Earlier this year, a bill was signed that made the national Do Not Call list a reality, causing telephones across the country to fall silent at dinner time. Now Congress has passed the first anti-spam bill, the Anti-Spam Act of 2003, (H.R. 2515), which should soon be heading for the President's desk.

Spammers and telephone solicitors -- who we all love to hate -- complain that these laws infringe on their rights to free speech.  That's like a burglar complaining that laws against breaking and entering restrict his right to pursue his profession.  These people steal our time, our freedom to use the phone or internet, and our peace of mind.  It's about time this is stopped.

For the moment, the best way to deal with spam is to forward it all to uce@ftc.gov so the Federal Trade Commission can prosecute the worst offenders. That's where all MY spam's going from now on. How often do you get a chance to spam the government?  You can also fill out the FTC's complaint form if you have that kind of patience.  But the bill will allow the FTC to create a Do Not Spam list which will work like the Do Not Call List. 

Though companies complain that the Do Not Call list (and soon, the Do Not Spam list) restricts their freedom of speech and trade, they're ignoring the fact that the kind of people who sign up for such lists wouldn't buy products from a cold caller or spammer anyway.  Frankly, I think this is good for the companies themselves.  Instead of wasting their time and resources annoying people, they can concentrate on people who really WANT to enlarge various body parts, invest in cheap fly-by-night stocks, build a cable descrambler, look at "secret" webcam pictures, or buy the Paris Hilton sex video.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Another of the Left's attacks on Bush and Blair for leading a coalition to remove Saddam Hussein from power and liberate Iraq seems to have crumbled.

Much of the criticism seems to have faded away with the discovery of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, buried in mass graves all over the country. Some were children. Some were still alive.  It is said (or so I'm told) that there are as many mass graves as there once were pictures of Saddam.  There are still too many people who couldn't accept the fact that Saddam was such a bad person (the Left believes there is no evil except Bush) that he had to be removed without waiting for as long as his allies the French wanted him in power.  The bones in those graves tell us that twelve years was already far too long to have waited.

That still leaves the rather small (but vocal) crowd that believes it was wrong to liberate Iraq no matter what, because they feel they weren't told the strict, literal, absolute truth about his weapons of mass destruction.  They claim the President lied about something or other. (This changes frequently.)  They'd like to pretend that the entire Western world wasn't privy to the same knowledge, the intelligence that led Bill Clinton to state that "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons" and "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." (Of course, aside from lobbing in a few cruise missiles, he was content to leave Saddam alone to rebuild without those pesky UN inspectors bothering him.)  They'd like to pretend, as Ted Kennedy (D-MA) said, that "this whole thing was a fraud".  (Of course, that doesn't quite mesh with his assertion in 2002 that "we have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction", does it?)  As more evidence comes to light in Iraq every day, their cheap political stunts paint them further into a corner.

Here's a case in point: Tony Blair has been viciously attacked by the press and those against Iraqi liberation for presenting a dossier which stated in part,

Intelligence reports make clear that he sees the building up of his WMD capability, and the belief overseas that he would use these weapons, as vital to his strategic interests, and in particular his goal of regional domination. And the document discloses that his military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them.

Well, the man who gave British intelligence that information has at last come forward to assert the truth of his claim.  According to today's Sunday Telegraph,

An Iraqi colonel who commanded a front-line unit during the build-up to the war in Iraq has revealed how he passed top secret information to British intelligence warning that Saddam Hussein had deployed weapons of mass destruction that could be used on the battlefield against coalition troops in less than 45 minutes.

Lt-Col al-Dabbagh, 40, who was the head of an Iraqi air defence unit in the western desert, said that cases containing WMD warheads were delivered to front-line units, including his own, towards the end of last year.

In an exclusive interview with the Telegraph, Col al-Dabbagh said that he believed he was the source of the British Government's controversial claim, published in September last year in the intelligence dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam could launch WMD within 45 minutes.

He also insisted that the information contained in the dossier relating to Saddam's battlefield WMD capability was correct. "It is 100 per cent accurate," he said after reading the relevant passage.

"Forget 45 minutes," said Col al-Dabbagh "we could have fired these within half-an-hour."

Col al-Dabbagh, who spied for the Iraqi National Accord (INA), a London-based exile group, for several years before the war, said, however, that he provided several reports to British intelligence on Saddam's plans to deploy WMD from early 2002 onwards.

Of course, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting to hear the apologises Mr. Blair deserves for the unconscionable attacks on his character made by the pro-Saddam, pro-terrorist faction masquerading as anti-war groups.  The only thing they're "anti" is the spread of that terrible "democracy" stuff.

Since Thanksgiving, the visits of President Bush and Senator Clinton to our troops overseas have been the subject of much debate and comparison.

Frankly, I don't see any similarities between them.

President Bush went to a place where his life would be in danger if his presence became known.  Any enemy of America would go out of his or her way to spare Hillary's life in the desperate hope that she might try to run against him in 2004.

Hillary and her entourage forced hungry soldiers to wait an extra hour for their dinner in Afghanistan while she and her entourage were served first.  President Bush served the troops in Baghdad with his own hands, manning the mashed potatoes station.

President Bush got standing ovations from the soldiers in Baghdad.  Organisers had a hard time finding soldiers willing to have dinner with Hillary. Videos of her at the dinner table showed a soldier seated next to Hillary who seemed to avoid looking in her direction, even when reaching for a utensil near her.

President Bush's speech was designed to raise the morale of the soldiers, and it did.  Hillary's every word was designed to crush it, and we have yet to see the effect of that. Don't we have punishments for people who give aid and comfort to the enemy by deliberately hurting the morale of out troops? (Mildred Gillars, known as "Axis Sally", was sentenced to 10-30 years in prison, of which she served 12.)  Telling the troops on the front lines that their number is inadequate, they can't win without UN involvement, their commander-in-chief is lying to them, the war in Iraq was the result of Bush's personal obsession, and that "the obstacles and problems are much greater than the administration usually admits to" is disheartening, if not an outright attempt to demoralise them.

While in the Baghdad mess hall, President Bush posed for a picture with a decoration turkey on a platter (a tray full of turkey slices isn't worth photographing).  Hillary's entire Middle East jaunt was a pose, a decoration. And anyone who doesn't see her visit for what it was -- a blatant attempt to undermine the morale of our soldiers putting their lives on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan by trying to make them question their commander-in-chief while in a war zone under his orders -- is the turkey.

It seems that Joe Lieberman is the only Democratic Presidential hopeful with the guts to praise his potential opponent, and that's going to cost him the nomination.

Many of the nine Democrats vying for the chance to lose to President Bush next fall had statements to make regarding his risky, morale-boosting trip Thursday, followed by the typical Bush-bashing remarks. On Thanksgiving Day, Bush evaded his own security and snuck out of the country to visit some of the troops stationed in Iraq on Thanksgiving, thank them, and serve them dinner with his own hands.  Hillary Clinton, in between photo ops with soldiers that made me wonder who looked stiffer and more uncomfortable -- her or the troops -- followed her own faint praise with the usual pointed barbs. She was probably miffed that the only press her own jaunt got was from pundits pointing out how badly she'd been "upstaged". 

Like Hillary, few Democrats could bring themselves to say a single word of praise for the President without turning it into a chance to attack him.

"It's nice that he made it over there today, but this visit won't change the fact that those brave men and women should never have been fighting in Iraq in the first place," said Jay Carson, a Howard Dean spokesman.  John Kerry issued a statement saying that the trip was "the right thing to do for our country." But, of course, he added: "When Thanksgiving is over, I hope the president will take the time to correct his failed policy in Iraq that has placed our soldiers in a shooting gallery."  David Axelrod, speaking for John Edwards, described the visit as a "daring move and great politics," then added, "I think these kids need more. I'm sure they were buoyed by his coming, but they need more."  Wesley Clark, praised President Bush for the trip, then said, "But I'll tell you this... a visit, a photo op, or whatever it was to Baghdad, does not make up for a failed strategy," on CNN's "Late Edition".  Dick Gephardt, perhaps the wisest of the bunch, simply declined to comment on Bush's trip.

Only Joe Lieberman stood out of the crowd by his unalloyed praise for the President's Thanksgiving visit to the troops. "I don't have anything political or partisan to say about it," he said. "There are days when you have to say, we're not Republicans, we're not Democrats. We are Americans." That attitude will prevent Lieberman from ever gaining the nomination he seeks. These days, the Democrats are fueled by two things: hatred for President Bush, and hatred for everything President Bush says or does.

Local papers described the anti-terrorism demonstrations in Baghdad as being attended by several hundreds. The rallies were prepared and organized by political parties and tribal leaders which are not represented in the Governing Council such as the Iraqi Democratic Congregation (which includes several democratic parties), the Iraqi Democratic Current, the Iraqi Turkomen Front, and representatives and sheikhs from the Ka'ab, Al-Saada and other influential tribes in southern Iraq.

The demonstrations were held in Al-Tahrir square midtown Baghdad near the Freedom monument and the demonstrators marched on through Sa'doon street to the Fardus square in front of the Palestine and Sheraton hotels. Three symbolic coffins for the Iraqi police victims of bombings in Baghdad, Ba'quba, and Khan Bani Sa'ad were carried on cars ahead of the demonstrators representing a symbolic funeral for the victims of terrorism in Iraq. Protection was provided by IP, and various news reporters and jounalists covered the event according to the Azzaman Baghdad edition paper.

For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them.

And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

As almost everyone knows by now, the Republicans have pushed through both House and Senate a massive Medicare reform bill which has an estimated future cost of $395 billion.

Hard-line Conservatives hate it because it will increase the size of government and cost taxpayers billions.  Hard-core Liberals hate it because poor people will still have to pay something -- it's not completely free.  Many Democrats hate it because it gives President Bush a huge victory, and effectively hijacks what has always been a Democratic hobby-horse.  Some Republicans even hate it, because it gives in to the Democrats.  But many of the voters seem to like it, especially those who will be able to buy their prescription discount cards in the spring.

Yet what if the rest of it's a red herring, an elaborate masquerade?

Just a few months ago, THE big issue for the Democratic Presidental hopefuls was socialised medicine (though of course they would never have called it that).  Every single one of them came up with a different -- and equally disastrous -- plan to bring third-world medical care to the most prosperous nation on Earth. (Imagine a visit to your local hospital being exactly like a visit to the Division of Motor Vehicles office -- same swift, efficient service... same eager devotion to customer satisfaction.)  And these plans seemed to be gathering some momentum.

Suppose you wanted to derail the HELL out of that train, deflate the Democratic Presidential campaign even further, and hasten the coming split in the Democratic party?  But suppose, as a Republican, you also didn't want to annoy your base by shoveling too much taxpayer money into yet another huge government entitlement program?

You might put your name on the top Democratic issue, making every Democratic vote a polarising "damned if you do, damned if you don't" dilemma.  You might make sure that all the heavy expenditures wouldn't start until after the next election, so you have time to repeal or alter most of the measures.  Remember, when President Bush was campaigning in 2000, he promised senior citizens affordable prescription drugs, but hasn't been able to keep that promise until now.   Suppose the rest of this bill was added on just to take the health care issue away from the Democrats for the duration of the campaign season?  Oh, and as to that upcoming split in the Democratic party, Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca), the Liberal's Liberal, was heard to say "No true Democrat will vote for this bill".  Yet 11 Democrats did.  Those who didn't aren't going to look pretty during next year's elections.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Call me cynical. Call me crazy.  But I'm willing to bet -- not the farm, just a small wager -- that a great deal of this bill is going to see the business end of a shredder before its provisions take effect in 2006. It will have served its purpose by then.

That's the question you'd better be prepared to answer if you watch the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade with your children tomorrow.

That's right... the raspy-voiced Harvey Fierstein will be playing Santa's other half in a pro-gay-marriage activist stunt designed to shove their agenda IN YOUR FACE and politicise Santa, Christmas, Thanksgiving, and the biggest and most widely-watched parade of the year.  As Mr. Fierstein wrote in an op/ed piece in today's New York Times:

According to legend, New York lore and two major Hollywood flicks, Macy's Santa is the real deal. And tomorrow, to the delight of millions of little children (not to mention the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court), the Santa in New York's great parade will be half of a same-sex couple.

And guess who the other half will be? Me! Harvey Fierstein, nice Jewish boy from Bensonhurst, dressed in holiday finery portraying the one and only Mrs. Claus.

Won't America get a kick out of that? But what if Santa really was gay? Could there be a another Mr. Claus? Would those grinches who, as we speak, are fashioning legislation to deny marriage to gay and lesbian Americans make an exception for the jolly old soul? What has Santa ever done except bring joy and gifts to all? Just the sight of his face is enough to bring a smile to the Scroogiest of politicians. Would his gifts of love and goodwill be answered with exclusion and derision?

Who in hell gave him the right to take over a parade supposed to bring joy to children and families and turn it into his personal activism platform for a day?  If it weren't for the fringe in-your-face, screaming, outrageous, no-hold-barred activists performing stunts like this, forcing children -- other people's little children -- to confront adult issues like gay marriage in this hideous fashion, mainstream America wouldn't be quite so nervous about embracing gays in general.  This parade... Santa Claus, Christmas, holidays in general... are for the CHILDREN.  Remember them?  What gives people like Harvey Fierstein the right to sacrifice their innocence on the altar of his political agenda?

My guess and hope is that by the end of today, the parade organisers will announce that they have replaced Harvey the Flaming Wonder Activist with a nice, sweet-faced little old lady to play Mrs. Santa Claus in the parade.  Leave adult issues to adults, Mr. Fierstein... and let children be children while they can.

I'm sorry, but I just don't care all that much about Michael Jackson.

I'm not saying I don't care about his alleged victim; the innocence of children should never be taken from them. None of the media outlets I've seen, however, seem to be thinking about that at all. It's all about Michael Jackson, leading off every TV news program I've seen for the last few days, with one of two undertones prevailing: this must be a terrible ordeal for an innocent man who had a rough childhood, or what a wierd and horrible monster he is. Very few of them mention between breathless second-by-second updates that the trial has not yet even begun. They've all made up their minds already, but some of us will wait until the actual trial.  Just let me know when the verdict is in. If he's guilty, he will suffer the worst punishment known to mankind: taking Hillary Clinton's overly-strident dictation. No, his fame will be turned against him in the worst possible way: he will become the Conservative poster-boy against NAMBLA (The North American Man-Boy Love Association).

Dozens of investigators descended on his ranch and by now have set up portable toilets for themselves outside. I don't care.

He wasn't home at the time; he was in Las Vegas shooting a music video. I don't care.

He flew in on a private plane and was processed in about half an hour. I don't care.

He's 5'11" and weighs 120 pounds. I don't care.

He flew back out after posting $3 million for bail and flew back to Las Vegas. He was driven around town for a while as crowds mobbed the limo. People gathered outside his home to show the world how they refuse to believe he could ever do anything wrong. I don't care, though. I really don't.

There are so many far more interesting and vitally important news stories that are being mentioned merely in passing. President Bush was in Great Britain on the first State visit by a US President in decades. A few Marxists got together with a few pro-Terrorists and a lot of people just looking for some fun to protest against the "evil" of trying to stop the murder of innocents. The Democrats, of all people, are actually protesting the biggest increase in Medicare ever, while the AARP backs it.  Unfortunately, we'll be stuck with months of Michael Jackson coverage, as everyone even remotely connected with the case gets his or her fifteen minutes of fame. I don't want every minor detail shoved in my face every time I read a newspaper or magazine, or turn on my TV.  I just want to know about any important breaks in the case. For instance, if scientists figure out what planet Michael Jackson is from, let me know.

I almost wish he were running for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Then no one would even know who he is.