The Hound Of Ulster

Well, it depends who you ask.

“Our side” seems pretty sure the Times just said SOMETHING it didn’t really want to say. CALIFORNIA CONSERVATIVE, RED STATE, MICHELLE and U.S. Rep. Pete HOEKSTRA all have more.

There is a bit of an issue over this paragraph, though:

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

Is that saying he could have made an atom bomb in 2003? Or is it talking about the 1990s? There seem to be only two options: absurdly sloppy writing, or a huge bombshell admission from the Times.

Given that we’re talking about the NY Times here, I’m going to have to lean towards the sloppy writing. There’s no way they would suddenly decide to admit that the WMD program was that active just prior to the invasion. I’m pretty sure they like to keep their November surprises controlled. And on their side of the political fence.

THIS Red State commentator seems on the money to me. This is big for one of two reasons: either the “at the time” is about 2002, which means BushLied is done. Or it means a lot of the other documents are “legit,” as Captain Ed discusses at some LENGTH.

The Times can’t have it’s take and eat it. Not this time.

THIS might or might not be behind a subscription wall.

It’s by Bishop Robert Finn, and it’s excellent. It’s also from a “regular” newspaper, not his own diocesan paper - a good sign, I think. And one that has forced me to create a new post tag. (Actually, there are a number of these to post over the next couple of days. I’m starting to feel as optimistic about the future of the American Catholic Church as I am pessimistic about the future political environment.)

Amendment 2 would be bad law.

1) The preface reads, “You are advised the proposed constitutional amendment may change, repeal, or modify by implication … the following provisions of the Constitution of Missouri.” The secretary of state lists 44 sections. On these grounds alone voters should reject it.

2) Subsection 2 (7) states that no law, regulation or ordinance or other governmental action could “restrict” or “discourage” any stem-cell research. This would ensure that no elected official in state or local government would have the power to represent the people in regulating this research.

3) If passed, the legislative branch would forfeit part of its oversight of the budget. Amendment 2 reads, “No state or local government body or official shall eliminate, reduce, deny, or withhold any public funds provided or eligible to be provided … (for) such research.”

Amendment 2 would be bad business.

Subsection 7 offers regulation-free protection to this industry that no other business enjoys: “All laws, regulations, rules, charters, ordinances, and other governmental actions shall be construed in favor of stem cell research.”

Amendment 2 would be bad science.

1) Proponents of Amendment 2 deny the existence of a human embryo at the zygote stage and at the blastocyst stage. They contend that embryonic human life begins only at the moment of implantation. Amendment 2 would not ban cloning. It redefines cloning and would ban implanting the clone in the uterus.

2) To say that because the blastocyst is so small it cannot be human is scientific heresy. Scientists work under the microscope and know that tiny realities have huge implications.

Amendment 2 would be bad ethics.

1) Amendment 2 would allow frozen “in vitro fertilized” human embryos, produced by sperm and egg, to be used and destroyed for biological experiments. Subsection 6(5, 6, 11, 15)

2) Human embryos cloned by somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT, are complete living human organisms, not merely cells. Amendment 2 would require them to be destroyed for research.

3) The hope of cures does not justify the taking of an innocent human life, however small. Good science has ethical limits that should not be compromised even for a good cause.

Amendment 2 is an extreme measure that would unethically manipulate human life and provide a blank check to one industry.

(HT: WOLFTRACKER)

MGM is preparing to put the nuts in CHARGE of the nuthouse.

Film star Tom Cruise has teamed up with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. to resurrect United Artists, the movie studio founded 87 years ago by screen legends Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks and others, MGM said on Thursday.

The partnership, under which Cruise would star in and produce films for UA with his production partner, Paula Wagner, comes about two months after the bitter end of Cruise’s 14-year production deal with Paramount Pictures. Wagner will serve as chief executive of the United Artists.

Cruise and Wagner will exercise control over United Artists’ production slate, from development to the ability to commit financial resources to new pictures, MGM said in a statement announcing the deal. The new UA will be located in Los Angeles.

That might not be as bad as it sounds.

Well, having Tommy involved is probably as bad as it sounds. But the UA idea seems like a good one, really. I’m not a huge fan of the idea that the producers run the show. Not saying I think they’re terrible at it. They’re really good at it. (At making money, that is.) But artistically, I don’t think this is a bad model.

Putting Tommy in charge, that’s bad.

The Dodger outfield OPTIONS are bad, too. They’re either poor baseball players, or really costly ones. And I’m not a huge fan of going after Aramis Ramirez. In fact, I’m not a huge fan of going after any of the “big-names.” It’s almost impossible not to overpay them, either in salary, or players. Or both.

I’d take Dellucci out of that bunch. And if I decide to make a trade, I want Ichiro or Crawford. (Only one of those is likely, though. And we do have the Tampa Bay connection, right?)

And speaking of baseball, THIS is something I did not know. And it makes the Eckstein ad even better.

In case no one else from St. Louis has pointed this out…David Eckstein will be a powerful messenger for the anti Amendment 2 ad for more reasons than being the World Series MVP. He is wildly popular here because he’s a little guy who plays hard, does everything right and is tough as nails. But he’s also a very humble and soft-spoken young man. And he’s very unpretentious. The Corvette he won for being MVP is the first new car he’s ever owned! In the past when asked about the old clunkers he drives he has always said that he just doesn’t care about such things. The biggest reason, however, is that his entire family except for himself and another sibling have a rare kidney disease and have had or soon will need transplants. If I’m not mistaken his father had one last year that saved his life. This is very well known in the city as he does numerous charity events and a PSA spots for organ transplants. It will be hard for anyone to call him a liar and still be respected.

Fighting Fox with his own fire. Perfect.

Who doesn’t love Eckstein? That’s what I want to know. (Oh, and anyone from Detroit will not count in response to that particular question.)