Or, Jason Scott aka Kent Dorfman:
First place in the Council category was The Razor with Waging Lawfare: A Call To Arms.
First place in the non-Council category was Michael Yon with An Artery Of Opium, A Vein Of Taliban.
Full results are here.
Poor Toledo Mayoral Candidate Ben Konop (D). He just can't shake one persistent (albeit uninspired) heckler:
... says in a letter that it was Gates who set back race relations: "[Gates] 'may have caused grave and potentially irreparable harm to the struggle for racial harmony.'”
Sgt. Leon Lashley has said that he's also been called an "Uncle Tom" for supporting [white] officer James Crowley.
I think Lashley's going a bit overboard with the "potentially irreparable" bit, but this just goes to show you (along with the hassles the 911 caller had to endure) the problems one may encounter by going against the prevailing cultural/racial orthodoxy.
The latest from the workers' paradise known as Venezuela:
Under the draft law on media offences, information deemed to be "false" and aimed at "creating a public panic" will also be punishable by prison sentences.
The law will be highly controversial if passed in its current form. It states that anyone — newspaper editor, reporter or artist — could be sentenced to between six months and four years in prison for information which attacks “the peace, security and independence of the nation and the institutions of the state.”
Meanwhile, be sure to check out the info on Crossing Our Borders, the "feature-length documentary narrated by Hollywood actress Maria Conchita Alonso about dictatorships (focusing on Hugo Chávez, natch).
Thomas J. Perrelli, a Messiah supporter who raised half a million bucks for the Obama '08 campaign, is the political appointee who overruled other Dept. of Justice officials and dropped the case against a couple New Black Panther Party idiots who clearly were engaged in voter intimidation in Philly back last November.
The government had already won the case.
It's hard to imagine a more clear-cut case of voter intimidation. Some GOP House members want more of an explanation from Attorney General Eric Holder. And here's the "best" part (at least to me) of the whole story thus far:
I'm sure you'll be stunned to learn that the sweetheart settlement Holder's Department gave these defendants does not require them to refrain from election activities. So of course Jackson, the alleged menacing racist who is also — surprise! — a Democrat Party operative, is right back in business again:
Mr. Jackson was an elected member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee and was credentialed to be at the polling place Nov. 4 as an official Democratic Party polling watcher, according to the Philadelphia city commissioner's office. A check of his MySpace Web page shows similar taunts. It also shows him in numerous poses with a variety of weapons. Records show Mr. Jackson obtained new credentials as a poll watcher "at any ward/division in Philadelphia" just days after the charges against him were dismissed.
But remember: "Claims were dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law. The department is committed to the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone exercising his or her sacred right to vote."
I can just imagine the MSM 24-7 wall-to-wall coverage if the Bush DOJ had acted similarly regarding a couple of KKK nutjobs at a polling place in, say, Mississippi.
But relax, righties -- he'd rather see a single-payer system like Canada's! Double-DOH!!
Senior Palestinian Authority official Mohammed Dahlan told PA TV last week that deceased former leader Yasser Arafat had managed to fool the world with his public condemnations of anti-Israel terrorism.
Dahlan said the international community demanded that Arafat condemn terrorism against Israel in order to win land concessions from the Jewish state, so he did just that. But behind the scenes, Dahlan said Arafat continued backing the use of terrorist violence against Israelis, a fact that Western leaders only acknowledged toward the end of Arafat's life.
"Arafat would condemn [terror] operations by day while at night he would do honorable things," said Dahlan, who today serves as top advisor to Arafat's successor, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.
Dahlan said the Abbas regime should learn from Arafat and begin to again employ calculated and carefully-timed terrorism as an official tactic. He said the only part of today's terrorism he doesn't like is that so many groups are running around attacking Israel on their own. In Dahaln's view, all terrorism against Israel should be directed by the Palestinian Authority.
Isn't that just sweet? And we're giving cash to these morons ... why? We denounce Israel as "overreacting" to Palestinian terrorism ... why?
The Hill lists its top 10 of the "50 Most Beautiful 2009" people on Capitol Hill today, and nine of the ten I can understand, no problem.
But WTF is up with that #5???
As a certain demolition driver might say, "'Ya gotta be jackin' me!"
The Hill's rest of the best is here.
With the "Skip" Gates controversy/situation/mess coming to a head today (the Messiah will have Gates and "racist" officer Crowley at the White House today for that beer), former Secretary of State Colin Powell made an interesting comment the other evening on the "Larry King Show" (people still watch him?):
King: Were you ever racially profiled?
Powell: Yes, many times.
King: And didn’t you ever bring anger to it?
Powell: Of course. But, you know, anger is best controlled. And sure, I got mad.
I got mad when I, as a national security adviser to the president of the United States, I went down to meet somebody at Reagan National Airport and nobody recognized -- nobody -- nobody thought I could possibly be the national security adviser to the president. I was just a black guy at Reagan National Airport.
And it was only when I went up to the counter and said, “Is my guest here who’s waiting for me?,” did somebody say, “Oh, you’re Gen. Powell.” It was inconceivable to him that a black guy could be the national security adviser.
King: How do you deal with things like that?
Powell: You just suck it up. What are you going to do? It was a teaching point for him. Yes, I’m the national security adviser. I’m black. And watch, I can do the job. So you have this kind of -- there is no African-American in this country who has not been exposed to this kind of situation. (h/t to Taranto.)
With all due respect to General Powell, this is the best example he could come up with of him being racially profiled? Because someone (or even multiple folks) did not recognize him as national security adviser? Frankly, that's rather weak.
If it's any consolation to Powell, your average American wouldn't even recognize the freakin' vice-president, (most Delawareans excluded at present) let alone the Speaker of the House and other high-ranking politicians. And Powell was ... upset because people didn't know he was [just, at the time] national security adviser? Why does Powell feel it was due to his race? He'd have a much better point if someone had approached him and asked him to take his bags, or something equally noxious. But this doesn't seem like a definitive instance of profiling; if anything, it was more an instance of Powell's perception of an innocuous moment as profiling.
Honestly, considering Powell's age (he was born in 1937), I would have expected a much more concrete example of racial profiling from him. Nevertheless, I've no doubt that the general has been the victim of profiling, if not outright racism. But perhaps this anecdote from him shows how far we've come as a society from the era of Powell's youth -- where racism is perceived when it merely may be an example of average American political apathy. Certainly the Gates matter was not an example of profiling, despite Larry King's insinuation of it as such by his question to Powell. No wait -- actually it was. It was Gates' who racially profiled Officer Crowley. Gates immediately saw a white cop, and assumed the worst ... shouting at Crowley racially charged spewings.
And that's the problem with this "perception is reality" mantra (a favorite phrase of my blog nemesis Perry) is that it makes racism out of where there is none, and as such demonizes people who may not have a racist bone in their body. (Although this won't mean a thing to hardcore, radical racial educationists -- among others -- who believe that ALL white people are inherently racist.) Like Officer Crowley, for instance. Like the woman who made the [Gates] 911 call in the first place. In education, this philosophy can be quite destructive as white educators may try to alter behavior (supposedly "racist" attitudes, mannerisms) that there's in actuality no reason to change, and it gives African-American pupils an excuse to not work (why, after all? The teacher's racist!).
Dennis Miller had, as usual, an interesting take on American race relations last night. Are they getting worse? My take is that, overall, they are not. However, incidents like those involving Gates where the "R" word is instinctively and automatically tossed out are as big a problem today as real instances of "old-style" racism (for example, if this local story is accurate, whoa). Unfortunately, there is an industry devoted to "seeing" racism where there ain't -- to perpetuating the "perception is reality" philosophy -- sustained by the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and yes, albeit it to lesser degree, Professor Gates.
Via CNN (of all places):
1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan. The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan is required to offer.
2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs. As with the previous example, the Obama plan enshrines into federal law one of the worst features of state legislation: community rating. In its purest form, community rating requires that all patients pay the same rates for their level of coverage regardless of their age or medical condition. Americans with pre-existing conditions need subsidies under any plan, but community rating is a dubious way to bring fairness to health care. The reason is twofold: First, it forces young people, who typically have lower incomes than older workers, to pay far more than their actual cost, and gives older workers, who can afford to pay more, a big discount. The state laws gouging the young are a major reason so many of them have joined the ranks of uninsured.
3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage. The bills threaten to eliminate the one part of the market truly driven by consumers spending their own money. That's what makes a market, and health care needs more of it, not less. The bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care in general. By requiring minimum packages, they would prevent patients from choosing stripped-down plans that cover only major medical expenses.
4. Freedom to keep your existing plan. The legislation divides the insured into two main groups, and those two groups are treated differently with respect to their current plans. The bill gives Employee Retirement Security Act employers a five-year grace period when they can keep offering plans free from the restrictions of the "qualified" policies offered on the exchanges. But after five years, they would have to offer only approved plans, with the myriad rules we've already discussed. So for Americans in large corporations, "keeping your own plan" has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you'll get dumped into the exchange. The outlook is worse for the second group. It encompasses employees who aren't under ERISA but get actual insurance either on their own or through small businesses. After the legislation passes, all insurers that offer a wide range of plans to these employees will be forced to offer only "qualified" plans to new customers, via the exchanges.
5. Freedom to choose your doctors. The Senate bill requires that Americans buying through the exchanges -- and as we've seen, that will soon be most Americans -- must get their care through something called "medical home." Medical home is similar to an HMO. You're assigned a primary care doctor, and the doctor controls your access to specialists. The primary care physicians will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic scans, are best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a cardiologists or orthopedists. Under the proposals, the gatekeepers would theoretically guide patients to tests and treatments that have proved most cost-effective. The danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as were HMO physicians more than a decade ago.
There's "Hope and Change" for 'ya, folks. Is it any wonder The Messiah's poll numbers are dropping like a stone?
Via Media Blog:
A Swedish company has been fined 25,000 kronor ($3,000) after a malfunctioning robot attacked and almost killed one of its workers at a factory north of Stockholm.
Public prosecutor Leif Johansson mulled pressing charges against the firm but eventually opted to settle for a fine.
"I've never heard of a robot attacking somebody like this," he told news agency TT.
The incident took place in June 2007 at a factory in Bålsta, north of Stockholm, when the industrial worker was trying to carry out maintenance on a defective machine generally used to lift heavy rocks. Thinking he had cut off the power supply, the man approached the robot with no sense of trepidation.
But the robot suddenly came to life and grabbed a tight hold of the victim's head. The man succeeded in defending himself but not before suffering serious injuries. (Source.)
Looks like someone forgot Uncle Isaac.
But shouldn't we know WTF is in the bill? Like, all of it? Barack Obama thinks so ... or at least he did back in 2004:
BARACK OBAMA: ...When you rush these budgets that are a foot high and nobody has any idea what's in them and nobody has read them.
RANDI RHODES: 14 pounds it was!
BARACK OBAMA: Yeah. And it gets rushed through without any clear deliberation or debate then these kinds of things happen. And I think that this is in some ways what happened to the Patriot Act. I mean you remember that there was no real debate about that. It was so quick after 9/11 that it was introduced that people felt very intimidated by the administration.
Listen for yourself here.
Paul Krugman gets schooled in a big way. Still won't change his mind, I bet:
Straightforward common sense advice from NRO:
Much foolishness has become attached to the question of President Obama’s place of birth, and a few misguided souls among the Right have indulged it. The myth that Barack Obama is ineligible to be president represents the hunt for a magic bullet that will make all the unpleasant complications of his election and presidency disappear. We are used to seeing conspiracy theories from the Left, for instance among the one in three Democrats who believe that 9/11 was an inside job conducted with the foreknowledge of the Bush administration. We’ve seen everything under the sun blamed on Dick Cheney and Halliburton, and Rosie O’Donnell has given us much mirth with her metallurgical expertise, while Andrew Sullivan has beclowned himself and tarnished the good name of The Atlantic with his investigation into the “real” parentage of Trig Palin. (As have some of our local idiots. -- Hube) Most notable, the Iraq War summoned the craziness in a big way, and there are those who still shudder over their espressos at the mention of the Carlyle Group. And there is a fair amount of crossover between those fixated on Obama’s birth certificate and the 9/11 “truthers” — lawyer Phil Berg, for instance, is a player in both worlds. There is nothing that President Obama’s coterie would enjoy more than to see the responsible Right become a mirror image of the loopy Left circa 2003.
Obama's "They acted stupidly" has cost him some support and votes:
[CNN's DON] LEMON: And the president?
KING: It's unfortunate. I supported him. I voted for him. I will not again. I agree that I think it's admirable that he would speak on behalf of his friend, but he should have refused himself. He should have stepped back and he should have said, I support my friend, but I don't have all the facts. I won't weigh in yet.
And as for Barack Obama's invocation of the whole incident being a "teachable moment," I wonder if this 1996 Gates speech could be considered such. "Watermelon Fellowship?" Oh, and nice hand slap with Cornel West after dissing Clarence Thomas. Classy. And did he say -- GASP! -- the "N" word??
Elsewhere, this is what, despite his invocations of race, DE Libertarian's Steve Newton is really concerned about in this whole matter. And it's certainly a worthy concern.
“Americans, especially nonblacks, are deeply fearful that the dynamic is predicated on an un-American premise: presumed guilt. Innocence, under the extra-constitutional reign of political correctness, liberalism’s brand of soft Shariah law, must be proved ex post facto. Think not? Ask the Duke lacrosse team, which had 88 of the school’s professors sign a petition that presumed their guilt before their side of the story was known. Even though the white athletes were exonerated and the liberal district attorney who pushed the case was dethroned, disbarred and disgraced, the professoriate that assigned guilt to its own students still refuses to apologize.”
Indeed. Ever attend a so-called "diversity training" or "race conversations" seminar? In many (most?) of them, the initial premise is that "all whites are racist," and everything proceeds from there. Those that accept this premise eagerly share in the follow-up activities and discussions. Those that do not (which is usually always a majority of those in attendance if the seminar is mandatory) keep their mouths shut because they (rightly) do not want to give [seeming] legitimacy to the stated initial premise by voicing an opinion contrary to that premise.
But I digress. The point is that premises like "all whites are racist" are exactly like what Breitbart writes above -- guilty until proven innocent. Or, more likely, since innocence can never be fully achieved, "guilty until you grovel sufficiently for 'redemption.'"
You may have noticed that I deleted the "Recent Comments" area on the upper right section of the blog. This is because of continual spam comments, and as such pretty much made the section moot! I got tired of constantly being on top of the stuff (deleting the spam), so I just ditched the whole thing.
Just an FYI.
How can this be? He's a "pre-eminent scholar" at our most esteemed university and he just knew the arriving police had racial motives! How DARE they release information that contradicts the assertions of such a famous professor??
The 911 caller who reported a possible break-in at the home of black Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates, Jr. did not mention race in the call, according to a statement issued by her attorney and backed up by Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert Haas.
Lucia Whalen placed the 911 call July 16, saying she saw two men on Gates' front porch who appeared to be trying to force open the front door. The call led to the arrest of Gates by Cambridge police on a disorderly conduct charge, and the resulting national firestorm.
In the statement issued Sunday by attorney Wendy Murphy, Whalen — who has not spoken publicly — said she only saw the backs of the two men and did not know their race when she made the call. Murphy said Whalen, who works nearby, called because she had been aware of recent break-ins in the area and wanted to correct "misinformation" suggesting that she placed the call because the men on the porch were black.
Well, wadd'ya know ...
A hate crime in East Austin that's not being called such:
Police are investigating a brick with an offensive message thrown into the window of an East Austin home.
The brick, thrown through a 4-year-old boy’s bedroom window, read “Keep Eastside Black. Keep Eastside Strong.”
The homeowner, Barbara Frische, who is white, said she has lived in the home for 10 years.
“It’s the first time anything like this has ever happened to me,” she said.
Police have not classified this incident as a hate crime, said Austin Police Sgt. Richard Stresing, because hate crimes target an individual specifically because of an identifying characteristic, like race. Police say the incident has been classified as criminal mischief and deadly conduct.
Not a hate crime, eh? Are you serious?? Just another reason why "hate crimes" are a joke. And have you heard about this sad incident on the MSM? You haven't? Wow ...
As another local blogger might say, "Post-racial America my ass."
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley on Obama's news conference remarks about the Professor Gates arrest: "President Obama should have gathered the facts first before commenting on Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s encounter with Cambridge, Mass. police."
'Ya think? But hey -- why not delve in without knowing all the facts? Other very intelligent folks were quick to jump in on the "race angle" even though their actual concerns were apparently just with the police [seemingly] overstepping their authority.
The story here.
I understand the reason(s) and largely concur with them; however, where were such edicts when Keith Olbermann pontificated for weeks that the 2004 election was "stolen" by the GOP? And we all saw what such similar journalistic "concerns" did for CBS in the whole George Bush National Guard "documents" scandal, eh?
Page 425 of the current healthcare bill: Medicare patients will be required to attend "counseling sessions" every 5 years to learn how to end their lives by refusing hydration and how to go into hospice care ...?? Whaaaa ...??
Listen to the discussion via the Fred Thompson show.
First place in the Council category was The Provocateur with Note to the Conservative Media…Here’s How You Bring Down ACORN (and the President With Them).
First place in the non-Council category was Ted Nugent/Human Events with Obama, Churchill and Zelaya.
Full results are here.
Steve Newton of Delaware Libertarian has an additional post up about the Henry Louis Gates situation. He is upset that in the comments on his original post on the topic, I referred to Black Studies as not being a "real" discipline. I noted in the comments in his latest post that I regretted posting that statement, and that I wrote it in response to the DE Liberal-loving "anonone" saying that Gates didn't deserve what happened [merely] because he is a "pre-eminent" scholar. A comment which by itself is total bullsh**, but that doesn't warrant the comment I made, especially since Gates has done work across several disciplines.
Which brings me to my next point:
Newton seems to think that his own personal experiences make the phrase "post-racial America" a farce. He works at an Historically Black University, and relies on the anecdotes of colleagues to "make" his case. Well, Steve, it has been MY experience (at the U of D) that areas of study such as, yes, Black Studies but others such as Womens' Studies, Queer Studies and even Education (my own field) are much more ... "fluff" (for lack of a better term) as opposed to areas like economics, biology, history and business. (Again, although Professor Gates is currently located in Black Studies, his work cuts across academic lines.) Why would my experiences mean less than Newton's? In addition, would my own personal and work experiences count as a "counter" to Newton's [anecdotal] experiences that supposedly "prove" Gates was in the right on the police/arrest matter? If not, why?
Newton stated in the comments of his recent post that "What offends me most about the incident are the people who are responding to Dr Gates in profoundly racist terms ..." Really? It was Professor Gates himself, who Newton has defended from the onset, that made the issue a racial one right away, and then Newton did it himself in his initial post, titling it "What's wrong with the arrest of Dr. Henry Louis Gates of Harvard is not just the racism... " To do that, and then say you're "offended" by me saying that Black Studies isn't a "real" discipline amounts to just so much asininity. Further, why did Newton title his initial post what he did, and subsequently continue to make the "race" case when he responded here at Colossus thusly on my first post on the matter: "The issue is not so much racism (at least to me) ..."? I understand that Newton has much more of a problem with law enforcement than I do, and that is fine (Jonah Goldberg pontificated on the "two camps" surrounding the Gates matter in an update on my original post); but don't say that the issue is NOT racism and then write a couple posts based [mostly] on just that.
You've written myriad posts over the years, Steve, denouncing cheap insinuations of racism; unfortunately, you fell into this pit yourself recently.
Check out the news segment from AOL.com's main screen circa 8pm EDT:
Yes -- "poor" Barack Obama, facing a "tougher" healthcare fight while those nasty 'ol conservatives just sit back and ... laugh!
* The Glittering Eye - How Not to Argue
* Rhymes With Right - My Final Reason For Opposing Sonia Sotomayor
* Joshuapundit - Netanyahu And Lieberman Tell Obama: ‘Jerusalem Is Not Negotiable’
* The Provocateur - Note to the Conservative Media…Here’s How You Bring Down ACORN (and the President With Them)
* Bookworm Room - The world gobbles up blood libels against Israel
* The Razor - Home Buyer’s Lament
* Right Truth - Thou Shall Not Lie
* Mere Rhetoric - The “No Spyware For Dictators” Anti-Nokia, Anti-Iran Protest In Downtown LA [Gallery]
* The Colossus of Rhodey - Nation’s pre-eminent black scholar arrested, claims racism
* Soccer Dad - Childhood’s end
Non-Council nominations are here.
So, is this what happens to black men in America? We’d say it’s what happens to men in America who are mistaken for burglars. It -- or something very similar -- happened to us.
It was a balmy afternoon in the mid-1990s, and we were a guest at a friend’s house in Alexandria, Va. Our friend was out of town, but he left us the key. Shortly after arriving, we went out to the backyard for a bit, then to our room for a rest. We heard some commotion outside and went downstairs to investigate.
It turned out to be Alexandria’s Finest, trying to get in the back door. Apparently a neighbor had seen us in the yard, mistaken us for a strange man, and summoned the police. As we recall, there were two cops. They were not friendly. We remember vividly that one of them had his gun drawn, albeit defensively (that is, it was still pointed into the holster).
We were shocked and offended by the intrusion, but we had the presence of mind not to give voice to those feelings. We explained the situation, showed our identification, and demonstrated that the key in our pocket unlocked the front door. Satisfied that we were not a trespasser or burglar, the policemen left. They did not apologize. The experience left us a bit rattled. But on reflection we realized that although perhaps the policemen’s manner could have used some improvement, they were merely doing their job. It wasn’t their fault the information on which they acted was bad.
Having been through a similar experience, we feel qualified to say that Gates handled the situation poorly. Becoming belligerent with a police officer is almost never a good idea. Not only can it get you arrested, but it can cause a merely uncomfortable situation to escalate into a deadly one. If Gates thought the officer behaved improperly, he should have held his peace, defused the situation, and later taken the matter up with local officials. In addition, if Gates did tell the officer he had “no idea who he was messing with,” he showed a distinct lack of grace.
Taranto goes on to note that the cops weren't totally in the right, either. Once Gates' identity was established, they should've taken off. (As I, too, said in the first update of my original post.) He says the situation "appears to have been a misunderstanding between two stubborn men, both of whom would be better off had one of them exercised some maturity and forbearance." Indeed. Which doesn't seem to satisfy those on the hard-left like a certain two commenters over at DE Libertarian. The usual [racial] canards are trotted out ("it wouldn't happen to a 'nice white guy' like you...") as well as the contradiction in feelings toward authority. That is, one commenter in particular (a frequent visitor to the local gaggle of moonbats) ripped the police as invasive Gestapo-ites because they dared to hang around after Professor Gates' had established his ID. Of course, on the other hand, if someone happens to drive a vehicle with a bumper sticker that states support for a vigorous application of the 10th Amendment, then you're deserving of federal surveillance!!
Taranto's anecdote reminds me of the time me and a buddy, as juniors in high school, were detained by a couple of cops for fitting the profile of a some teens who were terrorizing young kids on Halloween night. They detained us, in fact, right in front of my house. My mother was frantic. One of the cops (a woman, for what it's worth), was exceedingly nasty, seemingly already considering us guilty. My friend and I were cooperative and polite, as was my father who eventually came down to see what was going on. It all took about 20 minutes, and we were released. Was I upset? Not really. I knew I wasn't guilty, and I knew the cops were just doing their job. I was more upset at the embarrassment my folks had to endure by the neighbors seeing a cop car in front of our house with the lights flashing. But that was nobody's fault. Again, the cops were just doing their job. And y'know what? It's a job that is becoming less and less one that people will want, thanks to overblown incidents like the one involving Professor Gates.
UPDATE: Who is owed an apology?
UPDATE 2: Some common sense from the WaPo, remarkably.
The health care reform legislation working its way through Congress has lost support over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% of U.S. voters are at least somewhat in favor of the reform effort while 53% are at least somewhat opposed.
Today’s 44% level of support is down from 46% two weeks ago, and 50% in late June.
Opposition has grown from 45% in late June to 49% two weeks ago and 53% today.
Hmm. Now, I wonder why that is ... ?
Great video via Media Blog of Apollo XI astronaut Buzz Aldrin clocking a moon landing denier nutjob right in the jaw (happens at around 2:50 in the vid):
It's one thing to just be a moonbat and have a conspiracy theory; it's another to get in a former astronaut's face and call him a "liar" and especially a "coward."
Meanwhile, Aldrin might wanna have a chat with Whoopi Goldberg, who sounds like a moon landing conspiracy nut:
Goldberg cited a Hollywood movie starring O.J. Simpson and Mr. Barbra Streisand (James Brolin) as astronauts, "Capricorn One," to tell us that she wonders if the moon landing is real or faked, as it was in that fictional movie.
1) "Well, who shot the footage, if both of them [the astronauts] were in it?"
2) "Why was the flag rippling if there was no wind or air?"
Sheesh. The History Channel had a terrific program on the other day debunking these idiots; there's some of that info at the above link.
"Capricorn One" is one of my favorite flicks from my youth, but in reality it could never happen. The sheer number of people that would need to keep their mouths shut would make such an attempt prohibitive -- just like any major conspiracy (like "9/11 was an inside job"). Apparently a remake is in the works for the film.
Did Costa Rica's Oscar Arias actually hinder his own so-called "mediation" efforts between ousted Honduran prez Mel Zelaya and new prez Roberto Micheletti? Dan Miller says yes:
Obama should state publicly that he is disappointed that Costa Rican President Oscar Arias’ mediation efforts failed and that Zelaya’s return to Honduras is about to cause a civil war supported by Chávez and his fellow travelers. Doubtlessly, Arias anticipated these things but continued to favor Zelaya in ways leading to the very civil war he was to avoid. Even before the meetings in Costa Rica were to resume on July 18, Arias publicly rejected any settlement not resulting in the immediate reinstatement of Zelaya and the ouster of Honduras’ interim president. Arias’ position coincided nicely with that of Zelaya and Chávez and was not a propitious one for a mediator. There was no incentive for Zelaya to soften his position, even as the interim government softened its own.
Indeed. How can you "mediate" a situation when you've already demanded a particular outcome?
Arias is deserving of respect for his first presidency and his past peace efforts, but now he resembles a certain Jimmy Carter. He is unpopular at home (although his party is likely to remain in power largely because the first woman to become president in CR's history is the prohibitive favorite in [early] next year's elections) and many feel he'll be "pulling the strings" of said woman, Laura Chinchilla, after her election.
Honduras’ political rivals were on a collision course on Monday after negotiations collapsed and deposed President Manuel Zelaya vowed to return home despite warnings from a defiant de facto government.
Zelaya says resistance is being organised in Honduras to pave the way for his return this weekend and that nobody can stop him.
The interim government installed after his June 28 military ouster has threatened to crack down on any protesters who stir trouble.
The looming confrontation raises the specter of a repeat of clashes in which at least one protester was killed during Zelaya’s abortive attempt to fly back into the Central American country on July 5. Troops blocked the runway and stopped him from landing.
”I have no doubt that this will raise the tension levels,” said Efrain Diaz, a political analyst with the Center for Human Development, a Honduran non-governmental organization. ”We could see violence if Zelaya tries to return by force.”
An interesting footnote in the article was this:
The crisis is seen as a diplomatic challenge for U.S. President Barack Obama as he seeks a fresh start with Latin America despite ideological differences with vocal U.S. foes like Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
"Ideological differences?" Since when? Especially on the present Honduran crisis -- Obama and Chávez are pretty much side-by-side: They want Zelaya back in power.
Harvard's Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested last Thursday after trying to pry open the [locked] front door of his home:
Cambridge police were called to the home Thursday afternoon after a woman reported seeing a man "wedging his shoulder into the front door as to pry the door open," according to a police report.
An officer ordered the man to identify himself, and Gates refused, according to the report. Gates began calling the officer a racist and said repeatedly, "This is what happens to black men in America."
Officers said they tried to calm down the 58-year-old academic, who responded, "You don't know who you're messing with," according to the police report.
Gates was arrested on a disorderly conduct charge after police said he "exhibited loud and tumultuous behavior." He was released later that day on his own recognizance and arraignment was scheduled for Aug. 26.
I have a couple questions: 1) Why did Gates refuse to identify himself? I mean, come on. If I locked myself out and someone saw me trying to do what Gates did and subsequently called the cops, I'd gladly ID myself and show the police any sort of ID they wished. Because, after all, it probably appeared as if I was breaking into my house. Does Gates think he is that famous that he doesn't have to play by the rules everyone else does? 2) Why would this be a "pattern of racial profiling in Cambridge" as many of Gates' colleagues claim? Harvard is about as PC a place you can find in America today. Could I claim some sort of bias if I refused to follow police orders and as such they became even more suspicious?
Gates claims that police "did not believe him when he said that he was in his own home." Well, if I refused to show ID at first and became hostile, what would'ya expect? But since I wouldn't do that, I'd simply ask the officers to do something like knock on my neighbor's door so that they could verify my identity.
Sorry, Professor Gates, but I'd be much more willing to accept your claims of racial bias if you willingly complied with the officers at the onset -- and then they remained skeptical and suspicious, along with arresting you.
UPDATE: Steve Newton links to a different report of the incident that says the cops in question continued to question Gates after he produced ID -- inside his house. Which, despite Gates' apparent idiotic behavior at the onset really should have been the end of the story. (Then again, if you behave like Gates [apparently] did when the cops arrived, I don't think it unduly unreasonable to expect just a few additional queries.)
And Newton backs up Gates' claim of racism: "What's wrong with the arrest of Dr. Henry Louis Gates of Harvard is not just the racism... although that is a significant issue."
Where, precisely, is the racism, Steve? Police overreactions happen to anyone, and not just to folks who act like a**holes to the cops (like Gates) when they arrive to investigate a call.
UPDATE 2: Here's another view, including the actual incident report.
UPDATE 3: Jonah Goldberg offers up his view of the situation, which pretty much is in line with my own:
Lots of e-mail has come in since last night when I posted about Henry Louis Gates's arrest. The responses from readers are interesting in that they reflect a divide running through conservatives I've noticed before. About half the readers think Gates is hilariously in the wrong. The other half, give or take, think that the cop was transparently to blame for the whole mess. That's a gross generalization of several dozen e-mails, but I think it reflects how conservatives, like Americans generally, are of two views when it comes to cops. One side is inclined to distrust them, see them as potential abusers of authority — mere men with badges and guns. Another side is deferential to police. That is not to say they condone abuse or sanction cops being above the law. But they give cops the benefit of the doubt for a host of reasons.
I'm more in the latter camp. I think being a cop is a very tough job, requiring a lot of patience and decency, with lots of headaches. And, I believe that citizens should err on the side of trying to make cops' jobs a little easier. Yes, I've had confrontations with police before and I don't think they were always in the right. But as a matter of instinct, that's where I come down. But I know plenty of conservatives — including many relatives — who instantly assume the cops are just taking advantage of a little power and are loathe to defer to them.
I don't think this divide is unique to conservatives. As I say, I think it runs straight through the American, and, no doubt, human heart. But it's interesting in this context because I think conservatives are expected to be far more deferential to law enforcement. And, when I read the Gates police report, I immediately sympathized with the cop who had to deal with a very high-status guy trying to bully the cop in part by accusing him — unfairly, by my lights — of racism. It's very interesting to read lots of conservatives offer good faith disagreements.
(h/t: Small Dead Animals.)
"EMP 101" A Basic Primer & Suggestions for Preparedness, by William Forstchen, author of the thriller One Second After.
The Babalú blog has the story:
A Catalán newspaper is reporting that Honduran authorities have seized computers found in the Presidential Palace belonging to deposed president Mel Zelaya. Taking a page right out of the leftist dictator's handbook, these computers, according to the news report, contained the official and certified results of the illegal constitutional referendum Zelaya wanted to conduct that never took place. The results of this fraudulent vote was tilted heavily in Zelaya's favor, ensuring he could go ahead and illegally change the constitution so he could remain in power for as long as he wanted to. ACORN, I'm sure, is taking notes.
And Obama, the UN, the OAS, and Costa Rican prez/Nobel Peace Prize winner Oscar Arias all support this guy?? Do we always learn NOTHING from history, people? Will we forever be battling the corrupt forces of collectivism because, in times of plenty and ease, we think we can "deal" with people such as Zelaya ... and our bloated egos and complacency puts our own innocents at risk as a result?
And, where is the US media on this??
UPDATE: Powerline reports on Zelaya's nutjob pal, Venezuelan prez Hugo Chávez:
Now come Monica Showalter and her colleagues on the editorial board of Investor's Business Daily to report that on Thursday last week, "Chavez really lost it, making a bizarre, out-of-protocol 11:15 p.m. phone call to U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Thomas Shannon urging the U.S. to 'do something,' suggesting a military invasion. Seems Chavez was losing sleep at night over Honduras." Chavez's night thoughts continue to trouble him:
[O]n his weekly variety show Sunday, Chavez made a long speech about his call to Shannon, hurling insults at the very country he wanted go to war for him. He blamed the U.S. for instigating the "coup" that removed Zelaya and maintained that the 600 U.S. troops stationed on Honduras' Palmerola military base had a role in it.
Chavez insisted that our Central Intelligence Agency, State Department and Pentagon all conspired behind President Obama's back to create the crisis. He demanded that Obama withdraw the U.S. troops, revoke the visas of Honduran officials and seize their assets. Then he threatened to foment a Honduran military revolt.
"Zelaya will return to his country. The government of Honduras will decide whether to kill him or not. He is willing to die," Chavez said, gladly giving up his pal's life for "the struggle."
As of Tuesday, Zelaya, acting on cue from his sponsor, was calling for violence and disruption of trade with strikes and roadblocks. "The Honduran people have the right to insurrection," he said.
I like that "conspired behind Obama's back" stuff. Can't diss a fellow radical lefty, eh Hugo? LOL!
First place in the Council category was The Glittering Eye with Fallacies in Healthcare Reform (Updated).
First place in the non-Council category was the Christian Science Monitor with Nearly all my professors are Democrats. Isn’t that a problem?
Full results are here.
One of the most outrageous mandates in the Democratic health care bill is found on page 416. On this page, you will see mandatory “end of life” counseling for seniors every five years. With this counseling, they will be spoken to about the different end of life choices that can be undertaken.
Mandatory?? Aren't Democrats supposed to be the party of "choice?" As in, "leave me and my body alone?" Who the f*** wants some government bureaucrat coming to your home to "counsel" you on how to "prepare" for the end of your life?? CRIPES!
For some time now the federal government has been intensifying its pursuit of what are sometimes known as “Medicare liens” against third party defendants (more). In the simplest scenario — not the only scenario, as we will see below — someone is injured in, say, a car accident, and has the resulting medical bills paid by Medicare. They then sue and successfully obtain damages from the other driver. At this point Medicare (i.e. the government) is free to demand that the beneficiary hand over some or all of the settlement to cover the cost of the health care, but under some conditions it is also free to file its own action to recover the medical outlays directly from the negligent driver (who in some circumstances might even wind up paying for the same medical bills twice). It might do this if, for example, it does not expect to get a collectible judgment from the beneficiary.
The newly added language in the Thursday morning version of the health bill (for those following along, it’s Section 1620 on pp. 713-721) would greatly expand the scope of these suits against third parties, while doing something entirely new: allow freelance lawyers to file them on behalf of the government — without asking permission — and collect rich bounties if they manage thereby to extract money from the defendants. Lawyers will recognize this as a qui tam procedure, of the sort that has led to a growing body of litigation filed by freelance bounty-hunters against universities, defense contractors and others alleged to have overcharged the government.
There's still more:
It gets worse. Language on p. 714 of the bill would permit the lawyers to file at least some sorts of Medicare recovery actions based on “any relevant evidence, including but not limited to relevant statistical or epidemiological evidence, or by other similarly reliable means”. This reads very much as if an attempt is being made to lay the groundwork for claims against new classes of defendants who might not be proved liable in an individual case but are responsible in a “statistical” sense. The best known such controversies are over whether suppliers of products such as alcohol, calorie-laden foods, or guns should be compelled to pay compensation for society-wide patterns of illness or injury.
UPDATE: Forced immunizations, too?
The committee’s official summary of the bill says: “Authorizes a demonstration program to improve immunization coverage. Under this program, CDC will provide grants to states to improve immunization coverage of children, adolescents, and adults through the use of evidence-based interventions. States may use funds to implement interventions that are recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force, such as reminders or recalls for patients or providers, or home visits.”
Via the NY Times:
Shepard Fairey pleaded guilty in Boston Municipal Court to one charge of defacing property and two charges of wanton destruction of property under $250, all misdemeanors.
The 39-year-old Los Angeles street artist, who became famous for plastering his posters and stickers throughout cities, must pay $2,000 to a graffiti removal organization and cannot possess tagging materials -- such as stickers or paste -- in Boston except for authorized art installations. He also must tell officials when he plans to visit Suffolk County, where Boston is located.
Hmm. I thought they might get him on libel charges for all those "Hope" posters!
Thus far, over 9,000 folks have registered to join the effort. Find out more here.
For rationing health care, that is.
So far, I've only seen this on Fox (surprise!). But just remember -- Democrats cannot be racist:
Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.
We all knew it was coming. That is, those of with just an iota of common sense about how radicals operate.
Newsbusters' P.J. Gladnick is on it: It's called "QAHCAA." Figure out the phonetic equivalent!
Let's see, who should we get for an opinion on the first Latina woman nominated for the nation's highest court? Why, Mrs. Sanchez!!
(h/t: Hot Air.)
Obama's pick of Regina Benjamin for Surgeon General brought to light an interesting fact about her: She serves on the board of Physicians for Human Rights. Now how can such a nice moniker mean anything but good? (Good question -- like, how can a title like "Human Rights Watch" be anything but innocent? Oh, I don't know ...) Let's take a gander:
The gentleman’s name [who founded PHR] is Dr. Jonathan Fine. Now, Dr. Fine is retired but I want you to look at this from the PHR site that describes the mantra of this organization:
Dr. Fine also led investigations into the massive use of tear gas in South Korea and chemical weapons against Kurds in Iraq. Under his tenure, PHR documented human rights violations in Colombia, El Salvador, the Balkans, Israel and the West Bank, and Iraq following the Persian Gulf War.
Okay, look at that more closely with me:
1. PHR looked into violations made by South Korea, not North Korea
2. PHR looked into human rights violations in Colombia but not Venezuela or Cuba
3. PHR addressed human rights violation in Israel but not in Gaza, Saudi Arabia or Syria
4. PHR investigated violations of human rights in Iraq AFTER the Persian Gulf War but has not investigated human rights violations in Iran, Pakistan, China or Russia. (Link.)
All of which seems to suit The Messiah just fine. After all, we can't "meddle" in the stolen election in Iran (and will promise to still deal with the authoritarian thugs responsible for the theft), but can easily denounce the impeachment and subsequent ouster of Honduran would-be dictator Mel Zelaya. Israeli settlements get vociferous denunciations, while the terrorists in Gaza get almost $1 billion.
And so on.
Via USA Today:
Could the best climate models -- the ones used to predict global warming -- all be wrong?
Maybe so, says a new study published online today in the journal Nature Geoscience. The report found that only about half of the warming that occurred during a natural climate change 55 million years ago can be explained by excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. What caused the remainder of the warming is a mystery.
"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," says oceanographer Gerald Dickens, study co-author and professor of Earth Science at Rice University in Houston. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."
Which is sorta what I've been clamoring about all along -- that there are SO many variables involved in climate science that to nail it all down to "excess" carbon in the atmosphere is, well, silly. This, contrary to the claims of those like perpetual DE blog commenter Perry and various bloggers. I've never said that global warming is not occurring like some have ... what I've maintained is that there is NO definitive word on man's influence on climate change, and as such we should be VERY wary of moronic legislation like "cap and trade."
Look, the average American doesn't want a sh**ty environment. Just compare how things were in the US today to some 30 years ago. It's much cleaner today. But we also don't want our federal government taxing the hell out of us to prevent something that is, in all likelihood, not that big a problem.
Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell says "troops already are under enough stress and making enough sacrifices from fighting the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." 'Ya think? This is as stupid as the 21-year old drinking age across the land -- you can be 18 to kill a person (serving in the military) but you'd still be too young to buy a 6-pack outside the damn base. Now, you're shooting up terrorists to swiss cheese in Afghanistan, but don't DARE light up that Marlboro!
Cripes, what would happen to such a GI? Get thrown in the brig?
This is the guy our president is supporting??
The deposed president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, called for an "insurrection" in his country so he can be returned to power following the June 28 military coup.
"The Honduran people have the right to insurrection," said Zelaya, speaking in the neighboring Central American country of Guatemala.
Zelaya said that insurrection was a legitimate democratic right "when faced with a usurping government and a coup-supporting military.
"I want to tell you to not leave the streets, that is the only space that they have not taken from us," he said, addressing supporters in Honduras.
Zelaya called for strikes, marches, takeovers, and civil disobedience in his country because that is necessary "when the democratic order of a country is disrupted." (Source.)
Which might have some merit if Zelaya himself wasn't guilty of precisely that. You don't get to do what the hell you want just because you're president, Mel, and your own congress AND supreme court shot you down several times. Yet, you still wouldn't abide by the law. YOU, Mel.
But again, you can't blame him for acting all tough when Throws-Like-A-Girl Obama is in his corner. (That'd mean the US government, not Obama personally.)
* Joshuapundit - Using The “J” Word
* Rhymes With Right - WaPo: Do As We Say, Not As Obama Did
* The Glittering Eye - Fallacies in Healthcare Reform (Updated)
* The Colossus of Rhodey - Still more on Honduras
* Bookworm Room - Sterilizing our way to paradise
* Soccer Dad - A masterful assuaging
* Mere Rhetoric - Khamenei Seizes Control Of Iranian Republican Guard Militias, Installs Son As Head Thug
* The Provocateur - Dr. Charles Nemeroff and Emory University’s Culture of Corruption
* Right Truth - Relentless pursuit of destruction 2009
* The Razor - Book Review – Cheap: The High Cost of Discount Culture
Be sure to check out the non-Council entries as well.
If a conservative had made this blunder, it'd be big news as "evidence" that "racism" is not dead. Check out the graphic from MSNBC's "Hardball" Monday night:
Yep, that's Obama Senate replacement Roland Burris on a graphic about Obama's handling of the economy. DOH!
(h/t: Media Blog.)
Andy McCarthy breaks it down:
Though it's not a widely appreciated fact, we right-winger sports nuts have long known that the sports press is among the media's leftiest precincts. So I suppose we shouldn't be surprised at how little was said (as in nothing at all) about the reception President Obama received last night when he came out on the field to throw out the ceremonial first pitch at the baseball all-star game in St. Louis. It was a packed house (over 50,000 in attendance), and the jeers were easily discernible.
Don't get me wrong: There was more cheering than booing. But that's to be expected: It was a festive national occasion, and most of us who disagree intensely with Obama's policies would be more apt to stand and cheer our president respectfully. That's what made the booing all the more noticeable to anyone — other than a sports journalist — who heard it.
The media fawning really is so shameless it's become self-parody. Take ESPN, for example.
Put aside the unacknowledged booing for a moment. The other embarrassing fact is that my six-year-old throws a baseball better (far better, in fact) than Obama. Yet the media went out of its way to obscure that, too — no doubt wishing to avoid unfavorable comparisons to the strike President Bush famously fired from the mound at Yankee Stadium at the 2001 World Series. In its live broadcast, Fox (and remember, this is Fox Sports, not Fox News) covered Obama's first pitch at a very weird angle that conveyed his spastic motion but didn't do justice to how pathetic the toss was. But that's nothing compared to ESPN's laughable coverage. Here's the clip. Besides reporting only that there was a "standing ovation for the commander-in-chief," the announcer made a point of noting that Obama's pitch "didn't bounce" before reaching home-plate (though the announcer did cop to the "horrible camera work that made the trajectory of the pitch impossible to see).
Now, take a look at this clip from MLB.com, about 24 seconds in. It's the only decent footage I've seen, and it shows that Obama's first pitch did bounce. In fact, the pitch did not even reach home-plate — and they evidently knew it wouldn't. The player who was sent out to catch Obama's pitch (more on that in a moment) was crouching on top of home plate, not behind it where catchers always set up. And even so, he had to reach out a couple of feet in order to short-hop the ball, which otherwise might have bounced all the way to the backstop.
Now, about that player who caught Obama's pitch: It was none other than the Cardinals' great first-baseman, Albert Pujols. What does that matter? Well, the tradition is that the first pitch is tossed to the catcher, not the first-baseman — and, in fact, the starting catcher for the National League last night was the Cardinals' own Yadier Molina. But while Molina is popular, Pujols is like God in St. Louis (in fact, a fan in the stands either last night or the night before was holding a banner that said, "In Albert We Trust").
I think Obama's people knew he would get a very mixed reaction last night. His entrance was shrewdly orchestrated. The cheers and boos started as soon as he came onto the field, but he was steered immediately over to shake hands with Stan Musial — the most beloved player in the history of the Cardinals. No true St. Louis fan would boo Satan if he was shaking hands with Stan the Man. The president then went straight to the mound, where today's Stan the Man, the great Pujols, took good care of him — quickly embracing Obama right after making sure his heave looked borderline respectable . . . with a little help from the cameras. Finally, Obama moved was ushered quickly over to the third-base line, where Cardinal legends Bob Gibson, Ozzie Smith, and Lou Brock (among others) were there to share warm-handshakes.
In the box score, as reported by the Obamedia/Sports Division, it will read like a standing-O for The One as he hurled a bull's-eye before strutting off to warm waves of adulation. If you were watching, though, Obama looked like the guy who bowled a 37.
Obama's pitch WAS pathetic, as anyone who saw it would have to concede. Which, combined with his horrific bowling skills, makes me wonder -- how in the world is he a good basketball player? Everyone I know who plays b-ball well is a terrific athlete at practically every other sport. They can, in particular, at least throw a baseball like a man and not some nine-year old girl (like Obama last night). And they can at least nab a score of 100 at the lanes!
Looks like the Messiah is a one-trick pony in other areas, too.
The Miami Herald reports on a soldier who's refusing to deploy to Afghanistan ... because he believes Barack Obama is not constitutionally permitted to be president of the United States:
U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook is seeking a federal court order to stall and eventually prevent an upcoming deployment to Afghanistan.
In the 20-page document — filed July 8 with the United States District Court, Middle District of Georgia — Cook's California-based attorney, Orly Taitz, asks the court to consider granting his client's request based upon Cook's belief that President Barrack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of U.S Armed Forces.
Cook further states he "would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in military actions outside the United States under this President’s command, and that Plaintiff would thus be simultaneously unable to perform his duties in good Rule 65(b) Application for Temporary Restraining Order 22 conscience and yet be simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal by the faithful execution of these duties."
Now if I was of a sort like these cretins, I might make a blogging case out of this. After all, these are the fops that posted multiple times about Sarah Palin's mentally retarded baby not really being hers, among many other lunacies.
Nevertheless, if I recall correctly, the SCOTUS has already shot down several suits challenging Obama's "real" birthplace, so I expect this will simply be another waste of time for the high court.
... and leaves out Chappaquiddick.
Now, why would that be?
Mike Matthews, one of the First State's best bloggers, is closing up shop. He'll most definitely be missed.
Wish him well here.
Obama dissed by the Russkies -- that, or they think Barack didn't wash his hands after he took a leak:
Hey, I too thought it was a story of old fashioned racism; then again, with today's media, I also had a sneaking suspicion there was more to the story. Then there's this:
Valley Club president John Duesler apologetically refunded Storybook's money, as he did for Creative Steps.
"He was trying to help us out, because there weren't supposed to be city pools open this year," said Scanlon, who contacted The Inquirer after learning of the controversy.
The Creative Steps kids appeared at the Valley Club on June 29, so there is time for the smaller group of Storybook kids to have shown up before or after that date.]
Well. Let's get better acquainted with Dr. John G. Duesler Jr. He organized Opositive, a blood drive celebrating Obama's inauguration.
He was involved with Peace-Action Philadelphia (I can't find a date but this article describes him as the chairman and it was seemingly posted at the Peace Action PA website in Jan 2008). Let's check the Peace Action website - hmm, they haven't yet found a chair for the investigation into the truth of what happened on 9/11.
Dr. Duesler shows up on the Plaxo.com networking site where he describes himself as an eternal optimist. Looks like he'll have a lot to be optimistic about in the next few days.
Of course, there was this recent race hatred story, but have you heard anything about it? Sounds quite a bit more heinous than booting some kids from a pool, too. Oh -- and law enforcement "can't decide" whether it's a hate crime or not. Another surprise!
Our local gaggle of moonbat bloggers have a "new design." That's about all that's new, however. The same BS, self-deception and absolute intellectual vacuity continue. As an example, check out this statement from their "new rules":
Political debate can get personal here, and we expect name calling at times. Hell, we even engage in it from time to time.
"From time to time??" That's like saying the Khmer Rouge was "brutally violent every now and then." And then there's this beaut:
We are talking about racial, homophobic, sexist, ethnic, and antisemitic slurs. We are not talking about profanity or profane name calling. Calling someone an “asshole” is ok. Calling someone a “fag” is not.
Wow! What a substantive difference!! You can refer to someone as a f***ing demented microcephalic sh**face, but don't dare use that term for a British cigarette!! (I wonder if round-about references to homosexuality are permitted -- y'know, something like "limp-wristed" or "pantywaist," or references such as those regularly utilized by the DLers themselves like male-on-male oral sex terminology if you happen to agree with someone with whom they disagree. Don't bother asking, though; these "new rules" will be a colossal waste of time anyway as the whole operation there is nothing but a First State version of this insane site.)
First place in the Council category was The Provacateur with How Bonds Work (and How Current Policy Will Wreck Them and the Economy With It).
First place in the non-Council category was Reclusive Leftist with Feminists And The Mystery Of Sarah Palin.
Full results are here.
Yep. So says Kathleen Kennedy Townsend in Newsweek.
I wonder if Uncle Teddy is a better Catholic than the Pope, too?
Check out how CNN's Don Lemon gets schooled after trying to imply that Obama's African welcome was "unprecedented":
The Watcher sends word on John Holdren, The Messiah's "Science Czar":
In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force. (Source.)
Ain't it a good thing we have a president who's gonna put science "back to its proper place?"
Miguel Estrada on the supposed Honduran "coup":
In the Los Angeles Times today, my friend and former colleague Miguel Estrada, one of the nation's best legal minds, provides the definitive explanation of why the ouster of aspiring dictator Manuel Zelaya was not a "coup," as the Obama administration mind-bogglingly claims. In fact, the removal of Zelaya from office was compelled by the Constitution of Honduras. That is, it represents, through and through, the rule of law the Obama administration would rather pay lip-service to than heed. As Miguel explains, the only dubious aspect of the episode is Zelaya's transfer to Costa Rica when, as a matter of law, he should have been arrested and tried for treason (power grabs of the type Zelaya attempted, Miguel notes, are officially defined as treason under Article 4 of the Honduras Constitution).
Bottom line: Hugo Chavez wants Zelaya in, the law of Honduras says Zelaya must be out; Obama sided with Chavez.
Well, what would you expect from a leader who came to office largely by complaining about the "illegalities" of the previous administration, and then by and large continues them? From a leader who refused to say anything about a dictatorship's obvious meddling in an election to steal it (Iran) until too late -- and still stated that he'd dialogue with said dictator(s)?
Here's four words to explain the situation: The guy is clueless.
Our commander-in-chief keepin' it classy.
Ditched Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya will meet with his successor Roberto Micheletti and Costa Rican President Oscar Arias (the 1987 Nobel Peace Prize winner) later today to discuss the situation in Honduras. (I was fortunate enough to have attended Arias' first inauguration back in 1986; George HW Bush was the US representative attending.) According to CNN, Zelaya says that he "will listen, but will not negotiate." Gee, that's a great attitude. But I guess when you have milksops like Barack Obama and, unfortunately, Arias, in your corner, why not announce such a thing?
Meanwhile, our "terrific" American MSM continues its pursuit of "excelllence," this time by falling for yet another "embelllishment."
The word here in Costa Rica is that if Bush was still president, he'd have told the OAS to stuff it and he'd be backing Honduran President Zelaya's ouster. WTF is Obama's problem? He doesn't want to "meddle" in Iran and says he'll still hold talks with the mullahs who ripped off the election there, yet right away he denounces the "coup" in Honduras as "undemocratic." And people called George Bush stupid??
The insanity of this policy by the Obama administration cannot be understated. It used to be the GOP that was (oftentimes rightly) criticized for propping up tyrants and despots because they were “our” tyrants and despots. At the height of the Cold War, a valid defense for that realpolitik position could be made. But where is the greater evil on the horizon that we are willing to sacrifice the Honduran people for? It is no longer the Soviet Union and worldwide communism.
In fact, the main evil we face in much of the world today is the thugocratic regimes like Iran and Venezuela, wacko nut-jobs like North Korea, and communist China. Yet, in this situation, we’ve actually allied ourselves with Venezuela’s Chavez!
My advice to democracy lovers everywhere: If you’re going to overthrow a strongman, kill him. (Link.)
Indeed. Look at what we get from "progressive" administrations: Backing of a leader because he was ousted for totally disregarding the laws of his country merely because the ... military did it? Imagine if Richard Nixon was impeached and convicted back in 1974 -- and then he refused to abandon office. Would it have been an "illegal coup" if the military had entered the White House to remove him?
Hoystory's (link, above) remedy is not unlike that advocated for American soldiers on the battlefield fighting al Qaeda-style terrorists. Why not just kill the MFers so that they don't end up enjoying the same rights as American citizens? As I've stated here numerous times, imagine the insanity of granting all Japanese and German POWs full habeas corpus rights in American courts during (and after) World War II. We'd still be prosecuting some of them. And their lawyers would be having a field day with "illegally obtained evidence," accusations of "racism" (particularly against the Japanese) and complaints of "excessive force"/cruel and unusual punishment. It'd be a total farce, in other words.
And that's what we've seen from our current administration these last six months.
Via Insty -- Democrat bumper sticker for 2010:
To which there is this response to Glenn Reynolds from a reader:
I have been hearing this a lot lately from Obama voters. They assert, without any support whatsoever, that the “Stimulus” Bill is still a success because things would be much, much worse had it not been passed.
So, I guess they would agree that the invasion of Iraq was a success because it prevented another terrorist attack in the U.S.? They wouldn’t agree with that? BIG surprise…
First place in the Council category was The Razor with Settlement.
First place in the non-Council category was Fausta’s Blog with Responses to Coup in Honduras – Correction: This is NOT a coup.
Full results are here.
From The Corner:
It (The US) should not be joining some of the most undemocratic and corrupt leaders in the hemisphere, as it apparently has, in calling for the return of Zelaya to power. It should recognize that the Honduran Congress took a legal vote to remove Zelaya from office. The vote was 125 to 3 (if memory serves) including all but 3 members of Zelaya's own party. The man installed as president was next in line to the presidency (President of Congress) and of Zelaya's own party. This is not your typical military coup. There are no military in office.
Again, the reporting from the US MSM has been inept at best, horrific at worst. CNN en Español has had excellent coverage, as has the local Costa Rican media.
Hans Bader has a thorough (and excellent) analysis.
Marion Barry -- arrested again. Is he ... a Democrat? Republican? Independent? Communist?
Sad news today in that former Tennessee Titans QB Steve McNair has been shot to death. McNair was one yard away from winning it all in the 2000 Super Bowl (XXXIV), except that Mike Jones, from a certain St. Louis Rams, stopped receiver Kevin Dyson on the one yard line when time expired to secure victory for St. Louis:
McNair led Tennessee on a furious final drive to tie the score. He amazingly evaded a couple of what seemed to be sure sacks to put the Titans on the brink of sending the game into OT.
Rest in peace.
“Don’t believe the myth. The arrest of President Zelaya represents the triumph of the rule of law.”
Oh yeah -- last night Costa Rican President Oscar Arias went on the tube to "explain" why Zelaya's ouster was bad. I respect Arias immensely but he is dead-wrong on this issue.
Here in Costa Rica many things are ... "socialized." Healthcare is, although there is a private option. It seems to work OK; the country is small enough (about the size of West Virginia, pop. of about seven million) although there are taxes out the wazoo here. (Americans -- watch your tipping habits. There is a "service tax" at restaurants and bars, 'tho waiters and bartenders sure won't turn away additional "propinas," or tips.)
One thing that many Costa Ricans wouldn't mind changing, however, is the immense power/telephone monopoly of I.C.E. (Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad). It maintains power, telephone and Internet services. Those of you old enough, try to recall how service sucked when AT&T was the only game in town in the 70s and early 80s. Or, recall when Rollins Cable was the sole cable provider in New Castle County. That's how it is here. Many Ticos crave just a little competition so that service would improve and prices would drop. But that's not likely to happen anytime soon. Why? The I.C.E. union is the most powerful in the country. Any time there has been even a hint of privatization, the union threatens a strike -- or will actually do it -- and they paralyze the country.
I just think of the jobs, economic growth and price drops that could occur if this union stranglehold was busted.
... that if a Republican was in office -- or at least a Democrat in the vein of JFK or Harry Truman -- we wouldn't be so quick to want Honduran President Zelaya back in office.
The people I've spoken with here in Costa Rica just don't understand Barack Obama saying Zelaya's ouster was "illegal." Did The Messiah even bother to consider what Zelaya did?
What on earth makes Obama think he knows better about what is legal under the law of Honduras than the Supreme Court of Honduras and the law-writing legislature of Honduras? The Honduran military acted after Zelaya defied an order by that nation's highest court which pronounced his coup attempt illegal; he has been replaced under a Honduran legal process by that nation's Congress, which essentially impeached him and democratically voted in a successor. That sounds pretty legal to me. I am the first to admit I am not an expert in Honduran law, but I'd bet the Honduran Supreme Court has a better grasp on it than President Obama. On the issue of what is legal in Honduras, as between Hugo Chávez and the Honduran Supreme Court, our president has decided to go with Chávez. (Source.)
Not surprisingly, a "Tico" (Costa Rican) friend and I watched the Honduras segment on ABC's World News Tonight this evening and they never once mentioned Zelaya's illegal actions under Honduran law. The only thing they said against Zelaya was that there were "some demonstrations against him" in the capital city of Tegucigalpa.
And again -- people wonder why Fox News dominates? Because in this case Fox was the ONLY American network that reported on Zelaya's illegal actions as noted above -- at least that I saw in the last few days. CNN en Español mentioned them, as did the Costa Rican press. Surprising? Ha! The Messiah wants Zelaya back! Who are the MSM to disagree!
It's well known that Obama is worrisome about perceptions of past American meddling in other countries, and in some, perhaps many cases, rightly so. But what in the hell would it hurt to support [what appears to clearly be] a case of upholding the rule of law? What would have Obama and other Democrats have said if George Bush had attempted what Zelaya did? The phrase "just imagine the outcry" wouldn't do it justice. (Indeed, our First State Desirer of Death for All Things He Dislikes would want the death penalty for GW for much less.) The Honduran "coup" was not the "typical" Latin American variety witnessed ad nauseum in the 50s-80s. On the contrary, it was an affirmation of Honduran democracy.
Obama can find almost a billion dollars for the freakin' terrorists in Gaza, but is threatening to withhold $200 million from Honduras because it ousted a wannabe Hugo Chávez. That's change you can spit on, frankly.