Hey, isn't that supposed to be a phrase of the [overly patriotic] reactionary right? Not anymore! It's also Kent Conrad's (D-North Dakota) new mantra:
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) told CNSNews.com that civilian courts are well-suited to prosecute al Qaeda terrorists and that "if people don't believe in our system, maybe they ought to go somewhere else.”
Conrad also dismissed a question about the rights of terrorists captured on foreign battlefields and the rules of evidence in terms of a civilian court trial as not serious.
Check out the video here.
I wonder if Conrad thinks all those Nazi and Japanese POWs captured in battle should have been tried in our civilian court system. And, if so, does he think those who disagree with him should go live someplace else?
The BBC says that a full inquiry into "Climategate's" [hacked] e-mails will be underway soon. Which is nice, considering that the Beeb apparently had some of the e-mails a month ago -- and didn't report a blessed thing.
Not a surprise, that. Neither is how it reports the need for an "independent" review into the whole matter:
Scientists will be scrutinising the choice of chair and the terms of reference.
One senior climate scientist told me that the chair would have to be a person accepted by both mainstream climate scientists and sceptics as a highly respected figure without strong connections to either group.
Ah, yes! "Skeptics" are not be confused with "mainstream" scientists! These same "mainstream" climate scientists that admitted to fudging their data so as not to give any credence to these "skeptics!"
And so it goes ...
Since our local channel 57 doesn't carry the 11:00am "Three Stooges" anymore, here's the second half of one of my favorite episodes, where minutes 3:00 to 4:06 absolutely kill me:
These two have joined other noted First State bloggers Mike Matthews, Dana Garrett and lastly, fellow libertarian Shirley Vandever. The DE blogosphere is shrinking. kavips has some comments on the situation.
It's been widely reported that a non-invited couple made it through Secret Service security and got to meet The Messiah at a state dinner the other night. Yeah, even the MSM noted it! But will they note this: The couple had met Obama before (see photo). Further,
Tareq Salahi, the polo-playing intruder, is a Palestinian nationalist with ties to the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP) , a pro-Palestine lobby demanding the “right of return” for all Palestinian refugees and their descendants. The “right of return” has long been considered the backdoor to Israel’s destruction. But not only that: ATFP President Ziad Asali is an America-basher who blamed 9/11 on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Asali was a lead U.S. official to PLO terrorist Yassir Arafat’s funeral in 2004. And in a position paper in 2007, the ATFP called for a power-sharing agreement at the Palestinian Authority, which would have included the State Department’s designated-terrorist group, Hamas. (Source.)
Looks like the ATFP has been busy "excising" Salahi's ties to the group, too. How come, hmm?
Unbelievable, considering that Climategate just gets "better and better." Now, according to the Times of London, it seems global warming advocate "scientists" have admitted to ditching temperature data:
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.
Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.
And yet, with the science behind [man-made] global warming very much in doubt, The Messiah still is planning to head to Copenhagen for discussions on how curb GHGs (greenhouse gasses), many proposals which will affect economic growth. And, as yet locally, we haven't seen a peep from Perry the Energizer Bunny, who, normally at the drop of a hat, will charge in on a blog's comment section guns a'blazin' to defend to the death the "fact" that man-made global warming will kill us all.
UPDATE: In the interests of fairness and completeness, there's also a report (virtually at the same time as the Times story) via the UK Telegraph that the CRU has agreed to turn over its data in full for examination. Obviously, the two stories strongly conflict. Stay tuned.
First place in the Council category was The Razor with Obama The Weak Horse.
First place in the non-Council category was The Strata-Sphere with Alarmist hide truth about (lack of ) global warming.
Full results are here.
... but there's no shortage -- still -- of pro global warming yarns. Here's the AP via MSNBC: "Much less stable ice for polar bears, expert says; Survey by ship finds satellite data about thicker Arctic ice was wrong."
Hmmm. You'll never see a "E-mails reveal global warming data was wrong" headline, will'ya? And check out the screen cap of the main MSNBC "climate headlines" under the article:
"CO2 levels rising"!!
"Warming's impact worse since Kyoto"!!
"Jellyfish gotta truck north 'cuz of warming"!!
"Bolivian glacier -- melting"!!
But the only thing about Climategate? The GOP is gonna open a probe into what the hacked e-mails reveal!! Not "Congress," not "the Administration," and worse still not "fellow scientists." Nope, it's those dastardly 'ol Republicans -- doing this, certainly, for mere political advantage. No matter WHAT the cost to the planet, right MSN??
MSNBC headline: 25 countries tell Iran to mothball nuke program.
Author Michael Crichton warned us about "Climategate" four years ago.
I understand and even agree with the legislation's rationale; however, the problem is that they are selectively enforced. Latest case in point:
Denver police should be applauded for apparently breaking up a ring of thugs who were attacking mostly white males downtown in what seems to be the largest racially motivated series of crimes in decades. Yet we're left with one important question:
Why weren't residents warned about the scope of the threat?
Denver Police Chief Gerry Whitman said that groups of young black males from the Rollin' 60s Crips and the Black Gangster Disciples gangs approached single white or Latino men late at night and struck them in the head, often after berating them and calling attention to their race, but sometimes attacking without warning.
Victims in the LoDo and 16th Street Mall attacks suffered broken noses and shattered eye sockets, among other head injuries. Sometimes wallets and other small items were stolen.
"We have seen coordinated efforts before, but not by this large of a group," Whitman said as the arrests were announced Friday.
Yet no concerted effort was made to alert residents to the unusual nature of these violent crimes, or their apparent racial motivation.
Police say there may have been 26 such attacks, almost all against white males, but investigators stress there could be other victims and more are coming forward. A few are women.
First of all, bravo to the Denver Post for excoriating the ridiculous PC involved in this. But it really should come as no surprise. Just look at Nidal Hasan's situation -- how the quite obvious trail of his nuttery was shrugged off, in large part out of political correctness. Our very own Wilmington News Journal has a specific policy dedicated to this inane "correctness" and they adhere to it very well. I wonder what would have been the case had the races been reversed in Denver?
I wonder if President Obama will say that officials in Denver "acted stupidly."
MSNBC.com headline: U.S. sets climate target ahead of summit; Obama to take goal of 17 percent emissions cut to Copenhagen talks.
Not. One. Word. On. Climategate.
But it does include an oft-repeated biased whopper about the Kyoto Protocols:
But others said the visit will reinforce the U.S. government's shift on climate policy from that of the Bush administration, which rejected the 1997 Kyoto climate accords out of hand and over eight years steadfastly opposed broad mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases.
What is conveniently omitted here is that the US Senate said "NO" to Kyoto by a vote of 95-0, not to mention that it was the Clinton administration that never submitted Kyoto to the Senate for official ratification!
Just like [a lesser] climate myth, the MSM just keeps parroting the "progressive" elite convetional wisdom about man-made global warming ... despite The Messiah's proclamation that "science will be restored to its rightful place" in his administration. Sort of like how "progressives" are vehemently pro-free speech ... unless that speech contradicts their fiercely-held values.
... and in this case, the best, in my opinion.
Alas, no way.
Fortunately, the New Media allows your average joe to force the MSM to not forget about it. Looks like Climategate will be like the ACORN story -- the MSM will wait and wait and wait, hoping in vain it will be forgotten.
UPDATE: Unbelievable. Perfect case study: Instead of a big multi-pager about Climategate, Newsweek offers several pages to James Hansen discussing how climate change is "Not the Kind of Thing Where You Can Compromise."
But of course.
But, of course, no one will expect you to apologize now for your usual moonbat rantings given the facts. Because you are a moonbat, after all.
UPDATE: Here are some others who owe apologies.
Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.
The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.
Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.
Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.
The accusation was made to Iraqi authorities who then relayed it to US officials. Those officials, apparently still smarting from the Abu Ghraib mess, then charged the SEALs. For punching the guy????
Look, aside from the fact that I thought we never should have even gone to Iraq, welcome to how war "is fought" by the Left. Illegal/Unlawful terrorist combatants granted full habeas corpus rights and a trial in US civilian courts, and our best trained soldiers now being put on trial for punching a heinous terrorist murderer.
It's a "brave" new world, people.
Ed Driscoll nails the Times. And how.
... Perry the Energizer Rabbit, that is, from his dogmatic belief that man-made global warming is a settled matter ... a done debate.
In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes. . . .
Mann, who directs Penn State's Earth System Science Center, said the e-mails reflected the sort of "vigorous debate" researchers engage in before reaching scientific conclusions. "We shouldn't expect the sort of refined statements that scientists make when they're speaking in public," he said. (Source.)
Uh huh, right.
James Taranto asks in the link above a question I have for Perry (who's all over the DE blogosphere blasting anyone who questions man-made global warming with a zeal only matched by Al Gore), "If they (global warming believers) have the facts on their side, why do they need to resort to tactics of suppression and intimidation?"
Elsewhere locally, moonbat Nancy [Un]Willing has a post up calling for support for the Senate Climate Bill. She notes: "The December Copenhagen climate negotiations offer a terrific opportunity to send a message that nuclear power is neither an effective nor acceptable means of addressing the climate crisis."
Let's take the second, first. It's becoming quite clear that there IS no climate "crisis." Next, nuke power IS an effective means of addressing the supposed climate change about which the 'bats are perpetually worried. And just keep in mind that current nuclear power (fission reactors) is just part of the equation. The next step in nuclear is fusion which, when developed, will solve the planet's energy needs for the centuries to come.
This time (well, again) if you don't adopt a particular political/social view, you're not worthy of becoming an educator in Minnesota:
Do you believe in the American dream -- the idea that in this country, hardworking people of every race, color and creed can get ahead on their own merits? If so, that belief may soon bar you from getting a license to teach in Minnesota public schools -- at least if you plan to get your teaching degree at the University of Minnesota's Twin Cities campus.
In a report compiled last summer, the Race, Culture, Class and Gender Task Group at the U's College of Education and Human Development recommended that aspiring teachers there must repudiate the notion of "the American Dream" in order to obtain the recommendation for licensure required by the Minnesota Board of Teaching. Instead, teacher candidates must embrace -- and be prepared to teach our state's kids -- the task force's own vision of America as an oppressive hellhole: racist, sexist and homophobic.
The task group is part of the Teacher Education Redesign Initiative, a multiyear project to change the way future teachers are trained at the U's flagship campus. The initiative is premised, in part, on the conviction that Minnesota teachers' lack of "cultural competence" contributes to the poor academic performance of the state's minority students.
OK, so this is pretty much the same radical swill that infects way too much of American campuses today. But I'd really like an answer (which I never got as a grad student in education) as to just how teaching students that the US is a living hell for minorities and women helps to motivate them to do well in society, both vocationally and socially. I mean, let's have it.
The first step toward "cultural competence," says the task group, is for future teachers to recognize -- and confess -- their own bigotry.
Not a new thing among the Educrat Left. In the nonsense that are "Difficult Dialogues" and its variants, white educators are told that it's their inherent prejudice that keeps minority students from achieving -- the cause, if you will, for the "achievement gap."
The task group recommends, for example, that prospective teachers be required to prepare an "autoethnography" report. They must describe their own prejudices and stereotypes, question their "cultural" motives for wishing to become teachers, and take a "cultural intelligence" assessment designed to ferret out their latent racism, classism and other "isms." They "earn points" for "demonstrating the ability to be self-critical."
Mao would be extremely proud of this task group.
Sheesh. I will tell you, though, that there's nothing more satisfying than confronting a moron that peddles this garbage. It will amuse you to listen to the "non-answer answer" you'll receive, as well as to the outright racial/ethnic ignorance the advocate him/herself possesses.
NBC's Andrea Mitchell ambushes Sarah Palin with the [infamous] Newsweek cover.
Just take a gander at the scowl on Mitchell's face. A picture is worth a thousand words, goes the cliché?
Headline from The Hill: "McCaskill still working toward goal of reading the healthcare bill."
Wonder if we'll see a headline soon in the NY Times, WaPo or USA Today that reads as follows: "Americans still working toward goal of arriving to work on time and actually doing what their job description entails."
CBS.com features a rather ... questionable bit of "strange" news (screen cap at left since "strange" news is updated quite often) at its site today. I mean, why is it "strange" that a Rhode Island bishop had asked Patrick Kennedy to avoid communion -- especially given the representative's stance on abortion?
The actual article doesn't feature anything "strange;" it details the "feud" between the bishop and the rep., and it certainly isn't out of the ordinary in that Catholic officials have had similar misgivings regarding communion with other Catholic pro-choice lawmakers. So, again, why is this "strange?"
Easy. Because refusing to grant communion due to someone being for abortion is "strange" to those who run the MSM ... of which CBS is most certainly a part.
The latest "wisdom" from the MSM on the Nidal Hasan shootings: The Internet is partly to blame.
From what is publicly known about Maj. Nidal Hasan, accused killer of 13 in a rampage at Fort Hood, he had no accomplice — unless you count the Internet in which he communed, exchanging sinister thoughts with an extremist cleric.
Is the radical imam culpable for retroactively justifying the attack? Or does the Internet merit some of the responsibility for helping the violence prone to fester there in communion with the machine?
I just don't get this line of reasoning, especially from those on the left whose supposed "progressive" nature is inherently supposed to abhor limits on personal freedom. Because something like the Internet enables fast and easy communication with anyone any place on the globe, it is somehow partly "responsible" for a lunatic making use of it for his crimes? The Left similarly argues that [mainstream] talk radio is "responsible" for the actions of assorted lunatics, and that [some] otherwise legitimate political speech should be curtailed because it may be "hateful" or "uncomfortable" for some people. (In this case, too, since Hasan is a member of a minority, virtually any reason other than the most obvious will be pontificated on by the Left, especially those that can be pinned on the majority or the United States in a general sense.)
The Right certainly has its own issues with the "other factor blame game." Lyrics in music. Violence in video games. Pornography. But recall how the Left -- and the MSM in particular -- react to such.
The alleged emails illustrate the persistent pressure some climatologists have been under from sceptics in recent years. There have been repeated calls, including Freedom of Information requests, for the Climate Research Unit to make public a confidential dataset of land and sea temperature recordings that is "value added" by the unit before being used by the Met Office. The emails show the frustration some climatologists have had at having to operate under such intense, often politically motivated, scrutiny.
Are you freakin' serious?? These folks falsified data because of pressure from ... skeptics?? It's the skeptics who have been maligned left and right (not politically) for voicing any criticism of the GW alarmists' [supposed] facts. Internet founder, Nobel Laureate, and GW Alarmist-in-Chief Al Gore has declared that the debate "is over" on global warming, after all.
If GW alarmists are "having to operate under such intense, often politically motivated, scrutiny," they have no one to blame but themselves -- and their allies -- for it.
The ever-on-top-of-First State-education-happenings Kilroy gets some scoop on some disturbing news: Governor Markell plans on removing SROs -- School Resource Officers, aka police officers -- from various schools:
Letters from DOE per the request of Governor Jack Markell were sent to district school superintendents informing them, due to budget constraints SROs aka School Resource Officers will be pulled from Delaware high schools and put in patrol positions.
Kilroy doesn't have a direct link to his source (yet), but if this is accurate it is beyond lunacy. We're going to yank the one police officer assigned to various high (and middle) schools -- despite incidents like this? Kilroy commenter Jack is right on target (my emphasis):
I think the State Audit Report said 1 out of every 4 DOE employees salaries exceeded $100,000, when you include employment cost and benefits they cost $140,000. I wonder how many SRO one of these employees would fund?
Consolidation of support services for Vocational Schools would save millions.
But instead of reducing overhead, schools SRO are removed. Just another example of overhead having priority over school employees who work with our children every day.
Who else but Los Amigos Invisibles -- recent winners of the Latin Grammy for Best Alternative Album -- here live a few years back with their 1999 hit "Ultrafunk":
... comes from the New York Times:
While there are important differences between the soldiers killed at Fort Hood and the examples Mr. Walzer cited — they were filling out forms at a readiness center in Texas before deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan, and they were killed by a member of their own army — it is obviously true that soldiers getting ready to go to a war zone are not civilians or noncombatants.
Get it? Since Hasan murdered soldiers, technically that ain't "terrorism" (as defined by the Geneva Convention). Unfortunately, it seems that one of the vicitims, Dr. Michael Grant Cahill, was a civilian, so sorry NYT.
(Funny that such a distinction is achingly made in such a case as this; however, when the US government uses the same distinctions regarding "unlawful combatants," entities like the Times have a coronary.)
The Associated Press coverage of the health care bills vs. Sarah Palin's new book:
Number of AP reporters assigned to story:
• ObamaCare bills: 2
• Palin book: 11
Number of pages in document being covered:
• ObamaCare bills: 4,064
• Palin book: 432
Number of pages per AP reporter:
• ObamaCare bill: 2,032
• Palin book: 39.3
They sure have their priorities right, eh?? What MSM bias, again?
Shouldn't the government pledge allegiance to the people rather than the other way around?
The very idea of a pledge of allegiance, in any form, is completely at odds with what is often called "the American Creed," inspired by the 17th-century philosopher John Locke's theory of natural rights and government by popular consent. The concept of "allegiance" is feudal. In medieval Europe, the liegeman, or subject, pledged allegiance to his liege lord. But in Lockean America, there is no government outside of society to which the members of the society could pledge allegiance, even if they wanted to.
In a republic, the people should not pledge allegiance to the government; the government should pledge allegiance to the people.
It's pretty hard difficult to argue Lind's point -- at first glance. But let's look at the Pledge:
I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and the Republic, for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.
It seems pretty obvious to me that by "pledging allegiance" Americans are -- as it says above -- doing so to the Republic. And what is our republic? It's the people, after all, who elect other people to serve the general public. Then there's "one Nation." And what is a "nation?" It's a group of people: –noun 1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own.
I'm not going to argue (much!) whether "under God" should rightfully (i.e. legally) be in the Pledge; I will say, however, that Lind -- who sees fit to make use of the Declaration of Independence to make his case against the Pledge -- neglects to make it clear that the Founders certainly believed that the people derived their rights from ... God!
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The boy with whom Lind begins his article, Will Phillips, who refused to stand and recite the Pledge because he felt it wrong that gays and lesbians aren't allowed to marry (no "liberty and justice" for them), had every right to so refuse. That is established legal precedent dating back almost 70 years. Lind also at one point laments the near-establishment of "mob rule" as the [GOP-dominated 2004] House had passed a bill disallowing federal courts jurisdiction over cases involving the Pledge (the bill died in the Senate). "Checks and balances" worked, he claims.
But would it have been "mob rule?" What it would called then, if perpetual litigants like Michael Newdow finally managed to succeed in getting the [entire] Pledge ruled unconstitutional -- over the objections of the [enormously] vast majority of Americans? (Checks and balances would surely prevail in this hypoethetical, I'd bet, as Congress and then the states would likely pass a constitutional amendment allowing for the Pledge.) I mean, consider: No one is required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance if they do not wish to say it. Period. (Educators like Phillips' teachers should attend inservices about legal "dos" and "don'ts" instead of the crap they usually have to sit through.) So why litigants like Newdow? Because they'll feel ... left out? Because they may get ... harassed? To which I say: So what.
America is great precisely because you can thumb your nose at saying the Pledge. America is a cornucopia of ethnicities and beliefs that is the envy of the world, because that amalgamation can act on their beliefs (within reason, of course) without hassle from the state. But that doesn't mean those whose beliefs fall into a distinct minority are entitled to be free from "feeling left out" or be free from "pressure [by peers] to conform." To legally permit such is nigh impossible, given the sheer numbers of different beliefs extant in our system. The phrase "under God" in the Pledge (though added later, in the 1950s) clearly has an historical basis, as noted above.
If the Newdows of the country were all able to prevail, it seems to me the common threads that bind us as a nation would unravel. And, if the Newdows are so concerned about "feeling left out" and feeling "pressure to conform," just think about what'd happen were they successful. Will the Newdows then litigate demanding that people continue to associate with them? And be nice to them?
There's a fine between between "mob rule" and tyranny of the minority, the latter usually accomplished via litigation instead of, obviously, the legislative process.
I know my argument isn't perfect. For instance, if it's OK to say the Pledge in schools, why not allow prayer? After all, students could opt out of saying that just as they can with the Pledge. But the difference is that students would be saying an affirmation to a god in a prayer, whereas with the Pledge they are merely affirming that our nation was, in part, formed with a belief that our most essential rights are derived from [a] god (again, as the Founders themselves noted). Perhaps a better argument could be made as to why Congress still begins sessions with prayers ... while schools cannot. Both are public institutions.
But, alas, that is enough for now. :-)
In a word, "wow."
Racial and ethnic profiling is morally reprehensible because it seeks to label people based solely on their race or nationality ("Fear of offending is a threat to us all," Nov. 12). It is a policy that promotes fear of anyone who doesn't look or act like "us," and it has been proven to be both costly and ineffective.
Friedrichs is clever by slipping in "racial" and "ethnic." But the article which he references (Michael Smerconish's, here) doesn't advocate singling out someone based solely on one's race or ethnicity. Indeed, Smerconish quite blatantly outlines other behaviors (by, in this case, Muslims) that triggered reactions by law enforcement and others.
As for "costly and ineffective," perhaps Friedrichs should speak to Israeli authorities about that.
(Side note: The only instance where outright racial profiling is commended seems to be when discussing so-called "white privilege." Then, it's "all whites are inherently racist" -- a blanket statement that doesn't need any supportive back-up whatsoever.)
First place in the Council category was Bookworm Room with The Perils Of An Affirmative Action President.
First place in the non-Council category was The Rosistance with The lawyer in the White House and the spy in federal prison giving away national security secrets.
Full results are here.
Remember -- it's only "dangerous speech" when the Right does it. Here's Arianna "I'm Only Somebody Because I Married Rich" Huffington on why Glenn Beck doesn't deserve First Amendment rights:
"It is frightening," Huffington replied. "Well, I would say the fear-monger-in-chief title should still be reserved for Dick Cheney, even in retirement. But barring that, there is something that we need to really pay attention to with Glenn Beck. We cannot just dismiss him. Because the truth of the matter is that there is a good reason why we have an exemption to the free speech protection by the First Amendment when we say you cannot shout 'fire' in a crowded theater."
Get it? Because Beck is an outspoken advocate for limited government and a return to the governmental principles of the Founders, he's "inciteful," and thus "dangerous."
Elsewhere, in academia (a well-known bastion of the Left), NYU's Stern School of Business's Tunku Varadarajan recently wrote that the Fort Hood killings were an "act of messianic violence." As could expected, students at his school were mortified. He was accused of "hate-mongering" and for causing "pain" and "feelings of marginalization." Thankfully, in this case (a rarity?), the college president rightly remarked that it would be wrong to punish Varadarajan for his views; however, he did strongly condemn him, as did other groups. And we've all seen what that sort of pressure can lead to on campuses.
'Ya gotta love the Left -- wanting full American constitutional protections for illegal combatant terrorists, but desiring NO 1st Amendment protections for political opponents or those with differing opinions.
... that just happens to neatly coincide with the nigh-near passage of some sort of Obamacare:
Most women in their 20s can have a Pap smear every two years instead of annually, say new guidelines that conclude that's enough to catch slow-growing cervical cancer.
The change by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists comes amid a completely separate debate over when regular mammograms to detect breast cancer should begin. The timing of the Pap guidelines is coincidence, said ACOG, which began reviewing its recommendations in late 2007 and published the update Friday in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology. There have been widespread concerns that the government is trying to cut health costs by limiting cancer screening for women.
A little more than a year after his election, President Obama said his administration has laid the groundwork for success on global and domestic matters.
"I think that we've restored America's standing in the world, and that's confirmed by polls," he told CNN's Ed Henry in a wide-ranging interview this week during his trip to China.
"I think a recent one indicated that around the world, before my election, less than half the people -- maybe less than 40 percent of the people -- thought that you could count on America to do to the right thing. Now it's up to 75 percent."
Earth to Messiah: You're the President of the United States, not the world.
His standing internationally may be high; however, among the people who actually elected him, he's sinking.
Yep, that's right. Isn't it "un-American" to say that someone is not "really (insert race/ethnicity)" merely because they disagree with you? Isn't that like saying that someone is "un-American" because they disagree with the Iraq War? Or someone is "un-American" because they don't agree with Barack Obama's [economy-killing] agenda?
Sure is. Yet here is race-hustler extraordinaire Jackson doing just that:
The Rev. Jesse Jackson on Wednesday night criticized Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.) for voting against the Democrats’ signature healthcare bill. “We even have blacks voting against the healthcare bill,” Jackson said at a reception Wednesday night. “You can’t vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man.”
What if a white guy had said "You can't vote for Barack Obama and call yourself a white man"? Or, what if a Latino had said "You can't be against giving amnesty to illegal aliens and call yourself Hispanic"? What if an Asian said "You can't be against Red China and call yourself Oriental"?
Jackson has zero credibility anymore. He should be tossed into the dust-bin of history along with many other race-based entities.
UPDATE: Steve Newton beat me to the punch, and as usual, does it so much better.
That's the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers.
In his moronic diatribe, he blames conservatives for what they didn't quote from the book of Psalm. That's right -- didn't. Remember what you do when you're a "progressive": you make up things when the actual facts just aren't there to make your case.
Imagine if there was a Republican in the White House ... and that administration was putting forth claims of "created" or "saved" jobs ... in congressional districts that don't even exist! And Delaware was included!
Here's a stimulus success story: In Arizona's 15th congressional district, 30 jobs have been saved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending. At least that's what the Web site set up by the Obama administration to track the $787 billion stimulus says.
There's one problem, though: There is no 15th congressional district in Arizona; the state has only eight districts.
And ABC News has found many more entries for projects like this in places that are incorrectly identified:
In Oklahoma, recovery.gov lists more than $19 million in spending -- and 15 jobs created -- in yet more congressional districts that don't exist.
In Iowa, it shows $10.6 million spent – and 39 jobs created -- in nonexistent districts.
In Connecticut's 42nd district (which also does not exist), the Web site claims 25 jobs created with zero stimulus dollars.
The list of spending and job creation in fictional congressional districts extends to U.S. territories as well.
$68.3 million spent and 72.2 million spent in the 1st congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands.
$8.4 million spent and 40.3 jobs created in the 99th congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands.
$1.5 million spent and .3 jobs created in the 69th district and $35 million for 142 jobs in the 99th district of the Northern Mariana Islands.
$47.7 million spent and 291 jobs created in Puerto Rico's 99th congressional district. (Source.)
And right smack here in the First State we see the following:
Top Congressional Districts -- Jobs -- Money Spent
1st congressional district -- 951.9 -- $463,207,546
00 congressional district -- 181.6 -- $71,902,685
99th congressional district -- 0 -- $7,249,289
35th congressional district -- 0 -- $1,873,676
2nd congressional district -- 36.2 -- $423,147
How 'bout that?? Who knew that Delaware had a 99th, 35th and 2nd congressional district (not to mention the classic "00" district ... reminds me of Jim Otto of the Oakland Raiders who wore that classic "00" jersey in the 60s and early 70s) -- and that 217.8 jobs were "created" or "saved" in two of these phony districts? Not to mention, of course, the $81,448,797 of the "stimulus" spent in these "districts!"
But hey, no big deal, right? It's only almost a total of a trillion dollars in that so-called stimulus package! (If this was a private company, such accounting would surely lead to its demise.)
Ya'd think this would be pretty newsworthy stuff. Well, it would -- again -- if the president was a member of the GOP. But, as such, the MSM only devoted a "whopping" twenty-one seconds to this story yesterday!
(Thanks to Paul Smith Jr. for the info on Delaware's phantom congressional districts!)
One of the more rational (usually) folks over our LGOMB, pandora, writes that Sarah Palin is "unfit to be president" because she apparently said she'd favor profiling Muslims to save American lives. "I’m really sick of this sort of talk," she says. "It’s beyond disgusting. Frankly, it’s un-American."
Really? For for mere (yes, "mere") profiling?
"Profiling" has taken on a negative connotation mainly because many of the usual race hustlers saw some disparities in police traffic stops in various jurisdictions across the country, etc. Indeed, some of these stops were arguably inappropriate. However, the very nature of police/law enforcement work relies on that nasty term "profiling."
Despite what your typical nor'eastern "progressive" (like pandora) desires, there are disparities (racial, ethnic, gender) with regards to various crime statistics. White males are profiled as serial killers. Black and Hispanic males are frequently profiled for drug running. And so on.
pandora asks if conservatives/Republicans would be so willing to profile pro-lifers as possible abortion doctor killers ... or tea partiers and gun nuts as potential shooters of government types. And the answer is yes -- the more radical of those groups should indeed be watched! Profilers (or, more accurately, "those who profile") don't look at all members of a particular group. There are other factors involved in profiling than just someone's skin tone or religion. Much more likely than not, this is what Palin meant -- and she's right. It would be irresponsible not to profile/survey radical Muslims whose activities meet the criteria of "suspicious." After all, Nidal Hasan's actions should have met that criteria, but as we've heard already, some of those in higher positions have admitted that they'd have likely gotten into trouble had they raised concerns about Hasan's statements and actions prior to his offing 13 people!
If keeping an eye out for folks like Hasan is "disgusting" and "un-American," then it's very little wonder why so few people (still) are comfortable ascribing the "liberal" label to themselves these days -- even though one is in the White House. In other words, your average person believes in common sense, not a political correctness that results in the mass murder of Americans.
... even though reviewer admits to not reading the entire book!
Then again, Palin is Republican, and the WaPo is MSM. No surprise here!
The Inventor of the Internet, Al Gore, proves (again) why we should really just guffaw hysterically at him:
CONAN O'BRIEN, HOST: Now, what about ... you talk in the book about geothermal energy...
AL GORE, NOBEL LAUREATE: Yeah, yeah.
O'BRIEN: ...and that is, as I understand it, using the heat that's generated from the core of the earth ...
O'BRIEN: ...to create energy, and it sounds to me like an evil plan by Lex Luthor to defeat Superman. Can you, can you tell me, is this a viable solution, geothermal energy?
GORE: It definitely is, and it's a relatively new one. People think about geothermal energy - when they think about it at all - in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot ...
This is the guy who's leading the way with scientific "evidence" on global warming?? The actual temperature at the center of our planet is about 4,000 degrees Celsius. If the temperature at the center of the Earth was "several million degrees," our planet would be a companion to our sun; in other words, our solar system would be a binary system.
Meanwhile, the AP makes use of White House talking points. What a surprise.
That is, according to "progressive" punditry. First we saw Stephanie Miller; now, MSNBC dunderhead Ed Schultz actually did the unthinkable for a lib -- called Hasan a "terrorist" -- but then proceeded to, yep, blame George W. Bush and Dick Cheney:
SCHULTZ: Where the hell was Mr. Tough Guy, Dick Cheney? Because they were checking this guy out during the Bush administration, the Department of Homeland Security under the Bush years, the biggest rearrangement of government in the history of America, the Department of Homeland Security, and all the checks and balances ...
CALLER: Is that true?
SCHULTZ: Wait a minute! And all the checks and balances. They knew who this guy was, the FBI did, back in 2007. And they knew exactly what the writings he was having, the contacts he was having. So, where the hell's Dick Cheney on this one?! Hell, we got hit on their watch again 'cause they didn't stop us from that guy doing what he did!
CALLER: So, are you telling me that Dick Cheney knew about this guy back in 2007?
SCHULTZ: I think we should ask the question. I mean, come on (crosstalk) this, this happened on, this happened on the Bush administration's watch! He slipped through the cracks!
I'm glad Schultz sees it that way. This means that the 9/11 attacks thus fall squarely and completely on the shoulders of one William Jefferson Clinton who let Osama bin Laden "slip through the cracks" more than once -- even "slip through the gunsight" when we had him dead to rights.
That certainly wasn't the position of our LGOMB. Just see here, here, here, and here ("George Bush was the President during the attack and his incompetence allowed the attack to take place ..."). Not to mention myriad comments across the local 'sphere.
I'm certain it's a line of "reasoning" that Schultz won't press ...
How pumpkin pie is really made:
(h/t to cardinals fan!)
Check out the video here.
So, what happened? What changed? Is it "Eric Holder is acting alone" or some other such nonsense again? Keep in mind that
... the current special military tribunals were created by the 2006 Military Commissions Act, which was adopted with bipartisan Congressional support after the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision obliged the executive and legislative branches to approve a detailed plan to prosecute the illegal "enemy combatants" captured since 9/11. (Source.)
Support, which it seems, included Obama.
But that's OK. Nonsense like this virtually ensures that The Messiah will be a one-termer (see here, for example), and the country will be better off (safer, IOW) for it.
Black [male] Columbia professor slugs white [woman] colleague in the face during an argument about race.
First place in the Council category was Joshuapundit with Death By A Thousand Cuts.
First place in the non-Council category was Selwyn Duke /American Thinker with Jihad and America, the land that cried sheep.
Full results are here.
This time he refuses to answer a Japanese reporter's question as to whether dropping the a-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the right decision:
PBO gave a halting response that utterly failed to answer the question. The closest he came was to observe that Japan "has a unique perspective on the issue of nuclear weapons as a consequence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I'm sure it helps to motivate the Prime Minister's deep interest in this issue."
The reporter tried again: "Do you believe the US dropping of nuclear weapons on --"
Obama cut him off, choosing to answer an unrelated question on the situation in North Korea.
Check it out:
Hey Barack -- what's the deal? Was it or was it not the right decision? You still could have been "politically sensitive" to your audience by saying something like this:
"Given the historical context of the time, yes, it was the right decision. President Truman wanted to end the war as quickly as possible, and with as little loss of life as possible. His decision regarding the bombs arguably did that.
Keep in mind, too, of course, that we did not know all we do today about the long-term consequences of detonating a nuclear weapon -- the dangers of radiation and such. If we did, perhaps an alternative might have been conceived. But we did not, so there was not. The loss of life at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was regrettable; however, overall, on both sides, the loss of life would have been much greater on both sides had the war continued."
There, was that so hard?
It's bad enough that the MSM was twisting itself into pretzels to be politically correct in reporting the Hasan-Fort Hood matter; now Canadian officials are apologizing for not being PC after arresting a couple of FBI terror suspects:
Windsor police chief Gary Smith has apologized to members of Windsor's Islamic community for offending their beliefs after officers arresting two FBI suspects at gunpoint patted down one of their wives.
"It was never the intention for Windsor police officers to offend or embarrass the families of our Islamic community," writes Smith in a press release issued by police this morning. "The actions taken did cause embarrassment and did offend their religious beliefs. I sincerely apologize to the families and the Islamic community."
Smith will answer questions at a 3 p.m. press conference at police headquarters.
A review of the incident highlighted the need for additional "cultural sensitivity training," said the release, and Dr. Murad Aktas has been tapped to provide it...
Uh huh. I like what Mark Steyn says: "It's surely only a matter of time before authorities apologize to Major Hasan for being so insensitive of his religious beliefs as to have him shot by a woman."
Remember -- there is NOTHING for which George W. Bush can't be blamed. In this case, he's culpable for Nidal Hasan killing thirteen people. So says liberal radio gabber Stephanie Miller:
You know I think in his (Hasan) particular case since that he’s counseling these guys, hearing about the horrors of these wars he’s now going to be sent into, you know. You add to it obviously the fact that he appeared to be and again, we don’t have all the details yet, but appeared to be getting more radicalized, you know. But also you add in that look, George Bush made many people around the world feel like this was a war against Islam by using words like crusade and all of that.
Yeah -- Bush using "crusade" like one time shortly after 9/11 but then going out of his way to avoid its use further (even constantly referring to Islam as a "religion of peace") makes him somewhat to blame for Hasan's "bad feelings."
What did I just recently write, again ...?
You know, the media that has "layers and layers" of fact checkers and editors. Like the one that wrote this caption about John Kerry's Vietnam War Senate testimony.
And now, this.
Revile: To assail with abusive language; vituperate.
Reveille: The sounding of a bugle early in the morning to awaken and
summon people in a camp or garrison. The bugle calls used at the end of the official day are Retreat and To the Colors.
(Thanks for NB tipster SIP.)
It's looks more and more like the Fort Hood assassin had at the very least radical Muslim beliefs, if not connections to known terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. The Washington Post reports that Nidal M. Hasan "lectured on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting in the Muslim countries of Iraq and Afghanistan." In addition,
Under a slide titled "Comments," he wrote: "If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the 'infidels'; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc." [sic]
The last bullet point on that page reads simply: "We love death more then [sic] you love life!"
Under the "Conclusions" page, Hasan wrote that "Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam," and that "Muslim Soldiers should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly -- will vary!"
Hasan had ties to a radical Muslim cleric.
He would frequently say he was a Muslim first and an American second. How does someone like that take an oath of office?
The media is slowly picking up these [uncomfortable] facts, mainly because they just have to. But as we've seen, everything was considered immediately -- except the possibility of radical Muslim terrorism. And the leftist cult of diversity/multi-culti nonsense is even leading some highers-up in the military to make asinine statements like this: “And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse.” As David Brooks says, it was a "rush to therapy" and ignoring some quite obvious [other] clues.
Like our local Left -- which is perpetually in such a rush to connect any sort of right-winger who commits an atrocity with talk radio, Fox News pundits, anti-abortion protestors, and those who believe in the 10th Amendment -- but then ties itself into pretzels seeking some sort of explanation for Hasan's crime.
Upon reflection, this is not unlike the Left's rapidity to trash rightist dictators (think Augusto Pinochet, Fernando Marcos, Anastasio Somoza, etc.) but outright refusal to criticize thugs like Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega (80s version), the Salvadoran FMLN, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, and Mao ... even though there's essentially little difference between authoritarian strongmen on the right or left.
And yes, many on the Right would excuse rightist dictators as a bulwark to communism. I'd like to think that I'm different in that regard. I think the past US interventions in the affairs of Arbenz (Guatemala) and Allende (Chile) were disgraces, to name but two. But more currently, the tendency on the Left is to indict virtually all things conservative for any sort of rightist violence, while looking elsewhere (despite obvious clues) for explanations for violence committed by so-called "protected" groups. Or, making excuses for them. On the other hand, when the evidence is clear, [most] conservatives do not do so in an opposite situation.
Hans Bader has a great article up on how "diversity obsession" played a role in the Hasan case.
Case in point: Newsweek's caption of John Kerry's Senate Foreign Relations testimony during the Vietnam War.
I think this is the year they were looking for.
Amid increasing incidents of climate protesters disrupting the operations of fossil-fuel industries and airports in Britain and elsewhere, Gore suggests the scale of the emergency means non-violent lawbreaking is justified. "Civil disobedience has an honourable history, and when the urgency and moral clarity cross a certain threshold, then I think that civil disobedience is quite understandable, and it has a role to play," he says. "And I expect that it will increase, no question about it."
Yes, it will be interesting when we see a combination of the "progressive" elites and the usual hippies out in the streets of Vermont, Massachusetts, San Francisco, as well as the usual European metropolises, being civilly disobedient. Garnering a lot of MSM attention, but little overall public sympathy.
First place in the Council category was The Glittering Eye with What’s A Foreseeable Rate of Taxation?
First place in the non-Council category was Black & Right with Comment of the Day.
Full results are here.
... especially if you're part of the MSM. Take Newsweek, for example. Not a single mention of how Islamic extremism just might have played a role in the shootings perpetrated by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. However, there's certainly plenty speculation on how the stress of military life during this time of dual wars might have played a part.
This, despite the fact that Hasan had communicated the comparison between "suicide bombers ... with soldiers who threw themselves on a grenade to save their comrades." Or that witnesses heard him shout "Allahu Akbar!" Also,
Retired Col. Terry Lee, who worked with Maj Hasan at Fort Hood, said he was angry the US still had troops in the Middle East.
"He's made several comments about how we shouldn't be there," Col. Lee said.
He had heard Maj Hasan say: "Maybe the Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressors."
Yet, that somehow has no bearing on what Hasan did at Hood. None. To Newsweek. Or MSNBC. One ABC reporter even brought up how "one officer's wife told me, 'I wish his name was Smith,'" and this was noted again this morning by the network's Diane Sawyer.
Much more here.
Meanwhile, Obama's hometown affiliate gets on him for being a total shlub in addressing the tragedy. Oh, and too bad the guy wasn't really a Medal of Honor winner! I thought Obama was supposed to be keenly cerebral!
UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds has a whole bevy of updates on Hasan -- what he believed, what he did in the past, and testimony of some who know him.
Mis panas from Venezuela, Los Amigos Invisibles, won their first Latin Grammy last evening for Best Alternative Album.
Heartiest congrats, my friends!
From the AP:
President Barack Obama's economic recovery program saved 935 jobs at the Southwest Georgia Community Action Council, an impressive success story for the stimulus plan. Trouble is, only 508 people work there.
I believe that's also part of "the Chicago Way."
Via the AP:
Ousted President Manuel Zelaya is asking the Obama Administration to explain why, after pressing for his reinstatement, U.S. officials say they will recognize upcoming Honduran elections even if he isn't returned to power first.
In a letter sent to the U.S. State Department on Wednesday, Zelaya asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton "to clarify to the Honduran people if the position condemning the coup d'etat has been changed or modified."
His request came after Washington's top envoy to Latin America, Thomas Shannon, told CNN en Espanol that the U.S. will recognize the Nov. 29 elections even if the Honduran Congress decides against returning Zelaya to power.
The US couldn't very well say they wouldn't recognize fair elections even if Honduras refused to put Zelaya back in power, now, could they? That'd make their current [ridiculous] position look ultra-ludicrous.
... that's Dave Burris, by the way, at the new Dave Burris.com. Today he has an apt analysis of why Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman lost in New York district 23. And though Dave doesn't really explicitly mention it (but I know he agrees with it), Roger Simon does: Hoffman's social conservatism was ultimately his undoing (my emphasis):
In a year where the GOP racked up a 20% margin in Virginia and coasted easily in Jersey, a state in which Obama romped in ‘08 by 16%, what was the problem?
Well… I might as well say it… social conservatism. America is a fiscally conservative country – now perhaps more than ever, and with much justification – but not a socially conservative one. No, I don’t mean to say it’s socially liberal. It’s not. It’s socially laissez-faire (just as its mostly fiscally laissez-faire). Whether we’re pro-choice, pro-life or whatever we are, most of us want the government out of our bedrooms, just as we want it out of our wallets.
Hoffman’s capital-C Conservative campaign, however, tried to separate itself from the majority parties by making a big deal of the social issues. He was all upset that Scozzafava was pro-gay marriage, seemingly as upset as he was with her support for the stimulus plan. He projected the image of a bluenose in a world that increasingly doesn’t want to hear about these things. Hoffman’s is a selective vision of the nanny state – you can nanny about some things but not about others. I suspect America deeply dislikes nannying about anything.
There is, of course, a message in this for the Republican Party going forward. You can choose to emphasize the social issues or not. Today may show the former is a losing proposition.
And this is precisely why I consider myself more libertarian than conservative/Republican. If the GOP wants to be consistent, its message should be "government out of ALL aspects of our lives." Not just the money matters. Why does the GOP care about gay unions/"marriage"? Let the states decide whether to allow gay "marriage." (I've had myriad debates/discussions on this; I actually believe that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment should grant homosexuals all the benefits accorded traditional marriage. Since this amendment essentially applies rights to the states, states could not deny gays the applicable benefits. However -- and this is yet another topic which I've long debated -- states could decide whether the term "marriage" should be permitted for gay unions or not. Some have claimed this would be akin to "separate but equal," but I do not concur. Would have Maine, for instance, voted like this if the issue was gay civil unions and not "marriage?")
And abortion is another such issue. Conservatives pretty much already have the winning hand in that debate; most Americans, though desiring that abortion be a decision between just a woman and her doctor, also want stricter limits on the procedure. There's already a ban on "partial birth" abortions (which 70% of Americans wanted); why push the issue much further than that?
The answer to defeating Obama and his agenda is not to be as far right as he is to the left -- as is becoming more apparent each and every day.
MSNBC boasted that on election night they would present a "special live edition of Countdown" at 10:00 pm. But with bad news for the Democrats in Virginia and New Jersey, a funny thing happened on the way to the bonus Hour of Spin. Keith wasn't there! After a live update (not from Olby but from Lawrence O'Donnell) A-Mess-NBC ("the place for politics") proceeded to rerun the 8:00 pm showing.
Keith had obviously left the building. But why? Where in the world was Keith Olbermann?
Why? Just what you said above -- it wasn't a very good night for MSDNC's party of choice, that's why!
Oh, but it is:
During the 10AM ET hour of America’s Newsroom on Fox News Channel, fill-in co-host Martha Maccallum told viewers what President Obama watched on election night while Democrats suffered big losses in New Jersey and Virginia: “Robert Gibbs said, well, he was actually watching, you know, the HBO special about his year-long campaign and how it all went.” (Link.)
It's understandable that The Messiah wouldn't want to watch the Dems get beat in two blue states, but watching a show ... about yourself? Out of all the other things on? Like "V," for instance? Oh wait, that was about him!
Jonah Goldberg says that many of his readers have noted the similarity:
As many, many readers have noted the Visitors seem to share much of Barack Obama's agenda. We bring you free healthcare! We bring you hope and change! But in reality they're a bunch of thugs from Planet Chicago. The comparisons are pretty obvious. What surprised is that Hank Stuever sorta-kinda sees them too:
There are some twisted little microbes living in the algorithms of the television programming grid, which might explain the delicious scheduling of "V" and "By the People: The Election of Barack Obama" back-to-back on different networks Tuesday night. It's a nice night of hope, change and delayed ironies — if you watch both with a suspicious mind.
You can dive into the paranoid, things-are-not-at-all-what-they-seem world of "V," ABC's exciting new science-fiction drama, and then, after a quick potty break, hop over to "By the People," HBO's uplifting but stultifyingly naive, please-drink-a-little-more-Kool-Aid paean to the historical highlights of President Obama's campaign and election.
The telltale alien behavior is everywhere. In "V" (a remake of the early-1980s series), the otherworldly "visitors" want to bring us universal health care. They possess a knack for speechwriting and managing the message. In "By the People," well . . . same thing! It's all about happy people flying in from strange places, smiling at complicitly available TV cameras.
Sounds about right. I recall in the original series the Visitors held the cure for cancer (among other things) over our heads in return for fealty. That 1983 original had the aliens coming to Earth to cultivate us for food (the aliens were actually lizards) and to steal our water. (The latter makes zero sense as it'd be a LOT easier and cheaper to just snatch a few water-ice asteroids or comets and then melt 'em.) I recall reading that the "V" could have different meanings -- "Visitor" (the aliens) or "victory" (humans overcoming their would-be masters).
This new series' plot sounds (so far) a bit more plausible. The Visitors "have spent decades infiltrating human governments and businesses, and are now in the final stages of their plan to take over the planet." The pilot for the series has been very well-received.
The theme of "beneficient aliens coming to Earth" is one of the most time-honored in all scifi. One of my favorites novel of this genre is Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's End. In film, one of my faves involves less beneficient aliens who have infiltrated the planet and are slowly turning us into their "Third World" in "They Live."
Barack Obama's pastor and mentor Jeremiah Wright is back at it, this time praising "no-nonsense Marxism," and calling the US "land of the greed and home of the slave." The preacher went on praise the FMLN and FSLN, the El Salvador and Nicaragua communist revolutionary movements respectively.
Wright, Bill Ayers, Van Jones, Anita Dunn, Mark Lloyd, Jen Howard, Kevin Jennings ...
What will it take -- finally -- to make people realize just how freakin' left this current administration really is?
That would be our Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers.
First we have one of the saner crew there, pandora, writing about the many "factions" within the GOP, and supposedly how "crazy" it the party has become. Then, in the very next post there's the aptly named (but for the reasons you think) Unstable Isotope who titles her rant "I Still Say FU Lieberman."
Oh, so the GOP is being taken over by the fringe elements within its party (IOW it's not a "big tent"), yet just take a gander at these 'bats have treated one of their [former] own who had different views from the usual dogma. (The "best" stuff is around Lieberman's independent re-election campaign against Ned Lamont, et. al.)
Just still more of the nigh predictable crap from our First State Asylum.
From the Newsbusters e-mail tip line, which goes out to all contributors, not just me:
I am just in awe of youyr [sic] stupidity and narrowminded [sic] ignorance. Guess what? You lose as we, the majority of Americans, decide who is in the White House and we, the majority of the people are changing dramatically. You losers are a bunch of red neck [sic] idiots who no longer matter except to yourselves. You might have loud mouths but you are now outnumbered and you only get one vote. Do you know what that means? All those other people, with brown and black skin get to vote too and they, along with the educated majority of white Americans who are not bigots, have won and will continue to win. You are all so marginalized now that you will never again be in the positions of power. You are all a joke, a sad and dispicable [sic] joke. I am going to love to watch you squirm as the new demographics take over the old. Gays, blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and intelligent Caucasions [sic] now rule this nation and it is going to stay that way. There is no way you can change that with your extremism. We are middle America and we are leaving the Republican party in droves to become Independent. You can have the banner and we will have the power. It really doesn't matter what you thin [sic] and what you do. We have prevailed!
Oooh! Every molecule is quivering.
... it seems some members of the U.S. Senate objected to a Law Library of Congress report that largely supported the legality of Zelaya’s ouster. According to this report, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and Representative Howard Berman (D-CA) asked the Library of Congress to retract the report because it “contains factual errors and is based on a flawed legal analysis that has been refuted by experts from the United States, the Organization of American States and Honduras” and “has contributed to the political crisis” in Honduras. The Library of Congress stands by the report, however, and is preparing a response to Senator Kerry and Representative Berman.
If the two lawmakers belive the Law Library of Congress report is flawed, there are better responses than seeking a retraction. For one, they could demonstrate the report’s failings, perhaps by pointing to alternative analyses that are more persuasive. Perhaps, they could even encourage the State Department to release the memorandum written by Harold Koh supporting the U.S. government’s position that the removal of President Zelaya constituted an illegal coup.
Here we go again. The current crop of Democrats (especially the administration) -- whenever they do not like something -- instead of making their own case, the reaction is to shut up the opposition and/or denigrate them to the Nth degree. Obama vs. Fox News. Democrat backers of healthcare vs. town hall protesters/tea partiers. The House leadership vs. the GOP and the public on healthcare.
And so on.
And remember -- the administration still refers to the ouster of Zelaya as a "coup," even though it was most demonstrably not. Sort of like how the administration has said it will cease Bush-era terror policies (it hasn't), how the stimulus bill has led to jobs (a real knee-slapper, that) or saved jobs (a new entry into the muddled political lexicon), how the proposed healthcare won't add to the deficit (a falsehood beyond all reckoning), and how Medicare won't be cut (at the very least a pipe dream).
And so on.
Courtesy of The Trentonian (NJ): Obama haters to protest outside Burlco elementary today.
The "haters?" Parents who wanted to protest the school singing praises to Barack Obama. Agree with the parents or not (I personally wouldn't waste my time with a formal protest), how does that make them "Obama haters?" They just couldn't be against the school politicizing/indoctrinating kids, right?
First place in the Council category was Joshuapundit with J Street – A Particularly Nasty Dead End To Be Avoided.
First place in the non-Council category was JammieWearingFool with Why Is GE Exempt From Government-Ordered Pay Cuts?
Full results are here.