Medary.com

That's the word on the street, er, Yahoo News, anyway:

MADRID, Spain - Spain plans to impose stricter rules on production of a staple of the national diet and increasingly popular export -- ham from free-range pigs that feed on acorns and herbs -- in order to weed out stable-bound impostors, a newspaper said Sunday.

The salt-cured ham, like Italian prosciutto but darker and chewier, is produced around Spain from a breed called the Iberian pig, a dark, long-legged creature with a pointy snout.

But because of ambiguous laws, the techniques used in many provinces do not comply with traditional standards for the ham to receive a certificate of quality, much like the 'denomination of origin' used in the wine industry, El Pais said.

Avast ye, ye swine!

Chimpanzee seen hunting with weapon

Pruetz's study was funded by Iowa State University and the National Geographic Society.

Her Iowa State graduate students continue to observe other emerging patterns among chimpanzees in Senegal.

"In a million years I never would've predicted that I would've seen (hunting)," she said. "I'm going to plug along and see what unfolds."

Don't they know that humans have exclusive rights to weapons use on this planet?  What's next?  Squirrels shooting BB guns back at misbehaving boys?

Eww.

A story from Yahoo News: 

Some coats may have fur from dogs

The Humane Society of the United States said it purchased coats from reputable outlets, such as upscale Nordstrom, with designer labels -- Andrew Marc, Tommy Hilfiger, for example -- and found them trimmed with fur from domestic dogs, even though the fur was advertised as fake.

"It's an industrywide deception," said Kristin Leppert, the head of the Human Society's anti-fur campaign.

The solution is obvious.  Buy your fur coats from Wal-Mart.  They might still be dog, but you'll at least have some comfort in knowing that the meat didn't go to waste.

Yeah, that was completely uncalled-for.  Sorry.

Well, it seems like the new version of my blogging software broke some links in my Conference Map Project, but that was easily enough fixed.  Now that I have a couple of free hours, I'll look around here but it looks like I'll stay on this version rather than trying to figure out how to restore my (upgraded) database to the un-upgraded version.

Onward!

Well, if things look a little strange, it's because they are.  I was playing around with a new version of my software here and it apparently decided to upgrade my backend database.  I've got a backup, but I also need to take Snookums to supper tonight, so it will be a while before I can play with it further.

I might just decide to stay at the new version . . . what the heck.

I couldn't resist!  Found in the K.C. Star:

Wang Zhendong, chairman of China’s Yingkou Donghua Trading Group Co., has been sentenced to death for swindling $385 million from investors in a bogus ant-breeding scheme.

Ants are used in some traditional Chinese medicinal remedies, which can fetch a high price. Wang sold the kits, which cost $25, for $1,300.

While the House Democrats are going out of their way to advocate defeat and disaster for our troops and the entire population of Iraq, just to score domestic political points, there's one man who has seen the writing on the wall.

Moqtada al Sadr, the leader of the Shiite Mahdi Army in Iraq, has bugged out of Baghdad.

Al Sadr commands the Mahdi army, one of the most formidable insurgent militias in Iraq, and his move coincides with the announced U.S. troop surge in Baghdad.

Sources believe al Sadr is worried about an increase of 20,000 U.S. troops in the Iraqi capital. One official told ABC News' Martha Raddatz, "He is scared he will get a JDAM [bomb] dropped on his house."

Sources say some of the Mahdi army leadership went with al Sadr.

One guess where he ran away to?

Yep.  Tehran.  Iran.  The guys who are building atomic bombs and who are supplying arms in Iraq to kill any freedom-loving Iraqi and any American who dares to stand in their way.

Meanwhile, the Democrats in the House give speech after speech advocating failure, retreat, and defeat.

Andrew Lubin, writing at OnPoint:

"AQI is both feared and hated," Capt Broekhuizen said, referring to Al Qaeda in Iraq.  "They’ve been running a brutal terror campaign.  No city leaders are left here who will take a leadership role." Marines from Golf Company said they recently fished two bodies out of the local river: a man had been decapitated, and his 4-year old tied to his leg before both were thrown into the river and the little boy drowned.  The killings were a product of Al Qaeda terror.

Those who oppose plans to deal with this sort of thing, are de-facto FOR this sort of thing.  If that line of reasoning offends you, tough.  The world is not always a nice place.  Wishing evil away doesn't work.

Via Instapundit

It's of course way too early to be making such decisions, but of the early jumpers and toe-dippers into the 2008 Presidential election waters, I think I'm most comfortable overall with Giuliani's politics and resume:

- Advocates lower taxes and smaller government
- Will appoint judges who actually read, understand, and agree with the plain text of the U.S. Constitution;
- Mildly pro-abortion (I'm personally not doctrinaire about the issue--basically I oppose abortion but recognize there may be instances where it's the lesser of two evils);
- School choice for parents and students--i.e. vouchers, as an incentive to force public schools to improve;
- Says he understands and supports the Second Amendment;
- Probably recognizes the threat of jihadism to our civilization;
- Has executive experience for a major U.S. governmental entity (i.e. New York City)

The guy made New York City work again. That's a pretty big accomplishment, I think. So, Rudy Giuliani's my early favorite. (One day, I will learn how to consistently, properly spell his name, perhaps.)

The other Republicans have, in my opinion, serious issues which prevent me from supporting them:

McCain will never overcome the stain of sponsoring the abomination which is McCain-Feingold (campaign financing). No one who advocates limiting political speech has any business being in government, let alone being a candidate for President.

I like Newt Gingrich's ideas--they guy's an idea factory. But I don't see how he's electable, given the rabidly hateful left today.

I don't know enough about Mitt Romney to have an opinion (other than . . . what kind of first name is Mitt, anyway?)

If a Democrat comes along who starts acting like they take the jihadist threat to civilization seriously, I might take a look. That eliminates anyone who has recently come out against winning in Iraq (which is pretty much every Democrat except perhaps Lieberman).

Still, it's early. Plenty of time for all the candidates to put their feet in their mouths (hello, Senator Biden!)

 Here's what you're being told about the most recent U.S. Intelligence estimate of the state of Iraq:

U.S. intel report: Iraq spiraling down (Yahoo News/AP)
US intelligence sees elements of civil war in Iraq (Yahoo News/AFP)
U.S. intelligence sees elements of Iraq "civil war" (Yahoo News/Reuters)
Intel report questions Bush's Iraq strategy (Miami Herald)
Intelligence study reports a bleak outlook for stability in Iraq (Kansas City Star)

Now, let's look at what the National Intelligence Estimate which spawned all of those gloomy headlines actually says:

Iraqi society's growing polarization, the persistent weakness of the security forces and the state in general, and all sides' ready recourse to violence are collectively driving an increase in communal and insurgent violence and political extremism.  Unless efforts to reverse these conditions show measureable progress during the term of this Estimate, the coming 12 to 18 months, we assess that the overall security situation will continue to deteriorate at rates comparable to the latter half of 2006.

Unless something changes, it will continue to be at least as bad as it currently is.

The Intelligence Community judges that the term "civil war" does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qa'ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence.

Sorry, NBC and the rest of the media.  It's not a civil war.  It's something different.  Which is not to say that it's not a serious situation.

Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq.  If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this Estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation.

In other words, it's bad, but it will get much worse if we leave.  Those in the United States who are calling for "redeployment" are calling for increased carnage in Iraq, pure and simple.  No amount of spin can get around that fundamental fact.