WMAL’s host Michael Graham has been suspended from the station for his comment that Islam is “a terrorist organization”.

Or has he? Speculation is rampant in the industry that this is nothing more than a stunt.

From DCRTV.com:

In fact, it smells like a stunt since Grandy and Andy said on-air that they disagreed with the decision and encouraged listeners to send complaints to WMAL management. Also, WMAL is still running Graham show promos and pre-taped ads featuring the “suspended” Graham, who got a big write-up in Tuesday’s DC Post about his dispute with a local Islamic organization.

I expect we’ll see more on this from some radio writers (bloggers and otherwise) throughout the day.

I really hope it’s not a stunt, because if it is, it’s the worst kind. If it’s a stunt, then WMAL is lying to their listeners and getting their news department involved in the deceit.

As bad as the alternative is, I’d rather the truth be that Disney stepped in and squashed a talk show host for expressing his opinion.

**Update**

Perry Michael Simon writes at AllAccess.com:

NEWS: ABC Talk WMAL-A/WASHINGTON has suspended midday host MICHAEL GRAHAM without pay while it mulls over a response to criticism from the COUNCIL FOR AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS of GRAHAM’s remarks on MONDAY that Islam is a “terrorist organization.” GRAHAM made the remark in the context of saying that an organization that has terrorist acts committed by members and doesn’t kick the wrongdoers out is responsible for those acts, but CAIR called the comments “hate-filled” and asked members to contact WMAL advertisers. After initially backing GRAHAM, the station is now investigating the situation and issued a statement calling the remarks “irresponsible,” and, interestingly, as DCRTV.COM notes, the station on FRIDAY continued to promote GRAHAM on-air and the WMAL morning show with FRED GRANDY and ANDY PARKS told listeners to complain to WMAL management about the suspension.

Michael Graham himself comments here:

My radio station, 630 WMAL, has publicly announced that I’ve been suspended by ABC (no doubt Ted Koppel and Peter Jennings are thrilled) and I am “under investigation” for my discussion on Islam and the tragedy of its current links to terror.

What exactly is ABC Disney “investigating?” I have no idea. After all, everything I do, I do on the air in front of thousands of people. What’s to investigate?

After listening to Geoff Metcalf filling in for Michael Graham, I’m left with the conclusion that one of two things is going on. Either the entire station and its management is ticked off enough at ABC/Disney to allow their on-air staff to not only mention the suspension, but openly criticize and ask listeners to complain about it, or they’re pulling a stunt that has the potential to cost them every ounce of credibility the station has established.

In either case, it’s something you don’t see every day.

**Updated again**

I’ve been listening to WMAL since I moved here in March of ‘04. During that time, I’ve never seen any indication that the folks on that station are anything other than honest and dedicated professionals. I’m applying common sense here and deducing that it’s much more likely that these are people who are upset at the unfair suspension of a colleague, rather than a massive stunt involving full, part-time, and fill-in employees who would sacrifice their integrity.

In other words, after thinking about it: the suspension of Michael Graham isn’t a stunt (in my opinion). And not only does he deserve your support, but the other hosts and employees of WMAL deserve your support as well. There’s nothing to stop ABC/Disney from suspending all these folks for supporting Michael Graham. Your first amendment right doesn’t include paid access to a microphone, after all.

Via The Corner: Nancy Pelosi has apparently lost her ever-lovin’ mind.

Q Can you elaborate, Madame Leader, on some of the offers that were made to Democrats that you know about?

REP. PELOSI: No.

Q In which case — it’s a pretty serious charge, that you’re saying some of them didn’t pass legal muster to you.

REP. PELOSI: Yeah.

Q You’re saying that — that Republicans were trying to bribe Democrats?

REP. PELOSI: I didn’t use the word bribe.

Q Well, you said it wasn’t legal.

REP. PELOSI: I said that offers were made that were, in my view, questionable. And I know that they would be at a cost to the taxpayers. And I say that without any hesitation.

Q But that’s a very serious charge.

REP. PELOSI: It is.

Q Could you just — could you just give us the specifics of what you’ve heard?

REP. PELOSI: No, I’m not going to. I’m telling you, and — why don’t you go ask the Republicans or the White House what they were offering people? They would know best; they’re the ones who were making the offers. I think that this has to stop. We have to stop the Republican rip-off of the legislative process on Capitol Hill. It has to stop now…

Q Madame Leader, I’m sorry to belabor this point, but it is — let me see how to phrase this — is there a difference between horse trading and federal violation regarding offering something of value for somebody’s vote?

REP. PELOSI: Yes.

Q There’s got to be a difference, right?

REP. PELOSI: Yeah. There is.

Q So now you’re beyond just the normal give and take of —

REP. PELOSI: Yes.

Q I don’t see how you can just lay that out there without giving us the specifics —

REP. PELOSI: Well, I just did. But I just did.

Q Is that fair, though? Is that the way you would like to be treated?

REP. PELOSI: That’s the way we are treated. That’s the way we are treated.

Q Are you going to pursue any sort of ethics complaint —

REP. PELOSI: I may. I may. I may. Not me, but those who have the information may. But these are the kinds of things that are very hard to prove if the deal is not consummated. That doesn’t mean the deal wasn’t offered. And it really — because they have a poverty of arguments in favor of CAFTA, they have to resort to these extraordinary means.

Wow.

Standard disclaimer: These are my thoughts and my thoughts only. They do not represent a formal position by NRAnews.com, its staff, management, or parent company.

So far, so good. Yes, I know. The Kohl Amendment requiring trigger locks to be sold with every handgun passed by a 70-30 vote. But that’s the only amendment offered by a Senator who’s not a co-sponsor of the bill (the other amendment was offered by Senator Frist, and it’s only purpose is to “make clear that the bill does not apply to actions commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act.”) to pass.

Is it a poison pill? Not in my opinion. After talking with Larry Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, I’m not sure it will have much effect. Mr. Keane says manufacturers have been voluntarily issuing trigger locks with handguns for some time. And there was a much more onerous provision offered by Senator Reed from Rhode Island that would have applied to all firearms sold, and would have required criminal prosecution, rather than civil fines, for a dealer who neglected to sell a trigger lock.

Bottom line for me is 397 is desperately needed. If this was an “assault weapons ban” or a ban on .50 calibers I’d be ticked. As it stands now, I’ll live with it.

That’s all I want Air America, or Piquant, or whatever the heck they’re called to tell me.

Where did my money go? The $480,000 isn’t a lot of money in the grand scheme of things, but something tells me if Sean Hannity or Michael Savage had almost a half-million dollars intended for a Boys and Girls club… the folks at Air America would be talking about it day in and day out.

There seems to be a push for Air America to give the money back to the Boys and Girls Club. Heck, I even mentioned it yesterday. But the more I think about it, the less I care about that aspect of the story. Sure, it would be great if they did it. But it’s not going to make me suddenly think Al Franken, Janeane Garafolo, and Randi Rhodes are nice people. I’m not going to give them a pass because their company did the right thing.

I just want to know where my money went. We gave $480,000 to a Boys and Girls Club that stupidly decided to loan it to Air America. That’s not Air America’s fault. But now that they have the money, what happened to it? Is Evan Cohen responsible for paying the money back? Did Piquant assume the loan when it took over Air America? If not, who did? Who is responsible for making sure the Boys and Girls Club gets my (and your) money?

While an investigation is still ongoing, and not all details are known at this time, it’s clear that Air America radio benefitted from $480,000 in federal grant money meant for a Boys and Girls Club in New York.

While the Gotham Gazette says the motives were pure from the Boys and Girls Club standpoint (they were hoping to get more money back in interest), it wasn’t the brightest thing in the world to do (you really want to loan a half-million dollars to an entity that by its own estimates won’t turn a profit for another two years?).

And the black eye for Air America is how Michelle Malkin and guys like Brian Maloney can point out these funds were supposed to benefit the very people Air America champions.

There’s one thing Air America could do to show that the actions of Evan Cohen (who no longer works for Air America) are not reflective of who’s in charge now, and that’s to pay back the $480,000 in full, with interest. Perhaps they’ve already done that and they’re not making a big deal about it. If so, bad p.r. move on their part. This story is now out, and Air America should distance itself from those responsible for this bad decision.

And here’s the response from Air America:

“On MAY 24, 2004 the newly formed PIQUANT LLC acquired the principal assets of AIR AMERICA RADIO from the prior ownership entities. PIQUANT has owned and operated AIR AMERICA RADIO since that time. The company that had run AIR AMERICA RADIO till then no longer had anything to do with the network.

“PIQUANT had no involvement whatsoever with funds from GLORIA WISE BOYS & GIRLS CLUB. PIQUANT neither received nor expended any of the sums that are the subject of the City’s investigation of the CLUB.

“PIQUANT is not being investigated by the City, which is investigating a transaction that took place before PIQUANT existed.”

Okay, so Air America is saying that this all falls on Evan Cohen. But if that’s the case, then where did the money go? This story indicates when Piquant bought (or more accurately, restructured the old company) Air America, it assumed all of it’s assests. Presumably, Piquant assumed all the liabilities as well (including the $480,000 loan). Presumably, that means Piquant is paying off that loan. But the statement by Air America indicates to me that it has had nothing to do with the money, and presumably isn’t paying the loan. I hope Air America and Piquant can clarify this.

So what do you do if you’re a parent and get the following email from your first grader’s teacher?

Hello,

George had a pretty good day. He was not sent back to his desk. At lunch time he was pretending to play with guns with another student. We have talked previously about not playing violent games and not pretending to have guns.

George stopped after I spoke to him about it. He is writing a silly book that you’ll get to see on Thursday!

Do you call the teacher and say “thank you thank you THANK YOU for stopping my child from playing ‘violent games’!”

Do you call the teacher and say “what type of of ‘violent game’ was George playing? Was he playing cops and robbers? Was he the cop? And can you have a ‘violent game’ when you’re not actually doing anything other than holding your index finger and thumb as if it were a pistol?”

Or do you say “Good gravy, woman! What the *bleep* is wrong with you??”

I’m somewhere between #2 and #3. And yes, this is a real email. George’s father will be on the show today at 5:20 Eastern to talk about it.

Well, I figured out what my non-committal wedding vow would be.

“Til you tell your friend she and her family can sleep at our house without asking me first.”

Actually, I’m fairly easy going, and I like Elaine’s friend (and the rest of the family as well) so it wasn’t a big deal at all.

I am still going to milk the fact that she didn’t talk to me about it first for all it’s worth, however. I might be able to turn this into an upgrade for one of my birthday presents.

account fast savings payday loanpay day loans aceloans schopol acsmortgage and loan actionadd to a loan bill calendargrants adoption loansadvance arrested fee loan fraudstershome mortgage advice loan Map

(and yes, I am considering a book of my own, and no, the title is not “Hug a Liberal, Then Knee Him in the Groin).

Jonah Goldberg links to this story about couples changing their wedding vows from the traditional “til death do us part” to things like “For as long as our love shall last”.

It’s a shame (and a sham) to make a temporary vow like that. I honestly can’t remember my vow to the lovely Elaine (when it came time for me to recite the vow I had written, I forgot it and made up something on the spot. Yes, she still reminds me of that every now and then), but I’m reasonably certain it didn’t contain an expiration date.

Jonah’s posted some of his suggestions. I’d love to hear yours as well.

I’m busy working on my book (tentative title: Hug A Liberal, Then Knee Him In the Groin) so blogging might be a little light today.

Back soon.

I’m interviewing Bernard Goldberg on the show tomorrow, and I’ve been reading his new book over the weekend.

Yes, unlike Matt Lauer (and Jeff Jarvis, apparently), I do try and read at least SOME of what the guest has written.

I like Jeff Jarvis. I don’t always agree with him, but generally speaking I think he’s a good voice to have around. But this statement in the post above just kills me.

I didn’t read the book. I said so here before the show. I did go looking for it but on short notice didn’t have time to read it if I had. I read articles and posts about it and the summary sent over by the show’s producers. And I will also say that I wasn’t sure I wanted to add one more notch in the book’s bestseller count (see below).

A little bit later Jarvis says:

Linda and I were in the same studio, on the same couch (though we weren’t supposed to acknowledge that; we were on separate cameras). I talked to her before the show and saw her notes preparing for the talk. She was going to engage Goldberg on his terms, on his list, and throw out her own nominees. That’s how she started: She wanted Rush Limbaugh on the list, which was also her way of pointing out that Bernie had nothing but liberals on his list. That’s a perfectly legitimate way to discuss the book. But this quickly devolved into shouting, with Bernie yelling at Linda to “shut up.”

Having read this book, it’s true that there are a lot of liberals in there. It makes sense when you consider a conservative wrote this entirely subjective list about who is trying to screw up this country.

But that doesn’t mean the entire list is populated by liberal. I doubt Ken Lay is a liberal. I doubt Dennis Koslowski of Tyco infamy is a liberal. I have my suspicions about Michael Savage, but he certainly plays a firebreathing conservative on the radio. And he’s on Goldberg’s list.

No one’s going to agree with every name on Goldberg’s list, just as they’re not going to agree with YOUR list.

And here’s where I really part ways with Jeff Jarvis.

Oh, there are plenty of people on Goldberg’s list he and I would agree to disagree with. But I think that most of them are sincere and are not bad people out to “screw up America”. Michael Moore behaves badly but he’s sincere. Noam Chomsky has inane opinions but he’s every bit as sincere as Bernie Goldberg.. oh, is he.

They disagree. We can debate their disagreements. That is the very essence, again, of what makes America great. That is why America is not screwed up.

It would be all too easy to go down the 1930’s Germany route when talking about people who were sincere in their screwed up beliefs, but I really don’t want to invoke Godwin’s law.

Instead, I’ll just point out three of Goldberg’s list who are awfully sincere. In my opinion, despite their sincerity, they’re all screwing up this country.

The Earth Liberation Front

James Kopp (the guy who shot and killed a Buffalo, NY abortion provider)

David Duke

Sincerity doesn’t mean you get a free pass on your ignorance or your malevolence.

As for the notion that

“Michael Moore behaves badly but he’s sincere. Noam Chomsky has inane opinions but he’s every bit as sincere as Bernie Goldberg.. oh, is he.

They disagree. We can debate their disagreements. That is the very essence, again, of what makes America great. That is why America is not screwed up.

You know, both Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky have been arguing for some time now that America is a horrible, wretched place. It seems kind of funny to use them as examples of why this country isn’t screwed up.

America’s the greatest country on earth. No place I would rather live than right here. But if you don’t think we could be better, you’re crazy. Of course there are people who are screwing up America. The Kossites or Kossacks or whatever you call them say it’s President Bush screwing up America. The Brady Campaign says the NRA is screwing up America. Howard Dean says Republicans in general are screwing up America.

Both sides find fault with each other. It’s human nature. This book is just one guy (one largely conservative guy) and his take on who, in his opinion, is screwing up this country. Your mileage may vary.

Now, having said that, here’s my nutshell review. This is my least favorite Bernard Goldberg book. I love “Bias” and “Arrogance”. This is a clear step down from those two. It feels somewhat forced, and the entries themselves are relatively short (one or two pages for each person). What is interesting to me are the number of people on “the list” who I had never heard of.

Kerri Dunn, Todd Goldman, Sheldon Hackney, and Linda Hirshman are just a few of the unfamiliar names to me. And Goldberg does a pretty good job of laying the case for each one.

I wish the book were a bit longer (not necessarily more people, just more background on each), but that’s my chief complaint. If “Bias” and “Arrogance” are 9.9’s on a scale of 1-10, “100 People…” is probably an 8.

New York City police say they will now begin randomly checking the bags of people using the city’s subway system. And New Yorkers are reacting. One of them is acting like a fool, in my opinion.

In a few outraged moments, local immigrant rights activist Tony Lu designed t-shirts bearing the text, “i do not consent to being searched.” The minimalist protest-wear can be purchased here, in various styles and sizes. (Lu will not get a cut. The shirts’ manufacture, sale, and shipment, will be handled by the online retailer. Lu encourages budget-conscious New Yorkers to make their own and wear them everywhere.)

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly had announced the legally obvious—that New Yorkers are free to decline a search and “turn around and leave.” But Lu, who is a lawyer at Urban Justice Center, warned that even well-intentioned cops could interpret people’s natural nervousness or anger as “reasonable suspicion.” The possibility of unjustified interrogation and even arrest is real, Lu said.

Although police promised they would not engage in racial profiling, Lu said that, as with all street-level policing, people of color and poor immigrants would be particularly vulnerable, especially if encounters lead to arrests.

First of all, why won’t police engage in a little racial profiling? Look at the London terrorists. Look at the 9/11 terrorists. As a friend of mine recently said: “Al Queda is not a Benetton ad.” Yes, we’ve seen Richard Reid. Yes, we’ve seen John Walker Lindh. Yes, we’ve seen Jose Padilla. You cannot ignore the fact that Al Queda would love to use people of both sexes and every color to blow us up. But they’ve got a fairly small pool of non-Arab members. Can we not at least recognize that?

Now, onto Mr. Lu. It sucks to have your bag searched. But there is one way to avoid it. Don’t take the subway or bus. Take a cab. Walk. Buy a Segway. Ride a bike. If you don’t consent to being searched, fine. But I don’t consent to being blown up.

Is this a loss of civil liberty? I don’t think so. We already have our bags checked at airports. What’s the difference between a plane and a train? We know they’re both terrorist targets.

I’m not opposed in theory to the idea of random bag checks on public transportation. I’m opposed to the practice of random bag checks on public transportation without using common sense, and I’m afraid that right now the common sense is lacking from this idea.

Homer at Smackmybooty is calling me out for failing to write about Rove.

As I noted last week, I really don’t like it when others decide I should be writing about something, but I suppose I really haven’t talked about Rove on the blog, so here it is.

First, what I told Homer:

I’ve fallen into the bad habit of talking about it on the show and not blogging about it. When I talk about something on the show sometimes I lose my steam when it comes time to sit and write. I’ve already gotten what I needed to say off my chest, so I write about something else.

But, just so you know, I think that if Rove or Libby or anyone else violated the law, they should be fired.

As it stands now, we’re getting a lot of anonymous sourcing from a double talking press. On the pages of the WaPo and the NYTimes they seem ready to indict Rove, but in their court filings they say he committed no crime. I’ll fully withold judgement until I can hear from the prosecutor, but from what I’ve read I think Rove was warning reporters not to buy into what Wilson was saying, not maliciously trying to out a CIA agent.

I just don’t know enough about the story (and really, none of us do) to talk about this in an informed way. I’m sure I’m coming off as either a Rove apologist or a fence-straddler, but all we have to go on right now are the anonymous sources and spin from either side. That’s not enough for me to make up my mind.

For a great example, here’s today’s “Rovegate” story from the Washington Post.

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked “(S)” for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

Not until paragraph 12 do you get this statement.

Karl Rove, President Bush’s deputy chief of staff, has testified that he learned Plame’s name from Novak a few days before telling another reporter she worked at the CIA and played a role in her husband’s mission, according to a lawyer familiar with Rove’s account. Rove has also testified that the first time he saw the State Department memo was when “people in the special prosecutor’s office” showed it to him, said Robert Luskin, his attorney.

“He had not seen it or heard about it before that time,” Luskin said.

Now maybe Rove lied (perjury!!), or maybe Luskin’s lying. Or maybe they’re telling the truth. We don’t know right now.

Then there’s this.

Howard Kurtz writes today that the media were “spun silly” by anonymous sources hinting that Edith Clement would be the nominee. As Rich Lowry pointed out on the Corner yesterday, the incorrect information “worked out ‘perfectly.’ It embedded the idea that Bush had seriously considered a woman; it helped raise the level of interest and speculation all day long; and it wrong-footed the press.”

Now, Kurtz reports that reporters are angry about it, but they can’t hold anyone accountable because they promised their sources anonymity. Oh boo hoo. When are journalists going to wake up to the fact that anonymity just allows government officials to spin them, use them, and laugh when they get it wrong? And now they want a national shield law to protect this farce?

Anonymous sources leading reporters on a wild goose chase. By my count, there are at least 9 citings of anonymous sources in the Washington Post story above. Are they all telling the truth? Are they spinning for their own purposes? We have no idea.

And so those who believe Rove is a mind-controlling demon from the 9th circle of Hell will believe of course he’s lying. And those who believe Rove is the patron saint of Republican politics will believe he’s absolutely telling the truth.

And I’ll wait for the special prosecutor to finish his investigation. I’m an American before I’m a Republican, so if anybody broke the law, then they should be punished. As for any possible unethical behavior, based only on what we know now, I’d say Joe Wilson’s behavior far and away has been less ethical than that of Mr. Rove.

**Update**

Just a couple of more points. I said in the comments over at SMB

The fact is I’m probably more predisposed to believe Karl Rove because of my political ideology. You’re [Homer, one of Jake’s commentators] probably more predisposed to disbelieve Karl Rove because of your political ideology. But I don’t see much point in devoting a lot of brain cells to a story that cannot be fully told right now. When all the facts are available I’ll examine them (and THEN come up with a rationale as to why Rove should be canonized, hehe).

I’m just being honest here. I probably AM predisposed to believing Karl Rove on this. But that doesn’t mean I’m the only one (or even part of the only side) relying on their predisposition. It’s happening all over the place, in every political story these days.

Point #2: I won’t always talk about the story of the day. I haven’t posted about the bombings in London today. Haven’t posted but one entry on Karl Rove before today. I never posted anything on Terri Schiavo in the weeks before her death (Farrah had one post). If you’re looking for a blog that’s always going to be talking about the big stories, this isn’t it. The good news is there are plenty of blogs that do talk about the big stories of the day. My feelings will not be hurt if you visit them as well.

The Kelo decision is raising its ugly head in Arlington, Texas. And I knew there was a reason I didn’t like the Dallas Cowboys.

Meanwhile, 11 people have died from the heat in Phoenix. Newsflash to Farrah: you live in the bleepin’ desert. Time to move.

How will the Democrats handle Judge Roberts? A story a few weeks ago in the Washington Post might give us some clues.

Democrats signaled that whoever the nominee is, their three likely lines of attack will be to assert the White House did not consult them sufficiently, then paint the nominee as ideologically extreme and finally assert that the Senate had not received sufficient documents about the candidate. But Senate Democratic aides said they will focus for now on bipartisan consultation and not publicly prejudge the nominee.

President Bush has effectively cut the Democrats off at the knees on their first line of attack. He personally consulted at least 60 U.S. Senators before making his pick.

It’s also going to be awfully hard to paint Roberts as ideologically extreme when they confirmed him to his current job by a 99-0 vote.

So that leaves the third option: stalling. It took President Clinton an average of 58 days to get his nominees confirmed. Anything beyond that is unacceptable. The Democrats need to tread very carefully on this. A majority of the people want a more conservative court, and if they’re seen as the party of obstruction, voters will remember. Mid-term elections will be coming up 13 months after the Supreme Court convenes for its fall session.

President Bush nominates Justice John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court. Haven’t dug up any of his decisions relating to the 2nd Amendment, but this comment is heartening.

President Bush certainly came through for judicial conservatives tonight. Roberts is a solid originalist/textualist, and he will make for an incredible justice.

More to come.

**Update**

Roberts’ wife serves on the board of “Feminists for Life”, a pro-life organization (as opposed to a lifelong feminist group, I suppose).

Bench Memos and Confirm Them both seem very pleased with the pick.

Democrats on the other hand….

“Who knows about this guy?” - Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.

Well, supposedly you do, Senator. Unless you were the one person abstaining from his confirmation to his current job… you voted for him.

I’m moving back to Oklahoma.

Why didn’t anybody tell me you guys had Steak ‘n’ Shakes now?

Scary story in the American School Board Journal about an administrator who decided there was just too much competition in the schools. So she got rid of it.

Recently I saw a first-grade teacher hold up a construction paper cutout of the letter M. “Look, boys and girls,” the teacher gushed. “Madison cut straight on the lines and then she glued on glitter to make her letter shiny. Madison wins a place on our star board.” The principal smiled and saw nothing wrong.

That’s because there is nothing wrong. Sheesh.

hat tip to Joanne Jacobs.

I see Moveon.org is using a Photoshop done by our local liberal Steve.

It’s a nice photoshop, although Rove is a bit heftier than the subject. I think he also dresses better.

J.K. Rowling says she’s dreading ending Harry Potter. I understand. There are going to be people seriously freaking out after the last book comes out.

At the same time, I don’t really want to read about a 20-something Harry Potter and his friends Ron and Hermione hanging out in the wizards version of Starbucks, bitching about their jobs and where they live.

Yes, I’m a Harry Potter geek. Bought the book at midnight (from our local grocery store.. no lines!). Read the book on the way to New Jersey on Saturday. You want my review, just read the extended entry. Keep in mind, there are some spoilers below.
Read More »

Mark your calendars for August 8th, and be sure to set your alarm clock. I’ll be filling in for Reid Mullins on KTOK in the mornings from August 8th through 12th.

Thanks to Reid and Mike McCarville for giving me the chance to hang out on KTOK again. It’s going to fun to talk with you guys again.

Ed over at Captain’s Quarters says the French are lying about the London bombing.
From the NYTimes:

In an interview with Le Monde that appeared on the newsstands last Monday afternoon - two days after the exceptionally open briefing - [French antiterrorism coordinator Christophe] Chaboud announced to the world that he knew “the nature of the explosives” used in the London bombings.
It “appears to be military, which is very worrisome,” he said, adding: “We’re more used to cells making homemade explosives from chemical substances. How did they get them? Either by trafficking, for example, in the Balkans, or they had someone on the inside who enabled them to get them out of a military base.”

But Mr. Chaboud did not stop with his assessments of the explosives and their origins, which, it turned out, were completely wrong. He plunged into politics, railing at the British with an I-told-you-so air that Europe was a more dangerous place because of the war in Iraq.

Ed says:

If nothing else, this proves that we cannot rely on the French for assistance in the war on terror. They have no concept of the seriousness of the conflict or its nature, and now it looks like the French have lost what little honor they have left. The Chirac government, on the verge of being chased out of office by a highly discontented electorate, has settled for a survival strategy of damaging its putative allies for a brief moment of self-centered exploitation of Brit-hatred. Western governments should start protecting their interests by isolating France as quickly as possible, diplomatically, economically, and militarily. Perhaps that might provide a lesson for the current French regime about their empty fantasies of diplomatic domination.

So who’s stupid enough in Washington to hang around with the French?

These people.

Hillary Clinton, the newly-minted “moderate” is going to be hanging out with the anti-gun Brady Campaign at the French Embassy in September.

Not good form, Senator. You want to get tough on terrorists? Quit hanging out with those who refuse to take the threat seriously.

I notice Mayor Bloomberg in New York City is apparently too busy to take a stand against the International Freedom Center at Ground Zero in Manhattan. The only comment I’ve been able to find from him about the project is this.

Mayor Bloomberg said the city is still struggling to find the right balance between remembrance and rebuilding. “There were 2,800 people that died. We have to do something in their memory. We don’t want to forget them. We also have to build in their honor so that they didn’t die in vain,” he said.

So what’s keeping the mayor so busy? Brokering baseball trades, among other things.

So glad to see he has his priorities in order.

When Bruno Filippelli turned in a rifle at a gun “buyback” in West Palm Beach, he created quite a stir in the community. See, the rifle that he turned in was a rare WWII Japanese pressure test rifle. And when he found out about the real value of the gun (which is worth considerably more than the $75 Target gift card he received), he wanted the gun back.

And the police said no.

From a Palm Beach Post story on Friday:

Police still need to determine if it is authentic
and then donate it to an interested museum or
destroy it with the others in the near future,
said West Palm Beach police Lt. Chuck Reed,
adding that a museum has contacted the department in reference to the gun.

Either way, police will not return the gun to
Filippelli, said Reed, adding that returning it
would defeat the purpose of the program, which was to get guns off the street.

“No matter the value of any of the guns, we’re
not going to resell any of them,” he said.

Well, as you can imagine, there was a great deal of public outcry after the story ran, and now Mr. Filippelli has his rifle back. But the original story is gone from the website of the Palm Beach Post, and instead, you get this story.

The quote by Lt. Reed is gone, as is this little gem.

The controversy over the rare gun erupted when a
picture of Filippelli turning over the rifle
appeared in the Sunday edition of The Palm Beach
Post. A Palm Beach police officer recognized the
rare rifle, researched the gun and then delivered
the bad news to Filippelli Wednesday.

“He told me, ‘If I was you, I never would have
turned it in,’ ” Filippelli said.

Pretty good advice, but it’s gone from the website.

The BBC gets raked over the coals every time they do something like this, so I thought I’d point out that it’s not just that news agency that does it. If it weren’t for the fact that the original story was emailed to me on Friday, I’d have no way of getting those quotes.

I don’t like it when stories get changed like this. You have new information? Fine. Write a new story. But simply deleting the old one and replacing it with a newer version is just a little creepy to me.

Congrats to blogger and talk show host Joe Kelley, who (from what I hear) is stepping in to replace John Ehrling at KRMG in Tulsa. Joe’s blog is The Sake of Argument. I know he’ll do a great job in Tulsa.