Deep Throat Revealed?

W. Mark Felt, who retired from the FBI after rising to its second most senior position, has identified himself as the “Deep Throat” source quoted by The Washington Post to break the Watergate scandal that led to President Nixon’s resignation, Vanity Fair magazine said Tuesday.

Apparently the “extraordinary circumstances” on filibustering presidential appointments only applies to judges, not ambassadors.

And it’s fascinating that this LA Times author doesn’t call this action a filibuster (though it refers to Republican quotes calling it such).

Thursday’s delay resulted from a failed Republican effort to cut off debate, a move that required the support of three-fifths of the Senate. The 56-42 vote fell short of the 60 votes the Republican majority needed to end debate and hold a confirmation vote.

What is a debate that requires 60% vote to cut it off in order to hold a confirmation vote, if not a filibuster?

“Well, John Bolton is in extraordinary-circumstance purgatory right now,” said an angry Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), when asked whether the Democrats’ actions Thursday undermined the spirit of the agreement.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) issued a statement excoriating the Democrats: “Some 72 hours after hailing an agreement that sought to end partisan filibusters, the Democrats have launched yet another partisan filibuster….

Looks like Stacey Campfield has started a small trend.

Roy Herron is Tennessee’s newest legislator to try his hand at the blog thing.

To the Iraq government:

Here’s a suggestion to stop the violence in Baghdad: Move all the western media people to Fallujah.

Since the violence is really a media event conducted for the fawning pro-terrorist western media and those media folk never leave Baghdad, relocating them to Fallujah will reduce the violence in Baghdad. Now it may increase the violence in Fallujah, but then you just move them again. And if they don’t like it you remind them that since they seem opposed to your freedom you wanted them to see what not having freedom is like.

Now let’s see. If I’m understanding the definition of tolerance it requires us to permit and not interfere with the views with which we do not agree. So if I think it’s okay to kill doctors that kill babies (which I don’t, for the record) then you have to permit my view and not condemn it, that is if you are for tolerance. Or if I’m intolerant of people who say they are for peace but blow up innocent children then you can’t say I am bad (which would be a judgment of intolerance). But if I am tolerant of the view that it’s okay to blow up innocent children for a certain cause then you could say I am good (potentially a judgment of tolerance). Or to be more concise, is it okay to be intolerant of intolerance? And, if so, then does that negate the tolerance argument, that we all need to be tolerant as though that’s some sort of blind virtue?

Now if tolerance is the right way to go then why can’t Larry Summers, the president of Harvard University, have the view that women are not as good at math and science as men? Even if he is wrong is he not entitled to that view without condemnation?

Or to cite another example, if George Bush believes there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and you believe otherwise, are not both views equally valid since we must be tolerant of the views of others. Therefore we cannot condemn either Bush or the one who holds a different viewpoint.

Now we know that the Quran (Koran) allows for the concept of jihad, or the declaration of a holy war for any stated purpose if it is declared such by the religious leadership. We also know that the Bible, specifically the New Testament, says that Jesus is God and that the only way to eternal life is through faith in Jesus, the Messiah. If tolerance is the rule of life, then both of these statements are okay since we can tolerate both, right? Now if the religious leaders who follow the Quran declare a holy war on those who believe Jesus is God in a human body, declaring them to be infidels, is that okay… to be tolerated?

Now if there are exceptions to tolerance then who decides which exceptions are legitimate? Is it the guy with the biggest club… the biggest bully? Is it the one who is the most corrupt? Is it the one who masquerades as a pious arbiter? Is it decided by a declaration of relativism? And if relative then what are the criteria for inclusion and exclusion? And will those criteria be tolerant or intolerant?

Or are there possibly objective criteria we can use to determine if something is true and legitimate while excluding others as false and contrived (words of intolerance?)

Being lost in a sea of relativism is like being at sea without any bearings. You may find yourself over the edge of the ocean… oh wait a minute. You can’t laugh at that. You have to be tolerant of my view that the earth may be flat.

In fact if you buy into the tolerance/relativist argument you cannot, by definition, make any judgments, evaluations, or legitimate analyses because when you do then you are violating your position of tolerance and relativistic thinking.

So with some simple observation it would seem that the tolerance argument is really a smoke screen to promote a cause or intolerant view one may hold that one suspects is not held by the majority of people. Or it is used as a way to try and silence those who would oppose or expose your point of view or thesis.

Some things to think about.

Scott Ott has the scoop!

Muslims in Pakistan and Afghanistan rioted today in response to new reports that copies of the Koran were desecrated when two American buildings collapsed after being struck by American airplanes in September of 2001.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) revealed that fragments of the burned and soiled Korans were discovered in the ruins of the World Trade Center towers in New York City.

Hah! Check out this poll from CNN/USA Today/Gallup on a Hillary presidential run. It claims that “An overwhelming 80% of liberals were likely to support her, compared with 58% of moderates and 33% of conservatives.”

The internals on that poll ought to be interesting.

It’s interesting to listen to Ted Koppel, with his synthetic erudite enunciations, rationalize the one-sided, attack America, “news” reports fed day in and day out to the world. In his stuffy manner, Koppel admonishes Hannity, “You’ve been in this business long enough to know that…” Hannity was questioning Koppel about all the negative news coverage of the military, the war and why there aren’t any reports of good things the military is doing. Koppel then uses this illustration to justify his behavior and that of his colleagues; “If a plane takes off from St. Louis and lands safely in Abilene it isn’t reported, but if the plane crashes then it’s big news.”

Now I may be just a redneck from the hinterland, but plane crashes and attacking and disparaging the U.S. military on a non-stop basis while ignoring the despicable and heinous behavior of the terrorists, renamed ‘insurgents’, and their hosts is hardly a legitimate analogy. Aiding and abetting the enemy is not comparable to planes routinely taking off and landing safely. Sorry Teddy boy. And you know, as I think about it, the “plane crashes” that get reported are very selective. It seems only the “plane crashes” that harm America (read Bush) get reported.

If Koppel really believes what he said to Hannity then he is either so brainwashed as to be useless as a “news” presenter and editor or he is totally unwilling to see. It is like someone who cannot see turning down eyeglasses because they are very content with blurred vision. They like to see things very blurred. It also is an indication that Koppel and his fellow “news” readers live in a very closed world, controlled by group think, and are unwilling to leave the compound for fear of reprisal by the other members of the cult.

Ted, people are dying… innocent people… because you folks in the media stir up the enemy, never condemn their heinous, murderous acts, aid them by attacking everything American to try and get Bush, make up stories… lies… about America, while aiding the enemy. In short, you sit there with blood on your hands, now dripping on your desks, from the deaths you have caused by your relentless, contrived, distorted and anti-American “reporting”.

And for that treasonous activity you give yourselves awards. Ted, if you have an ounce of integrity, please put on the glasses and have the guts to come off the compound. People are dying because of your blindness. Real lives are being destroyed while you so smugly attack the only country willing to stand up to tyranny. If it wasn’t for this country Ted, you would be in a gulag somewhere. Stop acting like we are the enemy.

You need one of these DVD Rewinders.

Interesting:

THE Chernobyl nuclear disaster has spawned a generation of ‘mutant’ super-brainy children.

Kids growing up in areas damaged by radiation from the plant have a higher IQ and faster reaction times, say Russian doctors.

They are also growing faster and have stronger immune systems.

Caffeinated Cola May Make Kids Hyperactive.

If your youngster is sassy, squirmy, or just plan hyperactive, caffeinated cola drinks could be to blame, a new study suggests.

…

“First-graders manifested behavioral problems when presented with caffeinated cola, suggesting that consumption of this should be minimized,” concludes the study.

I wonder who paid for this study.

Michelle: Mommy, What’s a Rainbow Party?

For once, I agree with Stern, who points out a glaring regulatory double standard. Oprah’s broadcast (on daytime network TV, accessible to children) was as indecent and titillating as anything Stern puts on the air. Why should she be allowed to hide behind the disingenuous guise of “education” while Stern faces a crackdown for vulgar entertainment?

And…

If “proper socialization” means teaching 14-year-olds about group oral sex, we can only pray that more parents choose to raise social misfits.

Here’s the book cover.

Pajama Editors: Homeschooling it is.

Mark in Mexico is talking about Saran Wrap.

Citzcom warns parents. And points out the following:

You think this is being made up? Read inside the book at Amazon. Here’s the USA Today article.

If you haven’t seen it yet, check out the text of John Conyers’ religious tolerance resolution.

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives condemning bigotry and religious intolerance, and recognizing that holy books of every religion should be treated with dignity and respect.

Whereas believers of all religions, including the Abrahamic faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, should be treated with respect and dignity;

Whereas the word Islam comes from the Arabic root word meaning “peace” and “submission”;

Whereas there are an estimated 7,000,000 Muslims in America, from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds, forming an integral part of the social fabric of America;

Whereas the Quran is the holy book for Muslims who recite passages from it in prayer and learn valuable lessons about peace, humanity and spirituality;
Whereas it should never be official policy of the United States Government to disparage the Quran, Islam, or any religion in any way, shape, or form;

Whereas mistreatment of prisoners and disrespect toward the holy book of any religion is unacceptable and against civilized humanity;

Whereas the infringement of an individual’s right to freedom of religion violates the Constitution and laws of the United States: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

(1) condemns bigotry, acts of violence, and intolerance against any religious group, including our friends, neighbors, and citizens of the Islamic faith;

(2) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith, should be protected;

(3) recognizes that the Quran, the holy book of Islam, as any other holy book of any religion, should be treated with dignity and respect; and

(4) calls upon local, State, and Federal authorities to work to prevent bias-motivated crimes and acts against all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith.

This is just nutty. Here’s why on a point by point basis.

(1) condemns bigotry, acts of violence, and intolerance against any religious group, including our friends, neighbors, and citizens of the Islamic faith;

A bigot is: “A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.”

On who is intolerant is “unwilling to tolerate difference of opinion”

So here we have the first point seemingly running directly counter to the first ammendment. I’m not saying bigotry and intolerance are good things necessarily, but at the intellectually and verbal level they are protected by the first ammendment. This first point does not even say acts of bigotry or intolerance. The only action it condemns is that of violence, and what is the point of a resolution that condemns violence? (I am not even going to try to deconstruct the irony of a resolution supporting the Koran and condemning violence - it’s been done in many other places prior).

Second point.

(2) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith, should be protected;

Isn’t this what we already have a Bill of Rights for? Seems like a waste of ink and a silly PR play.

And here’s one that’s causing the big uproar over at LGF (tip: Basil), some of the responses are rational, some not.

(3) recognizes that the Quran, the holy book of Islam, as any other holy book of any religion, should be treated with dignity and respect; and

First, what does “treated” mean? Is that a physical act? Or is portraying something artistically a treatment of it? Or speaking about it? If the bully shouts mean things to my kid on the playground, is he treating him with dignity and respect? I think not. What about if he draws a picture of his teacher with a voice bubble saying something obnoxious, is that treating the teacher with respect? I think not.

So it seems to me this is a very clear attempt at limiting the first ammendment and preventing speech that would be disrespectful of the Koran.

And what business does the government have making resolutions on manners in the first place? But more importantly, consider all of the potential ways in which this could be violated.

Obvious:
- Koran flushed at Gitmo

Maybe not so obvious:
- Korans destroyed in the bombing of a weapons cache in a mosque.
- Terrorist holding a Koran gets shot as he’s committing an act of violence.

Really scary:
- Discussions parsing the theology of the Koran which argue that it advocates violence and argue that it is not a true holy book or not the book of a true ROP.

And, “as any other holy book.” Nice bone he threw to those who were not singled out. What about sacred figures, symbols or beliefs? Would the outrage be there if a picture of the the Koran was shown immersed in a jar of urine?

Does this painting violate the Conyers resolution?

Or how about this? (Elephant dung smeared on virgin Mary).

Or would sites like these be prevented from existing?

And I wonder if Conyers has seen this article, which would encourage him to include the Bible in the list.

Hopefully the point has been made and I don’t need to elaborate further. Let’s look at the final bullet point.

(4) calls upon local, State, and Federal authorities to work to prevent bias-motivated crimes and acts against all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith.

Leaving aside the fact that hate-crime legislation in itself is nuts, the wording on this one is even worse. What is the definition of “bias?” Essentially, it is a point of view. A personal perspective. So one could easily argue that any crime or act is one made from bias. If I rob a convenience store, there is bias. I chose that one over another one for a reason. If I speak unkindly to my neighbor, there is bias. And while he doesn’t say “especially those of the Islamic faith,” that is really the transparent purpose of this resolution.

Oh, and what about shooting someone who is wearing a suicide bomb vest and walking toward you? That is definitely a biased action - the perspective of the shooter is strongly in play here. What if the shootee was Islamic? Would that violate Conyers’ resolution?

In summary, I realize Conyers is trying to show the world we are a nation who welcomes people of all faiths, and he’s trying to counter the unsubstantiated Newsweek claims. I’m sure his motives are good, but the results are silly. And scary to those who would preserve free speech.

As a side thought, I wonder if Conyers will push for changes at the National Endowment for the Arts, if that organization funds art that is intolerant or bigoted.

Others are also commenting.

The autonomist thinks he’s shilling for CAIR.

Dangerous Dan agrees with me.

Condemning prejudice is fine and endorsing tolerance is fine, but I certainly don’t want the government doing either. Reason being that the government, of all social entities, has the power of forced coercion. There’s a fine line between merely condemning or endorsing and making laws that enforce either or both. What was once condemned becomes banned and what was once endorsed becomes legally obligatory. Doing so comes at the expense of First Amendment liberties. Flushing a Koran down a toilet is abhorrent and should be condemned, but I … have a right to put so many holy books down the john that the plumber who gets called out will be a Religion scholar by the time he’s done unclogging the toilet.

Pirate’s Cove has some thoughts.

NYT Co. to Axe 190 Jobs. (Via Drew Curtis)

Do you want your kids to see this during the day?

[Warning, sexually suggested advertisement for hamburgers which may offend the more sensible readers].

The ad is coming to the midwest and the south in June.

Carls, Jr., the hamburger chain, is not apologizing (via O&P).

This commercial is basically soft-core porn,” said Melissa Caldwell, research director for the PTC [Parents Television Council].

Yet another reason the TV is unplugged and the kids have to do something else with their time.

Scribe Journal has more on the outrage.

Controversy sells though. Who ever heard of Carls, before this? (Via Edstrong)

For parent company CKE Restaurants Inc. of Carpinteria, Hilton has proved an effective way to get attention for the spicy new burger she was hired to sell.

The company said that its website even crashed on Friday as people clamored to view an expanded version of the commercial.

By the way, CKE is the owner of Hardees.

Good Morning World is offended. But for another reason.

John Kerry says he has signed Form 180. It’s been 114 days since he promised to do so.

Kevin thinks it may not be so cut and dried.

LindaSog is skeptical.

Lorie Byrd thinks there is still a candor gap.

Mark at Decision ‘08 urges caution. And he wants an update to the Kerry Clock.

And Michelle Malkin discusses an interesting point of disagreement between John O’Neill and Captain Ed. She quotes O’Neill:

Last summer, “Unfit for Command” author John O’Neill said if Kerry signed SF-180, reporters or anyone else could obtain all of Kerry’s military records from DoD. “If he executes Standard Form 180, he would no longer be the gatekeeper, the gatekeeper would be the U.S. military,” he told the Washington Times.

But Ed Morissey contends:

All kidding aside, Kerry only agreed to sign off on the SF-180. He didn’t agree to release every document that results from that request. The SF-180 will only release the information to Kerry, who can then cull the material for anything embarrassing before making it public.

I will be reviewing the book “Levi’s Will” shortly. Watch this space for details!

UPDATE: Review has been posted here.

Last night, “maverick” John McCain and 13 other Senators announced a compromise on the judicial nominees, which will prevent a show down on the “nuclear option” - at least for now. The reactions from both leading and long tail bloggers is primarily dissatisfaction with the deal. But there are some exceptions. Here is the actual deal itself.

Michelle Malkin:

The GOP parade of pusillanimity marches on. With this pathetic cave-in, the Republicans have sealed their fate as a Majority in Name Only.

Powerline’s Hinderaker thinks he’s going to be sick:

What a hideous deal! The Democrats have agreed to cloture on only three nominees, and they have made no commitment not to filibuster in the future, if there are “extraordinary circumstances.” Of course, the Dems think any nominee who is a Republican is “extraordinary.” The Dems have just wriggled off the hook on some of the nominees that, politically, some of them did not want to be seen voting against.

Hugh Hewitt:

John McCain –a great American, a lousy senator, and a terrible Republican– took himself out of serious contention in the GOP primaries of 2008. The McCain Caucus showed itself last night, and is united not by “moderation” but by enormous, towering ego.

The Political Teen has the video of the presser.

Scared Monkeys has a round up. So does PME.

The Anchoress isn’t pleased.

As usual, the GOP gave up, and the Democrats give up NOTHING. Here’s the agreement. It will make you sick.

But Mark, at Decision ‘08, thinks it’s a good thing for Republicans:

Why is this a big win? Take the half-full view. These three judges are like poison to the Left; they will be confirmed, and a precedent will be set for what is or isn’t acceptable for the Supreme Court fight down the line, a much more conservative precedent than existed before this deal…

Polipundit’s McClure also puts a positive spin on it. Rather than steal his entire post here (though it’s so good I was tempted…) click through and read his five arguments.

Unfortunately, some of my conservative brethren are screaming that Republicans caved in, that it is time to stay home on election day, or perhaps join a new party.

If these Republicans would look at settlement rationally, they would recognize that it is a complete victory.

First …

Slublog:

Congratulations. With the deal agreed to in the Senate, the Republican party just lost any money I was going to give next election season, and Senator Snowe has lost my vote.

DadaHead calls Slublog a wingnut for the picture he posted. The Therapist says the Republicans have been date raped.

Ankle Biting Pundit:

These RINO’s will undoubtedly be hailed by their real constituency, the MSM, as brave. But we know them for what they are - spineless cowards. Think about it - who is happier with this deal - Bill Frist or Harry Reid. There was only one way to judge the winners and losers here and that’s by asking this question: Will every judicial nominee get an up or down vote? Since the answer is “No”, we lose.

Even Judas got 30 pieces of silver. The RINO’s didn’t even get that.

Jayson at Polipundit though, is optimistic:

Ergo, if Mark Dayton is replaced with Mark Kennedy, and Kent Conrad is replaced with Gov. Hoeven (or Stabenow is replaced with Jane Abraham), and Santorum is kept in the Senate, this deal will become moot as of Jan. 2007.
And that says nothing about potential GOP pickups in places like Fla., NE, MD, WA, and N.J.

With two more net conservative *votes* – which can be achieved even with a draw, from the standpoint of net *seats* – one of two scenarios automatically will be achieved:

1) The Democrats won’t be able to filibuster Jack Squat.
2) The GOP will have the votes to make the rule change.

Elections do matter.

Molten Thought comes through with another analogy:

Once again, the GOP is playing solitaire while the Democrats play chess.

Harkonnendog also thinks it’s a good move.

At first I thought “All this deal does is give the democrats more moral authority!” But maybe it really just gives them rope to hang themselves with. I suppose… maybe it will turn out to be just that. Given this deal, the only reason to filibuster judicial nominees is avowedly “extraordinary circumstances.” I suppose this does move the burden of proof over to the democrats, and I suppose “extraordinary circumstances” is quite a high burden to meet. If the democrats cynically abuse the phrase it should be obvious and move moderates to the right…

The Buzz Blog calls it a sellout.

This so called “deal” was a retreat from earlier claims that Democrats were willing to approve five of the seven filibustered nominees. Talk about bad negotiating tactics - McCain and company actually lost ground when the GOP held all the cards.

Patterico makes a pledge:

The next time John McCain runs for any elective office, I pledge to support his opponent. I will use my blog to encourage others to vote for his opponent.

I am singling him out because of his fascist campaign finance law, which will not stop me in any way from using this blog to oppose John McCain for the rest of his days.

Captain Ed deconstructs the deal:

it appears that we have returned to status quo ante with an implicit admission from the GOP that filibusters are legitimate, and a matching one from the Democrats that they abused it.

Mitch Berg, former GOP Contributor has an open letter to Bill Frist.

Infinite Monkeys is not surpised by the compromise.

I have two words for those who are surprised at the Republicans’ ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory: Well, duh.

ConfirmThem.com, not surprisingly, is irate.

It is not compromise, but capitulation. And I say that as somebody who did agree that a certain form of compromise was acceptable. But this comrpomise treats a couple of nominees, Saad and Myers, as pawns. It makes them not people, but expendable objects. And that is unconscionable.

Beth from MVRWC is dumbfounded by the blog reactions.

Will someone please explain to me why it’s a BAD thing, when the three nominees the Democrats were shrieking about so much will get a vote now?

I know, they said they’ll only filibuster under “extraordinary circumstances.” I know, the Democrats are “The Party of No.” But to me, if they do pull this filibuster nonsense with the remaining judicial nominees, they’ll pay a heavy price politically, and lose the argument anyway. Do you really think the American people will look favorably upon bald-faced partisan shenanigans that break a commitment?

Stephen at the Politburo agrees with Beth.

I don’t mean to get all Rodney King-ish, but why must ALL commentary, from both politcal parties consist of “We won and they lost. Yay!” or “We lost and they won. Boo!” ??? Is that it? Has there been a new civil war? Do we now have the Red States of America locked in a twisted, hateful, unfortunate geographically-required embrace with the rival Blue States of America? Is that how it works? Is there no possibility that (whatever your views, or whoever might have gotten a 51% advantage), perhaps a compromise is a good idea, you know, strictly from a ‘civil war avoidance’ perspective?

All the ranting and raving bloggers can go impale themselves on the anticipated spikes in their Sitemeters they hope to get from all their over-the-top rhetoric. Take a pill, guys.

The good Professor Bainbridge also thinks many of these bloggers need to think again.

Will somebody please get these folks some cheese to go with their whine? I find these reactions not only short-sighted but also surprisingly unconservative. They reflect a willingness to put possible short-term partisan gain (and I emphasize the word possible) over both principle and long-term advantage.

Begging to Differ offers some rampant, baseless speculation.

WunderKraut:

What is wrong with you guys? This is not a compromise. This is a surrender! The Democrats must have gone to bed last night with a smile on their faces.

The Nose on Your Face has the results of the most recent Zogby Poll (Hah!). The top answer? “Frist.”

School children across the United States were asked: If you had to put someone down on the playground today, which insult would you be most likely to use?

Time will tell, which of these schools of thought are correct. Was this a brilliant move by the Democrats? A brilliant strategic move by the Republicans? Or was it legitimately a compromise that will server our country well?

The Funky Presbyterian is actually making an attempt to answer this question, and his answer may surprise you. Check it out.

Why do I say this? Because ultimately, for the Christian, the question “will there be baseball in Heaven” is not a question about baseball, or even heaven. It is a question about the nature and scope of the victory of Christ.

This may be difficult reading. Please please please post comments, ask questions etc etc. as you need clarification. I am a pastor and teacher at heart and nothing brings me more joy than questions. And beer. So if you don’t bring me joy, then bring me beer and we’ll call it even.

Part 1. Part 2.

Oh, and while you’re on the site, check out the new service he is offering: book cover reviews.

Instead, I’ve decided to write reviews of book covers. That’s right! Why put in several hours of labor to decipher all those tiny little letters when you can pretty much just look at a book’s cover and judge wether or not its any good? So my friends, the funky presbyterian now will provide you with the great community service of reviewing book covers of the books I would like to read if I had the time and energy.

On today’s Inside Politics, Jacki Schechner gave us our 15 minutes… well, ok, 15 seconds … of fame.

WOODRUFF: According to a new report, dozens of convicted sex offenders in New York are taking Viagra, and Medicaid is paying the bill. The story is sparking a great deal of anger and getting a lot of attention in cyberspace.

Let’s check in now with CNN political producer Abbi Tatton, and Jacki Schechner, our blog reporter.

Hi, Jacki.

JACKI SCHECHNER, CNN BLOG REPORTER: Hi, Judy.

What does this mean? It means a lot of high-level sex offenders are getting Viagra, and you are paying for it. It’s outrage on all sides of the blogs.

We start today at MyopicZeal.blogsome.com. This is Eric, who is a programmer in the Midwest. Named his blog, by the way, for the phrase “myopic zeal” that came out in the Rather-gate report. But he has a roundup of blog reaction to issues, and today he links to one blog called ondogriver.net.

This is Mark Jones, who is a political Independent. He’s a Navy veteran and has a story which he admits might be too much information, but says at one point he did need Viagra after surgery and he was unable to get it paid for because he’s a veteran under the care of the Department of Veteran Affairs Medical. Says that his doctor did give him a private prescription, but wondering if this means that America’s veterans are of a lower priority than convicted sex offenders.