Massive Bombing in India: Methodists Suspected

Well, not really, but according to the BBC, we just really cannot be sure who could be behind it. No one has claimed responsibility for the attacks, so at this point, who could know?

No group has admitted planting bombs in Jaipur. It is not yet clear what the motive for attacking the city might be.

Most people in Jaipur are Hindus but the city has a large Muslim minority. Correspondents say it has no history of religious violence.

Yep, that motive is a real teaser. It couldn't have anything to do with the Religion of Peace, now could it?

We'll have to wait and see if anyone comes forth.

General Dynamics Sells Out The West

I'm sure nothing could go wrong with this little exchange.

General Dynamics United Kingdom Limited has confirmed that it has signed an 85m pounds Sterling GBP ($165m USD) contract to supply a tactical communications and data system as part of the United Kingdom's initiatives to improve economic, educational and defense links with Libya. It will provide communications and data handling capabilities, together with technical and training support, to the Elite Brigade of Libya's armed forces.

The program has been developed with the full support of Her Majesty's Government and is in accordance with both the UK's Defense Industrial Strategy and foreign policy objectives. It recognizes the international reputation of General Dynamics UK as a leading exporter of command, control, communications, computing and intelligence (C4I) capabilities. General Dynamics UK has already achieved export success of similar C4I capabilities with the Netherlands and Romania.

Sandy Wilson, president and managing director of General Dynamics UK, said: "This initiative has been developed with the full help and guidance of the Defense and Security Organization, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. It complements current business activities in Libya, and other opportunities being explored by European companies."

I mean, they already said the were sorry for Lockerbie.

h/t Dhimmi Watch

Huckabee Leading GOP VP Contender? Gack!

I've been lamenting the Republican's possible selection of John McCain for its presidential candidate since long before he won it.

I wanted Fred Thompson. Alas, he could not stay awake long enough to win much of anything. Then I went to Romney knowing full well that many of his beliefs were clearly harnessed to big government. Yet, I could tolerate that, given the alternatives and the fact that on many other issues he and I were solidly alike.

Now I am left with McCain as my only potential candidate but the choice of whether to vote for him or sitting it out is not getting any clearer.

US News:

Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas and defeated contender for the GOP presidential nomination, is currently at the top of John McCain's short list for a running mate. At least that's the word from a top McCain fundraiser and longtime Republican moneyman who has spoken to McCain's inner circle. The fundraiser is less than thrilled with the idea of Huckabee as the vice presidential nominee, and many economic conservatives—turned off by the populist tone of Huckabee's campaign and his tax record as governor—are likely to share that marked lack of enthusiasm.

Huckabee for VP? Ya, rather than throw me a bone he threatens to beat me over the head with it.

As Mike says at Cold Fury:

Christ on a crutch, you gotta be kidding me. I’d take it with a grain of salt, to say the least, early as it still is. But if it does come to pass, well, if this ain’t the final straw for conservatives, I’m sure I can’t imagine what would be.

Planned Parenthood Passes the Collection Plate for Mother's Day

Fiscal year 2006-07, the last full year reported by Planned Parenthood (PP), was an astoundingly good year. The non-profit slicer and dicer of unborn children produced a whopping 289,650 abortions in 2006 with total revenue exceeding $1 billion.

Taxpayers chipped in with over $336 million to help keep the assembly line moving. Overall profit for the non-profit amounted to $112 million.

Buoyed by their success and with grifted confidence overflowing, PP is asking for private donations this year in celebration of Mother's Day.

(CNSNews.com) - Planned Parenthood, a major abortion provider, is soliciting Mother's Day gifts for itself.

In a May 3 e-mail blast, Planned Parenthood Federation of America's president, Cecile Richards, asked recipients to "Make a Mother's Day Gift" by donating to the organization - a solicitation that some critics say is ironic given that many Planned Parenthood clinics perform abortions.

The e-mail reads:

"Dear Friend, Join us! Make a Mother's Day gift. My daughter, Hannah, recently wrote this for a national magazine:

'I was raised by strong women. My mom, Cecile Richards, fights daily for women's reproductive rights and social justice as president of Planned Parenthood. It's a legacy she got from her mom (my late grandma), Ann Richards, the former governor of Texas. I've learned that the most rewarding battles in life are those waged for something you truly believe in.' ...

"... As Mother's Day approaches, I am grateful for the opportunity to make a difference and hope you'll join me. Happy Mother's Day."

John Jansen, co-director of Generations for Life, the youth outreach program for the Pro-Life Action League, in response to the e-mail, told Cybercast News Service : "I think it's ironic that an organization dedicated to helping women avoid motherhood is celebrating motherhood. It doesn't make sense. (Planned Parenthood) is the leading abortion provider in the country."

A h/t to Dan Collins at Protein Wisdom who believes there is a better term than "ironic" to describe this sort of shameless pandering.

Myanmar's Disgraceful Military

It ain't quite Madison Avenue yet, but you can't blame a bunch militaristic narcissists for trying. The junta in Myanmar, fresh after confiscating UN shipments of desperately needed supplies while still thwarting other massive relief efforts, began distributing the confiscated food rations today to a population that stands on the brink of total disaster--with the names of prominent generals plastered all over the boxes.

Myanmar's military is a perfect example of absolute power corrupting absolutely.

When hurricane Katrina hit off the gulf coast, it was America's civilian led military that carried the day. While lawyerly bureaucrats at the local, state and federal levels spent precious hours casting blame on each other, America's armed forces were scooping up survivors. As parked empty school buses succumbed to the rising water of a broken levee, the Coast Guard was in action. As Louisiana's state officials refused to give water to people at the Super Dome out of a desire to drive the stranded refugees further inland, the national guard was distributing food and water. As federal officials tried desperately to figure out a way to make it appear as if they were doing at least something, General Russell Honoré cut through the red tape of government and made things happen. All of this, presumably, without anyone in our military plastering their names on food rations in an attempt to achieve a hero's lofty status.

Our civilian military is in love with this country. The sacrifices of our men and women that don the uniform in this and previous generations while seeking little or no personal fame, prove this.

Myanmar's military led government uses its might for another purpose--to hang on to power. It's need for dominance over the populace has eclipsed any desire those military men ever had for its people--it would rather rule absolutely (and famously) over a starving and diseased wracked people than to sit anonymously amongst a healing population.

There are many times when we, if we take a little time to pay attention, can see the value of liberty to the citizens of a nation, and the value of a competent, civilian-led military that is dedicated to that liberty. Sadly, perhaps the easiest time to notice all of this is when it is juxtaposed to people dying by the tens of thousands, just so sociopath generals have ample time to slap their John Henrys on a few biscuits.

Scatter Shooting

I will not be able to blog today--things just aren't working out toward that end.

Here are a few posts around the net today that deserve serious attention.

Protein Wisdom: A pinch of hope, a dash of change, and voila! — a Living Constitution that a good progressive would be proud to serve alongside the antipasto and the 2005 Prosecco Perlage Riva Moretta

The Strata-Sphere: Mooki Sadr Left High And Dry By Shiite Grand Ayatollah Sistani

Dhimmi Watch: U.S. most charitable nation; oil-rich Muslim countries give almost nothing

and Right Michigan: Smoke 'em if you got 'em... no wait... DON'T!

Quiz on Monday.

We Got Us an Al-Qaeda Leader UPDATED

Waterboard, anyone?

This is the type of monster you strap to a board, cover with plastic, and pour under water.

Repeat as often as necessary.

Analysis here by AJ Strata.

Now the BBC says NOT. Crap.

Michigan Senate: "Hand Over That Butt"

The Michigan Senate has passed a bill that will outlaw smoking in all public places including bars and restaurants if ultimately passed into law.

LANSING -- The state Senate voted today to ban smoking in public places including restaurants and bars, sending the issue back to the House, which has passed a similar bill.

The Senate vote puts a statewide smoking ban on the verge of final approval and a victory for antismoking advocates who have lobbied for years to ban smoking in public places.

The measure passed on a 25-12 vote. Unlike a similar House bill that passed, the Senate version would extend the smoking ban to casinos and bingo halls.

How long will the sheep in this country allow big brother to herd them into quaint little pens?

We've got millions of people up in arms in this country over the US government eavesdropping on terrorists communicating with one another overseas, yet most people applaud when bureaucrats swoop into private business in this country and quite literally take cigarettes right out of smoker's hands. The former is supposedly an attack on our civil rights, while the latter is not. Go figure.

The commenters at Freep are seeing this as a smokers versus non-smokers issue when it is not that at all. This is an intrusive government versus private business owners issue. This is a case of an expanded and all-knowing benevolent government sticking its fat nose into the business of private institutions and citizens because it thinks it is so much smarter than the rest of us.

FOR THE PEOPLE!

Perhaps when big brother comes looking for our candy bars (to prevent tooth decay), saturated fats (to lower our cholesterol), pasta (to keep our weight down), salt (for our blood pressure) and force us to walk four miles a day for our cardio-vascular system, we will start to notice.

I doubt it though. Sheep really don't care much which pen they are led into.

Peres the Naive

To desire peace is commendable. To pursue it to the point of ignoring common sense, history, current events, and the sworn doctrine of your enemy makes you a fool.

Shimon Peres is that type of fool.

"Although in '98 everything seemed dark because of Rabin's murder, I believed we could still move the peace process ahead more quickly. I did not think we'd have so many problems. I believed the separation between the West Bank and Gaza would make things easier, not harder. I did not imagine that we would leave Gaza and they would fire Qassams from there; I did not imagine that Hamas would show so strongly in the elections.

This is astoundingly naive coming from a man having reached the lofty position of President in a country surrounded by terrorist savagery.

What news reports do you suppose he was watching for all those years?

This quote from an interview with Peres conducted by Haaretz.

h/t Dhimmi Watch

The "Reasonable" Myanmar Junta

We are now five days after a cyclone struck Myanmar and killed many thousands of people, wiped out entire villages and left tens of thousands of people without homes, food or water. Five days, yet there are still many aid teams being kept out of the country waiting on visas by the Myanmar's military junta. US naval ships still wait to assist the victims in transport and providing precious fresh water--they have not been given permission to help.

Today I read this in the BBC:

Speaking to reporters, the UN's humanitarian chief John Holmes accepted that aid agencies had faced difficulties accessing the disaster zone.

But, he said, co-operation from the Burmese authorities was "reasonable and heading in the right direction".

He dismissed a suggestion by the French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner that the UN Security Council should adopt a resolution allowing aid to be flown into the country by force as unnecessarily confrontational.

Reasonable according to whom?

Maybe he's saving his forceful commentary for when the cholera epidemic hits.

McCain Defines Michigan's Problem

I've never been much of a fan of John McCain and, recent comments on his potential judicial appointments notwithstanding, my impression of him is not improving much.

This snippet from a campaign speech he made yesterday in Troy as covered by the Detroit News:

"The problem is not free trade ... we have not cared for the displaced worker," McCain said at a town hall meeting at Oakland University north of Detroit.

"Innovation is here in the great state of Michigan - the birthplace of the modern automobile industry. ... Of course, the old kinds of doing business (are) not coming back. But there are new kinds ... that will eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.

"We have to retrain and educate workers to take advantage of that opportunity."

I agree that free trade is not the problem in Michigan, and I can agree that Michigan has been, historically, a place of great innovation. I can even agree that the old kinds of doing business are not coming back.

Where I disagree with McCain is in his assertion that our economic problem is because "we have not cared for the displaced worker."

This is unadulterated hogwash.

In Michigan we suffer economically because of a monumental trifecta of anti-growth stupidity shared in equal portions by an unresponsive domestic auto industry, state and local governments that make it difficult to do business here, and a belligerent labor force that appears it would rather see thousands of good-paying jobs move permanently out of state than accept industry-competitive wages that would keep their jobs here while allowing their employers to grow profitably.

No amount of retraining displaced workers is going to rectify that situation. Now, I am not going to make the mistake and dismiss the fact that a well-trained work force is one component that businesses consider when they select a place to expand--but it is only one of many, and here it might be a distant fourth (at best.)

Retraining and educating an unemployed work force in order to attract new businesses is putting a gargantuan cart before a spindly legged nag. The only companies that will benefit from such shenanigans are the companies that will be chosen to provide the education and retraining. Did I mention the horse had spindly legs?

The best way to care for displaced workers is to act preemptively by nurturing a profitable business climate that helps to keep workers off the unemployment line to begin with.

Michigan has failed at this.

Consequently, this is why Michigan has failed.

Red Wings on Versus--Guess Who Won't Be Watching

I hope I am reading this wrong, but it appears as if only game 5 of the upcoming Detroit Red Wings/Dallas Stars playoff series will be available for me to watch in northern Michigan. And, if the Red Wings should happen to advance beyond this round, the first two games of the Stanley Cup finals will also be off limits (at least if you can believe much of anything that Wikipedia has to say about the NHL-Versus television contract.) Radio? Ken Kal's voice doesn't reach this far.

To make matters worse, earlier this year the nitwit NHL signed a three year extension with Versus which will make it difficult for me to watch playoff hockey right through the end of the 2010-2011 season.

Now, don't give me that "go to the bar and watch it" bullshit either. I'm not going to watch a game that has to compete with a juke box, a pool table, a drunken (and sadly aging-breasted) karaoke star wannabe, Jennifer Granholm's Club Keno farce and the gratuitous so-thick-you-could-cut-them-with-a-knife carcinogens. Truthfully, I could probably take the smoke if need be, but keep that karaoke broad in the next county.

It sucks to have followed the club all year long only to be essentially blacked out for the playoffs. I wish I had not watched at all.

I will not be making this mistake again. A ceremonial Red Wing paraphernalia burning will take place tonight in my fire pit, along with an effigy of Gary Bettman (providing I can find my colored pencils and a couple of dog droppings for eyes.)

The NHL is dead to me. Don't send any cards.

Forrest Gump Endorses Obama

Really it is Tom Hanks that is doing the endorsing, falling in line behind other worship worthy humans such as Oprah Winfrey and Bruce Springsteen.

Hanks explains his decision in a short video titled "Beware: Celebrity Endorsement." He says he's backing Obama because of "his character and vision, and the high road he has taken during this campaign."

Because, who else other than Obama, could ever envision socialism?

Big Brother Knows Best

Oh no! Not another smoking post? Please, No!

Too late.

I'd stop writing this stuff if government snoops would leave their noses out of the private lives of individuals. That ain't happening yet.

At least not in Illinois where officials have disallowed smoking at a "pipe smoker's convention."

From the Freep and AP:

A new Illinois law bans smoking in public places. That's taken some of the steam out of this weekend's Chicagoland International Pipe & Tobacciana Show in St. Charles.

The event draws 4,000 pipe collectors from more than 60 countries. Organizers tried to get around the new law by arguing their gathering was a private club meeting. Police and health officials said no.

One should be able to assume that attendees of a smoker's convention would be aware that smoking might actually be taking place at the event, and that this smoking could prove detrimental to the participant's health.

Just in case one of the attendees might be an idiot and not have figured this out, and because most bureaucrats are idiots and obviously have not, smoking activities will be relocated outside of the convention hall in a smoker's tent.

Where, apparently, patrons actually know there is going to be smoke.

Freedom From Offense Overriding Freedom of Speech?

Being offended can mean big money. Oh sure, going through life as a perpetually dissatisfied sourpuss might be a crappy way to have to live your life, but it could pay off in green.

Over the past few weeks I've written a couple of nearly incoherent posts about what I feel should be a person's reasonable right to smoke, and about a private establishment (restaurant or bar) being able to allow its employees and patrons to smoke on the premises without big brother swooping in and micromanaging the business.

A private business, to a great degree, is becoming less and less private as the nannystate slowly absorbs areas of commerce that it has no moral or ethical standing to consume.

Things might get worse for businesses if a recent 11th Circuit Court (CA) decision is any indication. Not only, according to the court, can a private business be sued for harassment levied at an employee by the employer, but now the employer can be sued for sexual harassment by the employee for things that are simply overheard, whether or not the speech is intentionally directed at the employee, uttered by the employer, offensive to anyone else at work, and "didn't involve any sexual extortion, any offensive touching, any sexual propositions, or even any insults targeted to her personally."

The offensive culprit, this time, is raunchy radio.

From the Volokh Conspiracy:

As a matter of good manners, and sound business management, I gladly condemn people who expose unwilling colleagues to such speech. The employer -- a private entity that's not bound by the First Amendment -- was free to restrict the speech, just as private Internet service providers, schools, churches, malls, and householders are generally free to restrict speech on their private property (setting aside a few contrary state laws that are not relevant here).

But here the government is saying that this speech is legally actionable, because it supposedly reflects a "degrading" perspective on women. The speech does not fit within any First Amendment exception -- there is no such exception for vulgarity, including relatively nonpolitical vulgarity (understandable, given the impossibility of defining the boundaries of such an exception). The government ought not be able to limit it, including through threat of massive civil penalties, whether the penalties are imposed on the speaker or on property owners that tolerate the speech. Yet this is exactly what happens here.

What's more, the logic of the case (which expressly draws on racial harassment caselaw and not just sexual harassment caselaw) extends far beyond talk of sex. The reasoning would apply even more forcefully to sexist political statements, sexist criticisms of politicians, racist political statements, racist criticisms of politicians, radio shows that condemn Islam and Muslims, radio shows that condemn atheism, and the like. And harassment law has indeed been used in the past to impose liability based on such political, religious, and social commentary, see here and, most recently, here (anti-Islam, anti-Muslim, and on occasion anti-Arab political statements).

On top of that, while harassment claims are generally not easy for plaintiffs to win, they have a perfectly predictable deterrent effect on employers, who don't want to risk losing them (or even litigating them). If you're an employer, you hear about this case, and then someone complains about allegedly sexually themed, religiously offensive, sexist, or racist radio programs being played, or overheard lunchtime conversations, what would you do?

I'm pretty sure that if you're rationally worried about litigation, you'd order that the radio playing and the conversations stop, for fear of government-imposed liability, and not just out of good manners or a desire to promote morale. I generally don't fault employers for reacting this way. But I do fault the legal system for imposing this sort of content-based, viewpoint-based deterrent to speech.

I couldn't agree more.

I would not allow Howard Stern to be played in a business I owned just out of any possible offense that might register to my tender Mennonite ears. I should be able to restrict radio use because of my status as business owner. Millions of Americans would be offended by the antics and speech of the Howard Stern show and it would seem a common sense approach to shut Howard up (especially in a mixed-sex environment.)

But, Stern isn't the only radio personality with the ability to offend. Millions more would be offended by right wing broadcasts of Rush Limbaugh. Most Limbaugh listeners, however, choose to turn on the radio and tune him in. What about people that happen to pass by when Rush is on one of his patented tirades against NOW and Planned Parenthood? Should happenstance listeners of Rush that become offended be able to overrule the desires of those who intentionally want to listen in?

What about Pat Robertson? Randi Rhodes? Michael Savage? How about any Jew?

This isn't necessarily about winning big money in court (though that would certainly be possible depending on your jury) but over allowing sensitive ears to dictate all acceptable speech thresholds in the workplace and perhaps beyond.

h/t Overlawyered

Republican Money Addicts Too Afraid To Embrace Earmark Moratorium

It used to be pretty easy to tell who was Republican and who was Democrat by listening to what they had to say about domestic policy. There used to be foundational philosophies that served as the glue that held political parties together. This is no longer the case.

At one point in time, if you heard someone talk about government being too big, that was your Republican. If you heard someone talking about how the government must come up with solutions to solve the problems that face average Americans, there was your Democrat.

At this point in time there is very little difference between what most Republicans have to say about spending and what Democrats have to say. Both groups, with obvious individual exceptions of course, are primarily beholden to a philosophy that calls for big government solutions to problems brought about by nearly any circumstance. It doesn't hurt to have some federal dollars to lavish on the locals when it comes time for reelection.

Republicans have joined the Democrats in the belief that spending is the elixir on which the public must be sustained, or perhaps the reverse is more true, spending on the public is the elixir on which a long and prosperous political career must be sustained.

When we met adolescents in high school with this attitude we observed that they were buying their friends and had unnaturally low self esteem. I'm not so sure that this is not true about the vast majority of today's Republican politicians who have sold their souls for popularity and prestige.

Writing in RealClearPolitics, Robert Novak reports that Republicans aren't all that excited about a one year moratorium on earmarks. Which, I think, pretty much completes the loop.

A recent secret survey of the House Republican minority by the party's whip organization showed a two-to-one margin opposed to imposing a moratorium on earmarks.

House Republican John Boehner, who personally sponsors no earmarks, has indicated the party's position should be based on what GOP House members want. That led to the whip check.

Reformers had contemplated calling for a vote on earmarks by a closed-door session of the House Republican Conference, assuming it would be difficult for many members to vote no. But the lopsided outcome of the whip check dissuaded reformers from requesting a vote.

Is one lousy year too much time to ask for Republicans to push themselves away from feeding trough, even though every one of them knows that it is not good fiscal policy? These people are so addicted to the narcotics of power and self-importance that all they are worried about today is being able to win their next election so the binge can continue.

Released Gitmo Detainee Carries out Bombing

Back in World War 2 there were several prisoner of war camps in Michigan's upper peninsula. To my knowledge, the prisoners housed there had been rounded up in Europe on the battlefield and were taken to a place far away where they could not endanger anyone for the duration of the war. None of those prisoners were allowed to their freedom so that they could rejoin the battlefield.

You would think that today's deep thinkers could muster up enough rational thought to conclude that the arrangements of WW2 made a lot more sense than today's idiocy surrounding Guantanamo. Protesters demand Gitmo's closure and that its detainees be treated as criminals rather than soldiers, thereby affording them the legal protections offered US citizens accused of a crime. Many a bureaucrat has fallen for this hype.

We find ourselves engaged in a War, and it would be best if politicians and lawyers continued to recognize this.

The word today is that a detainee released from Gitmo back in 2005 was the perpetrator of a recent suicide bombing carried out in Mosul that killed as many as seven people.

The specific story of the released detainee has not been reported yet, so there is no word as to why the man was released in 2005. One can be pretty sure, however, that without grandstanding legal theorists and leftist sympathizers there would have been no push to release this detainee until the end of hostilities.

None of the seven victims were available for comment.

h/t PowerLine Blog

Walter Williams: Excising and Smuggling

Shortly after my last rant I had an opportunity to read Walter Williams latest article at Front Page Mag--Excising and Smuggling.

Tell me what's wrong in people wanting to wear a Swiss watch, have a drink, purchase tea from a Dutch rather than an English seller or cheap cigarettes from North Carolina rather than expensive ones from New York. People in government or those in pursuit of a do-good agenda think they know better and think they have a right to use government's brute force to hinder peaceable voluntary exchange.

Busybody Local Governments

It is a busy Friday and I will have very little time to post today. So I'm going to use this short bit of time to say that I'm sick to death of politicians at all levels of government, using their lofty status as overlords to try and bludgeon the rest of us into a position of obedience.

Just a few months ago, there was a resolution (thankfully failed) that would have made it illegal for restaurants in Mississippi to serve food to fat people. Would it be good for fat people to stop eating? I suppose it might help in some cases, but what bureaucratic machine would ever have the ability to police every eating establishment in the state to make certain that only skinnies were snacking? How would a restaurant owner know whether a person was obese from overeating or because of some other medical condition? Would the state have to begin issuing restaurant acceptability cards for potential fast-food patrons?

Here in Oscoda County, the District Health Department has brought forth the recommendation (currently being considered by the County Commissioners) to outlaw all smoking in public areas including bars and restaurants. I'm not a smoker but I might have to take up the habit. If I go to a bar to watch a game I'm going to do it with the full knowledge that second hand smoke will be billowing in the air. I don't need bureaucrats protecting me from my own personal decision of watching hockey on the big screen.

What is prompting this this rant is a short article on M-live where I read that the Chelsea City Council is considering a ban on plastic grocery bags within the city.

"As gas prices edge toward $4 a gallon and our nation is seeking ways to increase our energy independence, this is an opportunity for Chelsea to add a small step in the process." - Chelsea Council Member Frank Hammer in a new report to the City Council.

Would there be an upside to using fewer bags? Absolutely, there would be less waste of plastic. Would there be less waste overall? Hmmm. What will the city council do with all the extra paper waste that will be created if plastic is eliminated? Will they instead mandate the usage of cloth bags for our own good?

The reason that stores began moving from paper to plastic a few years ago was because of cost. It was simply cheaper to use plastic so most stores changed over. Now, it seems, select bureaucrats don't like the changes the stores have made. Their solution? Get involved in the managing of retail grocery businesses.

As is always the case, busybody bureaucrats will never find enough back scratchers to take care of every part of them that itches. When and if this plastic bad resolution passes, another council member has big plans too.

Hammer has the support of at least one other council member.

"I'm in favor of further discussion," Council Member Cheri Albertson said. "And I'd like to take it a step further and eliminate the sale of fertilizer with phosphorous within the city limits."

I hope the fat people in Chelsea can learn on their own to watch what they eat so that the city council doesn't have to step in.

Somali al-Qaida Leader Meets Allah

Another one has bitten the dust, er, excuse me, "has received what he was looking for — death for the sake of Allah — at the hands of the United States."

But ridding the world of an evil murdering pipsqueak isn't necessarily good news if you read the AP.

Analysts say the strike is likely to harden extremists and make it more difficult to appeal to moderate elements in the Islamist movement, which contains many clan members, businessmen and members of the Somali Diaspora.

Iise Ali Geedi, an analyst at the Somali University, says the attacks will increase anti-American sentiment. The attack may also weaken the position of the prime minister, who wishes to bring more militant elements into the talks against the wishes of the president.

Taking out evil used to be universally recognized as a good thing, but now it is just something else for seasoned diplomats and journalists to fret over.