From East St. Louis:
City officials seeking a new police chief passed up the former director of the Florida Highway Patrol, who formerly was a top commander of the Illinois State Police, because he is white, two former members of a city board claim.
... the plaintiffs' lawyer, Thomas E. Kennedy III, said it was Grimming, and that Parks told his clients "the city wasn't ready to hire a white police chief."
The suit alleges "When the city was searching for a new Chief of Police, on or about August 2007, Frazer and Murphy felt that the most qualified candidate was a white male with extensive law enforcement experience and no criminal history. However, Parks told Frazer at that time that he would not recommend the Board's candidate for the position because he was white. At Parks' recommendation, the City then hired Michael Baxton, Sr., an African-American male, as Chief of Police, even though he was less qualified than the Board's candidate ... ."
Well hey -- East St. Louis is 97.7 percent black! They can't allow a white guy to head their police dept.!
* "Post-racial America my a**" courtesy Steve Newton.
Paul Keffer of Newark thinks he's another Alan Grayson:
It seems that for most Republicans, they would rather anyone who doesn’t have private health care should just up and die and not be a burden on the taxpayers.
Really? Quite interesting. And demonstrably false.
Next, it seems Mr. Keffer has a case of cognitive dissonance:
I have been a registered Republican for many years, but as I get older, I’m coming to the conclusion that society would be better off with more Democrats in office.
I would rather vote for the person and the office they want to fill rather than what the “party” wants me to vote. And this should be the case for those already in our Congress.
Unfortunately, most of them, Democrat and Republican can only conceive of voting what their party wants them to vote. They really don’t care about their constituents once they get into office.
Oh, so even though both parties apparently are more loyal to party than constituent, Keffer thinks the country would be better off with more Democrats in office. Democrats who're, again, y'know, more loyal to their party than the voters.
Yeah. Sure. Makes "sense."
New Jersey is the site this time out. Jim Geraghty reports:
This year, New Jersey’s registered voters can request a mail-in ballot for any reason. (Before 2005, voters needed to provide a reason for why they needed an absentee ballot.) The state received about 150,000 absentee-ballot applications this year.
On about 2,300 of those applications so far, the signature on the request form does not match the signature on the voter’s registration forms with the state.
In a development that is depressingly predictable, the New Jersey Democratic party is asking the state to provide provisional ballots for all these voters. Those ballots could, presumably, be used to overcome any narrow lead by Republican Chris Christie over Democrat Jon Corzine on Election Day.
In 2000 we saw the Dems become enemies of equal protection with their shenanigans in Florida -- wildly differing interpretations of what constituted a "legal vote" were prefectly OK with them. Especially when those interpretations favored Al Gore. In 2002, the liberal-dominated New Jersey Supreme Court "broadly interpreted" state election law to allow Democrats to replace Bob Torricelli with Frank Lautenberg (Torricelli was in legal trouble and was a sure bet to lose his Senate re-election; somehow, keeping him on the ballot would deprive voters of "a choice"), just as now Dems want election clerks to grant "wide latitude on signature styles" when examining absentee ballots. Which, is certainly reasonable ... except that
Democrats want to short-circuit the established methods of sorting out the problem, and in fact to ban rejections based on signature mismatches entirely.
Democrats have never made this request before, not even in 2008, where many more New Jersey residents were voting through absentee ballots. Of course, that year Democrats Barack Obama and Frank Lautenberg were expected to win the statewide races handily.
Last year, the state party had no objections to the actions of county clerks; now, the party's counsel fears that the county-clerk staff “may be overworked and are likely not trained in handwriting analysis.” Strangely, these same county-clerk staffers managed to handle this year’s primary elections in New Jersey without any major complaints.
Wherever there's a tight race, you can count on old machine-style Democrat voter fraud politics to rear its pathetic head.
CNN's Lou Dobbs reports that he and his family have faced gunshots -- yes, gunshots -- near their home:
"But I want to tell you, when you talk about what they've done - they've created an atmosphere and they've been unrelenting in their propaganda," Dobbs said. "Three weeks ago this morning, a shot was fired at my house where I live. My wife was standing out and that followed weeks and weeks of threatening phone calls."
Dobbs detailed the event, the notification of law enforcement and threatening phone calls he had received after the fact.
"And, as I told the state patrol, and by the way, the New Jersey State Patrol is absolutely terrific - they responded instantly. But this shot was fired with my wife not, I don't know, 15 feet away and we had threatening phone calls that I decided not to report because I get threatening phone calls," Dobbs continued. "I now - it's become a way of life - the anger, the hate, the vitriol, but it's taken a different tone where they've threatened my wife. They've now fired a shot at my house while my wife was standing next to the car. It's become something else."
Where else have you heard about this? Certainly not on the MSM. And why? Let's see ... because Dobbs is a vocal critic of our lax stance towards illegal immigration? That's not very politically correct! But hey, get a few angry average citizens shouting at a few [Democrat] politicians at town hall meetings and WHOA!! Then, it's long pundit treatises on the need for "civility."
UPDATE: It's stuff like this that gets Dobbs riled up. And, in the eyes of groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center, what makes him a "villain" for speaking out against:
I recounted earlier this morning that Democrats are trying to block a requirement that the census inquire whether respondents are American citizens. At the same time, the Mexican government is interfering in our census by urging Mexican nationals to get themselves counted so they can grab bigger slices of hundreds of billions in social welfare spending — i.e., the redistribution of wealth from taxpaying American citizens to Mexican immigrants — legal and illegal.
Check out this story in the Spanish language Mexican paper, El Financiero. It reports that the Mexican consulates in Los Angeles and Miami are advising Mexicans in the U.S. that the census will be critical to assigning $300 billion annually in federal, state and local social programs over the next ten years — specifically, in determining the level of funds to be applied toward the population of Mexican origin.
What's insulting about those who believe Dobbs evil incarnate is their conventional wisdom that somehow all Hispanics think alike -- not a surprise in today's era (especially among the liberal intelligensia) where "group think" is supposedly a common positive. That, somehow, merely because one is of Latino origin, he/she is in favor of illegal immigration, or, at the very least, allowing those who are here already to stay and be granted amnesty and/or benefits.
Sorry. My spouse is an Hispanic -- legal -- immigrant. She played by the rules. And the views of the amnesty-granters et. al. make her pretty angry.
How come? Well, probably because it's the current president's nephew -- y'know, the one who was "installed" in a "coup."
Police found the remains of [Roberto] Micheletti’s 25-year-old nephew Enzo Micheletti, who went missing on Friday, near Choloma, some 250 kilometres north of the capital Tegucigalpo on Sunday, along with those of another youth.
Police say his hands were tied behind his back and his body was riddled with bullets.
There is no direct evidence to suggest that his murder was politically-motivated but local justice official Rafael Fletes told AFP that he did not rule out the possibility. (Link.)
I have a sneakin' suspicion that if it was Hugo Chávez wannabe Manuel Zelaya's nephew who was killed, the Obama administration would be front and center in the media denouncing it as a political killing, and would once more [ridiculously] demand the return of Zelaya as president.
Why, you make it up, of course!
First with the MSM moonbats it was Rush Limbaugh uttering things he'd never say (because, after all, Rush just has to be a racist despite the bogus quotes attributed to him). Now, it's a history revision along the same lines -- Republicans must be racist even though, well, they weren't:
Maddow: Let me ask you about the statistic I attributed to you in my intro there - I know you have been doing some digging on this issue - of a Democrat joining a Republican filibuster. How, how unprecedented would a move like this be for Senator Lieberman?
Hamsher: Well, we have seen a number of the other party cross overs…well we remember the Dixiecrats joining the Republicans in the sixties on civil rights filibusters … (Link.)
A little history lesson for Ms. Hamsher:
In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.
Maybe Hamsher ought to examine her own racial prejudices. After all, she's the cretin who superimposed blackface on a photo of Joe Lieberman during his campaign against Ned Lamont in 2006.
The Corner's Rich Lowry gets an e-mail:
2009 Pelosi Health care bill – 1990 pages.
1994 Clinton Health care bill – 1342 pages.
So its 648 pages longer than even that bureaucratic monstrosity.
Lucky for us!
That's what White House adviser Valerie Jarrett said the other day that the administration will keep doing against Fox News.
Hey Val -- you're a member of the most powerful governmental administration on the planet. You all somehow believe that Fox News has more power than ... yourselves??
Over at our LGOMB the aptly named "Unstable" Isotope thought he/she had something with which to "nail" Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Turns out he/she didn't. So, how does U.I. correct the post?
"Scalia is still a scumbag but it appears he was misquoted."
"Still a scumbag," huh? Yet again, another example of "progressive" hypocrisy regarding "civility." Why, pray tell, is Scalia a scumbag? Because he has a different political and judicial philosophy than you, moonbat?
And unfortunately, it seems former DE Watch guy Dana Garrett fell for the LGOMB's post:
This is what “conservative” jurisprudence results in: a segregated society that disenfranchises minorities. Justice Scalia is a throwback to an awful period in US history.
Sorry you got sucked in there, Dana.
"Are you accountable for the flu vaccine shortage?"
That was asked of George W. Bush in 2004. The MSM was all over Bush for the shortage of vaccine at that time. (See link for examples, and even more here.) Yet, have you heard much about the current shortage of H1N1 vaccines? Hell, they (the shortages) exist locally, even after being told (again, locally) they'd be available a couple weeks ago.
Obama, on a national level, said "in September that an 'ample supply' would be available by 'mid-October.'"
** Crickets chirping **
Left-wing radio guy Mike Malloy on Dick Cheney:
Cheney, by the way looks very ruddy; I couldn't get over that like he must have feasted on a Jewish baby, or a Muslim baby; he must have sent his people out to get one and bring it back so he could drink its blood, because that's what somebody like Cheney does to get that ruddy look.
I'm so glad Democrats and liberals have called for a more "civil tone" in our discourse, aren't you?
Chuckie last night on "Countdown":
OLBERMANN: To that point, do you know, Senator, what Mr. Reid meant when he talked about states possibly opting out by 2013. Was he talking about giving them a one-year window before they had to opt out? It weren't clear.
SCHUMER: Yes. And I know what Senator Reid is intending, but because we has sent it over to CBO and as a private matter, and you don't want to make the CBO score public yet, although we will certainly have it balanced, it's wise not to talk about the specific details.
Yeah! We can't have the public knowing the specific details now, can we? After all, Schumer, Reid and co. work for us! And it's only one-sixth of the entire US economy they're talking about!!
Previously on Colossus.
My daughter stopped me yesterday while we were food shopping, all the while she was laughing hysterically. Why? Looks like whoever decorated this cake only likes one member of the team:
Eagles support FAIL!!
In response to "Straight Talk with Charles Potter, Jr. and Company" which had as its summary for yesterday's program (courtesy Kilroy):
"Straight Talk with Charles Potter, Jr. and Company" -- Comcast Channel 28, 2-4 p.m. Sunday, October 23 [sic]
As we look at the performance of Wilmington students in our schools under desegregation, it is time to consider the need for a Wilmington school district.
- Wilmington students ride buses for a longer time each day and for more years than suburban students.
- Dropout rates among African-American and Latino students exceed 40%.
- While we must have safe schools, the smallest transgressions by even the youngest students lead to expulsion or placement in alternative schools.
- Too many parents are disconnected from our communities, their children and the responsibility to participate in civic life. This contributes to our failures in our schools and communities.
This Sunday, October 25, Straight Talk will be devoted to the next stage of a community discussion on the state of education for Wilmington children. Our panelists, who will consist of elected officials and members of the community, will touch on these and other topics.
Keep supporting the same old people, keep getting the same old results.
George Evans is the Board Chair for the Christina SD. Over 20 years. His term is up next year. Time for elections.
I live in Evans SD electoral district. If I get multicultural support, I can take over this seat. Paul Falkowski, although you hate his guts, will change the district, its attitude and its rules. For the better. ALL I have ever done is to help people. There are no examples of any discriminatory actions in my record.
Paul would challenge the Wilmington community to produce successful students at all levels. I would reward effort, discipline, and proper behavior. For students with attitude problems that are negative to learning, I would establish classes on life skills to succeed, to become self-sufficient and to build self-respect of the person themselves, through encouragement and their own work and their production of positive accomplishments.
Has anyone in the schools or in community centers or in the home instructed students why they need to get an education? It is time to stop subsidizing failure and to start demanding equal success for equal work and effort.
It is the teachers' job to teach, It is the students job to LEARN. Anything else is CHEATING everyone. It is the parents' job to nurture and to be supportive. The parent is limited by their own education levels. It's time to TEACH the parents in a massive effort of day and night schools in every extra classroom,
community centers and other public facilities like health clinics, in the city. The parents can and should bring their children with them to the adult classes.
We can not abandon the generations of young adults while we try to raise the children of today. Those children will be influenced by these previous generations, to continue the culture of violence and educational failure. BUT if we grab the young adults and the young parents, and initiate an adult school for them, we can start the turnaround overnight. And these young adults will be a positive example, NOW.
Politics and politicians, always seem to support each other in a comfy little clique. No wonder things never get done. The fix is in, and under the table politics prevents new initiatives and always compromise to settle for the status quo.
AND in Wilmington, the status quo for 20 plus years is one of FAILURE.
Bruce Dudley thinks that both Fox and MSNBC are "outrageous and opinionated" ... but of course Fox is just worse:
One would be remiss, however, not to focus on the serious shortcomings of Rupert Murdoch’s conservative news organization and its devotees. It ought to be noted that Fox News, as personified by the often supercilious Sean Hannity and a frequently ranting Glenn Beck, go overboard in their blatant appeal to raw emotion.
As opposed to Keith Olbermann's "Special Comments," Ed Schultz's baby-like name-calling and/or Chris Matthews' outlandish metaphors!
More damning, though, are numerous findings, including a study conducted by the prestigious Annenberg School of Communications, that viewers of Fox News are among the most misinformed and uninformed citizens in the body politic.
Really? Let's see. What I found after surfing around for a while was this consistently linked poll. Check out the graphic below:
In it, yes, Fox News Channel viewers in general do not rank very high based on the study's criteria. However, viewers of FNC's most popular program, "The O'Reilly Factor," rank near the top as do listeners of -- uh-oh -- the Rush Limbaugh program. NOOO! I wonder what Bruce thinks of that? Further, the "knowledge" percentages of major network news viewers and ... readers of blogs(!) are just a tad higher than FNC's.
Noticeably missing from the study? MSNBC. How convenient.
Bruce might also be interested in (or, I could say, "I would be remiss if I didn't note") a Center for Media and Public Affairs study that said Fox News was the most balanced in its coverage.
Sorry, Bruce. Your letter is just yet another example of purely partisan hackery maquerading as thoughtful opinion.
That Energizer Bunny analogue Perry, hypocrite extraordinaire who floods local blogs with the same comment themes on a daily basis ("What's your solution?" "You're an extremist!" "Obama has said ..." etc.) has really done up a whopper this time. Here he is at Common Sense Political Thought on what Fox News "represents":
In my view, this is tantamount to an insurgency, a revolution, a coup. This is not the American/Constitutional way to change an elected government! Obama is your President too.
Wow! Because one of Fox's opinionators supposedly "predicted last week that he will soon 'take the administration down'?" Does Perry honestly believe that this talking head was literally serious? Or, was he speaking metaphorically about an upcoming report on [yet] another of Obama's minions?
I wonder if Woodward and Bernstein posited that they'd "bring the administration down" in the early 70s. If they did, according to Perry, that was "tantamount to an insurgency, a revolution, a coup." Yes, that's right. Because up till that time, Tricky Dick didn't have any legal proof against him.
Johnny Dollar's place has a Fox News Channel segment featuring lawyer Peter Johnson Jr. who argues that the White House excluding Fox from the "news pool" is probably unconstitutional. He claims there is a substantial quantity of case law on the matter.
But is it really?
I'm not certain, but I can make a judgment call. And that would be no -- I don't think ditching Fox from covering White House events is unconstitutional. Such an action wouldn't inhibit Fox from broadcasting, which is the essence of the First Amendment issue. Delaware Libertarian has an interesting thread related to this topic where post author Steve Newton says
The State having the power to restrict the free--even partisan press--is a greater danger to the American republic than anything that press might ever say.
I agree that it is a danger; however, is it unconstitutional? Former proprietor of Delaware Watch Dana Garrett chimes in (my emphasis):
And if the Nazi press wanted to be part of the press pool and attend White House News briefings, then as far as your concerned the White House is OBLIGATED to oblige them?
You [Steve Newton] are the one who claims to be the constitutionalist. Please point out in the constitution where the President is obligated to recognize just any "news organization" as responsible purveyors of free speech.
As often as I disagree with Dana, I must say he's on the money with the above. Does the First Amendment mandate that the White House permit a Neo-Nazi newspaper to attend a press briefing? Why or why not? And I say this as a defender of Fox News (just see my comment in the DE Libertarian thread, for instance). Where the constitutional hassles would arise is if the White House presses even harder on attempting to stifle Fox's ability to report the news (or their opinions) as they wish (within the usual legal limits, of course ... meaning libel, etc.). As I [hyperbolically] stated a couple days ago, Obama appears to be taking a page from one of his buddies elsewhere in this hemisphere. Indeed, the leader of Venezuela has clamped down on media outlets that have been "irresponsible" and that have "not told the truth."
Health care legislation taking shape in the House carries a price tag of at least $1 trillion over a decade.
The next line: "... significantly higher than the target President Barack Obama has set ..."
Meanwhile, the White House is angry at Fox News.
First place in the Council category was Joshuapundit with When Anti-Semitism Isn’t …And When It Is.
First place in the non-Council category was Real Clear Politics with Media Wars: White House Crosses the Line.
Full results are here.
Bob Zembower seems to think that Jesus Christ and communism are connected:
Recent posts regarding the dialogue about Christ and communism fail to display the remotest understanding of either.
It is easy to understand, given the teachings of American history in our schools and the same type of limited truth promoted in most churches.
The fact is, communism was practiced quite successfully by the American Indians and other indigenous peoples worldwide for 10,000 years without conflict or failure.
There is no doubt that if you read the words of Christ, not the Bible, or the heretical rantings of mega preachers living in luxury, Christ did believe in “from each according to his capabilities, and to each according to his needs.”
The problem with attempting to link Christ to communism is that I really doubt Christ would be in the habit of forcing people to do things against their [free] will. And ultimately, this is what communism requires -- force. A comment left by "hawk66" in response to Zembower's letter perhaps says it best:
When speaking of communism and defining it as small communes that agree to share chores and rewards it is a different thing than The Communism that is defined as government control of production and distribution. And while it might be true that Stalinism can be distinguished in some ways from communism, it is also true that for communism to work there must be a strong dictator; otherwise the natural inequalities of people with regard to innate abilities, drives, and motivations will manifest themselves. In short there cannot be equality and freedom at the same time; to have equality is to give up your freedom to excel and rise above the rest. This contradiction is one of the reasons The French Revolution failed (equality, liberty, fraternity) and the American Revolution -- which recognized equality only before the law -- succeeded. And even small communities have not been successful in establishing equality without some tyype of dictator like Jim Jones. Most, failed.
Cities held up as "paragons of progessivity" are almost entirely ... white.
Among the media, academia and within planning circles, there’s a generally standing answer to the question of what cities are the best, the most progressive and best role models for small and mid-sized cities. The standard list includes Portland, Seattle, Austin, Minneapolis, and Denver. In particular, Portland is held up as a paradigm, with its urban growth boundary, extensive transit system, excellent cycling culture, and a pro-density policy. These cities are frequently contrasted with those of the Rust Belt and South, which are found wanting, often even by locals, as “cool” urban places.
But look closely at these exemplars and a curious fact emerges. If you take away the dominant Tier One cities like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles you will find that the “progressive” cities aren’t red or blue, but another color entirely: white.
In fact, not one of these “progressive” cities even reaches the national average for African American percentage population in its core county. Perhaps not progressiveness but whiteness is the defining characteristic of the group.
To use the terminology of the first sentence in the above block quote, don't the media and academia constantly and consistently deem one of the facets of "progressivity" as "being diverse?" And don't these same entities constantly and consistently define "diverse" as "including African-Americans [and Hispanics]?" (In academia, especially, Asians do not qualify as "minority" due mainly to their superior academic performance.)
Of course they do. Which is why I titled this post what I did. Based on the conventional wisdom definition of "progressive," now cities like Portland and Seattle can't claim that label. Or, at least in [large] part they can't.
Case in point: Far-lefty Gore Vidal (and talk-show gabber Joy Behar) on former President GW Bush:
"But I couldn't jump into the screen fast enough to kill him off. That's one murder that I missed not committing." [Joy] Behar didn't oppose his death wish. She responded first by chuckling and then say, "Well, it's too late anyway."
Ah yes. Nothing more "civil" like desiring the death of our former president!
Case in point: OPN (Obama Preferred Network) gabber Chris Matthews on the religious right here the US:
That's not fair. The group in this country that most resembles the Taliban, ironically, is the religious right.
Yeah, y'know -- the same religious right here at home that cuts people's heads off, beats the sh** out of women for things like getting raped or not covering up their heads sufficiently, and wants everyone dead that doesn't convert to their religion! That's happening all across the US, ain't it?
Case in point: New Democrat Pit Bull Alan Grayson refers to the GOP (and Fox News) as the "enemies of America and peace."
Case in point: Slate editor Jacob Weisberg says
that Fox News "stands to become the first network to actively try to kill its viewers" by spreading lies about vaccines, and is "un-American" for adopting the "Australian-British-continental model of politicized media."
And this last link (Reason) has a whole bevy of further examples:
Bill Press, syndicated columnist and former CNN host: "There's only one thing left: to rename the party for what it really stands for. It's no longer the Republican Party; it's the Hate America Party."
Eugene Robinson, Washington Post columnist: "Why, oh why, do conservatives hate America so? ... As Republican leaders -- except RNC Chairman Michael Steele -- are beginning to realize, "I'm With the Taliban Against America" is not likely to be a winning slogan."
CNN Headline News host Joy Behar: Guest Richard Belzer: "We see, you know, they`re cheering when we don`t get the Olympics and - and demeaning the Nobel Prize" ... Joy Behar: "Right, which is so un-American." (Yeah, Belzer? Well, you only have one nut, a-hole. -- ed.)
MSNBC's host Ed Schultz: "This attack on President Obama trying to get the Olympics is about the most un-American thing I think I've ever seen."
Radio host Cynthia Hardy on MSNBC's Hardball: "So [with the case of Rep. Joe Wilson] what you get is this blatant disregard for the office of the presidency, which is extremely un-American."
MSNBC's host Ed Schultz: "Rush must have been popping a few too many pills that particular day. Turning a hopeful message about the resiliency of Americans into a partisan attack. That's un-American 'Psycho Talk,' which is par for the course."
Blogger Steve Clemons, appearing on MSNBC: "Jesse Helms of North Carolina was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for many years. And many of these folks that have come into their own today, particularly in the Bush administration, were essentially tutored by Helms to bring, you know, somewhat of a 'Fortress America' attitude to the comments, which are, I think, quite unpatriotic."
CNN Headline News host Joy Behar: "Now why don`t you figure that this is a little unpatriotic for [Palin] to go to Hong Kong and badmouth the president of the United States? At the very least it's disrespectful."
Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, appearing on MSNBC: "But they're trying to delegitimize him in any way they can, be as disrespectful, not just to him but to the office as they can. And to my mind, to be actually, what I would call unpatriotic in their approach."
MSNBC host Keith Olbermann: "How are Democrats, anything but at best -- I`ll use this combination -- irresponsible at worst, unpatriotic for giving that party more say than utterly necessary than what they have already in many amendments of this bill in health care reform."
Remember the good old days when dissent was the "highest form of patriotism?" And more recently, remember when liberals/Democrats pleaded for a more "civil" political discourse?
Just four words come to mind: You're full of sh**."
The poll of 1,500 adults by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that only 57 percent believe there is strong scientific evidence the Earth has gotten hotter over the past few decades, and as a result, people are viewing the situation as less serious. That's down from 77 percent in 2006, and 71 percent in April 2008.
The AP article goes on to note that the Messiah administration has aggressively pursued actions to curb GHGs, and that "there has been mounting scientific evidence of climate change — from melting ice caps to the world's oceans hitting the highest monthly recorded temperatures this summer."
Really? Even with eleven years of no increase in average global temperature?
But the survey director largely blames the recession for the decrease in poll numbers. Which sure makes pursuing cap and trade legislation verrrrry smart now, doesn't it? Indeed -- let's make it even tougher on Americans' pocket books to stop something over which we really have little control.
This is what we find on the OPN -- Obama Preferred Network:
Well OK, they sure don't look alike, but is there even one iota's difference between these race hucksters?
The Messiah, trying to fool us again. Regarding Fox News:
Well, no, I think that what our advisers have simply said is that we are going to take the media as it comes. And if media is operating basically as a talk-radio format, then that's one thing, and if it's operating as a news outlet, then that's another. But it's not something I'm losing a lot of sleep over.
Uh huh, right. That's why you and your minions are out there at every opportunity slamming Fox as a "faux" news outlet. While, at the same, entertaining pundits from that "other" network that "is operating basically as a talk-radio format," Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.
UPDATE: Looks like there were more moonbats than just Keithy and Raytch with The Messiah.
... when I said that Barack Obama is acting more and more like this guy every day:
Around the world, free speech is being sacrificed on the altar of religion. Whether defined as hate speech, discrimination or simple blasphemy, governments are declaring unlimited free speech as the enemy of freedom of religion. This growing movement has reached the United Nations, where religiously conservative countries received a boost in their campaign to pass an international blasphemy law. It came from the most unlikely of places: the United States.
While attracting surprisingly little attention, the Obama administration supported the effort of largely Muslim nations in the U.N. Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to free speech for any "negative racial and religious stereotyping." The exception was made as part of a resolution supporting free speech that passed this month, but it is the exception, not the rule that worries civil libertarians. Though the resolution was passed unanimously, European and developing countries made it clear that they remain at odds on the issue of protecting religions from criticism. It is viewed as a transparent bid to appeal to the "Muslim street" and our Arab allies, with the administration seeking greater coexistence through the curtailment of objectionable speech. Though it has no direct enforcement (and is weaker than earlier versions), it is still viewed as a victory for those who sought to juxtapose and balance the rights of speech and religion. (Link.)
Good thing about that "no direct enforcement," eh? But for how long will that be the case, though? What if Obama gets to name a couple more Supreme Court justices in the next few years -- especially someone to replace a conservative such as Scalia or Thomas? Will these new leftist justices "discover" a restriction in the First Amendment that provides the basis for the administration's position?
And look at a potential happening here in the States: Conservative Evangelical Christians could sue [leftist] groups which "defame" them. (They criticize them on a regular basis now as it is; with such a "blasphemy" law in place such criticism would be legally actionable!) Is that really what the Left would want? Or, like "hate crimes" laws, would blasphemy laws be selectively enforced, for example in this case being that only "major" and/or "long established" religions are applicable (or some other such nonsense)?
... but two of MSNBC's most partisan -- and vile -- mouthpieces get invited to the "off-the-record briefing" with The Messiah. The funny thing about it? The vilest of MSDNC's pundits, Keith Olbermann, once tore into George W. Bush for supposedly doing the same thing:
“The born again and the born talkers: The President takes 90 minutes worth of your taxpayer dollars to entertain right-wing radio yackers in the Oval Office, and will set up a radio row for them on the White House grounds next week”…
“I’ve got a question for you about the Military Commissions Act, too, but let’s finish off this episode first. In January, the President consulted with 13 former Secretaries of State and Defense about Iraq, spoke for 40 minutes, allowed discussion for 5 to 10 minutes. The figures for the 5 conservative radio show people is double that. is there an explanation of that that does not include the President using the Oval Office for purely political purposes and even indirectly for political fund-raising?”
But the difference between Bush and Obama is that Bush and his henchmen weren't out there actively castigating a particular network and trying to delegitimize it at every opportunity. While, at the very same time, courting those who have viciously attacked that network at every opportunity ... with even more venom than what the president feels has been directed at him (by said network).
Call me silly, but this all seems vaguely familiar.
UPDATE: Look what The Messiah said back in February:
I think it's fair to say that I don't always get my most favorable coverage on Fox, but I think that's part of how democracy is supposed to work. You know, we're not supposed to all be in lock step here, and you've always been very gracious to me and...
So, what's changed? Oh yeah, that's right -- Obama has no plan for Afghanistan, no plan for the economy, has just verbal "promises" for taking over 1/6 of the American economy (healthcare), so ... it's "let's distract the public by attacking our most consistent critic."
Roger Pielke, Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder (and "a political liberal and a firm believer in the theory of anthropogenic global warming") had the audacity to question some of the generally accepted GW science.
What do I mean when I say that they (the leftist blogosphere) engage in embarrassing and unethical behavior? For instance, their blog etiquette is simply a disgrace, especially for people who claim to be professional, e.g., they each disallow substantive comments that they disagree with, either from me or from those supporting things that I have said.
Our local far-leftists do precisely this, so it's certainly no surprise around the local 'sphere. Time after time commenters report at other local blogs how their contrarian views are excised from the LGOMB (Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers) site. Most recently, one of their very own contributors was kicked out of the Gaggle because he dared to, in a nutshell, criticize Barack Obama as being not that much different from his predecessor. (Full disclosure: All of the LGOMB except two are prohibited from commenting here at all due to a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is their ever-malleable "rules" for commenting at their site.)
Tragically, this is all becoming more and more common among the Left. Despite rhetoric about "open dialogue," "fairness" and "civility," they desire none of that if their conventional wisdom is challenged. Obama vs. Fox News. Liberal/Democrat politicians vs. healthcare opponents/tea partiers. The mainstream media utilizing outright lies in their efforts against Rush Limbaugh. And the lefty blogosphere is yet another cog in that wheel.
That’s true even though the motivations of the White House are clear: Fire up a liberal base disillusioned with Obama by attacking the hated Fox. Try to keep a critical news outlet off-balance. Raise doubts about future Fox stories.
But most of all, get other journalists to think twice before following the network’s stories in their own coverage.
"We're doing what we think is important to make sure news is covered as fairly as possible," a White House official told POLITICO, noting how the recent ACORN scandal story started because Fox covered it “breathlessly for weeks on end.”
“And then you had a couple days of breast-beating from The Washington Post and The New York Times about whether or not they were fast enough on the ACORN story,” the official said. “And it's like: Wait a second, guys. Let's make sure that we keep perspective on what are the most important stories, and what's being driven by a network that has a perspective. Being able to make that point has been important.”
Yeah, let's "wait a second guys" and take a gander at "what are the most important stories" on the MSM websites as of this hour today:
And just off the top of my head: If Fox really covered the ACORN scandal "for weeks," what, then, about the other networks' interminable coverage of Cindy Sheehan and her protests against George Bush's efforts in Iraq?
Liberals are beginning to get fed up at The Messiah's perpetual whining about the ONE network that asks the current administration actual tough questions. Can't have journalists asking pointed questions, eh? Especially not when Obama and co. has been soooo used to controlling the debate, atmosphere and questions!
It's bad enough that the MSM is slowly falling apart. These are The Messiah's greatest allies. It's worse that talk radio and Fox News continue to grow. And as I've written myriad times, it's perpetually hilarious to hear the twisted explanations of liberals as to why Fox has been successful. Occam's Razor applies here as it often does anywhere else: Fox is successful because it has filled a niche previously unoccupied by the other networks -- namely, it actually covers the conservative point-of-view (predominately so, yes). Doesn't logic dictate that those fed up with not hearing "the other side" -- so often neglected by the MSM -- would flock to a new network that actually gives it credence?
Of course it does.
And that just royally pisses off not only the most lefty administration in recent memory, but also those whose livelihoods are threatened by their now-dominant competitor. Instead of trying to recognize what has made FNC successful, the goal is delegitimize it as a worthy source of information. "Their panels are dominated by conservatives!" people bitch about Fox. Never mind that the MSM pundit shows are dominated by liberals! "They're not real journalists over there!" people complain. Never mind that folks like Brit Hume and Chris Wallace were perfectly legitimate professional journalists before they went to work for Fox. "Their opinion shows are dominated by conservatives like Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity!" people whine. Never mind that MSNBC has far-lefties Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow; CNN has Larry King, Rick Sanchez and Anderson Cooper (though, admittedly, all less lefty and virulent than their MSNBC brethren), and, the major networks news shows are all dominated by liberal voices: Katie Couric, Charles Gibson, George Stephanopoulis, David Gregory, Brian Williams, Bob Schieffer ...
And just so you remember [yet another] Obama whopper, he once said about Fox News "I think it's fair to say that I don't always get my most favorable coverage on Fox, but I think that's part of how democracy is supposed to work. You know, we're not supposed to all be in lock step here, and you've always been very gracious to me and..."
At any rate, just keep on attacking Fox News, Obama and co. Because, in the end, to quote a certain Ivan Drago, "You vill lose."
Patrick Welsh has an article in the Washington Post that lays out what those with just a decent quantity of common sense already know: That having a dad around in the house (or, parental involvement in general) has a LOT to do with a child's academic achievement in school.
My students knew intuitively that the reason they were lagging academically had nothing to do with race, which is the too-handy explanation for the achievement gap in Alexandria. And it wasn't because the school system had failed them. They knew that excuses about a lack of resources and access just didn't wash at the new, state-of-the-art, $100 million T.C. Williams, where every student is given a laptop and where there is open enrollment in Advanced Placement and honors courses. Rather, it was because their parents just weren't there for them -- at least not in the same way that parents of kids who were doing well tended to be.
Unfortunately, way too many school districts across the country use race as the "handy explanation" for the achievement gap. It may be they'll advocate for more resources (such as above) or they'll bring in speakers -- supposed "experts" -- who lecture teachers that it is white [teacher] racism that is responsible for minority children not doing as well as their Caucasian counterparts.
And people wonder why some folks snicker at [public ed.] educationists' explanations for low performance? For example, if those above "experts'" theories that white teacher racism is the true culprit for poor minority school performance, what explains the results of schools whose staff is overwhelmingly minority? And if state-of-the-art technology, infrastructure and materials is the answer, what explains the Kansas City Experiment?
But focusing on a "racial achievement gap" is too simple; it's a gap in familial support and involvement, too. Administrators focused solely on race are stigmatizing black students. At the same time, they are encouraging the easy excuse that the kids who are not excelling are victims, as well as the idea that once schools stop being racist and raise expectations, these low achievers will suddenly blossom.
Indeed. Most of the rest of Welsh's article is eerily (and sadly) familiar. But I am not attempting to excuse schools and teachers from doing their utmost best to help rectify what is inherently a societal problem that is brought into the schools. That's their job, after all. What I am saying is that more people -- educationists -- need to stop relying on esoteric theories and just use plain old common sense. It'll save them a LOT of money and best of all, something substantive actually might get done.
Which brings me to this: A good friend of mine who was finishing his masters about a decade ago was enrolled in a class that [partly] dealt with this topic. After class, off the record, the professor -- despite covering a great deal of "theory" so criticized above -- told my buddy that "if you tell me a kid's socio-economic status and whether he/she has involved parents, I can tell you how well that kid will do in school."
The Philly Inquirer endorses Jon Corzine for NJ governor.
And they wonder why their readership continues to dwindle?
UPDATE: Another surprise: The NY Times also endorses Corzine!
Next up: MSNBC and CBS News fact-check the Three Stooges' statements on the Depression and WWII.
115 girls pregnant at one Chicago high school.
That's right -- 115.
First place in the Council category was Bookworm Room with What’s not to like about the Blue Angels?
First place in the non-Council category was Benjamin Kerstein/New Ledger with Obama and Israel: Betrayal in the Broken Places.
Full results are here.
... from our very own LGOMB (Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers).
Y'know, I thought I heard wrong when I caught this on The Factor last night, but I guess I didn't. Guest Warren Ballantine told fellow guest Juan Williams to "go back to the porch" after Williams defended Rush Limbaugh from a series of phony quotes that the MSM has attributed to him over the past week.
BILL O'REILLY: The reason that Limbaugh is not going to be able to buy into the NFL is because a bunch of made-up stuff became legend, and he got hammered.
WARREN BALLANTINE: OK, we won't look at the made-up stuff. Let's look at him playing "Barack The Magic Negro", and we're going to say that's just funny, that's just a joke, that's not racial either. It is racial to real black people.
JUAN WILLIAMS: Hey Warren, you were saying my argument was a red herring. Maybe you should do some research, go back and find out that it was an article written by a black person, headlined "Barack The Magic Negro."
BALLANTINE: He made it a song and played it on his show.
WILLIAMS: So what? He was making fun of it.
BALLANTINE: You can go back to the porch, Juan. You can go back. It's OK.
O'REILLY: All right guys: good debate, good-spirited debate. (Link.)
The reason I had thought I heard wrong was because of O'Reilly's -- and Williams', for that matter -- reaction to Ballantine's slur. There wasn't one. That's probably because it came right at the end of the segment -- the commercial segue music had begun rolling (though I couldn't hear it on the vid below):
Notice Ballantine's use of "real black people." To him, Williams is not "authentically black" because he had the audacity to defend a conservative from blatant lies. And therein lies the utter inanity of PC multiculturalism: dolts like Ballantine claim what is (and is not) "authentically black," but if a white person (or someone from any other group) dares to make similar statements/comparisons, then the "racist" canard comes to the fore. Then, for folks like Ballantine, it's, "How dare you lump all black people together like that!" PC multiculturalism allows for positive group characteristics, but not any negative ones -- unless you're describing the [white] majority. This is why you'll hear, especially in academic circles, things (theories) like "how black students learn," "understanding minority student behavior" and "culturally responsive classrooms" as if ALL black and/or minority students learn and behave the same way. Educationists also love to implement programs like "Difficult Dialogues" which, on the surface claim to be "honest discussions" about race, but are really lectures on the bane of "white privilege," and how white [teacher] racism is the primary culprit behind the dearth of minority student academic achievement. (See, notice how a majority group negative -- "white teacher racism" -- is permitted!)
There's plenty more examples in the Colossus education archives if you're interested. And that last point above, about programs like "Difficult Dialogues," is perfectly exemplified by Mr. Ballantine. The real purpose isn't to have a "difficult" dialogue because difficult dialogues would involve hearing things that you may not like -- for everybody. You may not agree with what's said, but you listen and you don't accuse someone of "racism" or of being a "race traitor" like Ballantine sickeningly did to Juan Williams.
President Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize was predictably met with derision among so many of his hate-mongering critics. Yet, I’ve talked to more than 20 Obama haters since the award was announced, and not one of them was able to offer a single semi-coherent thought on who they felt was more deserving of the award.
Countless scientific international polls show that respect for this country plummeted around the globe in the first eight years of this century. That respect is gradually being restored, largely thanks to the Nobel recipient.
For once, it would be refreshing if the most severe Obama haters could have their opinions drawn from objective perspectives rather than from irrationally visceral and emotionally driven vantage points.
I am sure that by "semi-coherent thought" Toomey really means "reasons I didn't agree with." And, using the principle of Occam's Razor, the simplest answer to Toomey's question is "Practically anybody but Barack Obama." Why? So what if international opinion about the US has increased since Obama has been president? Isn't the Nobel Prize intended for someone that has actually DONE SOMETHING??
Fox News is evil incarnate (IOW, they're an "arm" of the GOP) -- so says White House Communications Director Anita Dunn. But one of the greatest mass murderers of all-time? Dunn thinks he's just terrific.
(Oh -- and notice how there's an actual video with Dunn's actual words as evidence. Unlike certain quotes attributed -- without substantiation -- to a certain conservative radio talk show host.)
Mark Steyn nails it oh-so- perfectly:
Step One: You can't say that. It's racist.
So you don't. Next:
Step Two: You're using "code language".
As I always say, "code language" is code language for "I’m inventing what you really meant to say because the actual quote doesn’t quite do the job for me." Still, you steer clear of "code language." So then:
Step Three: We'll just concoct it out of whole cloth, and, after running for a week with "Slavery Advocate Wants Medal of Honor for MLK Killer", our fact-checkers will confirm the accuracy of that statement by citing something you said about Donovan McNabb or Obama's economic policy. Close enough.
As I said, right on the money.
For some reason, Rush Limbaugh's mooted purchase of a sports franchise has prompted CNN and others to distribute far and wide what appear to be entirely fabricated racist quotes by Rush. As Tim Blair points out:
Bizarrely, nobody running these career-killing “quotes” seems to question why they weren’t of previous interest.
Just so. What's the theory here? He said these things on the air in 2006 and nobody noticed? 2001? Maybe 1995, back when Clinton was blaming him for Oklahoma City? Hey, let's not get hung up on details. Just because nobody can find any evidence anywhere of Rush saying these "quotes" doesn't mean he didn't say 'em.
In case you missed it, that last part is sarcasm. IOW, the MSM is trying to make Limbaugh prove a negative (which he already attempted to do, BTW).
More to the point, when I began guest-hosting for Rush, I was amazed to discover that George Soros pays a team of stenographers, many of them called Zachary, to work their tippy-tappy fingers to the bone for three hours transcribing everything Rush or his fill-ins say in the hope that their efforts will one day be rewarded and he will deliver the big career-detonating soundbite. Among the afficionados of this service are, as I discovered recently, America's "newspaper of record," which faithfully follows the George Soros typing pool and dutifully plasters any potentially damaging bon mot on page one.
And, aside from all that, 20 million people are out there listening.
So where are these racist soundbites? Where's the audio? Where's the transcript? Name the year.
It's what Steyn quotes Jason Whitlock on: Limbaugh doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt on racial matters. But, amazingly, buffoons like Al Sharpton somehow do.
In a related matter, Soccer Dad forwards me an very interesting article by Jeff Jacoby from 2001. He writes:
Limbaugh could never have earned such esteem if he were a racist and hate-peddler. Honest liberals admit as much.
In 1993, Washington Post columnist William Raspberry wrote a piece blasting Limbaugh for his "demagoguery ... his gay bashing, his racial putdowns." Like the Mississippi segregationists of his youth, Raspberry said, Limbaugh "is so good at ... tossing the raw meat of bigotry to people.... Limbaugh is a bigot."
Eleven days later, Raspberry wrote a second column retracting the first.
"Rush, I'm sorry," he began. He confessed, to his great credit, that the earlier piece had been written in ignorance. "My opinions about [Limbaugh] had come largely from other people -- mostly friends who think Rush is a four-letter word. They are certain he is a bigot. Is he?"
Raspberry -- who by this point had listened to several hours of Limbaugh's shows and perused one of his books -- went on to answer his own question. Limbaugh might be "smart-alecky" and love "to rattle liberal cages," he might be "unrelenting in his assault on ... political correctness." But he was no more a bigot or hatemonger than Art Buchwald.
I'm sure we'll see the pundits at MSDNC, CNN, ABC, et. al. make similar statements, right? Heh. Look, as I said yesterday, there's plenty to go after Limbaugh with without resorting to outright lies. You don't have to like the guy; hell, hate 'im if you want to. That's your right. But don't make up something out of thin air to just to trash him.
UPDATE: Newsbusters currently has a "flashback" to my June post about MSDNC's Rachel Maddow using the phony James Earl Ray quote to slime Limbaugh.
UPDATE 3: My buddy Rhymes With Right also serves up an excellent post on the whole imbroglio.
UPDATE 4: Kathryn Jean Lopez:
Rush Limbaugh is not an acceptable sports investor because of his politics. How else to interpret the state of a sports world where Keith Olbermann can be on Sunday Night Football and Rush Limbaugh's hard-earned money can't be spent as a partial owner of a team in a sport he loves?
... unfortunately they're showing how they're "old fashioned" in another way:
Crowning of first non-black Miss HU divides campus.
Hampton University crowned its first non-black Miss HU Friday, leading to a division on campus that prompted her to write President Barack Obama.
Nikole Churchill, 22, competed against nine black students in the 15th annual Miss HU scholarship pageant. The senior nursing major attends the Virginia Beach campus and is the competition's first non-black winner, according to executive pageant director Shelia J. Maye.
Churchill, who is from Hawaii, wrote Obama on Sunday to tell him that her crowning was met with negative comments because of her skin color. She invited him to visit HU and speak about racial tolerance.
Journalism sophomore Juan Diasgranados said the Hampton campus is split on Churchill's crowning, with everyone from students to faculty and professors weighing in. Some are saying her win is great and embodies HU's spirit of diversity, he said, while others complain that she's not black and doesn't attend the main campus.
"They're saying that people don't know who she is, people don't even see her, so how can she represent us if she's not even from the main campus?"
The main campus has about 5,700 students while the university's Virginia Beach campus has about 90 students.
Diasgranados said a noticeable number of students walked out of the pageant Friday night when Churchill was crowned, but that he was among the majority who stood and applauded. About 900 people attended the pageant in Ogden Hall on campus, Maye said.
First, imagine if this was a predominately white campus that had crowned its first black winner. Second, how exactly does a HBC -- Historically Black College -- "embody a spirit of diversity?" Its very designation contradicts the term. This just [further] shows that the word "diversity" is actually meaningless, and only has a political meaning for colleges and universities. (In other words, just because HBCs are overwhelmingly minority -- black -- they are therefore "diverse," despite the fact that other enrolled races/ethnicities are paltry in number.) Third, think the MSM will pick up on this story of blatant racial intolerance? Fourth, why do HBCs even exist in this day and age?
This is just a bit too much:
Courtesy Atlas Shrugs which notes: "This Obamanation was spotted on a street in Kokomo, IN."
A reader wrote in to The Corner's Jonah Goldberg about his "faux outrage" regarding this, and offered this link for his perusual. OK, can you seriously not see the difference between the two products?
"I mean, let's face it, we didn't have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: Slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back. I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."
The problem with all these folks is that the quote isn't true. There's no attributable source for it. At all.
Limbaugh responded yesterday:
Now, let me address one thing. The e-mail is loaded today with people requesting my comment on some of the outrageous slander and libel that's been on television and in newspapers since last week about my potential purchase, being in a group, potential purchase of the St. Louis Rams. I mentioned last week, I can't do anything but confirm this. The people bidding on this, we all have a confidentiality agreement with Goldman Sachs through the brokers here and there are just certain things that can't be said about it, I can't answer specific questions about the status, who else is in the group, and I just want to tell you I'm not surprised, I'm a little disappointed that otherwise responsible journalists are believing a bunch of garbage. There's a quote out there that I first saw it in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch last week that I somehow, some time ago, defended slavery and started cracking jokes about it. And, you know, you say a lot of things in the course of 15 hours a week, over the course of 21 years. We've gone back, we have looked at everything we have. There is not even an inkling that any words in this quote are accurate. It's outrageous, but it's totally predictable.
In his column, Whitlock also brought up a supposed Rush quote about Martin Luther King Jr. assassin James Earl Ray: "You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray (Dr. King's assassin). We miss you, James. Godspeed."
First, the quote and the date that it was supposedly made by Rush: “You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray. We miss you, James. Godspeed. [4/23/98]” Rush never said it. It was made up back in about 2005 and this article proves it.
I am no computer research guru, but I was able to track down enough to prove that this quote first arose back in the fall of 2005, and there is no evidence of the quote before that date. Bottom line, it is inconceivable that such a quote was made by Rush Limbaugh back in 1998 and then never got any attention on the internet or elsewhere until 2005.
The earliest mention of the alleged quote was on September 9th, 2005 by "zedlappy". ”zedlappy” cited to a Wikipedia article as his source. For those newbies, Wikipedia is a cite that anybody can make shit up and it gets quoted as authority by idiots.
Unfortunately, it apparently has been edited many times since 2005, so we can’t know exactly what it said then. But now it attributes the quote to Rush Limbaugh, but lists it as “DISPUTED” because the article currently lists the source of the quote to a book 101 Persons who are really SCREWING up America by (2006) by Jack Huberman. Hereinafter I’ll call the book “101 Persons.” But note, the book came out in 2006 so it could not possibly be the source of the original Wikipedia article! ALSO NOTE: The Huberman book does not list a source!
And c'mon -- if Limbaugh had actually said that (or the slavery quote) don't you think that someone would have a recording of it? After all, the Left has folks out there monitoring right-wing talk radio all the time. And wouldn't it have been front-page news immediately after Rush had said it? Not to mention that right-leaning outlets like National Review would be slamming Rush as hard as the MSM for such disgusting statements?
There's plenty to criticize Limbaugh for without fabricating stuff out of thin air, people.
The Rev. Al Sharpton wants the National Football League to block conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh from bidding on the St. Louis Rams.
Sharpton sent a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell on Monday. He said Limbaugh has been divisive and “anti-NFL” in some of his comments.
Limbaugh did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. (Source.)
I wonder -- did Limbaugh ask the FCC to "block" Sharpton from getting a radio gig? Y'know, for his history of anti-Semitic and racist statements? For inciting violence? For assisting a known fraud and never apologizing for it?
Ralph D. Stampone thinks those who scoff at President Obama's Nobel Prize are just plain meanies ... or worse:
Sen. Orrin Hatch is one of the few Republican voices thus far praising the nomination.
What’s going on here? Doesn’t this posturing suggest that any stance by the president, whether for the good of the country or not, will be criticized by Limbaugh and his sycophants?
Or is the latent racism coming to a head? I’ll never forget the statement of a tennis pal, “Ralph, I'll never get used to having a black man in the White House.” Isn't this what many short-sighted Americans are?
When will the U.S. mature into an all-inclusive nation?
Maybe the US will "mature" when people like Ralph can be a little more objective and perhaps realize that just because a [half] black man is now president, criticism of him does NOT have to be race-based.
The fact is that Americans across the political spectrum thought it was, at the very least, premature to award the Nobel to Obama. The president himself even said that he really didn't deserve the award. What else can be said to that? Those who think the award was ... deserved are as ideological as those Stampone laments (like Rush Limbaugh).
First, the answer!
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
Nothing can stop the religious-like dogma of the Cult of Man-Made Climate Change!
I like Shrugtastic's point:
If that is so, then why do the poorest countries on Earth — i.e., countries with permanent economic downturns — sport the lowest average human life expectancies? I mean, what is it that increases life expectancy in the first place? Answer: The growth of technology and, as a corollary, the economy.
Hmm, I sense a pattern here -- can't blame Obama for the Afghan situation (it's global warming's fault) and we shouldn't blame him for our current economic woes because, coupled with his push for universal healthcare, we'll all be much healthier! Woo hoo!
ABC News: Taliban, al Qaeda Helped by Warming; Already, Drought Has Left Young Afghan Men 'Unemployed With Nothing to Do.'
Yeah -- "We got nuthin' to do so let's become terrorists."
... as just a continuing cultural symptom of getting something for nothing (or very little)? Because this post got me thinking.
UPDATE: I think this 'toon captures the mood perfectly:
First place in the Council category was Soccer Dad with Why did Israel jail the pregnant woman?
First place in the non-Council category was the Washington Times with Criminalizing Everyone.
Winner Soccer Dad is leaving the Council. I'll certainly miss him; he's been a true friend, blogging and otherwise. But I'm happy that he'll still be blogging at his usual spot. :-)
I love this story from Joanne Jacobs:
Seattle’s school board may delay a decision to let students graduate with a D average. Currently, students need a C — with a lot of exceptions. The board also wants to let D students compete on sports teams.
At the same time, the board vows to raise standards.
Only educationists can say something like that with a straight face and wonder why people guffaw at them. Just imagine your reaction if you attended a school board meeting and the board president and/or superintendent stated that they were lessening graduation and athletic academic standards, yet in the next breath vowed to raise standards. I think a very big "WTF?" is the very least thing that may come to your mind.
While parents and community leaders oppose the move, reports the Seattle Times, “most high-school principals and counselors support the changes, saying the C-average policy hurts students who can’t catch up if, for any number of reasons, they have a bad year or arrive in high school performing well below grade level.”
Nothin' like public schools doing what the public wishes, eh? Especially when it comes to high standards!
Here's what you do then, Seattle public: Throw the school board out on their collective cans.
... principals in Philly will now be accountable for how many kids -- ready? -- eat breakfast in the morning:
In a locally unprecedented move, the School District of Philadelphia will hold principals accountable for the number of students eating breakfast in their schools.
Breakfast participation will be part of the report card that rates principals each year, along with categories such as attendance and math and reading performance.
All 165,000 students in Philadelphia public schools, regardless of income, are eligible for free breakfasts. But just 54,000 ate breakfast last year, district figures show.
The new system, which begins this year, is expected to increase the number of students eating breakfast, said Jonathan Stein, a lawyer with Community Legal Services, whose efforts - along with those of Public Citizens for Children and Youth (PCCY) - helped bring about the move.
As Rhymes With Right notes, it's bad enough that all students in Philly get breakfast on the public dime even if they're not officially "needy" -- but "what does it say when we require a principal to discourage parents taking responsibility for the care and feeding of their own kids as a part of determining whether or not the principal (and the school) is doing his/her job?" He adds: "What's next? Feed the kids dinner before leaving school?" And what about making sure kids get to bed at a reasonable hour?
Heck, it's already ridiculous at times with parents blaming teachers for their kids not doing their work, even in this Internet information age where assignments, progress and grades can be checked instantly with a point and click. Now mom and dad can now call the school and complain that Johnny didn't get breakfast. Pretty soon principals and teachers will held responsible for students' vaccinations, making sure students have designer clothes (can't have the kids feeling "left out" -- self esteem issues), and that students bathe regularly and get their hair cut.
John Derbyshire (emphasis mine):
Sorry, just not getting it. I diligently read all the commentary, including that by our esteemed editors, and I'm still not getting it. What are we doing in Afghanistan?
If Afghanistan-the-nation is a threat to our vital interests, let's carpet-bomb their cities, hang the leaders, impose a constitution, plant a couple of big fat military bases in strategic locations, and settle in for a 20-year occupation.
I don't believe for a minute that Afghanistan is such a threat. Does anyone? They are hosting people who are planning terrorism against us? So is London. So is Yemen. So are Denver and Minneapolis. Let's deal with that the right way: supporting legal action where law means anything, deploying special-ops teams and military hi-tech (drones, cruise missiles) where not, and being much more selective about whom we permit to settle in our country.
Counter-insurgency is a crock. "Winning hearts and minds" is sentimental slop. Please, don't hand out any candy to Afghan urchins on my dime. Let the little buggers wheedle candy from their parents, like mine have to.
Can we please gather up all this junk from Lyndon Johnson's closet and ship it to the town dump, asap? Thank you.
I previously quoted Derbyshire here, and for a good reason: He's right on this.
Unstable Isotope over at our LGOMB gets punked himself based on obviously faulty info:
Conservative bloggers are so silly. They got punked by Bill Ayers (as proved by our very own troll, RICO, in yesterday’s Open Thread).
Apparently a whole bunch of conservative bloggers breathlessly linked to this the most prominent being affirmative action wingnut welfare baby Jonah Goldberg (author of Liberal Fascism). Hint, hint conservatives – it’s called sarcasm.
I am not sure what to make of the story that Ayers has now admitted to writing Obama's autobiography. If it pans out, that is to my mind a very big story.
Later that day Goldberg posted that "It sounds like Ayers is jerking some chains," and copies a statement from National Journal which indicates that Ayers was messing around.
I myself expressed skepticism in my first (and only) post on the matter: "If true, it wouldn't surprise me one bit. But IMO, I think Ayers was just f'in with the blogger."
A logical and sound mind (aka an "anti-moonbat" mind) can easily pick up that Goldberg expressed a degree of skepticism about Ayers at the onset, and then almost 100% as he -- wait for it -- followed up on the matter.
So, who's trying to score cheap points again, hmm? (Oh yeah -- and if Goldberg is an "affirmative action wingnut welfare baby," what exactly does that make someone like Arianna Huffington, nutjobs?)
Expect to hear a lot more about this in the coming days/weeks:
In a chance meeting with conservative blogger Anne Leary, Bill Ayers makes a stunning claim that he wrote -- not just edited -- President Barack Obama's autobiography, Dreams from my Father.
If true, it wouldn't surprise me one bit. But IMO, I think Ayers was just f'in with the blogger.
A French gay soccer team says its members were victims of homophobia when a team of Muslim players refused to play a match against them.
The Paris Foot Gay team says Tuesday it received an e-mail from the Creteil Bebel club canceling a match scheduled for last Sunday.
"Because of the principles of our team, which is a team of devout Muslims, we can't play against you," the e-mail said, according to Paris Foot Gay. The e-mail received Saturday said, "Our convictions are much more important than a simple football match."
But by accusing the Muslims of "homophobia," isn't the gay team engaging in ... "Islamophobia?"
Sure sounds like it!
(h/t: Mark Steyn.)
A commenter on this Colossus post said the following about Rush Limbaugh possibly buying the St. Louis Rams: I really hope this doesn't happen. I think he'll cause too much drama in the football world.
As I wrote in the post, I really doubt Rush would make any ownership in the Rams a topic of his radio show (he's not stupid; why bring potential harm, media or otherwise, to his own team?) But that doesn't mean that the Left won't rip him -- which could also potentially affect/harm the team. Case in point: Fred Roggin on MSDNC's "Morning Joe" show said the following about Rush and his possible purchase:
All right, Al Davis, step aside. Jerry Jones, you too. The NFL could soon have a new owner the fans love to hate --
Controversial radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh is teaming up with St. Louis Blues owner Dave Checketts to bid on a portion of the St. Louis Rams. The avid football fan was canned from ESPN for racist remarks about Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb.
Interested in purchasing the team back in May. From a buy-low-sell-high standpoint, it's a no-brainer. The Rams are the worst team in the league. Many think that Limbaugh is a horrible man. So it's only fitting he buys a horrible team.
First, I wonder how many football fans actually "love to hate" Limbaugh. Then compare that number to how many detest Keith Olbermann, co-host of NBC's Sunday Night Football. But more to the point, did Limbaugh make racist comments about Donovan McNabb when he was part of ESPN's "NFL Countdown?" Here's what he actually said back in 2003:
I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team.
I'd ask "how is this racist," but in a modern American culture where even the most innocent and honest of disagreements can brand one "racist," it's not even close to surprising that Rush's McNabb remarks are regarded as such.
Remember how the Obama administration was going to return science to its "rightful" place? Uh-huh:
In the wake of a revelation by a key research institution that it destroyed its original climate data, the Competitive Enterprise Institute petitioned EPA to reopen a major global warming proceeding.
In mid-August the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) disclosed that it had destroyed the raw data for its global surface temperature data set because of an alleged lack of storage space. The CRU data have been the basis for several of the major international studies that claim we face a global warming crisis. CRU’s destruction of data, however, severely undercuts the credibility of those studies.
In a declaration filed with CEI’s petition, Cato Institute scholar and climate scientist Patrick Michaels calls CRU’s revelation “a totally new element” that “violates basic scientific principles, and “throws even more doubt” on the claims of global warming alarmists.
CEI’s petition, filed late Monday with EPA, argues that CRU’s disclosure casts a new cloud of doubt on the science behind EPA’s proposal to regulate carbon dioxide. EPA stopped accepting public comments in late June but has not yet issued its final decision. As CEI’s petition argues, court rulings make it clear that agencies must consider new facts when those facts change the underlying issues.
CEI general counsel Sam Kazman stated, “EPA is resting its case on international studies that in turn relied on CRU data. But CRU’s suspicious destruction of it original data, disclosed at this late date, makes that information totally unreliable. If EPA doesn’t reexamine the implications of this, it’s stumbling blindly into the most important regulatory issue we face.” (Source.)
Recall how the Left screamed how George W. Bush was overly influenced by the religious [right] when it came to science? Heh. Global warming has become like unto a religion itself, and anything that may contradict its dogma cannot be tolerated.
You honestly think that "lack of storage space" would be an issue if the data in question backed up increased global warming?
Obama administration allows funds to dry up for Iran Human Rights group.
“If the rationale is that we are going to stop funding human rights-related work in Iran because we don’t want to provoke the government, it is absolutely the wrong message to send,’’ she (Roya Boroumand, founder of the Bormound Foundation) said. “That means that we don’t really believe in human rights, that the American government just looks into it when it is convenient.’’
Quite correct. One wonders when that "not unlimited" patience Obama was talking about regarding the Iranians actually comes into play.
Maybe after they set off that nuke they're working on.
My buddy Rhymes With Right noticed some potential good news for the NFL's doormat -- which just happens to be my fave team, the St. Louis Rams:
In 2003, Rush Limbaugh had a brief dalliance with the sport he loves, spending a month as the "voice of the fan" on ESPN's pregame show before resigning after a delayed reaction to comments made regarding Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb triggered a firestorm.
Since then, the mega-rich Rush's name has bubbled up from time to time as a potential owner of all or part of an NFL team.
And it could be coming to fruition.
Charley Casserly of CBS reports that, of the three groups that submitted bids to buy the St. Louis Rams, one group includes Dave Checketts and Limbaugh.
Hey, the way things have been in the Gateway to the West the last three years, anything will be an improvement. But I think Limbaugh would be a lot more than that; he has a passion for the sport that is beyond prodigious. I believe it would only serve the former "Greatest Show on Turf" quite positively.
UPDATE: "MJD" at Yahoo Sports thinks he's funny in his article about Rush's Rams interest. Just another reason why sports writers ought to stick to their subject:
Rush Limbaugh, conservative political commentator and hater of poor people, has made a bid to buy the NFL's St. Louis Rams. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Limbaugh and St. Louis Blues owner Dave Checketts teamed up to make the offer, and they'd like to keep the team in St. Louis.
So the "St. Louis" part won't be changing. Whether or not Limbaugh would plan on changing the team's name from the "St. Louis Rams" to the "St. Louis Health Care Deniers" or the "St. Louis Anti-Environmentalists," I can't be sure.
Here's why I don't like the idea: I have my opinion on Rush Limbaugh, and, as we're all about to witness in the comments, everyone else has their opinions on Rush Limbaugh, too. His very presence brings politics into the football discussion. I'd prefer to avoid that, but the man is so polarizing that I don't see any way around it. I couldn't get through the first sentence of this post without a little jab.
MJD actually has a point in that last paragraph. However, I really doubt Rush would make any ownership in the Rams a topic of his radio show (he's not stupid; why bring potential harm, media or otherwise, to his own team?). And if MJD is so concerned about mixing politics with football, has he done a column on Keith Olbermann being a regular on NBC's Sunday Night Football? Why yes, he has, but concern about politics wasn't an issue. His only "concern" was whether Keithy and Dan Patrick could "recreate" their old ESPN "magic":
But it's worth taking the chance to find out if there's any of that chemistry left. What's the worst that could happen, the NBC set becomes a little too crowded? Goodness me, how would we ever deal with that?
No, the worst that could happen is that people (like me) won't tune in to the Sunday Night pregame because they cannot stand Olbermann. Who wants to watch the guy who denigrates much of your politics on a nightly basis injecting same into the sport you love? And personally, even though I agree politically with Limbaugh more than Olbermann, I also disliked Rush being on ESPN's "NFL Countdown" years back. Football is football. I want to watch football on Sunday. I can watch/listen to politics the other six days of the week.
David Thomas doesn't like the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons, and thinks it's wrong for the country to complain about others -- like Iran -- who want them:
A recent new report states that for years, Israel has warned that Iran was not being honest about the size and nature of its nuclear program. Really? Because this is an example of Israeli hypocrisy to a degree that is staggering to my imagination and should appall the conscience of the international community. The state of Israel itself has a stockpile of nuclear weapons that it refuses to allow inspection of. It refuses to even declare that it has nuclear weapons.
What is staggering is the degree of moral relativism that Thomas possesses, on par with that most staggering of hypocrites, [former] serial commenter Perry.
1) Why would Israel even consider allowing "international" inspectors inside its borders when the "international" community continually, and appallingly, criticizes the tiny nation for daring to survive and to defend itself. 2) What is it about Thomas and other Israel critics that they fail to understand that all the tiny wants to do is to be alone and live in peace? The country, itself a creation of the UN (which has since been its most vocal critic), has been under constant assault since its inception as a nation. Three major wars (1948, 1967, 1973) and constant terrorism? And the [Muslim] countries that surround it constantly evoking doomsday terminology when mentioning the Jewish state?
Not only that, Israel has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is specifically designed to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Iran has signed it. But Israel has refused.
Funny, that. Israel thus is not breaking any treaty, whereas Iran clearly is.
And Israel wants to point fingers at Iran? Why the double standard? And why does our president, who claims to believe in fairness for all, take part in this deplorable policy?
Why the double standard? Maybe it's because double standards are applied against Israel all the time. "Fairness," in a better world, would NOT permit a country to acquire nuclear weapons if it constantly threatened the destruction of another country merely because its main religion was different from their own. "Fairness" would understand the morality of the perpetual (but never helpless) victim possessing nuclear weapons as a deterrent to its annihilation. Annihilation from regimes that, again, constantly espouse such, and who have demonstrated the insanity to actually make use of such WMD if they come to have them.
He is bowing down to pressure from the Israel lobby and by doing so, he damages Americas credibility with our allies and enemies alike. We can't expect one standard of behavior from Iran and turn a blind eye to even worse from Israel and expect to be taken seriously.
Ah yes, the 'ol invocation of the "Israel lobby." I think we know what that ultimately boils down to with most folks ...
I wonder if Mr. Thomas would be so concerned about double standards if Israel continually threatened to "wipe [Iran] off the map"? What about that double standard, you pathetic moral relativist?
Excuse me now while I go hurl.
UPDATE: Jim Geraghty highlights Fareed Zakaria's myopia, which is similar to that of Thomas:
Fareed Zakaria's latest cover piece assures us that the Obama administration is handling Iran properly. His piece is entitled, "After Iran Gets the Bomb . . . The World Won't End."
The country does not yet have even one nuclear weapon, and if and when it gets one — something that is far from certain — the world will not end. The Middle East has been home to nuclear weapons for decades. If Israel's estimated arsenal of 200 warheads, including a "second-strike capacity," has not prompted Egypt to develop its own nukes, it's not clear that one Iranian bomb would do so.
You know, if Israel's leader talked about green auras and world leaders not blinking in his presence, and if they chanted "death to," well, anybody every Friday, and if they talked about wiping other countries off the map, and if their regime used children to clear minefields, I'd be worried about them, too.
(My emphasis above.) To which I say to Geraghty: Precisely.
Or, at least, attempts to:
Having lived illegally in the United States for 13 years, a 24-year-old native of Guatemala realizes he's not legally entitled to much.
But the Georgetown resident still hopes he'll have access to the swine flu vaccine that will start arriving in Delaware this week.
"It's important that all people get this opportunity," said Perez, who would give only his last name. "This is a virus that has caused deaths, not only in Mexico. This is something we're all aware of.
"Status should not matter."
Writer Esteban Parra must have a knack for these sorts of [front page] stories. This past Mother's Day he had a front page "tear-jerker" about illegal immigrant moms here in the state.
I really can't fathom what the WNJ thinks it's doing for its readers witgh such tales other than pissing them off and having them think that the paper's just yet another media outlet that's sorely out of touch. I mean, just look at the last line of the story:
"There's a lot of people who are afraid of accessing the vaccines because of anti-immigration feelings going on in this country," he (Esteban Hernandez) said. "But this is very important because this concerns everyone's health."
No, Esteban, it is anti-illegal immigration feelings. There's a huge difference, which the WNJ and many other left-leaning outlets always conveniently omit or gloss over. The article notes that illegals getting shots benefits the general public safety. That's true; however, we heard the exact same argument in the state regarding giving illegals drivers licenses. Where does the line get drawn, if at all? I mean, how 'bout this method of flu prevention among illegal immigrants and the general public: Enforce the border and immigration laws!
As for the overall premise, I have little problem with illegal immigrants getting flu shots since it is a public health matter. Just don't make me pay for them, OK?
Courtesy of fellow Watcher's Council member Bookworm Room:
If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn`t buy one.
If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn`t eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he’s in labor and then sues.
If a conservative reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he’s “offended”.
Like Bookworm, I think these are pretty much spot-on!
UPDATE: Ah yes, here's a classic to go along with the above -- Liberal Guy!
From the NAS e-mail bag:
[The Residence Life Program] never entirely died, however. The rest of 2007-2008 was devoted to efforts by the Office of Residence Life to restore many of the elements of the program. Under constant attention from FIRE, concerned faculty, and the public, though, ResLife made little headway but did manage to hide the full program from the university's Board of Trustees. The central victory for student rights in the matter was that almost nothing in the ResLife educational program was going to be mandatory (even though it was hard for freshmen to figure out how they could safely opt out).
At the end of 2008-2009, when it came time for the University of Delaware
faculty to vote on the program for 2009-2010 -- oops! -- there was no vote. A faculty member informs us that then-president of the Faculty Senate, Alan Fox, misinformed the Senate and stated that the Senate had somehow voted that there would be no more votes on ResLife plans. Here's what really happened, though (it is instructive to take note of Fox's behavior at the time).
Not only that, there was a second mistake. Last year's program was clearly
optional, using this language in boldface and italics: "*With the exception
of the floor and building meetings held at opening, all activities detailed in this plan are attendance-optional*." This language, however, entirely dropped out from both the freshman and upperclassman educational plans. While the upperclassman plan does use the word "optional" in a few places, not even the word "optional" appears in the freshman
plan. New RAs who have not been on campus and paying attention since 2007 might not realize just how important this mistake could be. It is essential that all RAs and all students know that everything in the ResLife plans are optional.
According to the faculty member, both mistakes will be remedied at the
Faculty Senate's meeting in October. FIRE will be paying attention to ensure
that the rights of University of Delaware students in the residence halls
Tom Carper -- refusing to do his job:
"I don't expect to actually read the legislative language because . . . the legislative language is among the more confusing things I've ever read in my life."
Carper told CNSnews.com that the bill was "incomprehensible" and "hard stuff to understand."
"I think if people had the chance to read that, they'll say you know maybe it doesn't make much sense for either the legislators or me to read that kind of arcane language," he said. "It's just hard to decipher what it really means."
I don't know whether to praise Carper for his honesty, or sadly laugh that his party wants to take control of 1/6 of the US economy without knowing what the hell it all means.
First place in the Council category was Rhymes With Right with A Note On The “Tenther” Smear.
First place in the non-Council category was Jennifer Rubin/Commentary with Netanyahu’s Speech for the Ages.
Full results are here.
Alan Dershowitz writes about how the 2007 NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) about Iran's budding nuclear program was nothing short of a politically motivated report:
It seems clear in retrospect, as it seemed clear to me at the time, that those who released this deeply flawed report had a political agenda. As I wrote two years ago:
My own view is that the authors of the report were fighting the last war. No, not the war in Iraq, but rather what they believe was Vice President Cheney's efforts to go to war with Iran. This report surely takes the wind out of those sails. But that was last year's unfought war. Nobody in Washington has seriously considered attacking Iran since Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates replaced Cheney as the foreign policy power behind the throne.
Whatever the agenda was, it is improper - indeed it is illegal - for intelligence agencies to try to influence policy through a hidden agenda. Their job is to report truthfully to the elected policy makers so that they can make policy.
Many folks "fell" for the NIE, including myself (as I wrote somewhere in blog comments across the 'sphere). Certainly, many progressive blogs ate up the NIE full throttle. Of course, it was somewhat understandable -- the skepticism about reports of a nuclear Iran, that is -- as we had already lost thousands of American lives fighting a war in neighboring Iraq [partly] due to weapons of mass destruction that turned out not to be in that country.
But it turns out we knew for quite some time about Iran's secret nuke facility; Obama's recent "revelation" about it was anything but. Perhaps if we weren't [stupidly] entrenched in Iraq at the time, that NIE report wouldn't have said what it did ... and we could have acted much more forcefully on it at the time.
Comment rescue from a moonbat at our LGOMB:
Please explain how American could possibly be “defeated by terrorists.” Terrorized by terrorists, yes — you conned-servatives shit your pants at the very thought that terrorists are breathing the same air as us. But how could they possibly “defeat” us with the one nuclear bomb you’re afraid Iran will give to terrorists? I realize that your life is so empty you will actually answer the question, but it should be good for shits ‘n’ giggles.
(BTW, the comment was regarding another Neanderthalic post by "Delaware Dem" -- y'know, the guy who wants all Republicans rounded up and shot -- who's REEEAAAALLY upset that Chicago lost the Olympics. He, of course, blames Republicans.
In other news, the sun rises in the east.)
But relax -- just blame George W. Bush!
George W. Bush is to blame for Chicago not getting the Olympics!
Some Chicago officials say anti-American resentments likely played a role in Chicago’s Olympic bid dying in the first round today.
President Obama could not undo in one year the resentment against America that President Bush and others built up for decades before, they said.
“There must be resentment against America," the Rev. Jesse Jackson said, near the stage where he had hoped to give a victory speech in Daley Plaza. “The way we [refused to sign] the Kyoto Treaty, we mislead the world into Iraq. The world had a very bad taste in its mouth about us. But there was such a turnaround after last November. The world now feels better about America and about Americans. That’s why I thought the president’s going was the deal-maker.”
State Rep. Susana Mendoza (D-Chicago) said she saw first hand the resentment against America five years ago when she was in Rio de Janeiro to speak as a surrogate for then-presidential candidate John Kerry.
“This vote today was without a doubt ridiculously political and mean-spirited,” Mendoza said. “I travel a lot. I was literally nearly killed in Rio three years ago when I was there representing the U.S. Government. I thought we had really turned a corner with the election of President Obama. People are so much more welcoming of Americans now. But this isn’t the people of those countries. This is the leaders still living with an outdated impression of Americans.”
Why do people still listen to that idiot Jesse Jackson again? Does he know that Kyoto was shunned by almost the entire US Senate (hey Jess -- that includes, y'know, Democrats)? Does he know that numerous other intel agencies believed that Iraq had WMD? Of course he doesn't! Else he wouldn't make the silly statements he does. Or, then again, he knows they're whoppers but knows if people call him out he can always use the magical "R" word against them.
When expires the statute of limitations on blaming GW Bush? Never?
Some headlines from the future:
Rhonda Graham titles her latest column "Tea Partyers too loyal to racist fringes." She begins:
I watch the news nightly in hopes of coverage of just one of those brave anti-health care reform protesters "calling out" one of their own for the clearly insulting references to the president's African heritage as unworthy of their movement.
But then one does:
"That [witch doctor] image is not representative at all of what this movement is about," said Joe Wierzbicki, a coordinator of the Tea Party Express.
But that's not enough for Ms. Graham! Wierzbicki is a "so-called" leader, and his claim above is "weak."
"The Tea Party combines the best elements of civic activism with some of the worst elements of fringe extremism," wrote John Feeher, who once worked for congressional Republicans. He admits that some activists are genuinely concerned about the future of the country. Others see conspiracies around every corner and use unacceptable rhetoric to communicate their displeasure with the president."
Those Jim Crow loyalists are rubbing their hands in glee that the first black president has stumbled so badly on reformatting the government and private sector's role in health care. It's not about co-pays or any phantom death panel for their sickly nana. It's about that "black boy's" presence in the highest office in the nation.
Now is Ms. Graham referring to all the Tea Partiers with that "Jim Crow loyalist" remark, or just the "others" Mr. Feeher talked about? It's not clear. But my guess is it's the former. Graham then defends Jimmy Carter's outrageous statements about opposition to Barack Obama being "racist," by saying that he's "not a racial segregationist" and basically has "grown up" as a man of the South. Of course, the first part is demonstrably false, and Graham ignores how Carter attempted to back-off from his insane comments shortly thereafter.
The remainder of Graham's column is pretty much just your typical, liberal, elitist newsperson's nonsense: Joe Wilson's "You lie!" exclamation at Barack Obama's healthcare speech "was similar to the ridicule of the first black congressman in 'The Birth of a Nation,' D.W. Griffith's seminal pro-Ku Klux Klan film of the 20th century." (Have we ever read a Graham column that blasted those Democrats who yelled at George W. Bush and called him virtually every name in the book?)
Other representatives and senators showed their "rude" behavior by "yawning and sending text messages." (Gosh! Heaven forbid! Democrats never have done that when a Republican president has given an address! Has Graham ever written about that disrespect?)
"Racial haters" are among the Tea Partiers and thus we should assume that the "regular" folks don't mind their company. (Ever read a Graham column that said we "should assume that all anti-war protesters are violent anarchists or communists or Maoists"?)
Lastly, we witness the ever-increasing lefty hatred of that nasty 'ol First Amendment. Graham writes "It's tolerable acceptance, they suggest, all in the name of free speech. Talk about First Amendment perversion." Many on the Left hate how that first of all Amendments allows hate speech (how's that for irony?) using, among other things, "critical race theory" as their basis. Astoundingly, they fail to grasp that that's precisely what the First Amendment is for: unpopular speech. So, on the contrary, Ms. Graham, it's far from a perversion of the First Amendment when idiots spew race hatred. After all, we wouldn't even need a First Amendment if everyone used "happy" and "popular" speech now, would we?
You'd think a someone who wrote for a state's major newspaper ought to know that, right?
That would be Garrison Keillor who recently wrote “Thirty-two percent of the population identifies with the GOP, and if we cut off health care to them, we could probably pay off the deficit in short order.”
You f***ing Republicans are all to blame. Your advocacy of deregulation for the last 30 years is responsible. The greed that underlies your policies and that invades your supporters was your motivation. You put yourselves and your wallets first, and our country last. You should all be round up and shot. Seriously.
Honestly though, it really doesn't matter what nobodies like Keillor and "Del Dem" think or say. What does matter is when it's a politician like Florida Rep. Alan Grayson. He recently chimed that "Republicans want Americans to 'die quickly' if they get sick and compared the health care crisis to a holocaust." GOP Rep. Joe Wilson faced a House reprimand for just yelling out "You lie!" during Pres. Obama's healthcare speech. Jeez, just imagine what would have happened to him had he said what Grayson uttered -- Grayson, who will face no such similar reprimand from Nancy Pelosi and co.
Gee, what bummer -- all the force of the mystical Obamas couldn't get Chicago the 2016 Olympics. Which, in my view, makes sense if the IOC really wants to be fair. After all, South America has never hosted a Summer Olympics and thus Rio de Janeiro is the logical -- and fair -- choice. Even FIFA -- the governing body of soccer -- recognized fairness and put next year's World Cup in the African continent for the first time.
But check it -- even Michelle Obama isn't immune from telling a tall tale:
"Sports were a gift I shared with my dad, especially the Olympic Games," Obama said in her portion of the U.S. delegation's final presentation to the International Olympic Committee. "Some of my best memories are sitting on my dad's lap, cheering on Olga [Korbut] and Nadia [Comaneci], Carl Lewis and others for their brilliance and perfection.
Carl Lewis?? Michelle Obama is 45 years old. Carl Lewis first ran in the Olympics in 1984. That means Michelle was 20 years old, then. 'Ya think she was "sitting on her dad's lap" at age 20?? Even the Nadia Comaneci bit is a stretch. Mrs. Obama was 12 in 1976, which was when the Montreal Olympics took place (when Comaneci nailed those first-ever "10s" in gymnastics). I know when my own daughter was 12, sitting on my lap became more along the lines of horsing around, not the "endearing" quality it had of the earlier childhood years.
Do 'ya think, given that there is turmoil in Afghanistan and Iraq and it's now known that Iran is actively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, that George W. Bush would be skewered in the mainstream media for being in Denmark ... to lobby for his hometown to win the 2016 Summer Olympics?
I suppose I also might ask "Does a bear sh** in the woods?"
And the coolest thing about it is he asked me for a research assist. Really.
UPDATE: Jonah's colleague David French has some disagreements with his friend's assessment.
While I think that French makes [very] some persuasive arguments, Goldberg's contention that the writers pretty much "phoned it in" the last couple seasons holds up. The point remains that Ron Moore and co. never adequately laid out -- or explained -- just WTF was happening in those latter seasons. Viewers were left trying to cobble together events, and then explain them. While that may be OK for Starbuck's situation (her becoming an angel), it's not OK for the sudden reappearance of Tigh's wife (as head Cylon) and the continuing meandering role of Baltar.
Goldberg might be interested to know that SyFy is supposed to put out a "Battlestar" movie sometime soon titled "The Plan," which delves into just what the Cylons [originally] had in mind for themselves and humanity.
Though Moore (and French) say that BSG elaborated on the very essence of human nature, as I've written many times here, my main issue with the series was just that -- the sometimes ridiculous ways in which Galactica's personnel reacted to situations. Robots wipe out 99.9% of your race? But let's pass up the chance to return the favor! 99.9% of humanity destroyed and its an all-out war situation? But we must restore a democracy and freedom of the press! Priority isn't given to food and fuel among the BSG fleet (like, why wouldn't it during a war footing?) so those that labor on those respective vessels go on strike causing even more problems for the surviving humans.
And so on.