Whenever a hurricane is remotely seen in the Atlantic Ocean moving westward, you can guarantee the alarms will sound from the local and national news and there will be nonstop coverage from hour-to-hour.

Tropical Storm Ernesto, which is approaching my house as we speak and I can feel it's winds out of my window (don't worry....you sneeze harder than those winds will blow) has been covered every second since Wednesday.  CNN has their meterologists on it, so does Fox.  Hell; even Sean Hannity dragged Accuweather's Joe Bastardi onto his radio show just to talk about it.  One of our local news stations in the Triangle, WRAL, used up two extra hours of news - going from their normal 5-7 to 5-9pm - to provide extra coverage of a storm that barely made top wind speeds of 70mph.

Maybe that's exciting news to people that live inland, or further up the eastern seaboard, as they rarely get to experience full hurricane winds, but it's nothing to those that have experience the brunt of real storms.  Diana, Gloria, Charlie, Floyd, Dennis, Fran, Bertha...I've seen them all.  This one?  It's nothing.

As a kid, I used to love watching the local weather and see this large storm approaching the Outer Banks.  Considering where I lived, there really wasn't much to look forward to.  I would liken it to midwesterners in Kansas or Missouri being amazed by tornadoes and eventually become storm chasers. 

I remember, over 10 years ago...this LARGE hurricane approached the Outer Banks, and got up to 100 or so miles off of the coast of NC, and SAT there for two days.  They evacuated the whole coast of NC, because the National Weather Service expected a "direct hit", which meant the hurricane was going to slam into North Carolina through Cape Hatteras, the easternmost point in NC.  However, it finally rolled out and back into the Atlantic, slapping Bermuda again for good measure.

UPDATE:  I found the hurricane.  It was Felix in 1995.   Wow. 

Events like that, I'll never forget.  However, anytime a storm even thinks about approaching the U.S., we can expect the news to blow it out of proportion or hope the hurricane would just disintegrate in the ocean (and they have done that before) just so the media will stop talking about it.  I'd rather go back to my smaller, coastal local stations that I grew up with as a kid (particularly Skip Waters of WCTI 12), rather than these ridiculous 5 day coverages done by the networks and news wires that ridiculously hype up storms that anyone with a bit of common sense knows have no chance of doing significant damage.

That's what we're getting from this one-sentence article from the AP:


I hope it's true.

Now, is it just me, or did dude look like he's ready to gnaw on that cop's arm like it was a drumstick?

Just sayin.

I'm quite surprised that the ad published last week in the L.A. Times denouncing terror and signed by a number of top Hollywood celebrities didn't garner much attention.  Considering the names listed, you would have thought the media paid more attention other than a passing glance.

It states:


Not bad.  It was straightfoward, yet not condemning enough for my tastes.  But they're in the popularity business, so you can't expect more than this.

Of course, the names listed are the white hollywood stars, notably Nicole Kidman and Michael Douglas, Bruce Willis, and Sylvester Stallone.  But there were a handful of black entertainers that signed this ad:


Those were the only four I recognized.  If there are more, feel free to let me know.

While they should be commended for standing up against terror, and specifically blaming Hezbollah and Hamas for starting the mess in Lebanon, it's sad that only a handful of black entertainers would sign it.  For these four, they won't suffer any serious repercussions to their entertaiment careers.  Mac's show on Fox has already been cancelled, and he might have a few movie roles left in his career.  Elder would only go so far in his, as he's a conservative and not an entertainer in the traditional sense, and Serena (Where's Venus?) will only have some cameos and sponsorships, because she can't act (trust me on this one).  And Vivica, well....can you name the last thing she's done in entertainment (No; 50 Cent does not qualify as an answer here.  What, not who.)?  Thought so.

The same ones that do whatever they can to kill Israelis, will kill black people in America and Africa without a second thought.  It's time for not only black entertainers, but black people of all stripes to wake up to the threat that could destroy the core of civilization if allowed to manifest.

In one stroke of the pen, the United Nations, with the help of the supposed terrorist-fighting Bush Administration, has created another Yassir Arafat in the Middle East.  This time it's Hassan Nasrallah, the head of the terrorist organization Hezbollah.

The resolution that passed Friday made Hezbollah a legit power broker in Middle Eastern politics, all through killing eight Israeli soliders and kidnapping two.  The United Nations, with the help of the Bush Administration, have shown that while they're not willing to witness Hezbollah's defeat and they're not willing to allow Israel to do it either.  So what's the result?  Hezbollah wins.  A terrorist organization becomes a legitimate organization.  If they weren't before, they definitely are now.

What is the message in this month-long affair that the Bush Administration has shown us?  TERRORISM WORKS.  Plain and simple.  If done properly, if a terrorist organization, no matter how many people they kill and how many incidents they start, can stay organized for a matter of time and endure any kind of operation taken to defeat them, they will be recognized by the "international community" and become a political entity.  The "international community" simply wants peace at all costs, even to the level of appeasement. 

Does anyone actually believe that Lebanon will take steps to disarm Hezbollah?  Lebanon is just as much at fault for this conflict as Hezbollah is, because they were ordered by the U.N. to disarm Hezbollah once Israel pulled out.  Not only did they fail to do it, but they gave every excuse in the book not to do so.

And then there's this by Lebanese President Emile Lahoud, in an interview with Speigel Magazine Online:

SPIEGEL: United Nations Resolution 1559 demands that the army should control the whole country -- up to the border with Israel.

Lahoud: It (the army) does that. But it wasn't the army that freed the occupied south of the country, rather it was the resistance which achieved that. Without this resistance Lebanon would still be occupied today.

and this:

SPIEGEL: Please explain your relationship to Hezbollah. What do you think of Hassan Nasrallah?

Lahoud: Hezbollah enjoys utmost prestige in Lebanon, because it freed our country. All over the Arab world you hear: Hezbollah maintains Arab honor, and even though it (Hezbollah) is very small, it stands up to Israel. And of course Nasrallah has my respect.

That interview was done on July 25th, almost a week into the offensive.  This wasn't three or four years ago.  Thus, what would make anyone feel as if the Lebanese government will do anything that would be considered against Hezbollah's wishes?  If Lebanon's head of state would say this so freely, what do you think others in Lebanon are saying? 

And even if Lebanon wanted to do something about Hezbollah, 1.  They'd have a hard time getting the army to do something about it, as a significant amount of them are Hezbollah supporters, and probably fighters as well, and 2.  Doing so would risk another civil war.  Thus, the only chance that Hezbollah would ever be disarmed or destroyed is up to Israel.  The Bush Administration's idea that Lebanon would do so is completely naive, short-sighted, and ignorant.

Instead, the U.N. does not order an immediate demand of Hezbollah activities within Lebanon, and it does not call for the immediate return of the kidnapped soldiers, which was why the invasion was done in the first place.  The bulk of the resolution is placed on Israel, and there are no safeguards in place in order to make sure that Hezbollah won't attack Israel again, or that it will disarm.

The more I read about this, the more it makes me sick.  We are about to sell out the Israelis for this ridiculously convoluted notion of "peace".  This isn't peace; it's appeasement.

More later.

That's what sources tell Rich Lowry.

If they do, they're stupid.  This resolution does not call for either the dismantling of Hezbollah, nor will it make the return of the kidnapped soldiers mandatory. 

All it calls for is a UN force - 15,000 - to regain control of the region until Lebanese forces are strong enough to do so.

If Lowry is correct, this is soooo stupid it doesn't make sense.  It will allow more time for Hezbollah to regroup and restart their terrorist activities.  Lebanon won't do a thing to stop Hezbollah; in fact they'll help make them stronger.  And when Israel is attacked again, it's going to make it that much harder to retaliate.

In effect, if Olmert agrees to this, all he's done is placed Israel in a worse situation than before.

Not to mention, the intrapolitical repercussions, as predicted by John Podhoretz:


And if he agrees to this garbage, he deserves it.  Rice, Bolton, and Bush ought to be ashamed of themselves for going along with this.

I'll have more later tonight.

But these have two legs:

A plot to blow up planes in flight from the UK to the US and commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale" has been disrupted, Scotland Yard has said.

It is thought the plan was to detonate explosive devices smuggled in hand luggage on to as many as 10 aircraft.

Police are searching premises after 21 people were arrested. Home Secretary John Reid said they believed the "main players" were accounted for.

New stories are popping up by the minute.  US and UK airport security officials have banned all liquids on planes.  Airlines have taken it a step further, and have banned all carry-ons from UK passengers.  London's Heathrow Airport, where the planes were to take off from, has been virtually shut down, due to airlines cancelling arrival and destination flights.  And there has already been some hints that Al Qaeda could have been behind this.

In other words, this isn't a good day to be travelling.

This is in the wake of an arrest in Ohio of two men from Dearborn, Michigan - a well known Arab enclave:

MARIETTA, Ohio - Two men were charged Wednesday with money laundering in support of terrorism after authorities said they found airplane passenger lists and information on airport security checkpoints in their car.

Deputies stopped Osama Sabhi Abulhassan, 20, and Ali Houssaiky, 20, both of Dearborn, Mich., on a traffic violation Tuesday. They found the flight documents along with $11,000 cash and 12 phones in the car, said Washington County Sheriff Larry Mincks.

Prosecutor Susan Vessels declined to say how the phones, cash or flight information involved terrorism.

Abulhassan and Houssaiky admitted buying about 600 phones in recent months at stores in southeast Ohio, said sheriff's Maj. John Winstanley. The men said they sold the phones to someone in Dearborn, a Detroit suburb.

Investigators going through the car after the pair were pulled over in Marietta, about 90 miles southeast of Columbus, also found a map that showed locations of Wal-Mart stores from Ohio through Kentucky, Tennessee and into North and South Carolina, Vessels said.

UK officials stated they had been investigating the plotters for a few months.  Did the Dearborn arrest have any connection with the plotters, and possibly accelerated their plans?  Right now, nobody's really talking about that possibility.  And what about the Egyptian students that disappeared yesterday?  They've found three, but eight are still missing.  Any link?

Malkin, as usual, is all over it.  So is Hot Air, who's been keeping up with coverage since the Dearborn arrests were made public last night.  I'll be around the house today, so I'll keep up with this as well.

---

The Blinking idiots over at Kos, namely "punditron", blame Bush, as usual (hat tip: Kathryn Lopez at Corner, because you know I rarely go over there):

Today, we can see again what Britain gets for being a staunch ally of Bush. They get home-grown terrorists, bombings, and more terrorist plots.

You have to wonder what exactly are the benefits of hitching yourself to George W. It's like when you consider making an investment or major purchase. You look at the pros and the cons. We all know what the cons are: your people become a target for terrorists, and you breed your own terrorist cells.

So, what are the benefits? Ummmmm, well, uhhhh, okay not many. Blair has sold out his people so he can cozy up on Bush's lap. Tony is like any other man in power, he wants to more power himself, and be closer to those who have even more power.

Yeah.  Lamont has to be proud to be supported by Kos.

Connecticut, these are the people you want to represent you?

- By Monday, the primary defeats of Joe Lieberman and Cynthia McKinney were not surprising.  Both had been behind by a significant margin for over a month.  Thus, it's not accurate to call either victory by their opponents, Ned Lamont and Hank Johnson, respectively, an upset.

- Let's start with Lieberman first.  It was reported a week ago that Lamont was leading by double digits over Lieberman.  By Monday, that lead had been cut in half, and he only won by four percent of the vote.  That's a pretty big shift in a short time, and it doesn't bode well for Lamont in the upcoming general election.

- Lieberman immediately announced his intention to run as an independent in the general election, and has already collected the 15,000 signatures needed in order to be placed on the ballot.

Don't be surprised to hear of the Democrats, along with the Lamont campaign, going to court to attempt to block Lieberman from having his name on the ballot.  That should be expected.  After all, what the Democrats can't get at the ballot box, they'll get from the courts.

Lieberman should have seen this challenge coming during the 04 Democratic primaries.  The far left has been very critical for quite a while and a challenge to his spot was forthcoming.  I would have thought he would have took a stance similar to Zell Miller, and steered clear of the Washington Democrats while still proclaiming himself a member of the party.  However, it seems that the Democrats, led by the nutjobs on the far left, are going to kick him out first.

- As I noted in a post over a week ago, the reason Lieberman lost the primary was not simply because of the war.  After all, there are several Democrats that don't support a pullout, and never have.  Lieberman didn't lose because he supported Israel.  There are plenty of Democrats that do.  However, Lieberman lost because he supported both of these as well as having the nerve to be Jewish.  And because he was Jewish and a staunch supporter of all of these, he became one of the most hated figures within the Democratic Party faithful, and the left's #1 target.

If this was a Republican primary, and say, a long-time black incumbent politician was defeated because he supported affirmative action and/or supported issues that went against the Republican platform but benefited Africa, there would have been countless media stories about the level of anti-black sentiment within the Republican party (and you really don't need that scenario to have those stories published now).  However, don't anticipate the anti-semitic/anti-Israel stories about the Connecticut race being published anytime soon.  After all, Democrats/leftists can't be bigots, at least if you let the media tell it.

- I really don't see the hype in McKinney's loss.  All you're doing is replacing a loud leftist with a quiet one.  At the end of the day, there's still going to be a leftist representing Georgia's 4th District, and the district will be no better off than when McKinney was there.

I was excited when McKinney was defeated by Denise Majette in 2002.  However, Majette decided to hightail it just over a year later to run for U.S. Senate - probably the dumbest political move in recent memory.  At the ballot box, Majette showed that she wasn't much different than McKinney when voting in the Senate, and there's nothing to suggest that Hank Johnson will be either.  Thus, the 4th District loses either way.  Big deal.

- Can McKinney and her staff ever have an election where they actually behave themselves and act like they have some sense?  In 2004, it was her father cutting up, with the infamous "J-E-W-S" comment.  This time, one of her staffer's places his hands on a local NBC cameraperson after an appearance this afternoon.  Then tonight, her goons are at it again, attacking members of the media after a boom mike supposedly hit someone from the McKinney campaign from overhead while she was leaving.  Boy, is she going out in style.

 

Yesterday, NC Governor Mike Easley signed a law that created a "Innocence Commission", the first of its kind in the nation.

What is it exactly?  From the AP:

The North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission will review innocence claims from people who can present new evidence that hasn't been considered in court.

The eight-member commission will begin accepting claims in November. If five or more commission members agree there is enough evidence of potential innocence, the case would be sent to a panel of three Superior Court judges. Overturning a conviction would require a unanimous decision by the three judges.

Easley, a former prosecutor and attorney general, said North Carolina residents should be proud of the commission.

"Its creation gives our criminal justice system yet another safeguard by helping ensure that the people in our prisons in fact, belong there," Easley said in a statement after signing the bill without a public ceremony.

I like it, and I expect the rest of the states to take NC's lead.  This is probably one of the better decisions the state legislature has made all year.  Although I haven't heard much from anyone opposing this commission, I dont see a negative here. 

The only counterargument was made by NC's Conference of District Attorneys, and that was only to a provision that would allow criminals that pled guilty to a crime to be able to bring their case to the commission after two years.  Nevertheless, I believe it's fair, because some criminals do plead guilty due to the mounting evidence of the prosecution, and trying to avoid more jail time than the defendant would have otherwise gotten.

 I'd imagine this would also allow the appeals process to go though faster for those with legitimate arguments of innocence, particularly with DNA evidence and such.  This can go a long way in justice truly being served, as it helps the defendant get a hearing to truly prove he's innocent. 

It also helps to reduce the embarrassing spectacle of keeping an innocent man locked up for, say, 18 years:

Among the high-profile cases of wrongful conviction was that of Darryl Hunt, who served 18 years in prison for the 1984 murder of a Winston-Salem newspaper employee before he was exonerated in 2003 by DNA evidence. Easley later pardoned him. In 2004, Alan Gell, a onetime death row inmate, was retried and acquitted in a 1995 killing after it was revealed prosecutors withheld key evidence.

It may not completely hinder the chances of this happening again, but any safeguard that can be reasonably implemented in order to stop this from happening again is well worth it.

...Lamont has ditched the moonbat blogosphere.

Sad, isn't it?  But can you blame him?

Let's start from the top: Jane Hamsher, who writes on the blog FireDogLake and tends to be one of the most inflammatory bloggers on the left, decided she would take the time to doctor a picture of Bill Clinton and Joe Lieberman.

The result?

Nice.  Very classy.  Of course, this isn't the first time a blogger has dabbled with blackface doctoring, as black leftist nutjob Steve Gilliard did the same thing to Michael Steele.

However, Michelle Malkin, Public Enemy #1 of the moonbat wing of the blogosphere, got hold of it yesterday.  Now, within the span of 24 hours, Ned Lamont has become senile, acting as if he's never heard of a blog.  When questioned by a local reporter, Lamont said this:

{Lamont:}I don't know anything about the blogs, I'm not responsible for those, I have no comment on 'em -

{reporter} she raised money for your campaign...

{Lamont}Independent blogs, I can't say anything about it.

Now, I'll give Lamont the benefit of the doubt, and say that he "pretended" not to know anything about the Huffington Post.  However, that doesn't excuse his ignorance of knowing who Jane Hamsher is.  As Malkin notes, she has had a pretty big impact in his campaign, including chauffering him and his staff, helping to create his first videoblog, and raising money.  As of noon, FireDogLake still serves of one of the few links to "independent blogs" on his blogroll.  Ironically (or is it?), so is the Huffington Post.  And for the record, there are only 10 blogs on his blogroll.

I haven't seen much coverage, if there is any, of this on television.  There is a Washington Post article, buried inside of the paper, of course.  Do you think it would have been buried had it been a Republ.....

You know what?  Never mind.  I've said that so much while watching this primary that I'm tired of saying it.

Anyway, I'll keep my eyes open to see if this story gathers steam.