« August 2007 | Main | October 2007 »
It's Star Trek weekend at NRO, fellow Trek geeks! And, of course, the commentary has a certain political bent to it.
BTW, don't make too much fun of James Lileks for flubbing the name of the most popular old-school Trek episode ever. :-)
His error, however, is partially redeemed by this line:
[S]ome people only understand a photon torpedo up the dorsal vent port, and we’d best be prepared to deal with them.
Mychal Bell, the second youngest member of the Jena Six and the one who is most in the public eye because of the fact that he was erroneously tried as an adult for his alleged crimes, was released on bail yesterday.
But this post isn’t about him; it’s about you, American parents of children from nine to seventeen.
What I would humbly request is that you, American parents, sit your children down and point them toward the sites which give them knowledge about the turbulent history of race relations in this country. Sit them down and tell them how low black people were regarded up until the years in which America began to take the ideas and ideals of its Founding Fathers seriously.
It doesn’t matter what color, race or ethnic group you are, American parents; it doesn’t matter if your lineage extends back to the Mayflower or if your children are the first generation to have been born here, you need to do this. Because if you don’t, your children will be either victim or perpetrator of the type of actions perpetrated by the Jena Six or by those kids which may have provoked the actions of the Six. Why? Because that's what unguided children do; they look for reasons to divide and conquer.
Stop allowing you children to be ignorant. Teach them well or if you can’t, find someone else who can. Show them what America was and how this country which we love evolved into what it is today.
The education regarding America’s social history used to be the province of the public educators, but it isn’t anymore. You, American parents, have to take up that slack now. Don’t allow history to be forgotten and, as a result, allow America to revert to that other version which found it convenient to ignore its foundation.
Don’t let our country become an even uglier version of the America which used race to make its character judgments. You may think that, one way or the other, allowing your children to remain ignorant of this part of our past makes no difference. However, if you fail in this area, you’re ignoring the chance that your offspring can become purveyors of that old social trend of which Jena is merely a symptom. In your home, in front of your computer and at your local library, you can make a difference in your family. And, from there, your midgets can possibly make even more of a difference at his/her school. And from there…
Just stop handing off the factual and moral education of your children to those institutions and individuals which couldn't care less about optimizing that education. That’s all we—your fellow citizens—ask.
One of Ace of Spades' Polish fans sends a translation of this article from a Polish-language newspaper:
The former president writes to " old-fashioned racialists"Sweet. But Ace says that he can find no American news service which decided to carry this story. Neither can I. (Italy's Agenzia Giornalistica Italia isn't even carrying the story.) I wonder why that is. (Not really.)Rome,Italy - september
In protest against the invitation of the president of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University, former Italian president Francesco Cossiga gave back the title of the doctor Honoris Causa of this University. Senator Cossiga wrote that he was indignant organizing the lecture of the Iranian leader by the chancellor of UC , whose he called "a threatening neonazi and a Islamic terrorist".
The former Italian president reminded in the sharp letter to the rector of the University Columbia that Ahmadinejad expressed the thirst of the destruction of Israel.
"Regardfully for six millions of murdered Jews whose you - old-fashioned racialists, and today also advocates of Islamic terrorists - I, a Catholic, return the title granted to me of Honoris Cause and I burn the toga which you gave to me" - declared Cossiga.
His letter finished with words: "without respect -- Francesco Cossiga".
BTW, any alternate translations are welcome.
Maxine Waters--my representative--is among the 79; not exactly a surprise:
Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., founder [and chair] of the Out of Iraq Caucus, has said Democrats should resist basing decisions on military reports. Her side fears a withdrawal plan with no deadline will merely reaffirm the status quo.The foregoing was part of the Left's preemptive strike against the Petraeus/Crocker report.
(Thanks to Hot Air)
Honestly, If I Were Tavis Smiley, I Might Accuse Republicans of Racism Too!Not exactly a ringing endorsement for Smiley, but point taken. Jim Geraghty lists non-racial, practical reasons for the decisions of the Top Four.It's bogus, but can you blame him? He's about as objectionable as a moderator as, say, Chris Matthews, who moderated the first Republican debate of this cycle, at the Reagan Library!
Meanwhile, commenter Richard Cook and I are having a back-and-forth on the subject here.
...to the Renaissance Man.
J.C. Watts, former GOP congressman from Oklahoma and a black American, on the decision of the four front-running GOP candidates to skip Tavis Smiley's All American Presidential Forum, scheduled to be broadcast by PBS this Thursday.
"I think the best that comes out of stupid decisions like this," said former Oklahoma Rep. J.C. Watts, is "that African-Americans might say, 'Was it because of my skin color?' Now, maybe it wasn't, but African-Americans do say, 'It crossed my mind.'" [SNIP]The invitations were extended in March, but the front-runners have claimed scheduling conflicts. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who's weighing getting into the race, called that excuse "baloney" and called the no-shows "fundamentally wrong." On "Good Morning America" today, Gingrich said GOP candidates are making a mistake because "African-Americans have been hurt more by the failures of government" than any other group.
Watts pointed out that some of the candidates with more liberal histories on issues such as guns and abortion have reached out to conservative groups that don't share their views.
See Rudy Giuliani and the NRA.
"You kind of scratch your head thinking why are they making decisions like that?" Watts said. He speculated the candidates don't have any African-American staffers who "could say to them, 'You're making a huge mistake strategically by not at least reaching out and talking to this demographic.'"The last emphasized thought had occurred to me also the first time I talked about this subject. The second thought, however, was that, if these candidates were to attend this particular debate, the only reason to do so would be to stress what all Americans of any party have in common, rather than stressing the seemingly competing interests which are used to divide us into factions. It isn't necessary for the staffer to be a black American in order to clue his/her employer in on the benefits of at least trying to get such ideas across. If they are unwilling to put or incapable of putting forth such an effort, then why should any of us, regardless of color, vote for them?
Captain Ed is thinking more strategically than the Top Four are:
We have scolded the African-American community for its lock-step support for Democrats. However, as the avoidance of this debate demonstrates, Republicans haven't exactly beaten down doors in an attempt to engage these voters, either. [SNIP]
I don't think that the refusal to attend the PBS debate has to do with inherent racism, but rather a sense that no short-term benefit will arise from engaging blacks during the Republican primaries. It's an unfortunate calculation. We have messages of empowerment through free enterprise and market-based solutions for education that could resonate, if only our leadership would engage African-American voters early and often. It may not help elect a Republican president in 2008, but it could generate enough interest to replace J.C. Watts as our only black Congressman within ten years of his retirement.I emailed my previous post on the subject ("Just Showing Up is Half the Battle") to the Top Four. I'll let you know whether or not I've received a response.
AND ANOTHER THING: The four second-tier candidates who will be at the Forum--Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Mike Huckabee and even Ron Paul--aren't exacty Leftwing ideologues. One might argue that they have nothing to lose by doing so, but, exactly what would the Top Four have to lose by being there?
UPDATE: Sam Brownback will attend also. MORE: Oh yeah, and Alan Keyes. Can't wait to find out what he has to say about the topic.
UPDATE: You know, when I read a comment section like this one--on topic--at Huffington Post, I don't wonder why some Republicans give up and I do wonder why I bother.
Black Republicans = Jews for Hitler.....
What a joke....Uncle Tom's for Bush
Black republiCON=Uncle Tom
There should be no such thing as a black republiCON.
Anybody who clams to be one has ulterior motives and should be considered a suspect.
RepubliCON is the party of racism who fights AGAINST civil rights.
The few people of color they do have in the Gopers party are hardly worth the powder to blow them to hell.
Black Republicans? definition: self-deluding uppity morons, i.e., Supreme Court pervert-Justice Clarence Uncle Tom. You deserve the spit in your faces.
Black republicans see the republican KKK hat and believe it is the big tent they've heard so much about. How saddd.Then there's this mind-boggling ignorance of history:
reBushlican supporting African-Americans should not forget history. If it was left up to the Greedy Obnoxious People (GOP), Negro's would still be riding in the back of the bus.And, blessedly this island of sanity:
WHy is it that huffsters cheered the democratics all refusing to attend the debate cosponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus? But now you are attacking republicans for not attending a debate sponsored by a historically black college?I need a shower; I fell as though I've been visiting Stormfront's site.
In spite of Columbia President Lee Bollinger’s excellent preamble to Monday’s Columbia speech/Q&A by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it seems that Islamist Propaganda was the victor yesterday. From the Iran’s Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA):
Despite entire US media objections, negative propagation and hue and cry in recent days over IRI President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's scheduled address at Colombia University, he gave his lecture and answered students questions here on Monday afternoon.As mentioned before, Ahmadinejad used the proposed visit to Ground Zero to front as the confused, offended head-of state and the resulting outcry against the visit allowed him to appropriate the moral high ground against the “incomprehensibly rude” Americans. What he could not have counted on was Columbia’s invitation. This gave his government’s press the opportunity to whitewash the nature of the visit and to further elevate the “(Islamist) street cred” of the Holocaust Denier and Supplier of Weapons which kill and maim our troops in Iraq.On second day of his entry in New York, and amid standing ovation of the audience that had attended the hall where the Iranian President was to give his lecture as of early hours of the day, Ahmadinejad said that Iran is not going to attack any country in the world.
Before President Ahamadinejad's address, Colombia University Chancellor in a brief address told the audience that they would have the chance to hear Iran's stands as the Iranian President would put them forth.
He said that the Iranians are a peace loving nation, they hate war, and all types of aggression. [SNIP]
The audience on repeated occasion [sic] applauded Ahmadinejad when he touched on international crises.
Nice going, Columbia.
(Thanks to Protein Wisdom)
In Ramadi, Michael Totten interviews Lieutenant Colonel Mike Silverman of the 3rd ID, who is greatly admired by his men:
Junior officers and enlisted men nicknamed him “the forty pound brainer,” and admire him for his guts as well as his head. “He went out and spent 12 hours a day in his hot tank,” during the battle of Ramadi one soldier said. “He risked getting blown up just like everyone else.” “I had served with him before,” said another. “When he told me he needed me in Ramadi, that was all I needed to hear. I mean, I didn’t have any choice because the Army gave me my orders, but that didn’t matter once I knew Colonel Silverman was out here.” “I’d do anything for that man,” said a third, “and I don’t like officers.”Here's an illuminating exchange:
“Do you ever meet anyone you suspect was an insurgent?” I said.Read the rest.“Yes,” he said. “I think some of the guys in the 2nd PSF battalion were insurgents, mostly nationalists who got tired of Al Qaeda. Some were Baathists or belonged to the 1920s Brigade. Al Qaeda started killing them off so they switched sides. One PSF guy in particular knows a little too much about taking IEDs apart. He knows exactly how to dismantle these things, as if he built them himself. I asked him how he knows so much and he said he used to be a TV repair man.” He laughed and shrugged. “But, hey, he’s on our side now. We call him the TV Repair Man and don’t worry too much about it.”
“Did the average Iraqi here switch sides or were most of them always against Al Qaeda?” I said.
“The average Iraqi post-Fallujah was not very happy with us being here,” he said. “If the insurgency only attacked Americans, the people of Ramadi would not have been very upset. But Al Qaeda infiltrated and took over the insurgency. They massively overplayed their hand. They cut off citizens’ heads with kitchen knives. The locals slowly learned that the propaganda about us were lies, and that Al Qaeda was their real enemy. They figured out by having dinner and tea with us that we really are, honest to God, here to help them.”
UPDATE: Columbia President Lee Bollinger is actually laying into Ahmadinejad pretty effectively--"Frankly, I doubt you have the intellectual courage, Mr. President, to answer any of these questions."
UPDATE: I'm not sure whether it's the annoying voice of the translator or the speech itself, but Ahmadinejad's response sound like so much gibberish.
UPDATE: An Islamist singing the praises of science. Now I've seen everything. You know of course, he's talking about the theft of science, not the scientific method.
UPDATE: Now we come down to it...Israel...the Holocaust "from different perspectives," meaning the perspectives of those who contend that it never happened...
"Why should the Palestinians suffer for the Holocaust?"
UPDATE: "Why can't we have nukes? Why won't you give us the means to get them? Why won't you give us spare parts?" If you are so smart, make them yourselves.
UPDATE: Q: "Do you seek the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state?" Asked twice. Ahmadinejad provides a flurry of words, but no definitive answer.
UPDATE: Q: "Will you stop aiding terrorists?" A: "The Iranian nation is a victim of terrorism."
UPDATE: Q: "Why do we need more research into the Holocaust?" A: "We must allow research to investigate everything." The president isn't happy.
UPDATE: "Nothing is absolute." Facts are, Mr. Academic Iranian President.
UPDATE: Question on persecution/execution of women and homosexuals; Ahmadinejad totally distorts the nature of the question by casting it as a comparison of countries with capital punishment; but the interlocutor brings him back in focus.
Ahmadinejad: "We don't have homosexuals in our country," greeted by laughter and a few boos.
UPDATE: "What did you hope to accomplish by speaking here and what did you want to accomplish by visiting Ground Zero?" Turns out that A wanted to visit GZ during his last visit. "I just wanted to show me respect." Remember what I said about that.
UPDATE: "Root causes of 9/11"--sounds like a Truther.
UPDATE: Q: Nukes; A: "If you have them, why can we? But, we really don't want them."
UPDATE: Iran has "solutions based on humane values": "We want to talk!"
UPDATE: "Come to Iran, faculty and students of Columbia!"
UPDATE: A. thanks Columbia.
Applause and a few boos.
Are you a fat chick? Yeah, well, I am too (a little bit; thirty pounds gone and I'll be the shizam).
But just because you're fat doesn't mean that you can't pick up your feet when you walk.
:swish: :swish: :swish:
If you're fat and you drag your feet, I might peg you as lazy. But, if I'm feeling generous, I may be inclined to give you--fat person--the benefit of the doubt; perhaps you have a hard time lifting your legs up far enough to prevent scraping the surface on which you're walking. But, check this out: picking up your feet when you walk might cause you to lose a couple of pounds.
However, if you're skinny and you drag your feet, you will, unfailingly, cause me to target you as lazy on sight; or, rather, upon hearing.
Either way, whenever I hear the sound of dragging feet, my mind says "lazy woman; not working."
Watch this! There is no preview which I could give in order to do this video justice, but trust me. You won't be sorry to have viewed it.
(Thanks to Ace of Spades HQ)
Last month, Britney Spears got busted for hit-and-run and driving without a valid license.
According to prosecutors, on Aug. 6 Spears struck a vehicle in a parking lot at 12800 Ventura Blvd. in Studio City, then drove away.You know and I know that that girl was baked. Most perpetrators of hit-and-run are and this is Britney we’re talking about here."The incident was captured on videotape," said Nick Velasquez, a spokesman for the Los Angeles city attorney's office. [SNIP]
In a video of the incident, Spears' Mercedes-Benz convertible is seen grazing a Mercedes station wagon as the pop singer attempts to steer into an empty space. The video seems to show a small dog on Spears' lap. Afterward, Spears is seen apparently inspecting the vehicles.
“So what,” I hear you say. Well here’s what: when Britney or Paris or Nicole or Lindsay kills someone else’s child or someone’s grandparent while engaging in yet another iteration of insufficiently-punished sociopathic behavior, the relatives of those murdered persons will indeed care. And they will not give a rat’s backside that these “women” are famous and/or “attractive.” And, as is the case when other types of offenders repeat their crimes, the relatives will wonder what these creatures were doing free in the first place.
Mindless “starlets” following the well-worn (pun intended) path of narcissistic bimbos everywhere are making the streets unsafe. (One might call this contemporary way of life the Monroe Doctrine, but at least Monroe seemed to be a danger only to herself.)
Between the various classes of inebriated drivers—the bimbos and the illegal immigrants, both of whom seem to be free to offend over and over again--and the just plain reckless variety, (can you say “cell phone?”), driving in LA is a daily exercise in avoidance.
(Aside: How bad is it in LA? I got cut off by the LAPD the other day! No emergency lights and no signal; I managed not to hit him though, since he spotted my in his mirror and swerved back into his own lane. Unfortunate; I could use a new car.)
It’s harder to find the illegals, but Britney and her ilk are easily found. When will LA’s legal authorities stop putting up with these menaces? I am sick of these bleach-headed [expletive deleted]. Throw the book at Spears, LA prosecutors. Make an example of her before she kills someone—perhaps her one of her own children.
As I mentioned a couple of days ago, I had planned to address the fact that Republican presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mitt Romney planned to skip the Republican Presidential Forum which will be held at historically-black Morgan State University--due to "scheduling conflicts." (The Forum is an episode of Tavis Smiley's All American Presidential Forum and is to be broadcast via PBS on September 27.) But, as most bloggers know, when you snooze you lose and someone will end up hitting every point that you planned to address, as fellow Conservative Brotherhood members D.C Thornton and Michael "Cobb" Bowen have done on this subject. Therefore my only recourse is to say, "what they said" and highlight points of agreement. DC and Cobb suspect that the conflicts mentioned have nothing to do with scheduling, but with, shall we say, the apprehension that the candidates may feel in addressing an audience, whose majority holds a different political ideology. I suspect this as well.
D.C. Thornton:
I agree with Newt Gingrich, Michael Steele, and others who expressed grave disappointment at the top tier candidates declining to attend. Whether they had legitimate scheduling conflicts or just simply felt that participating in a heavily biased, agenda-driven forum would be a waste of their time is already being discussed, debated, or maligned by pundits everywhere.
Just as I took black Republican no-shows to the 2006 State of the Black Union (another CWBA [Covenant with Black America] themed event) to task, I’m doing the same for the Top 4 — especially Fred Thompson, whom I support for the presidential nomination: Show up anyway.
Yes, you’re damned if you do (and of course damned if you don’t), but you’ll earn a lot more respect from those who may not necessarily agree with you. Some may even open their minds and consider your plans and proposals for the future. And just maybe some of those who consider your arguments may come over to your side, lend you their support, and even cast a vote for you.Cobb, in an open letter to Fred Thompson:
I am disappointed having received some indication that you may have declined to speak at a debate to be held at Morgan State University. While candidates of your distinction must often refute the false claims of open enemies as well as advocate those causes of their dedicated supporters. So too, must candidates, and more importantly true leaders, not be daunted by circumstances in which the true intentions of their interlocutors are murky. The prospect of wading through the fog of racial symbolism is such a cloudy circumstance. In the decision surrounding the path taken through known territory and unknown territory, leadership can be determined in a moment. Such a moment has presented itself as an obstacle whether you like it or not. [SNIP]
[W]e are often met on such rhetorical battlefields testing whether we have the stomach, and the presence of mind to at the very least say the right thing and encourage Americans to do the right thing. We cannot wish such political conflict away, and the courageous and righteous among us cannot ignore it. I don't like being a 'black Republican' because I have to fight stereotypes every day. You may not like being a 'white Republican' for similar reasons. When somebody calls you a liar, tell the truth.To paraphrase John McCain himself: If a prospective Commander-in-Chief is afraid to address his/her political opponents, how will he/she deal with adversaries who want to kill all of us?
(Thanks to Booker Rising; please go over there for a rousing discussion of the topic; scroll down)
Just when I think that black Americans are beginning to stop making excuses for the knuckleheads in our number, the Jena Six controversy sparks an old school protest rally.
Instapunk—who was kind enough to give me a different kind of Instalanche--has an excellent summation of the Jena Six controversy and how it relates to Jesse Jackson’s alleged comment that 2008 presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) has reacted to it in a, shall we say, an insufficiently melanin-infused manner.
This is no Rosa Parks moment.No; in spite of the way in which Jackson and that other perennially-outraged media whore, Al Sharpton, have been rather successful at portraying events—with the assistance of Big Media, who correctly dubbed yesterday’s protest in Jena as reminiscent of the 50’s and 60s. Yes, correctly. The protests did indeed recall that time. The comparative moral authority between the cause of 45-50 years ago and that of the Jena Six, however, marks the place where the analogies fall flat.
As Instapunk says, we’re getting at microscopic view into a throwback type of culture that apparently and unfortunately still exists in the town of Jena, LA (pop. 4000); a town that is 85% white. It’s not merely the racial nature of the incidents which conjures the South of a generation and a half ago, but the behavior of the white educational and legal authorities. But, the controversy has a decidedly contemporary flavor to it as well. In this episode of racialist misbehavior, both the black and white students are guilty of stirring up animosities, street-gang style, something which was not a factor in the last days of power for the Old South. And, there are these factors on the black side of the equation. Jason Whitlock:
No one mentions that Mychal Bell's [a juvenile at time of the incident in which six black students beat up a lone white student, he’s the second youngest member of the Jena Six] clueless public defender [who called no witnesses in his defense] was black. No one mentions that there were no black jurors because of the 50 people who responded to the more than 100 summons, none were black. No one mentions that Bell was already on probation for battery relating to a Christmas day incident in 2005. No one mentions that Bell was adjudicated (convicted) of two other violent crimes in 2006 and one charge of criminal damage to property. No one mentions that Bell's father acknowledged he moved back to Louisiana in February (after seven years in Dallas) to supervise his son because of the "Jena Six" mess. No one mentions that Bell starred on the Jena High football team while constantly jeopardizing/violating his seemingly flimsy probation.Bell was tried as an adult and convicted of aggravated
In short, a schoolyard beef with racial overtones spilled over onto the town and, instead of the adults (the white school officials, the white legal authorities, the black could-have-been jurors and the black and white parents) smothering it in its infancy by coming down hard on all of the juveniles, said adults abdicated their duties.
We have all of the emotional responses of children represented here: the school board overruling the expulsion of the white students who drew first blood by displaying nooses to intimidate the black students; Jena's white district attorney threatening to "end lives with a stroke of a pen"; the white parental failure to explain what nooses mean with respect to recent history; the black parents (Bell's) failing to have any input into the lives of their children or to reign in the wayward among them; the black citizens failing to live up to their civic responsibilities, and who, as a result of their own failure, became angry when they had no voice in the fate of the Jena six; and that same DA asserting that a shoe is a deadly weapon in order to (unsuccessfully) push the attempted murder charge.
As yet, no individual/group of individuals from that town has stepped up to be the grown-up in this mess, with the possibly exception of Bell's father, albeit belatedly.
And into this bubbling cauldron of trifling adults step Jackson and Sharpton to stir more feces--inciting others to screech in assent; asserting rights while ignoring responsibilities.
Jackson, never one to bypass an opportunity for demagoguery, uses the flap to take a shot at Barack Obama—who’s real crime in Jackson’s eyes is that he has a more serious chance at becoming POTUS than Jackson ever did in his two runs for the office. (Obama’s other “crime” is that he is half-white.)
Jackson sharply criticized presidential hopeful and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for “acting like he’s white” in what Jackson said has been a tepid response to six black juveniles’ arrest on attempted-murder charges in Jena, La. Jackson, who also lives in Illinois, endorsed Obama in March, according to The Associated Press.(Interestingly enough, Jackson’s son, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. [D-IL]) is Obama’s national campaign chairman who, according to Obama, helped to craft the senator’s response to Jena. Tasty.)“If I were a candidate, I’d be all over Jena,” Jackson said after an hour-long speech at Columbia’s [SC] historically black Benedict College. [SNIP]
Later, Jackson said he did not recall making the “acting like he’s white” comment about Obama, stressing he only wanted to point out the candidates had not seized on an opportunity to highlight the disproportionate criminal punishments black youths too often face.
Instapunk:
If Obama takes the bait being dangled before him by Sharpton and Jackson and charges into the fray like an outraged civil rights leader of old, he will cease to be what he has seemed thus far too many middle-of-the-road voters, a presidential candidate who is an American first and a black man second. This would be a fatal shift in perception. It's not that Americans can't understand the rationale for black first, American second. They can and most likely do. It's that they probably won't elect a President of the United States who puts 13 percent of the population above the other 87 percent in his priorities.Though I think that the African/African-American [sic] "controversy" is of the ginned-up variety, my kinsman finds himself between the rock and the hard place, indeed. That’s not my concern, however, since I’ve never intended to vote for him. What is of concern is how the victim culture remains alive and well among too many black Americans, rumors of its death with regard to OJ’s recent self-inflicted tribulations notwithstanding. What is of concern is how the legal system remains weighed against those with less power or money. And what is of concern is how those of lesser power refuse to do the lower-profile, more labor-intensive work of wielding what actual power they do possess—in their own families and in their communities--but when the national media come calling, they’re ready for their close-up. As for Jesse, he's just being himself.On the other hand, if Obama tries to distance himself from the most extreme rhetoric of the Sharptons et al, he will risk losing the reflexive black vote that constitutes the most monolithically reliable bloc of the Democrat Party. The "not black enough" charge has always been out there waiting, whether or not Jesse Jackson actually voiced it in so many words. What Obama can't overcome without the active support of traditional African-American leadership is that he is not really an African-American. He is, by accident of birth, half-African, and first-generation at that.
There are no Good Guys among Jena's wayward citizens. And neither Obama nor Jesse will make a dent in this state of affairs. They haven't the power.
(Thanks to Hot Air)
UPDATE: Bell, whose conviction was thrown out, has been denied bail because of his prior record.
[Louisiana 28th Judicial District Court Judge J.P.] Mauffray had cited Bell's criminal record, which included juvenile arrests for battery and damage to property, in setting the bail.
Okay, not really.
An MIT student with a fake bomb strapped to her chest was arrested at gunpoint Friday at Logan International Airport and later claimed it was artwork, officials said.The fake belt was alleged to be a "piece of art." Somehow, the phrase "riddled with holes" comes to mind. Simpson is electrical engineering and computer science major at MIT(!) Does that course of study include causality studies? Ballistics Science? If so, I'm guessing that Star slept in on those days.Star Simpson, 19, had a computer circuit board and wiring in plain view over a black hooded sweat shirt she was wearing, said State Police Maj. Scott Pare, the commanding officer at the airport. [SNIP]
Simpson was charged with disturbing the peace and possessing a hoax device.
She pleaded not guilty to a charge of possessing a hoax device at her arraignment in East Boston District Court Friday afternoon. She was released on $750 bail and ordered to stay away from Logan Airport. [SNIP]
Simpson was "extremely lucky she followed the instructions or deadly force would have been used," Pare said. "She's lucky to be in a cell as opposed to the morgue."
The most recent report from the Islamic Republic News Agency still says Ahmadinejad is going to defile Ground Zero.Keeping the idea of a visit to Ground Zero in the minds of his viewing public back home is a win-win situation for Ahmadinejad. If he goes, he looks good to them; if he is blocked from going, he has made the American public seem "unwelcoming"--which is the reality of the situation, pretty much. However, those who would be inclined to "welcome" Ahmadinejad to the site of the Biggest Islamist Victory don't much care on way or the other, just as long as he is physically unable to reach the site. NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg contends, however, that Ahmadinejad “[is] not going downtown.”
Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad's date with Columbia University is still on, but Bloomberg won't be attending. The NYC mayor mentions and condemns last year’s Jim Gilchrist incident, during which Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project and an invited speaker to the university, was forced from the stage via threat of bodily harm. In other words, it was a riot.
I suspect that the Iranian president won’t have to worry about such an occurrence, which is fine. But I wish that the majority of academia would stop pretending that it reason for being is to imbue its charges with the love of actual free speech. Even if such were true I’d say that the endeavor is a miserable failure.
"Never mind."
The expressed intention of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit the place at which NYC’s World Trade Center Twin Towers once stood has fueled yet another grassroots movement to block his path to the site. Yesterday’s and today’s reports on the matter have a tennis game feel to them. NYC Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly’s announcement regarding the “negotiations” for the visit seemed casual, but it’s obvious that he wanted his charges—and the public--to know what was in the works. Both responded as could be expected: the NYPD refused to have anything to do with the visit and, when Ahmadinejad said that he would go to the site anyway, the public girded its loins for battle.
Today, the Iranian president seems bemused by the fuss. After all, what could the American public have against a head of state paying his respects to nineteen of the dead?
Of course we know that Ahmadinejad was just testing us, don’t we? Not the president, not the Secret Service—the latter of which is duty- and honor-bound to protect any head of state who visits these shores—but us. Ahmadinejad wanted to see whether We, the People were weak-willed enough to let a representative of a nation-state sponsor of terror get near enough to the site to pose for photos which would have been splashed across Islamist websites faster than you can say ‘propaganda.’ He wanted to see whether we would let him figuratively urinate on the ashes of our dead.
So, now he’s backing down in feigned puzzlement. The ploy seems typical of a mindset that was raised to believe in the honor-shame method of political maneuvering.
I’m sure, however, that there will be a few hundred Americans souls down at Ground Zero on Monday—just in case Ahmadinejad changes his mind. Again.
Woman, you are out of your mind:
What was different in our case was the brand new and bruising power of the conservative blogosphere, particularly the extremists among them. They formed a tightly knit community of keyboard assault artists who saw themselves as avenging angels of the right, determined to root out and decimate anything they believed to be disruptive to their worldview.To put it politely as possibly, Ms. Mapes, every word of this is pure, unadulterated Bravo Sierra--especially the emphasized sections--and the rest of it is as well.To them, the fact that the president wimped out on his National Guard duty during the Vietnam War -- and then covered it up -- was no big deal.
And we showed for the first time a cache of documents allegedly written by Bush's former commander. The documents supported a mountain of other evidence that young Bush had dodged his duty and not been punished. They did not in any way diverge from the information in the sketchy pieces of the president's official record made available by the White House or the National Guard. In fact, to the few people who had gone to the trouble of examining the Bush record, these papers filled in some of the blanks.
We reported that since these documents were copies, not originals, they could not be fully authenticated, at least not in the legal sense. They could not be subjected to tests to determine the age of the paper or the ink. We did get corroboration on the content and support from a couple of longtime document analysts saying they saw nothing indicating that the memos were not real.
But should we really be surprised when the delusional--like Rather and Mapes--want to open up their own old wounds? Mapes and Rather are engaged in legal and rhetorical forms of self-mutilation.
(Thanks to Hot Air)
I said that my O.J. missive would be short, but it isn’t. Please don’t hate me for it, as there may be something in this longish missive that’s of use.
*****
Open Comment to O.J. Simpson: Dude. From the time that you escaped being convicted of murdering your second ex-wife and Ron Goldman, folks have been looking for reason to hem your idiotic, narcissistic behind up again. Why would you produce another legitimate reason?
*****
During the thick of the Trail of the (20th) Century, I opined to another black person that Simpson was probably guilty; that if he didn’t do it alone, he had some assistance—perhaps one or two more able-bodied individuals who were able to immobilize the young and agile Brown and Goldman while Simpson himself administered the lethal—and personal--injuries to the two. Well, why did I do that? I got called every Oreo, Aunt Jemima, etc. in the book for my trouble. (Since I’ve become a Republican, this has become a more frequent occurrence and, therefore, far more of a yawner.) Back then, the Simpson acquittal was viewed as a symbol of victory for all of the black persons who had unjustly been subject to either formal or vigilante justice during the dozens of decades preceding the Civil Rights Movement and even beyond—at least by some black Americans.
Therefore, I came to understand—if not condone—the reaction to my honest appraisal of the situation. After that lone reaction, I kept my mouth shut about the situation unless in the presence of trusted company--usually my mom and my American dad. (I’ve mentioned before that Mom and Dad were personal-responsibility, CWBs--Conservative While Black--Republicans before it was “cool,” back in the 1980s—a number of years before I converted.)
In the last twelve years, things have greatly changed with regard to the black American appraisal of Simpson’s character. More and more are willing to admit openly that he probably orchestrated the Brown/Goldman murders or committed them himself (legally and morally the same thing). More and more have been willing to openly say that they were wrong for sticking up for Simpson.
Now, as Simpson again shows that he operates by his own standard of (a)morality, those who were willing to give him the benefit of the “doubt” last time are abandoning him to his self-authored fate. A person who understood how he was universally viewed—and who was actually innocent of the murders for which he was accused—would have known better not to take the law into his own hands (assuming that his contention is true.)
But Simpson doesn’t understand this, and as the professionals who have weighed in on the summation of his personality (disorder) have expressed, there is no way that he could have.
There are people out there who believe that all persons of African descent are genetically prone to malfeasance and even if notable civil rights organizations such as the NAACP would “hold a public burial” of excuse-making for the proven criminals among us, for example—said people wouldn’t change their minds. This isn’t about those who believe in our innate criminality (and inferiority); it’s about asserting the opposite for the benefit of ourselves.
O.J. Simpson is a sociopath of the first order. That he is a black version of same got him acquitted of murder. That most blacks—even those who defended him last time—are abandoning him this time, speaks of hope—a hope that more and more black people will begin to judge the psychopaths among our number by the non-existent content of their character.
Before I had to take care of some out-of-house business this morning (picking up my bifocals), I happened to catch this part of President Bush’s press conference.
Q What is your reaction to the MoveOn.org ad that mocked General Petraeus as General "Betrayus," and said that he cooked the books on Iraq? And secondly, would you like to see Democrats, including presidential candidates, repudiate that ad?
THE PRESIDENT: I thought the ad was disgusting. I felt like the ad was an attack not only on General Petraeus, but on the U.S. military. And I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democrat Party spoke out strongly against that kind of ad. And that leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org -- or more afraid of irritating them than they are of irritating the United States military. That was a sorry deal. It's one thing to attack me; it's another thing to attack somebody like General Petraeus.(Emphasis mine.)
The adjective 'most' might be a stretch on the president's part, but 'how many' is a less important question than 'who.'
I had wondered what had caused the questioner to bring up the “Betray Us” incident again. When I returned home, however, I found out that Senators Clinton and Reid, the front-runner for the 2008 Democrat Presidential nomination and the Senate Majority Leader, respectively, both voted against a resolution
To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.The resolution passed 72-25-3. (Democrat presidential candidates Obama and Biden were among the three not voting.) Says Allahpundit to Senator Clinton, “They own you now."
The Mother of All Sit-Ins may be on again.
A law enforcement source says the Iranian mission to the United Nations has informed the Secret Service that the Iranian president intends to visit Ground Zero Monday at 10 a.m.President Bush saysThe source says regardless of the NYPD's rejection of the request for a Ground Zero tour, Iran's president and his entourage will be accompanied by a Secret Service protective detail, a detail provided to all heads of state when they visit the United States.
Former NYC Mayor and 2008 presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani:
"Under no circumstances should the NYPD or any other American authority assist President Ahmadinejad in visiting Ground Zero. This is a man who has made threats against America and Israel, is harboring bin Laden's son and other al-Qaeda leaders, is shipping arms to Iraqi insurgents and is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. Assisting Ahmadinejad in touring Ground Zero - hallowed ground for all Americans - is outrageous."PREVIOUSLY: Defiling Sacred Ground
Rightwing bloggers are eagerly anticipating this legal proceeding--including yours truly.
Dan Rather, whose career at CBS News ground to an inglorious end 15 months ago over his role in an unsubstantiated report questioning President Bush’s Vietnam-era National Guard service, filed a lawsuit this afternoon against the network, its corporate parent and three of his former superiors.Rather is seeking $70 million in damages and names the CBS/Viacom top executives and the former president of CBS News as the respondents.Mr. Rather, 75, asserts that the network violated his contract by giving him insufficient airtime on “60 Minutes” after forcing him to step down as anchor of the “CBS Evening News” in March 2005. He also contends that the network committed fraud by commissioning a “biased” and incomplete investigation of the flawed Guard broadcast and, in the process, “seriously damaged his reputation.”
In light of CBS News anchor Katie Couric's sky-high salary, of the payout--and rehiring--of Don Imus and of CBS's abyssmal ratings , I have only one question: is CBS even good for $70 million?
Before I get into the previously mentioned subjects, I'd just like to say that this is a Really Bad Idea.
In a move that has stunned New York, the Bloomberg administration is in discussions to escort the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to ground zero during his visit to New York next week, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said today.Should the visit come to pass, one could expect the Mother of All Sit-ins to block the Iranian president's access to the site; a protest action composed of not only 9/11 survivors, friends/relatives of the fallen, otherwise outraged citizens and probably not a few politicians, but scores of Persians/Persian-Americans who have taken refuge in the US in the past thirty years in order to escape the persecution of the Mullahs whose tune to which Ahmadinejad dances.The Iranian mission to the U.N. made the request to the New York City Police Department and the Secret Service, which will jointly oversee security during the leader's two-day visit. Mr. Ahmadinejad is scheduled to arrive September 24 to speak to the U.N. General Assembly as the Security Council decides whether to increase sanctions against his country for its uranium enrichment program.
Have your token UN visit...Mr. President...then MoveOntm back to Tehran.
(Thanks to Memeorandum)
UPDATE: Charles Johnson says--according to WCBS Radio 880--that the NYPD ain't havin' it. (It appears that the WCBS site is down--for obvious reasons.) I guess Commissioner Kelly had a word or two with NYC Mayor Bloomberg.
Darn. I would have loved to take a trip to New York.
UPDATE: Ahmadinejad will speak at Columbia University after his appearance before the UN General Assembly. From Columbia President Lee Bollinger:
In order to have such a University-wide forum, we have insisted that a number of conditions be met, first and foremost that President Ahmadinejad agree to divide his time evenly between delivering remarks and responding to audience questions. I also wanted to be sure the Iranians understood that I would myself introduce the event with a series of sharp challenges to the President on issues including:Last year, Columbia issued an earlier invitation for the Iranian president to speak, but rescinded it in the wake of a public outcry similar to the response that greeted the proposed Ground Zero visit.·the Iranian President’s denial of the Holocaust;
·his public call for the destruction of the state of Israel;
·his reported support for international terrorism that targets innocent civilians and American troops;
·Iran's pursuit of nuclear ambitions in opposition to international sanction;
·his government's widely documented suppression of civil society and particularly of women's rights; and
·his government's imprisoning of journalists and scholars, including one of Columbia’s own alumni,
Dr. Kian Tajbakhsh.
Well that was fun, though my nervousness became apparent during the discussion on the All American Presidential Forum. I froze up a bit (plus I was insufficiently caffeinated). Click here to listen.
One of the benefits of having to prepare for the segment was that I was forced to read up on the scheduled topics: the Forum, the Blackwater incident and, unfortunately, O.J. Simpson’s latest collision with the criminal justice system. Since the NPR segment is a mere fourteen minutes long and designed to include short opinions from three people, I will put my extended thoughts on the subjects directly. Don’t worry. My O.J. opining will be mercifully short.
Recent Comments