I hope that Elizabeth kicks him in the junk. Hard.

And I don't care if conservatives get to chortle over it.

That is all.

From bromances and man caves to make-up tips for guys. We're doomed. Here's Lileks on Wednesday: "It’s hilarious, really – the culture touts makeup for men and the concept of “boy beauty” as applied to Pete Frickin’ Wentz, and then wonders where the "real men” have gone. It’s like putting an atonal opera on the stereo, turning it up to 10 and wondering where all the music lovers went. It’s not that they vanished; it’s just that they don’t want to hang around with you anymore."

Those hacks at America's Got Talent sent speed brick-breaker Kevin Taylor home tonight, but they put some lame magicians and a couple of derivative drag impersonators through. Mind you, Taylor smashed huge stacks of concrete blocks with his head. Well, one talent-show's loss should be America's gain. Check out Taylor's website and be on the look out for the man. He's amazing -- a true talent.

Unemployment can be dicey, but at least I'm not this Oregon man. "A nude sunbather was arrested for attacking a dog owner with a baton on a local beach," reports KGW News. Check out the mug shot. The sight of a naked 74-year-old man charging with a baton and a can of mace would certainly put the fear of God in me.

Say no to poisonous policy!

We just had an earthquake here in the Los Angeles area. Preliminary data says it hit 5.8 on the Richter Scale. It was a pretty good shake -- especially from the top floor of a 6-story building in West LA.

The epicenter was apparently Chino Hills, south of Pomona -- to the east of downtown LA.

It's the first significant earthquake I've felt in the three years I've lived in SoCal. And, to be honest, my building was swaying so much I'm still kinda dizzy.

My friend and collaborator Joel Mathis will soon begin a new job as the online editor of Philadelphia Weekly. As I was perusing the site, I discovered a column I wish I'd known about a long time ago. Hell, I'm kicking myself for not dreaming up the idea myself.

Ladies and gentlemen, The Angry Grammarian. This week's feature: "Words we miss." A sample: "'Cunctation' comes up just once on Google Blog Search in the last month; 'cunctative,' not at all. Their similar-sounding vulgar cousin? 157,402 times. Something’s wrong there." Just so! Fine stuff.

As anxious as I am about obtaining paying work, I'm still much better off than this guy. The Reuters headline almost says it all: "Underwear chicken dare puts man in hospital." Almost.

(Hat tip: Banjo Man)

James Lileks today (or is it tomorrow?):

Martin Cruz Smith is good. The opening lines of the book hit me where I live: “It was two in the morning, an hour that was both early and late. Two a.m. was a world to itself.” I know two AM very well; we’re old friends. One AM is for amateurs; three AM is the stoop of hell. If there’s any time in which you can imagine discovering a short flight of stairs that go down to a red door that leads to all the bad things you dreamed about, it’s three AM. But two AM is the deep breath, the place between then and next. It’s the new midnight.

One of the advantages of unemployment -- and there are a few, but only a few -- is that I can fully embrace my night-owl tendencies. I routinely turn in around 2 a.m. and get up around 8 a.m. (Sometimes 9 a.m.) My very best time was my sophomore year in college, when I arranged my schedule so that I had no classes before 2 p.m. That way, I could stay up until 5 a.m. and sleep until noon or so. And what would I do in those hours? Why, in those gray days before the World Wide Web and blogs, YouTube, Twitter and the rest, I would read books.

I still read books, but not as many. I love the night, though. The day doesn't end until I go to sleep, and it doesn't begin until I tumble out of the sack and slurp down the first cup of coffee. Trudging to bed at 2 a.m. is the perfect end to frequently imperfect days.

I just wanted to extend a welcome to our newest registered members: ExurbanJon, ROFLcopterLOL, cynomolgus macaque, Le Singe, chiggy, and Wry Mouth.

Welcome all!

I'd like to wish all the Monkeys a happy Independence Day -- is that the right greeting? -- and thank you for letting me come play in these parts.

We disagree about a few things around here. But I suspect those disagreements are grounded in a similar love of this country and its founding ideals, as represented in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We're terribly fortunate to live in a country with such ideals, and it's our responsibility to ensure that the country and the ideals are passed to future generations in relatively decent shape. I like to think our disagreements are, in fact, part of how we do that.

Again: Happy Independence Day!

Bad news for Monkey Ben. He owns a home in that blazing hell called Southern California's "Inland Empire." And according to LA Times real estate blogger Peter Viles, the whole region is turning into a big ghost town.

Over the last 12 months, median home prices have dropped 33.6 percent in Corona and 30.3 percent in Ontario. In Corona, where I was considering buying a house in 2006, the median sales prices fell $200,000 from May 2007 to May 2008. I really dodged a bullet there.

The market is so bad in the IE that one apparently can't even hire decent home-selling help these days.

"The homes all appeared to be empty, and there were no prospective buyers anywhere to be found. Surprisingly, the sales office was open ... but the woman working there had questionable English fluency. When asked how many homes had been sold in the past month she simply responded, 'Uh huh. Thank you. Yes!' and handed us some additional literature on the property."

Ugh. Last one out be sure to turn out the light.

The Atomizer misunderstands the Summer of Gin:

Atomizer Sez: What?! Alcohol has seasons now??!! Nonsense, I declare!!!! Drink what you like when you like...period.

The point, of course, is not to dictate that only gin could be imbibed (how un-American!) but to suggest that this summer, gin would be an excellent choice--and if you haven't been drinking it (not a problem for a gin-soaked boozer like the Atomizer) you should try it...

I think he's just bitter that it's still 42 degrees in Minnesota. I suggest a nice aged rum by the fire...

(Hat tip: Scrubbles.)

A culinary genius leaves us.

Remember, back in January, when Bill Clinton was whining in South Carolina about the press going to easy on Obama — not subjecting him to the scrutiny the media has inflicted on Hillary? I'm beginning to think he had a point. Clinton was talking about then about what we all know about now: Obama's pastor disaster.

It goes without saying that the Clinton Machine's opposition research department is without peer. They knew all about Jeremiah Wright's insane, divisive, anti-American sermons and how they could (and should) sink Obama's candidacy. But think about the pickle the Clinton camp was in.

They couldn't bring this up — not even through surrogates. Look how well Bill Shaheen's allusions to how "Republicans" would soon be bringing up Obama's admitted drug use. The co-chair of Hillary's New Hampshire effort was sacked 24 hours later. No. That episode, and even Bill's relatively gentle South Carolina complaint that Obama's anti-war stance and idea that he's got the experience to be president were "a fairy tale" brought down universal scorn and hurt Hillary. In a Democratic primary, where courting black votes is vital, you cannot be seen as attacking a black candidate.

So the Clinton Camp, knowing full well of Obama's No. 1 liability, could say nothing. It would have to be up to the press to reveal this stuff. They did, of course, but too late. Obama already has the nomination. And now the scandal is poised to torpedo the Democrats' chance to end the Republican Terror.

Imagine how different the race for the White House would be today if Democratic voters had a chance to absorb Obama's liabilities before he was crowned. In fact, only after Obama has moved out to an insurmountable lead has any scrutiny been applied to the young senator. And more damaging things will be coming.

So, just this once, I almost feel sorry for the Clintons. They were right.

Cross-posted at RedBlueAmerica (please visit, and comment if you feel so moved).

Obama's very-late coming denunciation of the his racist, deranged "spiritual mentor" and "moral guide", Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is pretty slick. So it warrants a good parsing.

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy.

Ok. What about when other deplorable, hateful statements are made public? Are we going to go through the dance of statement/denouncement ad infinitum? If so, that's going to be one long song.

I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies.

Fine. Great. But it is simply inconceivable that Wright's statements that "disparage our great country" were rare. Merely the passion in Wright's voice makes that clear. So why stick around, Obama, if this was common and you "categorically denounce" it?

I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit.

But Wright's M.O. was hardly to denounce individuals -- though we can guess that Bush earned the dishonor. Wright denounced whole groups of people -- whites, middle-class people, the "rich," Israel, and "sell-out" blacks. So, that sentence is pretty worthless.

In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

Again, Obama qualifies -- which leaves the presumption, for now, that other statements that have not yet made the YouTube parade are OK.

It's a congregation that does not merely preach social justice but acts it out each day, through ministries ranging from housing the homeless to reaching out to those with HIV/AIDS.

Which reminds me. Wright thinks the racist, white power structure of the United States invented AIDS to kill black people. Do you agree, Mr. Obama?

In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he's been my pastor.

If Wright has never been your political advisor, why have you consulted him before every political move in your career?

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.

This is simply not believable. Every time Wright went off the deep end, Obama was not present? Did he not talk to other congregates over post-service coffee and donuts about what he might have missed? But, yet again, we hear Obama qualifying about the statements that are "the cause of this controversy." What happens when other comments come up?

But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, ...

What the hell does Wright's imminent retirement have to do with what he has said for years? Completely irrelevant.

There is a part of me that almost feels sorry for Obama. I have the feeling that he joined the influential church -- so influential that it counts Oprah herself as a member -- to boost his political fortunes when he was just getting started in his career. It is certainly a smart political launching point as a black politician in Chicago, as long as your aspirations remain relatively small time. Even members of Congress can get away with this kind of affiliation.

But Obama is now in the Big Time. He wants to be president of all the people. And Obama's spiritual mentor sees a bitter, racially divided America. Obama is now learning the dangers of picking racist, hateful friends and "spiritual mentors." And the Democratic party is going to learn the dangers of picking this man as their nominee.

[Cross-posted at RedBlueAmerica.com]

John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. And now questions are arising as to whether he is constitutionally eligible to serve as president of the United States.

The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.

McCain's likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a "natural-born citizen" can hold the nation's highest office.

I don't think this is a hard call. McCain's parents, after all, were in Panama on assignment from their own government. And the "canal zone" was, technically, U.S. territory -- like being born of a diplomat in the conservatory of an embassy. But McCain's got his best legal mind -- Ted Olsen -- on the case.

As McCain ally Sen. Lindsay Graham put it:

"He was posted there on orders from the United States government," Graham said of McCain's father. "If that becomes a problem, we need to tell every military family that your kid can't be president if they take an overseas assignment."

Exactly. The Gore team tried to invalidate the votes of overseas military personnel in Florida in 2000. I don't think an attempt to invalidate a military candidate would go over very well.

Just another attempt by The New York Times to stir up trouble -- for a Republican.

By the time you read this, the latest great BlackBerry panic might already be over. Apparently, all BlackBerry devices, regardless of carrier, went ... well ... black for several hours on Monday -- leaving some 12 million thumb-tapping addicts nervously tapping their fingers on their kneecaps.

I don't own a BlackBerry. Indeed, I haven't even had a cell phone since the one I had at a previous job was turned in upon leaving said job. So I can't really relate to quotes such as this:

"Everyone's in crisis because they're all picking away at their BlackBerrys and nothing's happening," Turner said. "It's almost like cutting the phone cables or a total collapse in telegraph lines a century ago. It just isolates people in a way that's quite phenomenal."

Isolated? Um ... the phone still works, right? Remember when you used to actually talk to people?

Then there's this:

"I cannot believe this happened again," [a guy quoted in the story] said as he got off a plane. "I'm on the road 300 days a year. My entire life is in my BlackBerry -- my family life, my professional life, my emotional life, everything. ... They're not allowed to do this to me."

Actually, "they" are. Uninterrupted BlackBerry service isn't an entitlement in the United States -- yet.

Regardless, I think it might be time to reassess your priorities when you find yourself saying that your "entire life" -- even your "emotional life" -- depends on a BlackBerry. But I guess they don't call them "CrackBerries" for nothing.

[cross-posted at RedBlueAmerica]

Well, I'd hoped to write more, but it's Super Tuesday already! So, here are five quick reasons to vote for Ron Paul today:

1. Fiscal responsibility - No other candidate has a 20-year record of extreme fiscal responsibility in governance.
2. Taxes - No other candidate wants to eliminate the IRS and replace it with - NOTHING! Paul has rightly pointed out that if Income Tax were ended TOMORROW we could still fully fund the 1997 budget.
3. Constitutional government - They call him "Dr. No" because he has consistently voted "No" on any resolution that was not clearly called for in the Constitution. Let's turn "Dr. No" into "President Veto."
4. Personal liberty - Whether it's the right to own a gun or the freedom from government spying and prying, Ron Paul is the strongest advocate of personal liberty running for President.
5. Responsible foreign policy - End the war in Iraq. Bring back most or all troops stationed abroad. Defend our homeland strongly. Fight terrorism without nation building.

Five more, with a side of snark:

1. He's not John McCain - 'nuff said
2. He's not Mitt Romney - Back-and-forth on abortion and universal health care, calling taxes "fees" and pretending they're okay, wants to "double Guantanamo" - Does anyone even know what this guy believes? Does he?
3. He's not Mike Huckabee - "Tax Hike Mike" may be a nice, moral guy, but he wouldn't know the constitution if someone folded it up and stuck it in his bible.
4. The primary/caucus is a great time to vote on principle and tell the Republicans that big-government conservatism is an oxymoron.
5. Wouldn't it be great to be free again?

Okay - it's time to vote. Take another look at Paul's Issues page and head to your polling place.

[cross-posted at RedBlueAmerica]

[cross-posted at RedBlueAmerica]

After watching last week's debate, a friend and I were amused about how Romney and McCain were both quick to claim really stupid things as qualifications for the Presidency. Romney cited his "oversight" of Boston's "Big Dig" as executive experience. Really? No, really. One of the biggest, latest, most overbudget bureaucratic boondoggles EVER and Romney wants a merit badge for it. McCain followed that up by saying that he was qualified to lead on immigration issues because he comes from a border state. Never mind that the Arizona border is pretty much completely porous, somehow he'll be able to solve the problem when he's elected.

I wondered aloud how McCain could have become the primary delegate leader, to which my friend responded, "Because grown adults still seem to want a daddy figure?"

This got me thinking. All of the candidates have traits of stereotypical grownups:

Daddy Mitt: Cold, disaffected, pretending to be in control. Completely incapable of having a meaningful conversation with his children.
Mommy John: Emotional, moody, protective, smothering. You can't reason with him when he makes his mind up about something.
Uncle Ron: Look, your parents mean well, but Uncle Ron tells it like it is: Think for yourself, and don't let the bastards get you down.
Pastor Mike: The bible says submit to your parents - unless they contradict the bible. And the bible says you should come to church all the time and give me your money.

[cross-posted at RedBlueAmerica]

According to FEC data for the last quarter of 2007, Ron Paul has more financial support from military donors (both amount of donations and number of donors) than all three remaining Republican candidates combined. And he almost has as much as all five candidates (Republican and Democrat) combined.

Read testimonials from his military supporters here. Click on the names to read (or, in some cases, watch a YouTube video by) the individuals endorsing him.

This is pretty interesting - John McCain likes to portray himself as the military's "go-to" guy, but when it comes time to write a check to support a candidate, they seem to flock to the OTHER Republican who served in the military: Ron Paul.

Read Dr. Paul's position statements on National Defense, Veterans, the Iraq War, and War & Foreign Policy to learn more about why soldiers and veterans support him.

This might be the new normal level of excitement at your friendly neighborhood anti-war protest if the latest spate of positive news out of Iraq keeps up. (Caption: "[Yawn] Hey, Jessica, that's a great scarf." "Thanks, Louise. Why don't we get out of here and grab some coffee.")

Courtesy of WSJ's Best of the Web.

From the BBC, hardly an Iraq war cheerleader:

Iraq faces a period of economic growth and political progress, according to assessments by the International Monetary Fund and the UN.

The IMF sees 7% growth in 2008 and a similar rise next year, and says oil revenues from buoyant exports should be up by 200,000 barrels a day.

The UN envoy to Iraq welcomed dialogue between the Sunni and Shia communities and praised the government's work.

Investors, call your brokers, and get in on the ground floor of the reconstruction! Yes, yes. "Analysts warn" that we need to see rapid progress in the next six to 12 months -- but that's what analysts do. They issue warnings, qualifications, and other such hedge-talk so they don't look foolish months hence. Always easier to be happily surprised than to be wiping egg of your face.

Then we see Reuters, called al-Reuters by some critics, finding it hard to downplay the positive developments in Iraq. Of course, they are a news service -- and it's big news when a U.N. envoy starts making happy noises about the prospects of a free, democratic and reconstructed Iraq.

U.N. envoy Staffan de Mistura said the passing of a key law allowing former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party to return to government jobs had changed what had been a pessimistic view of progress in a crucial year for Iraq.

"At the beginning of the year we were worried ... we were genuinely concerned by the lack of progress on national dialogue," de Mistura told Reuters by telephone.

"Today that has substantially changed. It has changed our mind from being worried or from being pessimistic," he said.

Of course, those statements, too, were couched in prudent warnings that it could all fall apart. But the bottom line is that independent watchdogs, who are on the ground in Iraq, are now beginning to counter the left's meme of endless quagmire and hopeless disaster. In fact, the words of Staffan de Mistura sound like a certain general's testimony to Congress in September. I remember that being on the news.

Will Hillary now upbraid the U.N. envoy, like she did Gen. David Petraeus, for mouthing platitudes about Iraq that require "a willing suspension of disbelief"?

... is one strange cat.

Seriously. The video at the above link -- the one the Cult of Scientology doesn't want you sub-humans to see -- simply should not be missed.

Creepy factor: Off the charts.

Some highlights from the transcript at Us Magazine:

Delusions of grandeur: "We are the authorities on getting people off drugs, we are the authorities on the mind, we are the authorities on improving conditions... we can rehabilitate criminals. ...We can bring peace and unite cultures..."

Um. Sure, Tom. Why don't you start with the hard conversion cases first -- Muslims. Let me know how that works out for you.

Tom on "helping": "It is the time now. Now is the time... Being a Scientologist, people are turning to you, so you better know it, you better know it and if you don't, go and learn it, but don't pretend you know it. It's like we're here to help."

Yes. Only here to help. Just like the aliens in "They Live!" Who's got a pair of magical sunglasses handy? Somebody scream, "It's a cookbook!"

Tom on sacrifice: "Look, I wish the world was a different place. I'd like to go on vacation and go and romp and play and just do that, you know what I mean. That's what I want it to be. There's times I'd like to do that, but I can't because I know I have to do something about it."

Right. Celebrity bazillionaires never take vacations. Thanks for your dedication. I haven't had a proper vacation to "romp and play" for seven years. And I didn't have to join a cult to not do it. Silly me.

Tom on the way to be: "I do what I can, and I do it the way I do everything. [laughs] There's nothing part-of-the way for me."

And that's the creepy part. In Tom's vision of the world, the earth (at least) is separated into those who believe in his nonsense, and those who don't. And it's clear from the language Tom uses, and the tone of the whole conversation, that he considers non-kooks to be lesser beings. Ignorant animals. Somehow not human. He certainly goes after those of his own "faith" who do not take it as seriously as he does. If he is down on them, what does he think of those who have not taken a generous quaff of the Cristal Kool-Aid?

Indeed, these excerpts barely do this whole thing justice. You have to see Tom's eerie and uncomfortable laughs. The near maniacal look on his face. His seriousness of purpose. His use of pronouns like "it" and "them" -- not to mention shorthand like SP and KSW -- that lend an air of disconcerting mystery to the whole thing.

CREEP--EEE.

It is perhaps the least-surprising news of the day (of yesterday, actually), to read that Clinton-era Secretary of State Madeleine Albright characterizes the last 7-years-and-counting of the Bush administration as one of America's "worst presidencies." Well, as a high-ranking member of the Clinton administration, Albright should be rather familiar with presidential mediocrity, or worse.

Yes, such debates on "best" and "worst" presidencies tend to be partisan and largely meaningless. One should let at least two decades pass before taking such discussions seriously. Only then can the full measure of a presidency be more objectively and thoroughly evaluated in the context of history. For instance, Eisenhower was ranked #22 by Arthur Schlesinger's group of historians in 1962, but a poll of 49 historians by the Chicago Tribune in 1982 bumped Ike up to #9. A Siena poll put Reagan at #22 in 1990, but at #16 in 2002. Conversely presidents like LBJ and Woodrow Wilson have sunk considerably in esteem over the years (see Wikipedia's chart of polls here).

What is remarkable, however, about Albright's talk at a Georgetown Barnes & Noble -- where she was promoting her book, "Memo to the President Elect: How We Can Restore America's Reputation and Leadership" -- is what she considers the most important issues facing the next president:

One of the areas Albright saw that the office of the presidency needed to improve upon was the diplomacy of 'global warming, climate change and energy issues.' She said the next president needed to do a better job of being aware of the interests of other nations.

Sigh. Let's get one thing out of the way quickly. The United States is not a slacker when it comes to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. America did not sign the Kyoto Protocol, yet "out-greened" the preening European Union countries that did. Chalk one up for an unfettered economy working to come up with cleaner energy solutions.

But what is missing from Albright's list of challenges for the next president? The threat of Islamic terrorism, anyone? Perhaps Madame Secretary mentioned the subject in her speech, but I haven't seen that reported anywhere.

If not, Albright is little different in her glaring oversight than the slate of Democratic candidates for president.

Elizabeth Holtzman tries her best at The Puffington Host to make the case for the impeachment of Vice President Richard B. Cheney. In short: No sale.

Liz is very excited because three Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee have bucked their own party line and have called for the new "Tricky Dick" to be brought up on charges of endangering the rule of law and the Republic itself.

Let's put aside the fact that in a very detailed argument about the history of impeachment she refers to Nixon copiously and not the most recent impeachment escapade involving, um, a Democrat until paragraph #9 (and then, seriously, only in passing. It's best to just get right to it.

There is little serious debate about whether Bush administration actions -- wiretapping without court approval (violating the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act), authorizing and facilitating mistreatment of detainees (violating U.S. treaties and criminal laws), starting the Iraq war on a basis of lies, exaggerations and misstatements (an abuse of power) -- meet the Constitutional standard.

There is actually quite a bit of debate about whether interpreting FISA in the way Jimmy Carter's administration did is so egregious as to warrant impeachment, let alone alarm. And they were not lies. Merely the consensus of every intelligence service in the West. We continue ...

Does the leadership defend the administration, contend [sic] that its actions are unimpeachable, or argue they don't rise to the level of abuse for which Nixon was impeached? Remarkably, no. They publicly say there is no time, and that impeachment proceedings would distract the Congress from other work and divide the country.

These arguments are laughable compared to the imperative to uphold the constitution. And even on their own terms, they are specious. Let's take them one at a time:

Nixon's impeachment united the American people. The process was bi-partisan, demonstrating this wasn't just a Democratic ploy to undo an election.

United liberals, maybe, but not "the American people." The Nixon impeachment never reached, um ... consumation because Republicans walked up Pennsylvania Avenue and told Nixon what was nigh. And Nixon had the decency to do what was best for the country, unlike a certain shameless and selfish Democrat that Holtzman would rather not name.

Currently, this value is expressing itself in grass roots impeachment movements across America. The Vermont Senate, several state Democratic parties and many municipal governments have adopted resolutions supporting impeachment

Boy. That

Yes. Let's take these one at a time. But not before laughing, again, at the obsession with the Nixon reference. And we'll dispense with the more frivolous arguments, such as an impeachment in a time of war would not be a distraction to the executive, Congress or the country. One roadblock she tries to knock out of the way is that an impeachment would "divide the country."

Kudos to Jonah Goldberg, for drawing attention to an exhaustive list of the documented religious affiliations of the superheroes of the comic book universe.

Bruce Wayne is a lapsed Catholic (and now an Episcopalian), so he's probably not saying a Hail Mary above. But Catwoman is hip with the pope.

Indeed, there's lots of Catholics on this list, including such pulp fiction heavyweights as Nightcrawler (everyone who saw the X-Men movies knew that already), Hellboy and Daredevil.

Yet there is a whole list of "whooda thunk it" Catholics, including: The X-Men's Banshee, Captain Atom, Ghost Rider and even the Blue Beetle. Indeed, the Faith of My Fathers at least in the comic book world includes the "Order of the Magic Priests." Who knew that those who pray the Rosary were so bad-ass when it comes to fighting crime?

Methodists are well represented in the earthly realm of superheroes by the greatest of them all, Superman (apparently, Methodism was the same as the Krypton religion), and by, naturally, Superboy and Supergirl, as well as Wolfsbane.

I'm not going to go on and on about every denomination. But here, in the site's estimation, are the greatest heroes per division of Christendom:

Episcopalian (non-Batman division): Invisible Girl/Woman

Protestant: Spider-Man, Captain America (of course)

Jewish: The Thing, Magneto (Ok, not exactly a good guy)

Greek Orthodox: Electra

Greco-Roman Classical Religion (we're inclusive here): Aquaman, Wonder Woman (Amazonian. Classical? Ok, then)

As for Muslims? There's quite a bit, actually. My favorite: Darr the Afflicter, who was paralyzed in an accident caused by a drunk driver, then discovered that he was "inexplicably empowered with the ability to cause physical harm just by focusing his hatred on a living target."

Well.

If that's not a tailor-made warrior for the religion of peace ...

This serious fellow, who obviously is not to be monkeyed around with, is presumably among the primates who are nearly as good at simple arithmetic as most college students.

The macaques got their sums right 76 percent of the time, while the students got the correct answer 94 percent of the time in a series of increasingly challenging maths tests.

I am certain of one thing: Many monkeys would outscore me. But can a macaque make a dirty vodka martini?

Tuesday was a bad day for John Doe. God help him if, in this busy travel season, he sees suspicious behavior among the purveyors of the religion of peace.

U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery ruled against the patriotic citizens who, one year ago this month, observed the so-called flying imams engage in what looked in today's post-9/11 world like a dry run for the next 9/11.

Six Muslim imams arrested on a U.S. Airways jet in Minneapolis last November after a passenger raised suspicions about their pre-flight prayers and boarding activities won an early victory Tuesday in their federal lawsuit against the airline and the Metropolitan Airports Commission.

U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery's opinion and order rejected almost all of the defendants' arguments for dismissal. She said the question of whether airport officers had probable cause to arrest the men must be determined by the objective facts they had available at the time.

... Frederick Goetz, one of the imams' attorneys, praised the judge's decision, saying "This has always been a straightforward civil rights case. You had six individuals ... doing absolutely nothing wrong. They prayed in the airport and got arrested. That's unconstitutional, and they deserve redress."

Yeah. They were just "praying." Goetz, the slip-and-fall lawyer, forgot to mention the other details that weren't so innocent. The House, if you remember, passed a bill in March that would make sure these scheisters never get their CAIR-pushed "redress." But, unfortunately, the Senate is still dragging its feet. The World's Greatest Deliberative Body has still not moved the bill out of committee, a full eight months later.

As a paper in the Inland Empire put it a while back:

The passengers of US Airways Flight 300 did nothing wrong in November. In fact, the passengers did exactly what the federal government encourages travelers to do: report strange or suspicious activity. The six flying imams drew the attention of passengers and the flight crew by praying loudly, moving about the cabin in pairs and asking for seat belt extenders. Eventually, airport security officials determined that the imams posed no threat, but not before removing them from the flight.

Federal government expects the public to sacrifice some liberty at airports for the sake of better security. The government should reward that sacrifice with protection from intimidating lawsuits.

Well, the government is not. And we're in big trouble if the courts keep fighting the war on terror for us.

Jones Soda has announced its holiday offerings of the year. The headline on AP's story? "Enjoy a Refreshing Ham Soda". Hmmm... I bet somebody in Seattle is a Primus fan. Incredibly, it's all kosher. And the "Happy Chanukah Pack" looks delicious!