Congrats to Laura Chinchilla

... for being elected Costa Rica's first female president!

Comics of Rhodey -- done for now

I've decided to nix my experimental comics blog, The Comics of Rhodey, for the time being -- "time" being the operative word. There just ain't enough of it!

I'll be back blogging about comics and related matters right here, as I have in recent days.

Capt. America -- a USO performer??

Hmmm ... take a look:

"The costume is a flag, but the way we're getting around that is we have Steve Rogers forced into the USO circuit. After he's made into this super-soldier, they decide they can't send him into combat and risk him getting killed. He's the only one and they can't make more. So they say, 'You're going to be in this USO show' and they give him a flag suit. He can't wait to get out of it."

"So he's up on stage doing songs and dances with chorus girls and he can't wait to get out and really fight. When he does go AWOL, he covers up the suit but then, after a few things happen, he realizes that this uniform allows him to lead. By then, he's become a star in the public mind and a symbol. The guys get behind him because he embodies something special."

I think it'll work. Remember, comics fans -- the story has to appeal to the general public, especially those not familiar with Cap other than his name. He couldn't just put on a flag suit after his physical transformation and say "I'm a hero and I'm going to represent America."

I also like how the article plans on making use of the "traditional" Cap suit designed by Jack Kirby, and the more recent uniform:

In the first USO sequences, the frustrated patriot will be wearing a version that is closer to the classic Jack Kirby-designed costume, but then later as the super-soldier hits the war zone he will be wearing a sturdier, more muted version that he makes himself that is more like battle togs. The stripes across his mid-section, for instance, will be straps, not colored fabric.

Sounds promising! But what will be really interesting is how Marvel/Hollywood deal with a character that is supposed to embody the promise of the United States' values. Will Cap be that "traditional American values" type of hero (truth, justice, freedom, hope, etc.), or the modern Left's version utilized by guys like Ed Brubaker and Mark Millar?

In related news, the heirs of comics creator genius Jack Kirby are busy trying to get a portion of the entertainment biz's fortunes -- because they've been made [partially] on the back of their dad's creative wizardry:

Four children of Kirby, who co-created a number of Marvel's best-known superheroes in the 1960s including the X-Men, Fantastic Four, Thor and the Hulk, have served 45 "notices of termination" to Marvel, Disney, Sony Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures and Universal Pictures. The notices seek to regain copyright control of certain characters.

The children of Kirby, who died in 1994, are being represented by Los Angeles law firm Toberoff & Associates, which has represented the heirs of Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel in a similar claim against Warner Bros.

Kirby served as artist and co-plotter with writer Stan Lee on most of the characters in question. Whereas Lee has been a public face of the company for decades, Kirby is less known.

While I'm usually fairly skeptical of those trying to get an "easy buck" via lawyers, the Kirby case is an exception. I've read enough about "The King" to know that his contribution to Marvel's universe -- and subsequent massive popularity -- is vastly understated. In the 60s, Kirby would virtually map out story plots himself -- via copious notes in the margins of his penciled pages -- leaving [Stan] Lee to just type up some dialogue. But it was Lee who always got top billing in the comics' credits, and Lee was also the "big" public face of the company.

Just keep in mind when you read those back-issues (or the great Marvel Essentials, which collect them) that it was Kirby who was primarily responsible for the outstanding stories you savor.

Dopey WNJ Letter of the Week

Bob Bullington of Milford must be a fan of the LGOMB (Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers) in that he's miffed at those who are miffed at The Messiah:

I suggest that they also remember, while they’re at it, who put us in this mess to begin with.

A circulated internal memo states that the Republican Party’s main goal is to bring the president down. They’ve chosen to do that by insuring that President Obama’s programs to save this nation fail. Unfortunately, that approach brings us all down as well. It appears that they are Republicans first, Americans last.

WTF is this "internal memo?" Is it that "health care is Obama's Waterloo" stuff? Oh, puh-lease.

Look, Bob -- every party in opposition to the president will do what it can to get political advantage. Period. But the GOP has been in opposition to Clinton-style national health care since, well, Bill Clinton! Obama's plan is much more sweeping in scope and at least as expensive, so why wouldn't the Republicans be against it, hmm?

Did the Democrats "do all they could" to bring down George W. Bush? They were for the Iraq War when all seemed to be going well; they became vehemently against it when things turned sour. Their "Bush lied about WMDs" directly contradicts many of their own party members' comments and testimony before GW Bush took office -- and during his tenure. Were the "Democrats first, Americans last," Bob?

Bush is indeed responsible for his share of what the nation currently faces -- economically and even moreso in terms of foreign policy. But it sure doesn't absolve Obama of his responsibility (or that of the Democrats) -- especially when their policies arguably are making things much worse!

Voters upset about this are right not to forget who's in office when election time rolls around.

Super Bowl pick

I am cheering for the Saints; however, I think the Colts are too much for the Cajun boys.

Colts 35, Saints 23.

Watcher's Council winners

First place in the Council category was Mere Rhetoric with Yahoo Wipes “Ariel, Israel” Off The Map, Replaces It With “Jenin, Palestinian Occupied Territories”

First place in the non-Council category was Atlas Shrugs with From Himmler with Love: “His Eminence, the Grand Mufti, In Remembrance”

Full results are here.

Surprise surprise

College Makes Students More Liberal, but Not Smarter About Civics, Study Finds.

Must read

Why Are Liberals So Condescending? by Gerard Alexander at the Washington Post. A lot of what I've written in the last few months echoes Alexander's article.

Imagine if this was Dan Quayle (or George Bush)

Remember the maxim: If a Republican makes a grammatical goof, it's MSM fodder forever, and proof that he/she is stupid. If a Democrat makes one, well, there must be some excuse (like being tired, overworked, etc.). This holds especially true if you're Barack Obama. Because everyone knows that he is so intelligent, there must be some reason why he mispronounced "corpsman" not once, but twice. (Video at link.)

OK, sure, Obama was never in the military. Well hell, neither was I, but even I knew how to pronounce "corpsman" if only by watching freakin' M*A*S*H! And you know what? You'd never have known Obama even made this goof 15 or 20 years ago. Because then, all we had was the mainstream media.

Guess the party!

AP report (via the Wilmington News Journal) on Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon's ouster from office.

What's missing? You guessed it.

Fun with numbers

The AP (via the News Journal):

The unemployment rate dropped unexpectedly in January to 9.7 percent from 10 percent while employers shed 20,000 jobs, the government said today.

The rate dropped because a survey of households found the number of employed Americans rose by 541,000, the Labor Department said. The job losses are calculated from a separate survey of employers.

Uh huh, yeah, OK.

Then there's "Round Up All Republicans And Shoot Them" Delaware Dem over at the LGOMB, quoting the AP:

The number of employed Americans has risen by 541,000 since the last Jobs report, while an additional 20,000 jobs have been lost.

All told, the Labor Department says the Great Recession has eliminated 8.4 million jobs. That’s the most of any recession since World War II as a proportion of total payrolls. Thanks Republicans for your wonderful stewardship of our economy.

Of course, one who wishes to kill others for mere political disagreements has the mental state to simply ignore what has transpired over the last year, where the GOP has had little-to-no political power. Del Dem's ability to think is as heinous as his appearance.

Then, we actually get an inkling of the truth:

While a sharp increase in the number of people giving up looking for work helped to depress the jobless rate, some details of the employment report were encouraging. The number of "discouraged job seekers" rose to 1.1 million in January from 734,000 a year ago.

Aside from the fact that somehow an increase of about a quarter million of "discouraged job seekers" is "encouraging" (whaaa?) we see that the lowering of the unemployment rate is due ... to people giving up looking for work!

Now THAT is "encouraging!" LOL!

Will the NAACP protest?

Check out the NBC cafeteria's "celebration" of Black History Month here.

Steve Krakauer at Mediaite reports that Questlove, the leader of the band for the late-night Jimmy Fallon show, complained to his more than 1 million followers on Twitter that NBC's cafeteria at 30 Rock in New York offered fried chicken "in honor of Black History Month."

NBC Universal replied on Twitter: "The sign in the NBCU cafeteria has been removed. We apologize for anyone who was offended by it." There's no word on whether the chicken special was removed along with the sign. (Source.)

Anyone remember what happened here in the First State one year ago?

Yep, that's an Acme circular for Black History Month which includes items such as cornbread, collard greens, flavored soda, and hot sauce. The local NAACP supposedly got over 100 complaints about the flier; the question is now, will the group protest NBC -- this, the same company that ditched shock jock Don Imus for using a racially-charged term in one of his broadcasts?

This all reminds me of the classic M*A*S*H episode "Dear Dad ... Three" where Hawkeye describes how he and pal Trapper dealt with a bigoted [wounded] soldier who wants the "right kind of blood" during his operation. While the soldier is recovering (still unconscious), Hawk and Trapper use some iodine mixture to darken the soldier's skin! When he wakes up, he summons Trapper, who's carrying a tray.

Soldier: "Hey, doc ..."
Trapper: "Hey boy ..."
Soldier: "Doc, what's going on -- did you guys give me the right color blood??"
Trapper: "Take it easy! Have some food first."
Soldier: "W-what is it?"
Trapper: "Just what you ordered -- fried chicken and watermelon!"

The conundrum that is "diversity"

What to do when a minority ... makes offensive statements about another ... minority?

This is the problem that faces Vanderbilt University where a Muslim chaplain was quoted as "saying he would have to 'go with what Islam teaches' regarding the imposition of capital punishment on practicing homosexuals." Some Islamic countries put those "caught" practicing homosexuality to death, like Saudi Arabia and Iran. In a statement, Vandy said that Awadh A. Binhazim's comments were part of "Project Dialogue," "a series meant to bring 'diverse viewpoints' to campus."

Uh huh. Anyone who has followed as I have the folly of political correctness that infects American campuses to the Nth degree has to chuckle at that statement. Y'know, American campuses -- where conservatives routinely get shouted down and even attacked for saying something contrary to the prevailing campuse orthodoxy. Of course, most of these conservatives are white, so there's not really an "inner struggle" among diversophiles/multi-cultis about what to do, unlike Binhazim's case.

Vandy went on to "reaffirm" it commitment "both to free speech and to non-discrimination." Let's wait and see if that's really the case when someone like, say Dick Cheney, Ann Coulter or David Horowitz is invited to speak there. If they're even invited, that is.

More here.

Watcher's Council nominations

Mere Rhetoric - Yahoo Wipes “Ariel, Israel” Off The Map, Replaces It With “Jenin, Palestinian Occupied Territories”
Rhymes With Right - But If She Wanted An Abortion, It Would Have Been No Big Deal
Soccer Dad - The goldstone rumor mill
Bookworm Room - Leftist tactics to scare the uninformed about America’s religious freedoms *UPDATED*
Wolf Howling - The Three Stooges Meet Al Qaeda In Undiegate
The Colossus of Rhodey - The Colonel’s Tiger
Right Truth - GOP: You blew it!
The Glittering Eye - The Really Hard Choices We’re Avoiding
Joshuapundit - The Valley Of Decision : Iran Crosses The Nuclear Threshold
American Digest - Last Light
The Provocateur - Dr. Chacko to Afghanistan?

And be sure to scope out the non-Council submissions as well!

Your mainstream media at work for you

The esteemed Reuters pulls a story on Obama administration "backdoor" middle-class tax increases ... after the White House complains to them about it.

Once again, dissent is patriotic until ...

... you disagree with a "progressive" leader. Here's Newsweek's Jonathan Alter on the GOP's criticism of Obama's handling of the War on Terror (or, I should say, "Overseas Contingency Operations"):

"I wish they (Republicans) would look into their souls a little bit, is that if they convey over and over again that the president of the United States is weak, what does that do? It emboldens the terrorists."

Really? Like the following?

"You don't have the money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement.....President Bush's statements about children's health shouldn't be taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq. The truth is that Bush just likes to blow things up in Iraq, in the United States, and in Congress." -- Rep. Pete Stark, CA Democrat.

"It is clear that the Iraqi people don't want us there. It is clear that there is now a state of chaos in Iraq. And it is up to the Iraqi people to make themselves safe." -- Harry Reid, [Democratic] Senate Majority Leader.

"They (the Bush administration) are wrong, and they are leading American in a radical and dangerous direction (in Iraq). We need to get back on the right path.'' -- Howard Dean, Democrat Party Leader.

"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and - you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows - (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday." -- Harry Reid, [Democratic] Senate Majority Leader.

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings." -- Dick Durbin, Illinois [Democrat] Senator, on supposed US treatment of prisoners at Gitmo prison.

And so on.

Maybe these "progressives" ought to read what Slate's William Saletan wrote about patriotism and criticism of President Bush back in 2004:

When patriotism is impugned, the facts go out the window ...

If you dare to say these things, you're accused—as [Senator John] Kerry now stands accused by [Dick] Cheney and [Zell] Miller—of defaming America and refusing "to support American troops in combat."

Then there was this about the then-approaching 2004 election:

So now you have two reasons to show up at the polls in November. One is to stop Bush from screwing up economic and foreign policy more than he already has. The other is to remind him and his propagandists that even after 9/11, you still have that right.

Just as the GOP -- and the public -- still have the right to stop Barack Obama from further screwing up economic and foreign policy more than Bush -- and he himself -- already has.

You be the judge

I caught an interesting post over at Media Blog last week where apparently our local Philly Inquirer engaged in a bit of anti-Obama censorship. Since I check out the Inquirer quite often, I fired off an e-mail to the alleged censor, Dick Polman. I simply asked him if the account in Media Blog was accurate. His reply was simply "no."

Wanting more information, I did a Google search for the e-mail of he who was allegedly censored, Professor Chris Harper of Temple University. Prof. Harper promptly responded to my e-mail, and directed me to his own blog account of the incident. After making a comment unfavorable to the president on the Inquirer's State of the Union blog, he was unable to post additional comments:

After that, I could not post on the site. I was cut off from making any other comments on the blog. I really couldn’t believe it. The father of a Temple undergraduate saw the exchange and wrote to Polman and me. Here was Polman’s response:

If he [Chris Harper] wants to say on Facebook that this was some kind of conspiracy, and if you want to believe that, well, it’s a free country. I was just trying to field as many folks as possible, nothing more.

OK, perhaps. But Harper isn't exactly just an "average joe" throwing out an opinion. As he noted in an e-mail to me:

I spent more than 20 years in the news business at the Associated Press, Newsweek and ABC News in Chicago, New York, Rome, Cairo and Beirut. Also, my research in academe over the past 15 years has been most about the Internet and the Web. Five edited and written books, including a recent paper on how the Web has taken over the role of media criticism. I gave the paper at MIT in April. Seems appropriate about this scuffle. ;0). I am co-director at www.philadelphianeighborhoods.com, which is the capstone course for all journalism majors at Temple.

And gee, Temple is located in Philadelphia -- home of the Inquirer.

As I said in the post's title, you be the judge.

Oh wait -- can I say this is insane??

You know we're dealing with a "progressive" administration when we see stuff like this in a job posting for a lawyer at the Dept. of Justice:

The U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division is seeking up to 10 experienced attorneys for the position of Trial Attorney in the Voting Section in Washington, D.C. The Civil Rights Division is primarily responsible for enforcing federal statutes and executive orders that prohibit, among other things, unlawful discrimination in voting, education, employment, housing, police services, public accommodations and facilities, and federally funded and conducted programs. The Voting Section enforces federal statutes designed to safeguard the right to vote. These statutes include the Voting Rights Act, as amended; the National Voter Registration Act; the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act; and the Help America Vote Act.

Trial attorneys are responsible for conducting investigations, litigation, and other activities addressing all aspects of the Voting Section's enforcement duties. These positions may require extended hours and some positions may involve significant travel.

The Civil Rights Division encourages qualified applicants with targeted disabilities to apply. Targeted disabilities are deafness, blindness, missing extremities, partial or complete paralysis, convulsive disorder, mental retardation, mental illness, severe distortion of limbs and/or spine.

The U.S. Department of Justice is an Equal Opportunity/Reasonable Accommodation Employer, and encourages qualified applicants from all backgrounds to apply. Except where otherwise provided by law, there will be no discrimination for or against an applicant because of color, race, religion, national origin, politics, marital status, disability, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, status as a parent, membership or non-membership in an employee organization, or on the basis of personal favoritism. The Department of Justice welcomes and encourages applications from persons with physical and mental disabilities.

OK, now while I certainly understand that "mental illness" is a broadly defined attribute (depression, for instance, is classified as a mental illness, and surely a person can be a damn good attorney whilst taking Prozac or some other anti-depressant), WTF is the deal with "encouraging 'qualified' applicants" who are ... mentally retarded?? (I believe there are degrees are retardation; however, the very term itself denotes an intellectual disability! How does one get through law school with such?) Even if there actually are practicing, qualified attorneys out there who are mentally retarded, why encourage them to apply?

Pardon the "insensitive" slap, but it's kind of ironic that this advertised position deals with voting rights, because based on how the DOJ has handled instances like the New Black Panther intimidation case in Philly, it seems the dept. already has a few of these desired applicants on the payroll.

Why I haven't bought a Marvel comic in a couple years

It seems that even the most [what appears to be] level-headed of comics writers these days just can't resist the pressure to delve into the "progressive" political cesspool. This time it's Captain America scribe Ed Brubaker. Hunting Muses lays it out (h/t to Paul Smith Jr.):

Enter Captain America.

You know, the WW2 hero who died recently and just came back to life to fight a 20 ft tall Red Skull in front of the Lincoln memorial. I had heard a lot of good things from Ed Brubaker. I picked up some trades shortly before Cap’s death, read them, and then finished out Bru’s run because they were great. Right up there with Geoff John’s Green Lantern series as what I want from a comic.

Then Brubaker had to go and not only insult me, but violate the core of what Captain America is all about in issue 602 “Two Americas part 1″.

Here are 3 consecutive pages from the comic to help you get a full context:
First Page
Second Page
Third Page

Savor the lines a moment:
“A grassroots anti-government army”
“…looks like some kind of anti-tax thing”
“I don’t exactly see a black man from harlem fitting in with a bunch of angry white folks…”

Of course they’re all being led by an insane man according to the comic, and Captain America is there to stop them.

First of all, the very idea that the tea-party movement is “whites only” is not true (but then, how many black people are in Boise Idaho in the first place?). Second of all, let the full idea sink in: Captain America is going to fight an “anti-tax, anti-government” movement.

What’s next? Captain French is going to fight wine makers? Is Captain Britain going to beat up some… British stereotype? Hey, I remember an anti-tax, anti-government from around the late 1700s. They had some real rebels in there with names like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Hancock, etc etc. How about after this Cap beats up on today’s tea-party movement, he go back in time and beat up those protesters?

What’s even worse is seeing the reaction around the internet. Some people are cheering at the thought of Cap beating up “tea-baggers”.

I've written enough about this sort of nonsense over the years; it got to the point (along with the ridiculously pricey issues) where I asked myself "WTF do I continue to support these guys?" I don't mind if occasionally a writer goes off on a storyline like this, better still if the writer at least tries to balance out their inherent liberalism put to paper. A lot of writers were lefties in the 70s and 80s; however, their biases were not nearly as overt as the current crop of authors. Steve Englehart's awesome "Secret Empire" series in Cap in the mid-70s was a not-so subtle analogy of Watergate. Yet even Steve didn't hit us over the head with a brick ... even though he could have (Richard Nixon was throughly disgraced on the left and the right). In the 80s Mark Gruenwald's superb "The Captain" storyline which had Steve Rogers replaced as Captain America was decidedly leftist, yet again not brick-over-the-head so. John Walker, the new Cap, was a manic reactionary, but he certainly wasn't a racist (his partner, Battlestar, was black), and if anything he had an excuse for his mental state: Gruenwald had a right-wing extremist group murder his parents.

All Brubaker is doing is echoing the same tired, old media elitists that continually denigrate and belittle folks like the tea partiers and those who elected Scott Brown in Massachusetts. "Racists." "Bigots." "Stupid." "Crazy." "Childish." Etc.

And y'know what, Ed? Keep it up and you and your company are gonna go the same route that Air America and MSNBC are following. Straight. Down. The. Toilet. And I'll keep spending my money elsewhere -- outlets that don't insult my intelligence nor my beliefs, thank you very much.

Imagine if a Republican said this

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan: Hurricane Katrina was "the best thing that happened to the education system in New Orleans."

Despite Duncan's point actually making sense, 'ya think a member of the GOP would get away with it -- especially in the MSM?

Cheeyeah, right.

A word from the Angry Left

Via the Newsbusters e-mail tipline, which goes out to all contributors and not just myself:

Yeah, here's a tip, wake up and smell the corporate money which buys your right-wing politicians. You righties are all delusional. Afraid of government, the place you may have a voice, and want to give it all up so Joe Corporate can own you. Hope Olbermann tears off your head and shits down your neck!

Our local News Journal ain't the only one

Looks like the Houston Chronicle suffers from the same ridiculous political correctness as our own local [Wilmington] News Journal.

Real surprise there, eh?

Your tax dollars at work

$1.2 billion will be spent to to shave 1 hour off train commute from Chicago to St. Louis:

State and local leaders briefed reporters Friday on a massive federal grant to bankroll a high-speed rail line between Chicago and St. Louis. "You know, moving at 110 miles per hour through the Midwest, you see it's a different ballgame. You zip by traffic, you reach destinations that aren't available any longer when you fly, and look at the amount of time it takes you to get to and from the airport," Schwieterman said.

Gov. Pat Quinn was front and center Friday for the high speed rail announcement, which will bring an estimated 6,000 jobs to Illinois. Quinn joined Mayor Daley and Sen. Dick Durbin to display plans for the high speed rail network.

In Illinois, it'll focus primarily on the Amtrak route between Chicago and St. Louis. $1.2 billion will be spent over the next four years to increase speeds from 90 to 120-miles per hour.

By car, a trip from downtown Chicago to St. Louis could take a driver four to four and a half hours. On one of the high speed trains, experts say you could shave at least an hour off your trip, and get some work done while you ride.

Yeah, in the midst of the worst economy in memory, when manned space shots have been abandoned, here's an idea: let's cut a commute time of about ONE HOUR ... by spending over a BILLION dollars!

Only in America, folks.

Watcher's Council results

First place in the Council category was Mere Rhetoric with Wonderful: Iraqis Permanently Scratch Out Ancient Hebrew Inscription Biblical Prophet’s Tomb.

First place in the non-Council category was Zenpundit with The Post-COIN Era is Here.

Full results are here.

Fox News gives libs nightmares ...

... to the point of them believing the network has been around a lot longer than it actually has! Case in point -- former Clinton Secretary of Labor Robert Reich on the comparison between Obama and Clinton regarding changing their approaches politically:

In December 1994, Bill Clinton proposed a so-called middle-class bill of rights including more tax credits for families with children, expanded retirement accounts, and tax-deductible college tuition. Clinton had lost his battle for healthcare reform. Even worse, by that time the Dems had lost the House and Senate. Washington was riding a huge anti-incumbent wave. Right-wing populists were the ascendancy, with Newt Gingrich and Fox News leading the charge. Bill Clinton thought it desperately important to assure Americans he was on their side.

Well, maybe Gingrich was leading the charge, but Fox News? It didn't come into existence until 1996.

And he's a lawyer

The Messiah demagogues the Supreme Court (whose members just happened to be seated in front of him):

[The recent SCOTUS decision in Citizens United v. FEC] "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

This is totally false:

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication... ."

Maybe the best part about this nonsense is Justice Sam Alito mouthing the words "not true" after Obama's lie. Maybe he should've yelled out "you lie"? Hell, why not? The moonbats are already likening Alito to Rep. Joe Wilson anyway, even though the two instances are only remotely similar. (That's why we call 'em the "Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers," after all.)

And then there were these usual Messiah rhetorical devices:

1) He trotted out the usual straw men: “I was told by some,” “Washington has been telling us,” etc. And once these awful straw men are set up, our hero Obama answers defiantly, “I don’t settle for second place!” The straw-man ploy is now stale.

2) The “I didn’t ask for” trope: Obama acts as if he bravely endures persecution on our behalf, rejects the easy path, and presses ahead on the difficult path.

3) The “they did it” trope: So when Obama talks of “lobbying” and “horse trading” on health care, apparently some right-wing nut in the Senate started buying votes at $300 million a clip? The Washington insider who has the White House and Congress blames . . . Washington!

4) The “Bush did it” trope: So Obama’s deficits are the result of Bush’s spending and weak economy — but is a relatively quiet Iraq due to Bush’s successful surge? No. Obama himself will bring the war in Iraq to a close. He did not offer one word of praise for Bush in a speech calling for unity.

5) The meaningless token: So after piling up the two largest budget deficits in U.S. history, Obama promises fiscal sobriety and spending freezes — but only in 2011, after we pile up yet another year of trillion-dollar-plus red ink.

6) The above-it-all lecturing: After blaming Bush for 30 minutes and castigating the Republicans for “just saying no to everything,” Obama lectures on Washington’s partisan bickering. And after a year of hardball Chicago politicking, a politically weakened Obama calls for bipartisanship and a new tone. That will go over really well.

7) The meaningless deadlines and promises: No speechwriter should invoke Iran and a deadline to comply on nonproliferation; no one believes Obama after the past four failed deadlines, and he should give it all a break.

8) The final hope-and-change flourishes: The emotional end of the speech, which used to set crowds afire in 2008, seemed more rote.

The Colonel's Tiger

That's the title of a short story by Hal Colebatch in Man-Kzin Wars VII, the popular series based on master scifi author Larry Niven's superb "Known Space" characters.

In a nutshell, in the period (roughly) between the mid-22nd century until the end of the 24th, Earth has enjoyed a "golden age" -- a time of peace and plenty, all the while it has settled worlds orbiting nearby stars. Earth history -- especially anything about wars and violence -- is suppressed among the general public by the ARM, the Amalgamated Regional Militia, the enforcement branch of the UN (yeah, go figure!). Tendency to violence is treated as a mental disease, and can be cured chemically. Those who stumble upon any historical info about past Earth conflicts can face a memory wipe. In 2360, one of our ships en route to one of these colonies, the Angel's Pencil, encounters an alien vessel in interstellar space. The ship belongs to the Kzin, a race of carnivorous humanoid felines that resemble huge tigers. They're pure warriors, and want nothing more than to conquer other species.

The crew of Angel's Pencil eventually (out of survival's necessity!) get over their disbelief that the Kzin vessel is trying to harm them, and turn their laser-drive against the ship, destroying it. (This is all detailed in Niven's first-ever Kzin story from 1966, "The Warriors.") They eventually beam back all the evidence of their encounter to Earth -- to warn them of this horrible threat. But since their message travels at the speed of light, it takes years for it to arrive.

In "The Colonel's Tiger" two ARM agents ponder the Pencil's message, and conclude that, despite all the photographic and visual evidence presented, the crew of the ship is mad -- suffering from some sort of delusions brought about by extended space travel. How can aliens, which have superior technology to humans, be aggressive and war-like? Impossible!! And the crew's "madness" must indeed be severe, as they've "come up with" weapons (via their photographic evidence of the Kzin vessel) that have LONG since been outlawed by the nations of Earth; indeed, 99.9% of the population now hasn't even heard of things like fusion bombs, missiles, particle beams, and the like.

One of the ARM agents discovers evidence from the 1800s of a "tiger man" that was eventually killed by an army colonel ... a creature that was such an anomaly as to defy description. The ARM conclude that the crew of the Angel's Pencil probably concocted an elaborate hoax for some as-yet unknown reason -- perhaps to thwart further space travel, or create a panic on Earth, probably for prodigious monetary gain. Again, what the Pencil sent back to Earth just can't be true!! It just can't!

Can it?

Neil Young covers "Pants on the Ground"

Actually, it's [the hilarious] Jimmy Fallon:

Surprise!!

Shots fired at local rap contest. I'm SHOCKED, I tell you -- SHOCKED!!

Clueless sports columnist screws up his pot shot at George W. Bush

'Ya gotta love BDSers (those with Bush Derangement Syndrome). Their hatred is so intense that it causes them to get even the most elementary of facts wrong. In this case, it's the bad-toupee'd Filip Bondy of the NY Daily News, writing about this past Sunday's NFC Championship game in New Orleans:

If you needed further proof of this [New Orleans racial] divide, then it came during a pregame introduction of former President Bush. Once pilloried for his approach to the Katrina catastrophe in 2005, Bush was heartily cheered at the Superdome - which tells you all you need to know about the crowd's demographics.

No, he was probably cheered because it wasn't the former President Bush that had screwed up the [federal] response to Hurricane Katrina. The "former President Bush" in attendance was George W. Bush's father, George H. W. Bush. (See here, here, and here.) Anyone who actually watched the game -- which Bondy obviously did not -- would have seen the various shots of the elder Bush (and his wife) watching the Saints-Vikings.

But why let basic factual and visual evidence muss up a good cheap shot, eh?

UPDATE: As of early afternoon, Bondy's article has deleted the paragraph noted above -- without any reference as to why. There's just an "Updated: Tuesday, January 26th 2010, 11:37 AM" notice. But no worries -- we got a screen cap of it:

And you can see here, via a cache of USA Today's linked topics under "George W. Bush," a summary of Bondy's original article with the now-deleted G.W. Bush reference in its entirety.

(Cross-posted at Newsbusters!)

"Change"

The Messiah Steers Lucrative No-Bid Contract for Afghan Work to Dem Donor.

Obama on the "achievement gap"

The Messiah (using a teleprompter, by the way) to a group of DC area 6th graders:

We're going to raise the bar for all our students and take bigger steps towards closing the achievement gap that denies so many students, especially black and Latino students, a fair shot at their dreams.

Obama was speaking in reference to the "Race to the Top" initiative, which grants federal cash to states that make worthy educational reforms. (Be sure to check out Kilroy's superb coverage of Delaware's efforts in Race to the Top.) But ... what precisely does Obama mean by that statement? By saying that the achievement gap "denies" students a fair shot at their dreams, the implication is that the gap is purely -- or mostly -- a result of poor teaching and schooling.

Such a mindset (Obama's) should not come as a big surprise, given his far-left politics. "Progressive" educrats have for years blamed things like white teacher racism and/or "white privilege" for the poor academic performance of minority students. Poor funding [of inner-city] schools is another reason. Unfortunately, unless a lot more emphasis is placed on the enormous problem of fatherlessness, and on the violence that plagues way too many city schools, it will extremely tough to fully close that gap (unless schools do what Obama and co. have done with job figures a la the stimulus package, etc.!).

Alas, it just is not politically correct to mention these things. Especially without someone invoking the dreaded "R" word ...

Fun with polls

Tom Noyes wants you to think the American public wants prompt action on [man-made] climate change:

56% would be more likely to re-elect their Senator if he or she voted in favor of the bill (just 35% would be less likely to re-elect). 50% would be less likely to re-elect their Senator if he or she voted against the bill (just 39% would be more likely).

And if Congress doesn’t pass legislation, voters want the EPA to act:

59% of voters agree and just 39% disagree that “if Congress doesn't pass this energy bill, the Environmental Protection Agency should take action to regulate carbon polluters.” Among Independents, support for EPA action is even stronger: 61% agree and only 37% disagree.

Of course, this doesn't take into account the absolute low priority that the American public puts on climate change:

Dealing with global warming ranks at the bottom of the public's list of priorities; just 28% consider this a top priority, the lowest measure for any issue tested in the survey. Since 2007, when the item was first included on the priorities list, dealing with global warming has consistently ranked at or near the bottom. Even so, the percentage that now says addressing global warming should be a top priority has fallen 10 points from 2007, when 38% considered it a top priority. Such a low ranking is driven in part by indifference among Republicans: just 11% consider global warming a top priority, compared with 43% of Democrats and 25% of independents.

Check it out:

Noyes continues:

[Pollster Frank] Luntz message tested three arguments for acting, and found this statement was received favorably by 57 percent of those polled:

It doesn’t matter if there is or isn’t climate change. It is still in America’s best interest to develop new sources of energy that are clean reliable, efficient and safe. One might consider this to be a kind of Pascal's wager on the environment:

If we do it right, we get cleaner air.
We get less dependence on fossil fuels and enhanced national security.
We get more innovation in our economy.
More jobs, and more sustainable jobs.
And that’s if the scientists are wrong.
If the scientists are right, we get all of those things, and begin to solve what could be the most catastrophic environmental problem that any of us have ever faced.

I'm sure the above is accurate. But the fact is that it's not one of the American public's priorities at the moment. And another fact of the matter -- that all Church of Gore worshipers tend to forget (and I am not lumping Noyes into this crowd; he is a very smart, and reasonable, fellow) -- is that we WILL move to alternative sources of energy as fossil fuels are indeed finite. Gradual incentives are fine and worthy, but there's no reason to radically restructure the economy in one fell swoop to 1) have an effect on global climate that would be as insigificant as the size of the Earth is compared to the Milky Way, and 2) impose high new costs to consumers when inevitable gradual economic/energy changes will have much less of a detrimental monetary effect.

To think that man's continued use of fossil fuels throughout this century will cause the planet to change irrevocably is just so much sophistry. How man -- by using fossil fuels for some 150 years -- can completely and irrevocably alter an entire planet forever needs a belief system that goes beyond conceit ... and beyond arrogance.