April 5, 2005 by s.z.

Oopsie! Who will tell Dean Cain and Keri Russell? CORRECTION  WorldNetDailyCBS not planning Terri movie Story attributed to Variety originally ran as April Fool's joke A story that CBS-TV plans to rush into production a television movie of the Terri Schiavo saga, which WorldNetDaily ran on Saturday, turns out to be untrue. The story originated on a website that attributed the story to Variety, the Hollywood daily. According to CBS, however, it was someone's attempt "at April Fool's humor." Um, I don't want to seem critical of WorldNetDaily, but should they really running with info from "Defamer" without EVEN READING THE VARIETY ARTICLE CITED AS THE ITEM'S SOURCE?  (Gee, the link was right there and everything.)  I mean, now I'm starting to wonder if I should trust WND when they say that the Nephilim built the pyramids ... 11:50:40 PM

Yeah, It's All About the National Security Concerns I want to address a few remarks to David Limbaugh and everybody else who's been writing those "Sandy Berger only got a slap on the wrist for his heinous acts" columns."  The gist of those remarks is, "Do some homework before you spout off, you twits." It is very troubling, though not surprising, that the Justice Department is barely going to slap Sandy Berger's wrists for intentionally violating a criminal law critical to our national security. Berger was accused of (and pled guilty to) the unauthorized removal and retention of classified material, a misdemeanor.  Per his plea agreement, he will pay a $10,000 fine and will have his security clearances suspended for three years.  He will also have to take (and presumably pass) polygraph exam centering on his activities in the archives.  David, you're a lawyer -- use Findlaw (or whatever resources to which you lawyers have access) and find me even one case where somebody who was accused of removing a handful of documents and destroying some or all of them, was eventually sentenced to anything worse that this "slap on the wrist."  (Personally, I know of only one case that involving only unauthorized removals that was even prosecuted -- and in that case, the guy had a whole garage full of material he took home with him.  Most cases are handled internally, and the only penalities imposed are security violations or suspensions of security clearances.)  So, if you and your compadres want to bloviate about how Sandy got off easy, well, put up or shut up. What kind of message is Justice sending here? Probably that Berger committed a crime and should be punished for it, but he shouldn't be punished more harshly than other people who have committed similar crimes just because he used to work for Bill Clinton. It seems the Bush administration bends over backward to avoid placing its predecessor in a negative light. Remember the way it buried the trashing of the White House by outgoing Clinton personnel? You mean how it buried the actions of Clinton personnel by whining to everybody about how those personnel trashing the White House, said whining resulting in a GAO investigation and a subsequent report which indicated that while there were some missing keyboards and such, the condition of the White House offices was "consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy"?  Yeah, I remember that.  And yes, it does prove that George Bush is just too darned nice for his own good. But by this plea agreement, are we not -- in a time of war when national security means everything to the preservation of the republic and protection of American lives -- saying these rules are merely technical and not that important? You know, I'll worry about that when somebody goes down for outing a CIA NOC in time of war when national security means everything, etc., etc. Even if Berger didn't hide the documents in his socks or underwear, he was, by his own admission, hiding them. Moreover, as others have pointed out, he revealed his criminal intent by meticulously shredding the documents with scissors. No, what he revealed was that he was trying to dispose of the documents in a secure fashion, you simp.   Everybody who has ever been around classified documents knows that you can't just toss them in the trash, you have to shred them first to prevent them from falling into unauthorized hands.  Why did Berger want to dispose of these documents?  I don't know (but I imagine he'll be asked about that during his polygraph).  But I can speculate that he took some copies of documents to work on them in the comfort of his own home, but after he was done with them, didn't want to have to face the questions that would come if he brought them back -- so he figured he could just quietly dispose of them and nobody would be the wiser.  A stupid and irresponsible thing to do, sure -- and he'll pay for it.  But the shredding does not indicate criminal intent Berger had every interest in making the Clinton administration look good in the very area addressed by the Clarke memo. Is it just a coincidence that the documents he took and destroyed pertained specifically to these questions and were unfavorable to the administration he served? No, it's not a coincidence -- because those are the documents he was reviewing to prepare for his testimony on just that topic, and so those are the documents that he would have taken to work on at home, if that was his motive for removing them.  You can impute solely sinister motives to his conduct only if you can show that he accessed and removed documents unfavorable to the Clinton administration that he had no official business to be reviewing. Maybe, like David and others are implying, Berger stole those particular documents so he could destroy the handwritten notes contained on them that reveal shameful secrets, like that Bill Clinton ordered the intelligence and law enforcement communities to ignore bin Laden so he would attack America on his successor's watch.  Possibly that's what happened -- but I think it's pretty unlikely (as is the new WorldNetDaily claim that Berger destroyed these documents so that nobody would know that al Qaeda was responsible for downing TWA Flight 800 in 1996).  I believe that it's more probable (as I said previously) that he removed the documents for the sake of convenience, and destroyed them so he wouldn't have to find a way to return them to the Archives.  And, like I said previously, if that's what he did, he should be punished -- and a $10,000 fine, having his clearances suspended for at least three years, and polygraphing him to make sure his account of his actions is factual sounds about right to me. Where are the Democrats on this issue? Are they not the ones who have been obsessed with retrospectives and endless self-flagellating investigations into how our intelligence agencies failed, implying that we could have prevented 9/11? Hey, I'm waiting for the facts before blaming anybody for anything.  But, once again, I would like to see somebody get punished for leaking classified information about Valerie Plame.  Can you tell me when that's likely to happen, David? 4:05:23 AM

Only You Can Stop Feminists From Saying Mean Things About Dr. Mike - Donate Now! This is the strangest fund-raising appeal I've ever seen ... Hi there! It's Mike Adams - the guy you were just talking about in your Canadian feminist chat room. I thought we had the angriest feminists here in the States until I read the following, which was sent to me from within the ranks of my "supposed readership": "What can you do to fight such a thing? Townhall's Doctor Professor Mike Adams, PhD is an inveterate liar who has been accused of making up correspondence from his supposed readership to advance his patently women-hating views (...there is some scuttle-butt going around that he's in fact a self-hating homosexual who goes on 'hunting' trips with another suspected closet case and former-drug-dealer-turned-anti-feminist-mall-preacher/whacko Doug Giles). I really wish that country had some respect for ethics in public discourse, but it obviously doesn't."  Well, now that you are reading the full text of your remarks - remarks you never expected to see broadcast in an internationally-read column - you are becoming painfully aware of the fact that I am not guilty of "making up correspondence" from a fictitious readership. Since anti-male feminist whackos really exist, there's no need for fabrication. A few points:  * First, the remarks didn't come from a "feminist chat room," they came from the discussion forum of Rabble.ca, an online progressive magazine.  * Second, the fact that I found the comments myself either means that Dr. Mike's "supposed readership" is actually Google -- or, it indicates that having a copy of these remarks says nothing about Mike's purported correspondents, and in no way proves that he actually got a letter from a coed named Dawn who was complaining about the poster used to advertise The Vagina Monologues.  * Third, since the comments reproduced in Dr. Mike's internationally acclaimed Townhall column (comments authored by one "Hinterland," btw) were posted on the internet, Hinterland probably isn't "painfully aware" of anything except that Mike is a bigger dork than she had previously believed.  Geez, it's not like he demonstrated eerie supernatural abilities or anything -- or is she supposed to be shamed because she used the internets to talked behind the back of a pundit who wrote some nasty things about women?  * Fourth, woohoo, Hinterland is one of us!  * Fifth, Hinterland's remarks should have a little context, so you can better appreciate those anti-men feminist whackos they grow up in Canada.  So, here's the start of the thread, a post by one "Writer": I've just started a new job, as editor of coolwomen.ca. As such, I've set up a Google news search for any item referring to feminist or feminism.While I expected to receive a fair number of stories that were anti-feminist, I have been saddened by how overwhelming the ratio is. I'd say at least three attacks for every positive or neutral story. Is there any way to turn this around? Here's a relatively mild sample, to get the discussion going. In your letter, you said that campus feminists are really "aging sluts with no higher goal than to produce another generation of angry and promiscuous Vagina Warriors." That was well put. It also brings me to my idea.townhall.com  So, those evil Canadian hussies were talking about anti-feminist rhetoric, and in particular, that characterization of feminists as "aging sluts" that was included in Dr. Mike's column -- and then somebody posted a little (snarky) background about Mike, and presumably everyone had a good laugh.  Now, why in the heck would that make you want to give money to Townhall? Because that's actually what this column is supposed to do: persuade you to donate to Townhall . Here's more: We are causing you a lot of grief these days because our audience is growing and you can't seem to do anything about it. For example, when I run an article criticizing feminists for marching across campus chanting "Vagina" and selling sex-organ shaped lollipops to students, it is sent out to hundred of thousands of readers by midnight. The next day, my friend Neil Boortz usually links my articles on Boortz.com. Then, my friend David Horowitz runs my column on FrontPageMag.com. I then do an audio version of the column for Doug Giles on ClashRadio.com. So, Neil and David are Mike's friends, but Doug isn't?  (I guess that remark about their "hunting trips" together hit a little too close to home.) Before you know it, your radical brand of anti-male feminism has been broadcast to millions of people. And it all begins on the internet at www.Townhall.com. I don't know about the Canadian man-hating whackos, but Doug's columns never cause me grief, only irritation (it's not the heat, it's the stupidity).  And while Mike's columns could theoretically reach millions of people, I'll buy him one of those sex-organ shaped lollipops if he has any proof (via counter hits or the like) that any one of his columns has ever had more than 30,000 reads. (Townhall itself advertises that it reaches "between 1.1 and 1.5 million users each month" -- and since not all of those users read Dr. Mike's columns, and since Dr. Mike produces about 10 columns a month, I think that his claim to be able to reach "millions of people" with his expose of how the women chanting "vagina, vagina" gave him ED was a bit of an exaggeration.) I have some bad news for you, too. It is about to get even worse.  Last week we started a fund-raising drive, which seeks a Town Hall record of $250,000 over the course of two weeks. Yeah, that is worse, because the annoying pleas for funds intrude on the already annoying Townhall columns.  So, score one point for Dr. Mike. Mike adds that once they get their $250,000, they will increase their mailing list to over a million, and send out his columns (and those of Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, and their ilk) to everybody who donated money to Terri Schiavo's parents (or something). Then the feminists will be sorry! Years ago, when radical feminists began to use the educational system to sexualize our young daughters-to make them hate men, their parents, and even their unborn children-we asked ourselves the following question: What can you do to fight such a thing? Support it. So, years ago when radical feminists began to sexualize young girls so they would hate men, we asked ourselves what we could do about it, and the answer we gave ourselves was "support it," meaning the sexualization?  Um, okay. We found the answer on TownHall.com.  Will you join the fight today with your contribution? Since this column is addressed to the women who were discussing Dr. MIke's column at Rabble.ca, I suspect that no, they are not going to contribute funds to join the fight against women who make fun of Dr. Mike.  And frankly, I can't see exactly to whom this column is designed to appeal, unless it's men who think that women are laughing at them behind their backs.  While there probably are many of them among the Townhall readership, I think they have probably used their spare change to purchase those "Hillary Clinton Doesn't Want You To Learn the Secrets of Making Women Your Love Slaves" courses advertised at NewsMax.   Anyway, Dr. Mike (who got the gig at Townhall because of how he "defended" the First Amendment against those who would say that college professors shouldn't use the university email system to urge their future wives to threaten students) surely doesn't believe that donating to Townhall will stop Canadian women from poking fun at him, so I'm not exactly sure what purpose your contribution would serve, except to maybe give his columns wider dissemination, so that more women can ridicule him.  And while that sounds like a worthy goal, you could just give your money to me, and accomplish the same purpose without having to get on Townhalls' mailing list .  Won't you join the fight today?  3:54:28 AM