Yes I am a supporter, but... this really irks me...

I just heard on the radio that, with regard to his Social Security Plan, President Bush went out of his way to ensure that poorer workers would enjoy a greater rate of return on their contributions to Social Security than would middle or upper income workers. Now there is not a doubt in my mind that Bush's advisers came up with this concept in an effort to make the plan more palatable to those of our electorate to whom class envy is a way of life.

As one can plainly tell by the social security logo in the left column of this blog, and as by virtue of my membership on the Blogs for Bush blogroll, I am a big supporter of the President and his policies. But every once in a while (can you say immigration policy?) he does or says something that really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. This is one of those occasions.

Why the class envy card? Isn't it good enough to say (or to plan) that everyone's rate of return will be higher with his new program than with the current one? Given the track record of the stock market and funds over time, there is no doubt in my mind that this would indeed be the case.

I just hope that the current mental illness which seems to have hit the Republican party as of late has not spread to the executive branch of our government. Or if it has, that the executive branch (along with the rest of the Republican party) will find a cure for it soon.

And their point with the blogosphere is? Recent MSM gaffes

This from Brit Hume's Special Report from Fox News:

Salazar Expresses Regret
Colorado Democratic Senator Ken Salazar (search) this week referred to the Christian group Focus on the Family, which supports President Bush as "the Anti-Christ of the world." But Salazar now says he didn't mean that, saying, "I regret having used [those words]."

Air America Apologizing

In an audio skit about President Bush's Social Security (search) proposal earlier this week, a voice on Air America, the liberal radio network, said, "here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp," and then sounded three shotgun blasts. Air America is now apologizing for that, calling it a "bad" skit and insisting, "our normal vetting process failed."

AP Incorrect

The AP this week quoted the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Albert Mohler Jr, as saying that putting more evangelicals on the court will mean rulings more in tune with Christian beliefs. But Mohler never said that. The AP now says it "incorrectly paraphrased" him.

NPR: "We Regret Any Error or Confusion"

A National Public Radio (search) host said, "a book by a conservative commentator ... has leveled ... charges [similar]" to those by Republicans that judicial activist judges bring violence upon themselves. But the book, "Men in Black" by Mark Levin, never says that. NPR now says it was just "turn[ing] to a critique of the book" from a previous subject, and "we regret any error or confusion."

"Post"-ed a Correction

And finally, The Washington Post (search) today has a headline saying that Tom DeLay (search) "is likely to be found culpable." But the piece accompanying it doesn't say that, instead saying that Delay is "in danger" of being found in violation of House ethics rules, but could also be "vindicated." The Post now says its headline "overstated" the situation.

But, not to be outdone, our very own Strib:

"Caught in a Contradiction"

An editorial page editor at the Minneapolis Star Tribune (search) insisted earlier this week that his paper has never advocated a change to Senate filibuster rules. But after some media noted that when President Clinton's proposals were being filibustered, the paper called on politicians to "crusade for changes in Senate procedures," Editorial page deputy editor Jim Boyd now admits his paper has been "caught in a contradiction." He says he and his staff "missed" the old editorial.

Kinda begs the question:

With the relatively unlimited time and resources available to them to fact check, just why is the MSM so quick to point its collective bony finger of indignation toward bloggers?

hat tip to PianoBuff from Unto the Breach

Waltz of the Ambulance Chasers.. or should I say "hearse chasers"

There was an unfortunate incident in St. Cloud a couple of weeks ago, in which an inebriated man ultimately died after being subdued upon becoming assaultive, first with a bar employee and then with a bouncer at the Red Carpet, a local St. Cloud nightspot. Justin Smiley, 28, who was reportedly out celebrating his graduation from St. Cloud Technical college, as well as the impending birth of his child, died yesterday after being unplugged from life support over a week ago.

Although the fact that a young father had ended his life, partially due to his choice to become stuporously intoxicated, was very sad indeed; what I found nearly as sad was this full page ad in today's St. Cloud Times:



I was at Bravo Burritos while I caught sight of the ad and thought it to be some kind of a twisted joke. But it wasn't. As if ambulance chasing isn't enough. To say that this ad was in poor taste would be akin to describing wearing a halter top to a funeral as being a a bit underdressed.

I have called this law firm (got the answering service after hours) to voice my utter shock and disbelief, and I plan on calling them again tomorrow. After seeing this ad, I will never again listen to trial lawyers complain that they have an "undeserved" reputation that places them just below pond scum (with apologies to any pond scum I may have offended in this writing).

***UPDATE****

As of this writing (6:46p CDT, 4/28) the Ad is still up and running on the St. Cloud Times website. I know that there have been numerous complaints. My assertion in the last paragraph still stands.

***UPDATE***

Thanks to Overlawyered, who sheds an even brighter light on this den of cockroaches:

A tort suit in the making, but state ethical rules prohibit soliciting the decedent's family directly. What to do if you're an enterprising plaintiff's lawyer hoping to comply with the letter of the rules? Post an ad in the paper! To wit, one asking "Have you or anyone you know been injured in a local bar?"

****UPDATE****

As of 9:13 AM today (4/29/05), this law firm still has the same ad posted on the St. Cloud Times web site. Look for the scrolling "Ad Link" frame in the right column.

***UPDATE****
I have received this email from one of the attorneys at said law firm:

I thank you for your email and I understand you called a couple of times. I
wish you would have left your number and I would have called you back.

I'm not sure if you read my other emails, but I never did this to get that
case. His family was already represented. I have been looking into this
issue for a couple of months. His incident has raised the attention of the
community. It is very unfortunate that he died.

Did you see my ad in the paper today? Unfortunately it was pushed back in
the sports by the Times. The Times is also the reason that the first ad is
in red and says what it does vs. the defendant who many agree is the cause
for what happened.

I appreciate your understanding that business is business, although I'm not
sure you really are giving me that benefit.

Call me if you would like to talk more.

Mike

Below was my response:

I also thank you for your response. While you cite the Times as being
responsible for the content of the ad, and that you had never expected
to get family's account, why the timing? Additionally, it is my
understanding that the ad has run for more than one day (I may be
wrong). At any rate, it is still running on the St. Cloud Times web
site.

The timing of this ad, on a full page, before the man was even buried,
is what at face value appears upsetting. If you were upset regarding
the copywriter's verbiage or the color of the ad, could you have not
called the Times and cancelled it? If not in the actual newspaper, then
on the web site?

Sincerely,

-Leo-

I have not yet seen the ad of which he speaks that ran today in the sports section of the St. Cloud Times. I will get a copy and report regarding its contents. Suffice it to say that the offending ad, in all its splendor, is as of this update (1:50p CDT 4/29/2005) still running on the St. Cloud Times web site.

Additionally, I will post the response I get from Mr. Bryant. And for the record, I did leave my number (albeit with the answering service).

***UPDATE****

I just received this correspondence from Mr. Bryant:

what ad is still running? Did you look at the Paper today? There's a
different one in the Sports section.

I'm not blaming the Times. I took out the ad. I'm paying for it. So I
understand what I could have done. I'm just trying to answer some of the
questions that have been posed about the color and the wording.

The ad was finished last Friday. It ran before he died. Then he died
Tuesday night and I spent a lot of Wednesday dealing with a lot of calls in
both directions. The ad isn't there today.
I replaced it with the new one.

I wrote back giving him the link to the "offending" ad that is still linked to the St. Cloud Times web site.

As Matt Drudge would say...Developing...

****UPDATE****
I just received another email from Mr. Bryant, who said that he did not know that the ad in question was still linked:

I didn't know that, but have you looked at the paper yet?

As I have stated before, I do not know the contents of the new ad, but will report back as soon as I do...

****UPDATE*****

I checked today's St. Cloud Times sports section and saw a different full page ad:



This ad has also now replaced the ad that was linked at the St. Cloud Times. The Ice Palace applauds Bradshaw & Bryant for its decision to turn what was a visible black mark on the profession into a more honorable cause.

Project A.R.O.R.A.

triple_a at Residual Forces has stumbled upon a brilliant idea. Called Project A.R.O.R.A. (Against Republicans Obstructing the Republican Agenda), its focus is simple. Not one more dime in campaign or other contributions until they start coalescing and stop obstructing their own agenda. I'm joining it. How bout you?

How Many Manys?... what's in a word?

Says Dave, an emailer to Fraters,

I've reached the final point of no return with the MSM. Russert does it. Georgie does it. Ted does it. Gibson does it. Most network reporters do it. Lefties do it when they want to kill a conservative point.

What is it they are doing? They represent the perspective they are reporting on by quantifying it with the magical preciseness of "MANY".

They are doing it when the report on the new Pope. Many Germans are concerned about the new Pope. Many American Catholics are upset with the new Pope.

Is "Many" less than "Most"? Is Many a lazy way to infer "Most"? (We never said most, we said many.)

Often, they use the term "MANY" when they want to state a negative (as opposed to making a positive point) in either a report or a debate. Many has become fact instead of myth.

What constitutes many? 3 out of 100? 20 out of 40? 100 out of 10,000? 800 showing up to an antiwar rally in a city of 2,000,000? I would think 800 out of 2,000,000 is closer to a "very few". (Stastically, zero)

How do they know if the position and supporters they are reporting on is a groups of "many"?

They never have to state how MANY are the MANY they refer too. Just "Many".

Talk about relativism! "Many" is the new "trick word" replacing both "basically" and "frankly".

I could never have said that better myself!

Big hat tip to Chad the Elder!

And they all lived... happily ever after?

The Minnesota House approved a measure that would mandate a doubling of the current content of ethanol currently in gasoline in Minnesota. Family farmers, now on the brink of bankruptcy, will have a new market and be able to line their pockets; the environment will improve as a result of reduced fossil fuel burning; we'll have cheaper energy since we won't have to rely as much on middle eastern oil; automobile performance will benefit from the higher octane content, resulting in better-running and more fuel-efficient cars; politicians will enmass more votes in their vest pockets, and everyone will live happily ever after, right? Well, maybe not everyone. Well, maybe not most people. Let's start off with family farmers(from Newfarm.org):

Campaign contributions, says Hollis, have rallied the eloquent spokespersons of agribusiness to make it seem that the very survival of Midwest farmers rides on the shoulders of the subsidies program. And so, he says, the votes are cast according to the candidate who promises to keep federal dollars flowing into the subsidies. But, as Hollis points out, the reality of the subsidy program is very different from the rosy picture painted by the politicians. Farmers have had their lands consolidated by large corporations, the local waters and overall physical and social landscapes of their communities desecrated by corporate agricultural practice, and their tax aid swallowed up by about the wealthiest 7 percent of the industry.

Protecting ethanol subsidies in the new Energy Bill is a major issue now on the table for ADM’s political partners (conspicuously absent has been any major media coverage—between ADM advertisements—of any opposition to ethanol). ADM-formed groups like the Renewable Fuels Association and National Corn Growers continue to stir up plenty of support among farmers for their cause. These groups, along with Daschle et al., make the case that the biofuels market presents an important economic opportunity for family farms. However, the subsidy program cloaked as financial aid to farmers has actually crushed thousands of corn farmers under the foot of ADM and other top agribusiness corporations.(emphases mine)

So much for the family farm. But how about an improved environment?

The most blatant argument against the biofuels industry in its current form, from a sustainability perspective, is that it does not represent good farming. Maximizing profits under a subsidized program dictates large-scale, monocropped farms. This lack of crop integration is a leading cause of soil erosion and invites pests and disease. Heavy fertilization is used to replenish the soil. This leads to non-point source pollution that has been the root of incalculable environmental degradation rendering a vast majority of the waters of the Corn Belt states unsuitable for drinking or swimming. The wanton application of petrochemical pesticides and herbicides is leaving a legacy of toxic and non-biodegradable residue in the watersheds of our amber waves of grain. The seeds for a large majority of the corn and soybeans grown in this country are genetically engineered and are threatening the integrity of the crops throughout the continent.

In sharp contrast, carbon dioxide (the number-one greenhouse gas involved in fuel combustion) is constantly recycled in biomass fuel life cycles. Each year, the fuel crops remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere during photosynthesis (whereas petroleum fuels release carbon gases sequestered tens of millions of years before animal life was even possible on the planet). Ethanol, when used to oxygenate fuel, is a great alternative to using methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). MTBE, the only other oxygenate used in this country, is known to contaminate both ground and surface water. But the main case against ethanol still stands: It takes as much or more energy to grow and process the crops as is returned in burning the fuel.(emphasis mine)

Well, okay.. under this plan family farmers will go under, the environment will be toast, and we'll actually be burning more fossil fuel. But it will be cheaper to put in our cars, right?

For either biodiesel or ethanol, land mass necessary to satiate a portion of oil consumption would compete with other food crops and translate to big bucks at the gas pump(emphasis mine). “Abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuel amounts to unsustainable, subsidized food burning" Dr. Pimemtel states in his findings on the ethanol industry published in the September 2001 issue of the Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology. Dr. Pimentel calculates that an acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol.

Well, okay.. under this plan family farmers will go under, the environment will be toast, we'll actually be burning more fossil fuel, and it will be just as expensive at the pumps in the long run; BUT cars will run better, more efficiently, and have higher gas mileage on the higher-octane fuel, right? Well, let's go to simple physics:

From Mark's Handbook for Mechanical Engineers:

* Gasoline yields about 20,260 Btu's/lb of thermal energy from combustion
based on its HHV. On a volume basis that becomes 124,800 Btu's/gal.

while..

* Ethanol yields about 12,770 Btu's/lb of thermal energy from combustion
based on its HHV. On a volumetric basis that becomes 83,910 Btu's/gal.

So, if I did my math correctly, one would need 32% more ethanol per volume than gasoline to obtain the same amount of energy. Additionally,

E85 has always been priced below gasoline, partly because it delivers fewer miles per gallon. Studies show as much as 10-15 percent less(emphasis mine). Sudenga says the price gap has widened as gasoline prices have increased.

In addition, Current automobiles will need to undergo costly renovations:

The concern here is that un-combusted ethanol (especially during rich cold start conditions) may migrate past the piston ring resulting in cylinder wall washing, which reduces cylinder wall lubrication and could run down into the crankcase, diluting the engine oil. Alcohols are corrosive. Therefore, any part that comes in contact with the fuel has been upgraded to be tolerant to alcohol. Normally, these parts include a stainless steel fuel tank and Teflon-lined fuel hoses.

Okay... so family farmers go under, we'll be burning more fuel, the fuel will ultimately become more expensive, the environment will still be polluted (if not more so), cars will run less efficiently, and current ones will need expensive renovations. If all these people will be unhappy after this legislation is passed, then just who will live happily ever after under this legislation?

I guess that just leaves the corporate farmers and the politicians, doesn't it?

****UPDATE*****

triple_A at Residual Forces has some great additional comments on this issue.

A good friend comes home

Major Hal Borowiak is now home safe from his tour of Iraq. Mind you, Hal and I are friends from grade school, making him the same age as me. And mind you, further, that I take at least two bathroom breaks during the middle of the night. I have nothing but genuine admiration for Hal, who has dedicated his life to serving his family, his country, and his community.

I'm really looking forward to sharing a cold one with you soon, bud!

They are Insane!...those Republicans...

They will never learn. They will just never learn. They are simply delusional. The Republican chairman of the House Ethics Committee has just buckled and have given the dems yet another grand opportunity to call the kettle black and have provided them yet another junket for a fishing expedition, all in an effort to "make nice."

Rep. Doc Hastings (search), R-Wash., announced that he will empanel a subcommittee to investigate some of the charges surrounding DeLay if the Democrats agree to a compromise effort designed to break the impasse that has kept the committee from organizing.

The Republicans were "prepared to vote at the earliest opportunity to empanel an investigations subcommittee to review various allegations concerning travel and other actions" by DeLay, he said.

Four of the five Republicans on the committee are on board for immediate movement, Hastings said. Reps. Judy Biggert of Illinois, Melissa Hart of Pennsylvania and Tom Cole of Oklahoma joined Hastings at the news conference. Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas did not attend. The panel also has five Democratic members.

Republicans are trying to force Democrats to return to the table by suggesting that if DeLay is the stopping point for organizing the panel then they are willing to take him out of the mix. DeLay has repeatedly said he has done nothing wrong and has asked to appear before the committee to explain all the travel he has taken that has been called into question. He has called Democratic demands part of a smear campaign.

The Republicans have again, as they have done so many times before, buckled under pressure in their never-ending efforts to prove a negative, that they are really good guys, and if they just play nice to the opposing party, everyone will at once bury their hatchets and engage in rounds singing Kumbaya and other pretty songs.

The Republicans continue to harbor the delusion that "If only we offer another sacrificial lamb this time, the bad old democrats will surely be assuaged and their attacks will surely stop!" This mentality is reminiscent of a wife who stays in an abusive situation, perpetuating her own victimhood. She hangs on, thinking, "If only I'm a little nicer to him... if I only cook or clean better--then he'll love me and quit beating me!", only to ultimately end up in an emergency room, suffering from an unfortunate "accident" on the stairs. Yet despite years of undergoing the same cycle of abuse, she hangs on.. thinking someday...

Just as it is in the nature of an abusive husband to continue the abuse as a means of asserting power, it is likewise in the Machiavellian nature of the democrat party and their willing counterparts in the MSM to continue unfounded character assassinations--and for the same reason. Given the history of the last 30 years, the Republicans should have realized by now that every good faith action toward the opposition party will only be taken advantage of and thrown back in their collective face. Yet the Republicans keep on turning the other cheek..thinking someday...

Just what are the dynamics that keep up this symbiotic (though decidedly dysfunctional) relationship between republicans and democrats? Perhaps Michael K. Gilbertson, Ph.D., B.C.E.T.S., can show us some insight:

At this point a reader familiar with the Stockholm Syndrome might wonder if that phenomenon is relevant to the discussion. It might be. Several years ago in Stockholm a bank robber held a woman as hostage for several days in the bank's vault. When rescued, the woman denied that her captor was responsible for her pain. She was in fact quite indignant at the force the police had used to capture her assailant. She seemed to be infatuated with the gunman.

The key here might be the infantilization of the hostage who was dependent upon her captor for food, water, and toilet privileges. Frank Ochberg (1995) thinks this traumatic age regression (my term, not Dr. Ochberg's) accounts for the almost primal gratitude for life's necessities that many hostages feel if they're shown even a little kindness. He specifically links the Stockholm Syndrome with the bond many battered women feel for their abusers.

So, could the Republican's perpetual, systematic, and self-defeating propensity for making nice with their abusive democrat and MSM detractors be part of a syndrome?

Given the Republican's said pattern of pathological behavior over history with nearly identical results, I can come up with no better explanation.

A well-known radio talk show host has recently released a best-selling book entitled Liberalism is a mental disorder. It would appear that some "conservatives" are suffering from a malady of their own.

***UPDATE****

triple_a has a post on the ineptitude of the state Republican leadership in passing the Conceal & Carry act. I guess the mental disorder is more widespread than I thought.

Took the Night Writer up on it.. and kicked the tires...

The Night Writer in this post suggested a site in which many of us could contribute articles and possibly even make some dough doing it. So I decided to try it last night and duplicated a couple of posts from the Palace. Not that I'm expecting to make any money--just thought it would be nice to expand my horizons. I thought it worked a heckuva lot slicker than Blogger (though like an old pair of worn out underwear that you're just not ready to part with, I'm not quite ready to make a leap out of Blogger, yet).

This from the Night Writer:

I think it's an interesting concept, and while I'd still make my daily visits to the Fraters, Mitch, the Captain and the other NARNians as well as MOBsters such as Bogus, MAWB Squad, Kool Aid Report, the Psycmeistr and Centrisity (to name but a few), these are all strong voices that would be great regular contributors to a consolidated Minnesota site - and even better if they could make a few bucks in the process!

May I humbly suggest that the Night Writer add himself to that esteemed list!

A matter of Trust? The DFL are devoid of it.

ST. PAUL (AP) — The state Senate on Thursday decided against an effort to force a floor vote on a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.

Thousands of ban opponents rallied outside the Capitol.

Sen. Michele Bachmann, the Stillwater Republican who has led the push for the ban, said Senate Democrats have denied her repeated efforts to get the bill heard.

Senate leaders countered that Bachmann, a candidate for the U.S. House, is flouting Senate rules to advance her political career.

At the same time, about 2,500 gays, lesbians and their supporters attended a rally on the Capitol grounds a few hundred yards away, organized by OutFront Minnesota.

Speakers warned the bill would not only ban gay marriage in the state constitution, but also civil unions, and could threaten domestic-partnership benefits offered by municipal governments.

"We are Minnesotans. We are Americans," said state Sen. Scott Dibble, DFL-Minneapolis, who is gay. "We always have been and we always will be. This legislature and this governor need to know this is our government too, and they have to know they can't take it away from us."

Bachmann's bill would put a constitutional amendment that defines marriage only as between a man and a woman on the November 2006 ballot.(emphasis mine)

(read entire story here

Government control uber alles!! The proletariat be damned!! That seems to be the mindset of the Minnesota DFL (and one could probably extrapolate this to the national party as well, but I digress). I did not post the whole story, because if you read the last sentence, it pretty much says it all. Over 60% of Minnesotans oppose gay marriage. A majority also oppose the legalization of civil unions. According to the poll, however, a majority of Minnesotans opposed amending the Minnesota Constitution for those purposes. All the motion does is to once and for all put the question to the voters!!!

What are Dean Johnson and the rest of the DFL so afraid of? The polls, though contradictory in nature, clearly state that most Minnesotans oppose such an amendment (though they oppose gay marriage and civil unions at the same time), so why the hesitance to let them vote on it? Could it be that upon closer examination, the voter who opposes gay marriage will want to think twice about the need for a consitutional amendment after noting what happened in San Francisco? Are they afraid that the information blitz that will certainly ensue should this get on the ballot would result in less-than desirable results (in their personal view)?

It was the electorate who made the choice to put the DFL lawmakers where they are. But, in the eyes of the DFL, that same electorate cannot be trusted to make a choice on a decision that will clearly dictate the norms of society in which they live! It would appear that the elitist members of the DFL do indeed have an issue with trust. Perhaps it should be so remembered when it comes time to "trust them" again with our votes in the next election.

Is being overweight, over-rated? Findings stun food fascists..

In an article in today's Houston Chronicle:

Associated Press

CHICAGO — Being overweight is nowhere near as big a killer as the government thought, ranking No. 7 instead of No. 2 among the nation's leading preventable causes of death, according to a startling new calculation from the CDC.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated today that packing on too many pounds accounts for 25,814 deaths a year in the United States. As recently as January, the CDC came up with an estimate 14 times higher: 365,000 deaths.

The new analysis found that obesity — being extremely overweight — is indisputably lethal. But like several recent smaller studies, it found that people who are modestly overweight actually have a lower risk of death than those of normal weight(emphasis mine)

This news has to be as sonorous to these folks as Roseanne Barr singing the National Anthem; not to mention all the trial lawyers who have now lost a ton of opportunities to line their pockets with the proceeds of frivolous lawsuits. Perhaps the states' attorneys general who were successful in shaking down big tobacco can now sue McDonald's for a different reason: For making people live longer and thus becoming more of a drain on our social security system.

At any rate, it serves these clowns right for badmouthing Mexican food!

I think I'm going to like this guy! Pope Benedict XVI on the right to life..

"...[A] State which arrogates to itself the
prerogative of defining which human beings are or are not the subject of rights,
and which consequently grants to some the power to violate others' fundamental
right to life, contradicts the democratic ideal to which it continues to appeal and
undermines the very foundations on which it is built. By allowing the rights of the
weakest to be violated, the State also allows the law of force to prevail over the
force of law. One sees, then, that the idea of an absolute tolerance of freedom of
choice for some destroys the very foundation of a just mode of social life. The
separation of politics from any natural content of law, which is the inalienable
patrimony of everyone's moral conscience, deprives social life of its ethical
substance and leaves it defenseless before the will of the strongest."

Long Live Pope Benedict XVI!!

On not blogging... almost forever...

I have been busy with taking classes lately. Also, I am not able to blog during work hours. I apologize for my absence lately!

Dolphins vs. Schiavo

On CNN last night, they had a heartfelt, warm, touching story about hundreds of people who banned together to try to keep vulnerable dolphins alive

Rescue workers and volunteers worked nonstop to help as many as they could to return to deep water. Some dolphins made it. About two dozen died.

For 26 that clung to life there was only one chance for survival -- transfer to the Marine Mammal Conservancy rehabilitation facility on Key Largo, farther up the Keys from Marathon.

The dolphins were placed in a water pen where they have been given around-the-clock care by hundreds of volunteers who signed up for four-hour shifts.

And...

A veterinarian injects the mammals with vitamin E to help with muscle cramping. Unable to eat on their own, they are fitted with a feeding tube to get them the needed nutrition.

Now, reverse the clock a few weeks ago, when the same CNN covered the death watch for Terri Schiavo (CNN transcript from Limbaugh.com):

He has received death threats. Protesters have even staged rallies at Schiavo's house. Given the level of religious zealotry evident in the debate over Schiavo, there is reason for concern. Florida has seen its share of violence by extremists. In 1993, Michael Griffin murdered an abortion doctor in front of a Pensacola clinic. He's serving a life sentence. Paul Hill, one of Griffin's supporters, took the lives of an abortion doctor and his escort the following year. He was executed for his crime. One of Hill's supporters was caught by the FBI in Miami Beach. He was sentenced last year for plotting to blow up abortion clinics. The Florida department of law enforcement says it is monitoring the situation in Pinellas Park and, in its words, quote, collecting intelligence.

Okay, so the same reporter (John Zarrella) covers the dolphin-saving activists as noble and good, while just two weeks ago he compared all the Terri-Schiavo activists to abortion clinic bombers.

Question: Why didn't John Zarrella compare all the dolphin rescuers to the eco-terrorists, such as the Earth Liberation Front? Why were all the Schiavo protesters, in a not-so-veiled manner, blanketly associated with abortion clinic bombers? Why were those who wanted to keep the dolphins alive with feeding tubes held up as sensible and caring, while those who wanted to keep Schiavo alive dismissed as religious zealot whackos?

Tell us, Mr. Zarrella. What's your agenda? Inquiring minds want to know.

Score one for the good guys!!

BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.S. troops battled arms smugglers and fighters near the Iraqi town of Qaim along the Syrian border Tuesday, killing an unknown number of foreign insurgents, the U.S. military said. Local hospital officials reported at least nine people killed in clashes in the same area, and said they believed the dead were civilians.

The raids came as separate car bombs in two northern cities killed a total of 10 people, and as the Iraqi government claimed to have captured a former member of Saddam Hussein's regime at a farm northeast of Baghdad.

The Qaim raid occurred a day after insurgents tried unsuccessfully to ram two cars and a fire truck loaded with explosives into a Marine outpost there, but military officials said the attack was not related to the raid.

Insurgents opened fire when the U.S. troops began their raid on the smuggling ring Tuesday, and several militants, including at least one suicide bomber, were killed, the U.S. military said in a statement. No Americans were injured, it said. (click link to read entire story).

With every report coming from the MSM regarding our kids getting hurt or killed in Iraq, it certainly is refreshing to hear of the other team taking it on the chin (I'm sure it happens much more than we know, it's just nice to read about it).