|
Kick Assiest Blog
Saturday, 19 August 2006
''Are you SURE you want to remove that?'' Dude with 2 penises wants surgery
Mood:
 not sure
Topic: Odd Stuff
Are you SURE you want to remove that?  NEW DELHI -- An Indian businessman born with two penises wants one of them removed surgically as he wants to marry and lead a normal sexual life, a newspaper report said Saturday.
The 24-year-old man from the northern state of Uttar Pradesh admitted himself to a New Delhi hospital this week with an extremely rare medical condition called penile duplication or diphallus, the Times of India said. "Two fully functional penes is unheard of even in medical literature. In the more common form of diphallus, one organ is rudimentary," the newspaper quoted a surgeon as saying. The surgery was expected to be challenging as both organs were well-formed and full blood supply to the retained penis had to be ensured to allow it to function normally, he added. The newspaper did not disclose the identity of the man or the hospital to protect the patient's privacy. 
There are about 100 such reported cases of diphallus around the world and it is known to occur among one in 5.5 million men, the newspaper said. It is caused by the failure of the mesodermal bands in the embryo to fuse properly. The mesodermal bands are one of three primary layers of the embryo from which several body parts are formed.  Yahoo News ~ Reuters **
Are you SURE you want to remove that?
Some replies were funny...  Two words, Porn Star!
He could have made a fortune.
Aren't two heads better than one?
I wonder which one he uses. Betcha he keeps the longest one!
Posted by yaahoo_06iest
at 12:01 AM EDT
Updated: Sunday, 20 August 2006 4:28 AM EDT
Friday, 18 August 2006
Dems Pull ''Feel Safer'' Ad
Mood:
 d'oh
Topic: Lib Loser Stories
 Ad Disappears From Dem Web Site
Democrats dropped an ad that Hispanics had criticized as unfairly depicting illegal immigrants as terrorists. The ad had disappeared from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's Web site Thursday. A link that had led to the advertisement now leads to a different ad. No announcement was made about what happened to the ad. A DSCC spokesman did not return phone calls and an e-mail message seeking comment.  ↓
↓
Democratic and Republican Hispanics had complained Wednesday about the ad. The 35-second ad questioned GOP homeland security and anti-terrorism policies. It featured images of Osama bin Laden and North Korea's Kim Jong Il and two people scaling a border fence and the words "Feel Safer?" Houston City Councilwoman Carol Alvarado, a Democrat, was among those who asked the DSCC to pull the ad. She said it could alienate Latino voters. The Republican National Hispanic Assembly and Latino groups also criticized the ad. News Max.com ~ Associated Press ** Ad Disappears From Dem Web Site Related: Drive-By Media montages display the left's Bush hatred, while Democrats dig their own grave with statements on the ruling... 
Rush Limbaugh.com **
Bush Hate Animates Drive-By Media & Left on Joke NSA Terrorist Surveillance Ruling
Posted by yaahoo_06iest
at 6:34 PM EDT
Updated: Friday, 18 August 2006 6:47 PM EDT
The Bugs Bunny Democrats -- They're all carrot and no stick
Mood:
 chatty
Topic: Columns
 The Bugs Bunny Democrats
They're all carrot and no stick. We should work diplomatically and aggressively to give them reasons why they [the Iranians] don't need to build a bomb, to give them incentives. . . . I'd like to use carrots as well as sticks to see if we can change the nature of the debate.  --Ned Lamont, April 25, 2006
Ned Lamont's victory over Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary was a triumph for the European wing of the Democratic party. So it's fitting that Lamont is pro-carrot. It was impossible to go to Europe during Bush's first term without getting a lecture about the utility of carrots, the futility of sticks, and the Bush administration's regrettable neglect of the former and unfortunate proclivity for the latter. So Lamont is an appropriate spokesman for what one might call the Bugs Bunny caucus that now dominates the Democratic party. Lieberman is fighting that dominance by not conceding his seat to Lamont--but others are rushing to ingratiate themselves to the new powers that be in their party. Former Clinton U.N. ambassador and hopeful Democratic secretary of state Richard Holbrooke--something of a Liebermanite in the past--tried to get right with the Bugs Bunny-ites in a Washington Post op-ed two days after Lamont's victory. His point? More diplomacy. In particular, we need "sustained high-level diplomacy" with Syria and Iran. Now Holbrooke is too clever to go into full Bugs Bunny mode. In fact, he is too clever to say with any precision at all what his diplomatic initiatives would consist of--and he is clever enough to try to cover his bases by emphasizing not once but twice that all of this diplomacy with Syria and Iran (and, implicitly, Hezbollah) would have to be conducted "in full consultation with Israel at every step." But it is clear that the point of this diplomacy would not be to defeat or disarm Hezbollah (a goal Holbrooke never mentions). Nor would it be to stop Iran's nuclear program (a goal whose importance he minimizes).  Instead, there should be three U.S. foreign policy priorities: "containing the violence," "finding a stable and secure solution that protects Israel," and "unwinding America's disastrous entanglement in Iraq in a manner that is not a complete humiliation and does not lead to even greater turmoil." The first really means not defeating Hezbollah. The second means nothing. As for the third--"not a complete humiliation"--now there's a foreign policy slogan for the Bugs Bunny Democrats!
So the Democrats are hopeless. Unfortunately, back in the real world, Bush administration policy hasn't been particularly strong either. During its second term, the Bush administration has come too close to embracing Holbrookean passivity. And what good has the recent affinity for carrots done us? Are our enemies in retreat? Are Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Moktada al-Sadr, Bashar Assad, the Sunni holy warriors in Iraq, al Qaeda operatives and sympathizers in the United Kingdom, and Kim Jong Il on the run? Have they become more cooperative, and less bent on trouble, since Secretary of State Rice started serving up the carrots last year? No. Consider David Brooks's important New York Times column last week summarizing the views of a Bush administration official with whom Brooks had had a conversation--a conversation that, as Brooks says, "sheds light on where we've been and where we're going." Here's the key statement by the Bush policymaker: We're part of a united front on Iranian nukes. The odds are there will be sanctions against Iran by the end of the year, though how strong I don't know. We're trying to build a successful government in Iraq. We have to get out from under the blow to our authority caused by the torture and detainee issues. And we have to get aggressive on the Palestinian problem. That's essential to strengthen moderate regimes. We're not going to be spending as much blood or treasure as over the past few years. We have to make up for it with diplomacy backed by a hint of steel. As Washington Times editorial page editor Tony Blankley noted, the interview "suggests that we intend to subordinate firm military or even firm diplomatic action to winning the love of the Arab Street"--and, I would add, to seeking the approbation of European chanceries and Turtle Bay. The Bush policymaker seems to be indulging in what Blankley calls "a dangerous fantasy" that Iran and Hezbollah can be dealt with through clever diplomacy and continued U.N. resolutions. As Blankley mordantly comments on the "hint of steel" that will allegedly be backing up all this diplomacy: "More likely a hint of lavender."  One senses from some of the president's recent statements that he knows better. Developments over these extraordinary last few weeks, from Tehran to Baghdad to Lebanon to London, have reminded us of the dangers we face and the implacability of our enemies. Here's a suggestion for the president: When the State Department asks him to embrace the path of diplomacy-über-alles, he should ask himself this question: What would the Bugs Bunny Democrats think? If they would approve, then the president should kill the initiative. The State Department has succeeded in the past year in making the Bush administration more Euro-friendly and U.N.-attentive than ever. For this, the president has reaped no political benefit at home--and the dangers continue to mount abroad. How Bush deals with Ahmadinejad's terror-supporting and nuclear-weapons-pursuing Iran will be the test.
Weekly Standard ~ William Kristol ** The Bugs Bunny Democrats
Posted by yaahoo_06iest
at 1:38 AM EDT
Dem angst escalates
Mood:
 chillin'
Topic: Lib Loser Stories
Dem angst escalates By Alexander Bolton  A group of Senate Democrats is growing increasingly angry about Sen. Joe Lieberman’s (D-Conn.) campaign tactics since he lost the Democratic primary last week.
If he continues to alienate his colleagues, Lieberman could be stripped of his seniority within the Democratic caucus should he defeat Democrat Ned Lamont in the general election this November, according to some senior Democratic aides. In recent days, Lieberman has rankled Democrats in the upper chamber by suggesting that those who support bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq by a certain date would bolster terrorists’ planning attacks against the U.S. and its allies. He also sparked resentment by saying last week on NBC’s Today show that the Democratic Party was out of the political mainstream. Democrats are worried that Lieberman may be giving Republicans a golden opportunity to undermine their message.  “I think there’s a lot of concern,” said a senior Democratic aide who has discussed the subject with colleagues. “I think the first step is if the Lieberman thing turns into a side show and hurts our message and ability to take back the Senate, and the White House and the [National Republican Senatorial Committee] manipulate him, there are going to be a lot of unhappy people in our caucus.”
Michael Lewan, Lieberman’s former chief of staff, has worked to quell Democratic discontent with Lieberman and to steer them away from campaigning against his former boss, said Democratic aides familiar with Lewan’s activities. Lewan, a lobbyist with Brown Rudnick, said that he has had conversations with Democrats from between eight and 12 Senate offices. He said he understands that many Democrats have endorsed Lamont because he is the Democratic primary winner. He added, “It would be terrific from my point of view that during the time in September, October, and early November, if they campaign, they spend their time in places other than Connecticut.” 
Lewan said that the issue of stripping Lieberman’s seniority did not come up in any of his conversations. He also said he has offered to share Democrats’ concerns with the Lieberman campaign. The issue of Lieberman’s seniority would arise most dramatically if Lieberman wins re-election and Democrats recapture control of the chamber. That would slot Lieberman to take over as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the panel primarily responsible for investigating the executive branch.  Democrats think their chances of taking back the Senate are growing more and more likely. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) last week said he was more confident that Democrats would pick up at least five Senate seats.
Allowing Lieberman to retain his seniority could put the senator now running as an independent in charge of the Senate’s chief investigative committee. If Democrats took control of either chamber they would likely launch investigations of the White House’s handling of the war in Iraq and homeland security. “Lieberman’s tone and message has shocked a lot of people,” said a second senior Democratic aide who has discussed the issue with other Senate Democrats. “He’s way off message for us and right in line with the White House.”  “At this point Lieberman cannot expect to just keep his seniority,” said the aide. “He can’t run against a Democrat and expect to waltz back to the caucus with the same seniority as before. It would give the view that the Senate is a country club rather than representative of a political party and political movement.”
The aide said that it would make no sense to keep Lieberman in a position where he might take over the Governmental Affairs Committee. Ironically, a lawmaker with a good shot of replacing Lieberman atop the Governmental Affairs panel, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), is spearheading the effort within the Senate to preserve Democratic support for Lieberman. Carper is the third most senior Democrat on the panel after Lieberman. But the two Democrats who outrank him, Sens. Carl Levin (Mich.) and Daniel Akaka (Hawaii) are likely to keep their perches as the most senior Democrats on the Armed Services Committee and Veterans Affairs Committee, respectively. Carper’s chief of staff, Jonathan Jones, has contacted Democratic aides recently and urged them that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee should not spend money in the race between Lieberman and Lamont, said two Democratic aides familiar with the conversations. Jones said the money would be better spent elsewhere since the seat will remain in Democratic hands, said the sources. Carper, who like Lieberman often works across the aisle with Republicans, is one of a handful of Democratic centrists who have continued to support Lieberman since his primary defeat. The others include Sen. Ken Salazar (Colo.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii). Bill Ghent, Carper’s spokesman, said that Jones “has been on vacation the last week and a half and has not been out there advocating what anyone should do regarding the Connecticut election.”  The view that Lieberman should lose his seniority is likely to become more ingrained among Democrats if Lieberman continues to align himself with Republicans, as he has in the last few days. Lieberman took a call from senior White House political strategist Karl Rove on the day of his primary election. And since losing, he has adopted rhetoric echoing Republican talking points.
“If we pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England,” Lieberman said about U.S. troops in Iraq and the recently foiled terrorism scheme. “It will strengthen them, and they will strike again.”  In June, 38 Democrats and Sen. James Jeffords (I-Vt.) voted for a resolution sponsored by Sen. Levin that called for Bush to take several steps to change the “open ended commitment” of U.S. forces.
On the same day, 12 Democrats and Jeffords voted for another resolution requiring the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. Sen. Russ Feingold (Wis.), a Democrat who voted for both resolutions, called Lieberman’s statement “regrettable” and said Lieberman “doesn’t get it.” Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean has likened Lieberman’s recent statements to the rhetoric coming from Vice President Dick Cheney and Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman.  Asked yesterday about the race, Dean said, “Ned will win,” adding that Democratic turnout for Lamont will help the party in other Connecticut races.
Lieberman is expected to make a hard sell to Republican voters. Sean Smith, who stepped down as Lieberman’s campaign manager after the primary, told Lieberman as he was resigning that the candidate would have to pursue Republican voters in order to win the general election, said sources familiar with the conversation. Lieberman said he agreed with the analysis, according to the sources.  So far, at least 26 Democratic senators have said they are supporting Lamont, including Reid, according to a survey conducted by The Hill. Reid spokesman Jim Manley said Democratic leaders would make no decisions about committees until after the election.
Jonathan E. Kaplan and Tyler Kirtley contributed to this article.
The Hill.com ~ Alexander Bolton ** Dem angst escalates
Posted by yaahoo_06iest
at 12:59 AM EDT
Updated: Friday, 18 August 2006 1:12 AM EDT
Is Democracy Only For You, White Man?
Mood:
chatty
Topic: Lib Loser Stories
Is Democracy Only For You, White Man? A caller bashes Bush, but doesn't have one idea to do better...  BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Mike in Syracuse, New York, welcome to the EIB Network. Hi. CALLER: Rush, thank you for taking my call. How are you?  RUSH: Fine, sir.
CALLER: Rush, the reason for my call is -- I'm going to get to it straight, the screener said -- did our president really think that over six or 7,000 years of sectarian violence based on clans and tribes, that all of a sudden democracy would be welcomed and open arms? I want to know where the best and the brightest on his staff were, didn't they do their homework? RUSH: Didn't they do their homework? What is your point? CALLER: Did we really think that we would roll into Iraq, democracy -- let's just say it takes ten years, 15, 20, whatever it is. Seven or 8,000 years, there's been no democracy over there.  RUSH: Let me tell you something. I've been listening to dummkopfs like you criticize and rip everything this president has been trying to do. I want to hear from you, Mr. Brainiac, what you would have done.
CALLER: Sure. I would have had at least a staff that knows that -- I'm going to paraphrase- RUSH: No, no, no. Don't talk to me about staff. You're the president. You're criticizing, calling him a moron. Prove to me you're not. What would you have done about Iraq after 9/11, the war on terror, what would you have done, sir? CALLER: Well, our president said that there was no clear link between -- RUSH: You do not have the guts to answer because you're like everybody else, you don't have an answer to anything. CALLER: I do have an answer. RUSH: The Democratic plan is a book of 25 pages with not one word on a page. You do not have a plan. You do not have an idea. All you have is criticism, which is worthless, it's baseless, and it's boring. "Did anybody really think that democracy would work?" What, democracy is only good enough for you, white man? Democracy is not good enough for all these lesser tribal people all over the world? Freedom is only good enough for you? You're the only bright enough guy around to understand freedom and to appreciate it. The rest of these people are just a bunch of human debris and we ought to understand that they're just a bunch of savages? It's a damn good thing you are not in a leadership position because you wouldn't defend your own freedom, dummkopf.  END TRANSCRIPT |
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time. |
Rush Limbaugh.com ** Is Democracy Only For You, White Man?
Posted by yaahoo_06iest
at 12:01 AM EDT
Thursday, 17 August 2006
Monks brawl at peace protest
Mood:
 surprised
Now Playing: LIBTARD PEACENIK PACIFIST ALERT
Topic: Lib Loser Stories
 Monks brawl at peace protest
COLOMBO -- Protesters calling for an end to recent violence in Sri Lanka found themselves brawling with hardline Buddhist monks Thursday, after a rally dubbed a "peace protest" turned unexpectedly violent. Organizers said there were around 1,000 people in a park in the capital, Colombo, listening to a range of speakers when hardline saffron-robed monks opposed to concessions to Tamil Tiger rebels mounted the stage and erected banners. Some more moderate Buddhist monks, protesting for peace, were already on the stage when punches were thrown. Soon, monks' robes and fists were flying, although no one was badly hurt, witnesses said. "They were saying we should go to war," said pro-peace monk Madampawe Assagee. "We like to listen to other opinions so we let them do that but then they started fighting and we couldn't control some of our people. They tried to make it a big fight but we settled it in a few minutes." Sri Lanka is currently embroiled in the worst fighting with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) since a 2002 truce, with many believing a two-decade civil war has resumed. Hardline monks -- allies of President Mahinda Rajapakse -- say the government is too soft on the rebels and want military action. The island is dominated by the Buddhist Sinhalese majority, but is also home to Muslims as well as minority Tamils -- some Hindu, some Christian. The hardline monks are violently opposed to Tiger demands for a separate Tamil homeland.  A Reuters photographer said the fight first erupted between a speaker at the rally -- a former government minister -- and a monk, and then turned into a wider brawl. Other religious leaders on the platform found themselves dragged into the melee.
"By force, they disrupted the protest," said Jehan Perera, head of the National Peace Council, who took part in a peace march earlier in the day but had gone by the time the fight erupted. "But I think they're the minority. Most of the people we walked past were very supportive." al-Reuters ** Monks brawl at peace protest
Posted by yaahoo_06iest
at 11:20 PM EDT
Updated: Thursday, 17 August 2006 11:47 PM EDT
Antarctic Snowfall Snafu Derails Global Warming Models
Mood:
 cheeky
Topic: Lib Loser Stories
Antarctic Snowfall Snafu Derails Climate Models  An improved method of measuring Antarctic snowfall has revealed that previous records showing an increase in precipitation are not accurate, even over a half-century. In the August 10 edition of Science magazine, researchers explain that their analysis of ice cores and snow pits revealed that precipitation levels in the Antarctic have in fact remained steady. The upshot of the study is that models assessing climate-change may need to be revised, as they can no longer be deemed accurate.
The multinational Antarctic team comprised 16 researchers who wanted to amass snowfall data going back 50 years to the International Geophysical Year (IGY). The data taken from the IGY is regarded as the first real study of the Antarctic, which has been ongoing ever since. This time around, however, the team found that their data contradicted computer models used to calculate global climate change, where most predict an increase in precipitation as atmospheric temperatures increase. "There were no statistically significant trends in snowfall accumulation over the past five decades, including recent years for which global mean temperatures have been warmest," said lead author Andrew Monaghan, a research associate with Ohio State University's Byrd Polar Research Center. During the expedition, the team used data from ice core samples, networks of snow stakes and meteorological observations. Not satisfied with this data alone, the team also included ice core records from the International Trans-Antarctic Scientific Expedition (ITASE), another multinational research program that began in 1990 in order to reconstruct the continent's climate history. The latest team's voracious accumulation of data coupled with a thorough analysis provides the most accurate study to-date of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) and the thicker East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS).  Recent observations of the WAIS, a marine ice sheet with a base below sea level, show that vast quantities of ice are melting at a faster rate than previously recorded. Many observers consider this and an increase in calving icebergs along the Antarctic's margins to be evidence of global warming. The team's findings also counter climate-change skeptics who consider a thickening of Antarctica's enormous ice sheets has stemmed the gradual rise in global sea levels.
The new study shows that current climate-change models need to be revamped if scientists are to have a more accurate representation of Antarctic weather patterns. "The year-to-year and decadal variability of the snowfall is so large that it makes it nearly impossible to distinguish trends that might be related to climate change from even a 50-year record," said Monaghan. Source: National Science Foundation Talk About This News Story In The Discussion Forum Science a Go Go ** Antarctic Snowfall Snafu Derails Climate Models
Posted by yaahoo_06iest
at 11:09 PM EDT
Brits Wring Hands Over Torture That Busted Bomb Plot
Mood:
chatty
Topic: Lib Loser Stories
 British Terror Arrests Based On Information From Torture In Pakistan?
According to this from The Guardian that appears to be the case: Reports from Pakistan suggest that much of the intelligence that led to the raids came from that country and that some of it may have been obtained in ways entirely unacceptable here. In particular Rashid Rauf, a British citizen said to be a prime source of information leading to last week's arrests, has been held without access to full consular or legal assistance. Disturbing reports in Pakistani papers that he had "broken" under interrogation have been echoed by local human rights bodies. The Guardian has quoted one, Asma Jehangir, of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, who has no doubt about the meaning of broken. "I don't deduce, I know - torture," she said. "There is simply no doubt about that, no doubt at all." If this is shown to be the case, the prospect of securing convictions in this country on his evidence will be complicated. In 2004 the Court of Appeal ruled - feebly - that evidence obtained using torture would be admissable as long as Britain had not "procured or connived" at it. The law lords rightly dismissed this in December last year, though they disagreed about whether the bar should be the simple "risk" or "probability" of torture.  Personally, I'm not willing to conclude that torture was used as I'm not willing to take some international human rights activist's word for it. Her definition of torture and mine probably aren't the same.
That being said, this does pose something of an interesting moral question. The information from this detainee in Pakistan was undoubtedly crucial in thwarting a major terror plot that could have killed thousands and had dire consequences on the global economy. In light of that, how important was it that he have an attorney present during questioning? What if he'd been granted a lawyer and, during the subsequent delays, the terror plot was carried out? Going even further to the extreme, suppose this guy was subjected to some aggressive interrogation...how far is too far? Is making the room uncomfortably hot or cold torture? How about sleep deprivation? How about humiliation and fear? How about a few slaps to the face? When we're talking about stopping a terror attack that is imminent how concerned can we afford to be about the treatment of one informant?
Posted by yaahoo_06iest
at 10:57 PM EDT
Libtards React To Dead Air America's Failures
Mood:
 silly
Topic: Lib Loser Stories
 Leftists React To Air America's Troubles
THE REAL 'STOOGES'? 'Progressives' Use Attacks To Spin AAR's Failures Aware that their publicity-rich, yet money-wasting experiment with "progressive" talk radio is failing badly, excuse- making liberals are increasingly looking to spin
Air America Radio's grand failure. And in doing so, they're on the attack against those who have exposed the network's many shortcomings. Like marxists who believe the Soviet Union failed only because it didn't fully implement comrade Karl's teachings, Air America is now being portrayed as a failure not because liberal talk is unpopular, but due to poor internal programming decisions. That's despite a great number of "progressive" talkers who have now come and gone, including some with substantial backgrounds in leftist politics. Until now, the Radio Equalizer has generally ignored these lefty critics, for the following reasons: More often than not, they're commenting on stories that originated at the Radio Equalizer, but dishonestly refuse to give this site credit for breaking them. Instead, they'll cite others who picked up a story secondhand, as a result of reading it here. When we're mentioned, it's merely to engage in childish name- calling. Next, they'll attack this site by nitpicking at our pieces, looking for tiny elements of our exclusive reports that didn't pan out when reviewing them months later. To them, it doesn't matter that our main points have an impeccable accuracy record over the last year, we're held to a far higher standard than so- called "progressives" expect from even the Washington Post or New York Times. While the Radio Equalizer has given critics incredibly wide leeway in our comments section (below each post), their sites routinely block dissenting voices. Case in point: the Majority Report's website, which has been quick to eliminate opposing viewpoints. Here, we're sometimes even accused by readers of letting our detractors have too much freedom to engage in downright abusive online behavior. Yet we've let them attack at will. One of the more annoying recent examples of this supposedly enlightened "progressive" behavior comes from the blog of WFMU-FM / New York City, where Michelle Malkin and the Radio Equalizer are dismissed as "stooges". Yet in this lengthy "analysis" of Air America's situation, there's simply no getting around the fact that without our reporting, much of what's being discussed never would have come to light. Name- calling is merely a deflection away from that "reality". Need some examples? News that Air America would lose New York flagship WLIB-AM first broke here. Even if at the time we didn't have a firm date (noted in the story) on when this major hit to the network would take place, the report did in fact originate here. In addition, until the eleventh hour, Randy Michaels was the primary bidder to take over WLIB's operations. In the end, it doesn't really matter who takes over WLIB, the point is that Air America lost their mothership, resulting in tremendous damage to the operation. Details of Al Franken's bloated contract were first exposed here, as were elements of the crazy Randi Rhodes deal signed earlier this summer. News of Janeane Garofalo's departure from the "Majority Report" first broke here as well and was later confirmed by trade publications. Several corporate executive exits have also first been revealed here, including that of programming head Carl Ginsburg. In addition, the first report of Jerry Springer's likely removal from Air America's New York City lineup originated here. The big enchilada, of course, was our original reporting on Air America's Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club scandal, where taxpayer grants for the inner- city charity were instead diverted to the liberal radio network. Michelle Malkin and yours truly worked for months on that project and the city investigation continues to this day. In the end, so- called "progressives" can hate the Radio Equalizer and Michelle Malkin all they want, but the truth remains that without this reporting, they would know relatively little about this shadowy outfit's inner workings. To say otherwise is simply dishonest. Images by Pete at IHillary and
David A Lunde -- The Radio Equalizer ~ Brian Maloney ** Leftists React To Air America's Troubles
Posted by yaahoo_06iest
at 2:06 AM EDT
Updated: Thursday, 17 August 2006 2:42 AM EDT
Wednesday, 16 August 2006
Ohio Democrat Ends Campaign after arrest
Mood:
d'oh
Now Playing: LIBTARD ''CULTURE OF CORRUPTION'' ALERT
Topic: Lib Loser Stories
Ohio Democrat Ends Campaign after arrest  CINCINNATI -- Democratic congressional candidate Stephanie Studebaker is removing her name from the ballot after being charged with domestic violence, according to a statement posted Tuesday evening on her campaign Web site.
Studebaker and her husband, Sam, were booked Sunday morning into the Montgomery County jail after police answered calls about a fight in their home. Each was charged with domestic violence and released on a $25,000 bond. "After deciding to focus my efforts entirely on my family, I am withdrawing my name from the ballot as a candidate for Ohio's Third Congressional District, effective immediately," the statement on the Studebaker for Congress site read. She suspended her campaign Monday evening against two-term incumbent Mike Turner, a Republican already considered the solid favorite. The seat, in southwest Ohio, includes Clinton and Highland counties, most of Montgomery County and about half of Warren County.  Studebaker, 45, a veterinarian and political activist, won her party's nomination in her first run for elective office. Dennis Lieberman, Montgomery County's Democratic Party chairman, said a special primary election would be held to replace her.
That likely will be Ohio's second special congressional primary next month. Six-term Republican incumbent Bob Ney officially withdrew from the 18th District race in southeast Ohio on Monday.  According to Montgomery County Sheriff Dave Vore, deputies observed evidence of a "physical altercation" on Sunday. Sam Studebaker, 39, told deputies "his wife had been beating him," and had marks on right upper arm and right upper back, according to the incident report. His wife told deputies he had hit her, and she had marks on her right upper arm, the report says.
On the Net: Stephanie Studebaker campaign  Las Vegas Sun ~ Associated Press - Dan Sewell ** Ohio Democrat Ends Campaign after arrest $25,000 bond for both of 'em? There just has to be more to this story, 25k is a little steep for a family violence charge.
Posted by yaahoo_06iest
at 12:01 AM EDT
Updated: Thursday, 17 August 2006 12:53 AM EDT
Newer | Latest | Older
|
