mr. Lane takes note of a New York Times report that retailing giant Wal-Mart intends to use its enormous economic muscle to foster a transition to environmentally friendly, energy-saving compact florescent light bulbs in American homes.

That's good, isn't it?

Why, yes it is. Here's how it came to pass, according to the Times:

"In September 2005, [Wal-Mart Chief Executive H. Lee] Scott and Andy Ruben, Wal-Mart’s vice president for strategy and sustainability, drove 6,000 feet to the Mount Washington Observatory in New Hampshire with Steve Hamburg, an environmental studies professor at Brown University, and Fred Krupp, the president of the advocacy group Environmental Defense.

"At the summit, where scientists measure climate change 24 hours a day, the men discussed global warming, acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer and what Wal-Mart could do about them.

"'You need to look at what is being sold on the shelf,' Mr. Hamburg recalled telling Mr. Scott over a dinner of turkey and mashed potatoes. He began talking excitedly about compact fluorescent bulbs. 'Very few products,' he said, 'are such a clear winner' for consumers and the environment."

But as quick as you can say "Yes, but environmentalists are all a buncha smelly hippies," Mr. Lane changes the light bulb story into another vehicle for bashing liberals.

Wal-Mart is meeting plenty of resistance in this effort--but not, accoriding to the article, from environmentalists. It seems that light bulb manufacturers have been dragging their heels because they're still geared up for producing old-fashioned incandecant bulbs.

Ah, but never mind that. Mr. Lane (who confesses he does not shop at Wal-Mart himself--no reason given) stalks the real villains:

"There's also the minor issue that in the great Venn Diagram of American political life there's a large overlap between the environmental movement and the progressive movement. The latter is rather hostile to Wal-Mart*; whether this will influence the former is going to be... interesting. In an ideal world, it wouldn't; but if it does it, I won't be surprised. It wouldn't be the first time that faction politics has overruled good sense."

The asterisk? That takes Mr. Lane's reader to this footnote:

*When they're not buying Playstations from them, that is: fire your idiot staffer yet, former Senator Edwards?

Clever, isn't he? Let's follow the steps:

1) Environmentalists work with Wal-Mart to market an energy-saving light bulb
2) But all environmentalists are progressives
3) And progressives hate Wal-Mart
4) Wal-Mart? Progressives? John Edwards! Playstation! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This may seem like a painful stretch, even for a Redstate contributor. Not to worry. Mr. Lane, gazes into the future to find out why this effort will win no new friends for Wal-Mart among progressives, and unwittingly offers an amusingly self-revealing explanation:

"...human beings seem to have this odd reluctance to give up their devil figures - even when it'd be a really, really good idea to do so. There's a sociology paper in that, I suppose..."

In the title of his post, Mr. Lane admits to being undercaffeinated. Perhaps that explains the unintended irony.