Seems kind of blatant to me . . . but maybe I’m biased.

UPDATE: Another example from the same site, here. They probably have every single post of mine.

UPDATE x2: Here is another site (“Chatter Box Forum”) that routinely lifts every single word posted on my site. It used to steal my template, like the “t.love.com” site currently does — but now it “only” steals the verbal content. [UPDATE: No, they still steal the template too.]

So if I wanted to sue these people, how hard would it be?

UPDATE x3: Many other sites are being lifted wholesale, as you might expect. One of them: CBS News.

So can I just create a subdomain of patterico.com and lift the entire content of CBS News wholesale via the magic of RSS? Think of the possibilities! I could steal Andrew Sullivan’s entire site and link to his posts by linking a patterico.com subdomain! I could create a subdomain and recreate a porn site to maximize revenue! The theft possibilities are endless!

Incidentally, I see commenters arguing that I get clickthroughs from this. As far as I can tell, I don’t — unless you x out the page. Clicking on the banner for my site takes you back to t.love.com. Also, an odd thing about the site: it updates in real time. If you leave a comment, you will see it appear there immediately.

Kudos to the first commenter who can locate the t.love.com URL for this post. For the irony.

[Guest post by Jack Dunphy]

We who dwell in the cities along America’s seacoasts often hear derisive comments about the South and Southerners. But in my travels around the country I’ve found such comments undeserved. In the South one finds a sense of patriotism sorely lacking in the (supposedly) more sophisticated zones that bracket the country. As proof of this I present the below video, which was shot from a police car in Georgia as it trailed the hearse containing the body of Sergeant John Beale, a soldier killed in action in Afghanistan on June 4. As you watch, ask yourself if such a display would likely occur in your own hometown. It certainly wouldn’t in mine.

(Note to commenters: Any hint of snarkiness will be deleted. Save it for another topic.)

–Jack Dunphy

[Guest post by DRJ]

Barack Obama today on the economy:

“I love those folks who helped get us in this mess and now say, ‘This is Obama’s economy.’… That’s fine. Give it to me … So I welcome the job. My job is to solve problems. Not to stand on the sidelines and carp and gripe.”

That’s a far cry from Obama’s position in January 2009 when he said he “welcomed new ideas” about the economy. In addition, Obama hasn’t shied away from carping and griping himself. He leveled repeated criticism at the Bush Administration, both as a candidate and as President-elect.

For instance, in January 2008, Obama had “harsh words for President Bush’s stimulus plan,” criticism that continued throughout the year and culminated in December 2008 with an attack on the Bush response to the housing crisis and the economy:

“Several media accounts are describing President-elect Barack Obama’s statements over the weekend as an indictment of the current President’s handling of the economy since the election. Obama said on NBC’s Meet the Press, “I’m disappointed that we haven’t seen quicker movement on this issue by the Administration.” Obama’s comments about the economy led all three network newscasts last night. ABC World News reported Obama “took the unusual step of criticizing the outgoing president.”

On a different topic, Obama claimed two years ago he was one of Bush’s fiercest critics on Iraq:

“Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said President Bush has made massive policy blunders, but impeaching him or calling him a war criminal is a waste of time.

“I have been one of the fiercest critics of the Bush administration policies in Iraq … but we have to reserve terms like war criminal to behavior that goes beyond initiating a foolhardy war,” Obama told Iowa veterans during a conference call Tuesday evening.”

I guess some carping and griping is more acceptable than others.

UPDATE 1: “Thinly-veiled threats?” in response to criticism by Arizona Senator Jon Kyl?

UPDATE 2 on 7/15/2009: The Arizona Senators respond to the Obama Administration.

— DRJ

[Guest post by Jack Dunphy]

In honor of the occasion, a great scene from a great movie.

[Posted by Karl]

Hamas says Israel dumping aphrodisiac gum on Gaza:

GAZA CITY (AFP) — Hamas suspects that Israeli intelligence services are supplying its Gaza Strip stronghold with chewing gum that boosts the sex drive in order to “corrupt the young,” an official said on Tuesday.

***

The story came to light after a Palestinian man filed a complaint that his daughter had experienced “dubious side effects” after chewing the offending gum, Israeli media reported.

The Israeli military declined to comment officially on the allegations, which one military source termed “absurd.”

Absurd, but durable — Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Authority floated this story as far back as 1997.  And they lifted it from Egyptian tabloids in 1996.  For whatever reason, July is Zionist Sex Gum Month, in which the dastardly Joos try to pump up the population of those who wish to see Israel wiped off the map!

Here’s a little inspiration from Mary Katharine Ham to get the comments started.

–Karl

[Guest post by DRJ]

Because of her “breathtaking dishonesty” in explaining her “wise Latina” remarks:

“Thus, Sotomayor’s characterization of the context of her ‘wise Latina’ remark is the opposite of the truth. She wasn’t “agreeing with the sentiment that Justice O’Connor was attempting to convey,” as she told Senator Leahy. Rather, she staked out a position in opposition to O’Connor’s. In her speech she expressly disagreed with O’Connor’s view, as Sotomayor put it, “that both men and women were equally capable of being wise and fair judges.”

Sotomayor will apparently say anything to succeed.

UPDATED 1: Another negative Sotomayor review from via Randy Barnett at Volokh, including some “brutally candid” thoughts from a Georgetown Law professor.

UPDATE 2: The AP weighs in and it’s not pretty.

— DRJ

[Posted by Karl]

Via The Hill:

With their Speaker behind them, House Democrats are pushing ahead with plans to hold a series of hearings investigating instances in which intelligence officials may have misled members of Congress.

Senior Democratic aides said that a major announcement could come by the end of week, but it was already clear on Monday that House Democrats are seizing on weekend news reports that former Vice President Dick Cheney hid information from Congress.

The New York Times reported on Sunday that the CIA, under the direction of Cheney, developed a secret counterterrorism program and then was directed by the vice president to conceal it from Congress.

The Wall Street Journal first reported that the program was a classified initiative to kill or capture al Qaeda operatives.

Unfortunately for Democratic witch-hunters, their pals at the national security-defying New York Times apparently blew this secret back in December 2002:

The Bush administration has prepared a list of terrorist leaders the Central Intelligence Agency is authorized to kill, if capture is impractical and civilian casualties can be minimized, senior military and intelligence officials said.

The previously undisclosed C.I.A. list includes key Qaeda leaders like Osama bin Laden and his chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, as well as other principal figures from Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups, the officials said. The names of about two dozen terrorist leaders have recently been on the lethal-force list, officials said. “It’s the worst of the worst,” an official said.

President Bush has provided written legal authority to the C.I.A. to hunt down and kill the terrorists without seeking further approval each time the agency is about to stage an operation. Some officials said the terrorist list was known as the “high-value target list.” A spokesman for the White House declined to discuss the list or issues involving the use of lethal force against terrorists. A spokesman for the C.I.A. also declined to comment on the list.

Despite the authority given to the agency, Mr. Bush has not waived the executive order banning assassinations, officials said. The presidential authority to kill terrorists defines operatives of Al Qaeda as enemy combatants and thus legitimate targets for lethal force.

Could it be that CIA Director Panetta does not have a good grip on the history of his agency’s post-9/11 efforts? Could it be that his Democratic colleagues have such a knee-jerk hostility to the CIA that they would jump on bad info to attack the CIA and Fmr. Vice-Pres. Cheney as a modified limited defense of Speaker Pelosi’s prior bogus attacks on the CIA regarding briefings on interrogation tactics? Could it be that the geniuses of the NYT forgot they already blew the program?

(Hint: Yes, Yes and Yes.)

(Credit to Andrew Breitbart and Guy P. Benson for the links.)

—

Update: Here’s Guy’s take at NRO.

–Karl

Here.

This blog post by Jan Crawford Greenburg is gold from beginning to end:

Leahy tried to blame Republicans for failing to get [Miguel Estrada] confirmed when they had a majority — and then tried to blame Estrada himself, for not answering questions because he may have been “distracted” by a high-paying job offer.

??? Did I hear that right?

Estrada had (and has) a high-paying job, at Gibson Dunn, which he was willing to leave to go on the federal bench. And, regardless, Estrada answered questions every bit as thoroughly as John Roberts, who was confirmed to the DC Circuit–despite his not turning over the same DOJ documents the Judiciary Committee wanted from Estrada.

Estrada was blocked by Democrats for one reason — the same reason they blocked Bush’s other minority and women nominees: They knew he would be on the short list for the Supreme Court if confirmed. And they knew it’s a lot easier to block a nominee at the appeals court level, when no one is paying as much attention as the do to the Supreme Court. (Republicans are seeing that now with Sotomayor.) It was a deliberate, thought-through strategy.

Estrada should be on the Supreme Court right now. And failing that, he should be testifying at the Sotomayor hearings, about the shoddy way he was treated by Democrats because of his race.

It won’t happen, of course. Republicans always pull their punches at hearings for Democrat judicial appointees. Don’t take my word for it — take Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s. She recently told Emily Bazelon:

I hope that these hearings for Sonia will be as civil as mine were and Steve Breyer’s were. Ours were unusual in that respect.

Indeed — because those were the only hearings for Democrat appointees since the 1960s. Again, that’s a left-leaning justice saying that.

Republicans caved on Estrada, and now they are set to confirm Sotomayor without making a real ruckus about the way Estrada was treated — and about Sotomayor’s claims to be better (not just different or more diverse) because of her gender and ethnic makeup.

Pathetic. Is it any wonder that the GOP is so lacking in an enthusiastic base?

Hilzoy of Obsidian Wings is retiring from blogging. I learned this from James Joyner, who says:

You can read her lengthy explanation for yourself but the short version is that she was motivated to start because of what she thought was the insanity of the Bush era and that Obama’s taking over the White House means she can devote her time to other things.

. . . .

She’s been one of a handful of bloggers from the Loyal Opposition that I’ve read regularly because she thinks and writes well and mostly lives up to this:

And that was what I really wanted to do: to listen to people I disagreed with, to engage with them, and to try to show that it was possible to care deeply about politics without hating your opponents. Being civil doesn’t mean you’re lukewarm, and being committed to your principles doesn’t mean you have to be hateful.

That’s not the way to maximize pageviews, alas, but it is the proper attitude if your goal is to persuade and engage rather than vent.

I barely have time to read blogs, period — right- or left-leaning. But, while I always found Hilzoy to be almost 100% wrong on virtually every issue — and I’m sure she would say the same about me — I respected her as intellectually honest, if misguided. Her retirement, if it sticks, means further surrender to polarization and unhinged screaming in the blogosphere. Too bad.