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.
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.
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."
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 says
The 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
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.
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.
Sorry for the silence, but I have some things in the hopper. Have to do a little research and go out and take a few photos.
Additionally, be on the look out tomorrow at the Bloggers' Roundtable: Politics and Pop Culture, a feature of NPR’s News & Notes. You might hear a certain voice therein. (Be gentle with me; it’s my first time.)
In the meantime here’s some interesting reading:
--First Sergeant Jeff Nuding (NYANG) to his US Senators.
GOP candidates Giuliani, Thompson, Romney and McCain decline to participate in the September 27th Republican Presidential Forum--an episode of the Covenant with Black America-sponsored All-American Presidential Forums on PBS. Some black liberal Democrat bloggers are calling it a snub.
The taser incident rounded up by Michelle Malkin.
The King of Castle Arrghh!!! swoops in to rescue his Queen from an Army of anti-Warriors! Or something like that.
A Swedish cartoonist recalls the spirit of his Viking ancestors.
A North Florida Federal prosecutor “carrying a Dora the Explorer doll, hoop earrings and petroleum jelly” is arrested in Detroit as he attempts to introduce himself. To a five-year-old girl. In order to have sex with her. :::barf::: What is it with these perverted politicians? Millstone. And, yes, it’s another Republican. (Thanks to TalkLeft)
And a Muslim receives love, healing and prayers—from Christians.
...my "alma mater."
"Hello. Who's this?"
BZZTTT!!! Wrong question. This sort of telephone initial inquisition irritates me to no end.
I come by this pet peeve honestly. Any guy who called to speak to me or to one of my sisters and who didn't something like "Hello, Mrs.___/Ma'am. This is ___. May I speak to Juliette/T./S.?" when my mom picked up the phone was guaranteed to be on her feces list until later redeemed--if at all.
The telephone rule specifies that one should put forth the old skool niceties and, after that, get down to the business at hand. Then--and only then--is a caller deserving of the reciprocal niceties and, subsequently, deserving to speak to the individual desired. There are no exceptions--business or personal.
Some years ago, my stance on telephone etiquette served to give up a bit of amusement. An errant SO of a man friend of mine decided to ring me up.
"Hello, who are you?"
Me: "Um, who would you like to speak to?"
"I want to speak to you. What's your name." Arrogantly asked.
She never got my name and the upshot is that she wanted to know whether I was doing the deed with her boyfriend. The answer was truthfully 'no,' but I had fun before I gave up the answer--simply because of her violation of my telephone rule.
Even those who dial the wrong number must follow the rule.
As an aside from this personal pet peeve, I found out a number of years ago that there are some people who get a kick out of harassing senior citizens on the phone. A person who had originally dialed the wrong number to my great-aunt's exchange decided to harass her for a few weeks after the first call. Fortunately, this creature decided to call on an occasion when I was present and my aunt put me on the phone. After the caller and I came to a "mutual understanding," she decided that it was best to not call my aunt anymore.
Recently, my Kenyan father was unfortunate enough to get a real-life demonstration of the axiom that “no good deed goes unpunished.” Philip Ochieng:
We were crawling towards home when a man — who turned out to be totally drunk — suddenly zoomed into the street and knocked himself against my car. I do not say this to cast the first stone. Alcohol incapacitates even the most aristocratic of us.
So my first impulse was to rush him to a hospital. While he was being dressed (at my expense), I sent for my own crutches — we had obtained a pair when one of us fractured a leg a few years ago — and gave them to him.
Made a damning report
The next day I insisted that he be X-rayed and again paid for it. A bone was found broken. Meanwhile, we drove to the police station to record the problem — only to find that our friend’s relatives had already been there and made a damning report against us.
Their story to the police was that we had been driving carelessly and caused the accident. I don’t drive and, at least while I am around, my driver knows better than to speed, especially in the middle of a busy town like Kikuyu.
But when we rolled into the police station, my car was immediately impounded, making me immobile for three days. Why? Because, said the police, they needed to inspect the contraption — presumably because they had swallowed the yarn spun by our friend’s family.
Eventually the inspection yielded a puny little fault around a front light. Although the possibility of a faulty light causing an accident at noon seemed to me remote, I knew that it was impolite to pose such a question at a police station.
So when an officer informed me that I must “deposit” Sh3,000 [KES; roughly equivalent to $45 USD, but remember we’re talking about a different standard of living] in “bond” pending a court case, it wouldn’t have occurred to me to contest it either.
Why should I? Being a law-abiding citizen, I know the law like the back of my hand.
And I didn’t need to be Habakkuk or Amos to know that the magistrate would find my driver guilty of something and fine him.
Spending it on a good cause
I didn’t need to be Isaiah or Malachi to know the exact the figure — the very same Sh3,000 I had deposited.
But parting with Sh3,000 for a crime you did not commit is not the thing about it. For — from the theory book — I knew that the money would end up in the Treasury, where [Kenyan MP] Amos Kimunya would give it (legal) tender care before spending it on a good public cause.
Much more interesting was that our friend of the “accident” was not finished with us. We have since received a phone call from him demanding Sh30,000 from us to defray the costs of his hospitalisation and treatment.
In Kenya, when you voluntarily help a man out of a situation of his own making, what you get for it is not a “thank you” but a bid, by trickery, to turn your help into a fountain of cash.
And you thought we were saddled with a “Culture of Corruption!” Normally, I would have judged the drunkard to be a victim of misfortune also in that he and his family attempted to blackmail someone possessing such a public platform. But, of course, it matters not one little bit; the family in question probably can't read anyway and the essay reads as though all--great and small--are required to grease palms when caught in the type of trap which my father found himself in.
Though my father frames this series of incidents in the backdrop of a general perception of Kenyan societal perfidy, Kenyans, of course, are no more crooked than those of any other nationality. Certainly, the US has a large number of free-enterprise criminals and lawsuit-happy swindlers looking for the big payoff; and, of course, it has had its share of shamelessly corrupt law enforcement agencies. Unlike Americans, however, Kenyans can’t simply move to another city; they exist under a singular system which promotes the type of behavior demonstrated here. As my father portrays his country’s government, it is a classic African kleptocracy--affecting everyone from the top official down to the poorest citizen, seemingly with no escape, as demonstrated here. (The Kenyan government is far from the continent’s worst in this regard.) Therefore, the poorest citizen reasons “if the police/politicians can freely shake me down, why can’t I shake down the next guy?”
(Also, these poor see little of the international aid monies/materiels which flow into the continent. Everyone knows that almost all of the aid serves to line the pockets of the various groups of elites. Everyone except Bono, that is.)
Apparently it was the old man's turn to get caught in the crossfire.
Economic activists like James Shikwati are engaged in attempting to break this cycle. But, in the meantime, I’m guessing that Kenyans who aren’t poor keep a graft fund—just in case; while those who are poor look for ways to get their hands on those funds.
It’s got to be a tough way to live.
My question focused on how national political reconciliation will affect progress in the Anbar Province and Fallujah specifically, and the President's answer honestly surprised me in its length, level of detail and grasp of events on the ground.Click the Bill links for more and/or click the PMI link to contribute to the organization's efforts.
One of the updates to my Berger-Clinton post contains a report that Norman Hsu's "illness" was a suicide attempt. This discovery stemmed from the fact that Hsu sent copies of a suicide note to several acquaintances.
In the note, Hsu reportedly used a time-tested tactic of responsibility avoidance: blame the black guy.
Hsu's undoing began two weeks ago with articles raising questions about his fundraising activities in the Wall Street Journal and about a criminal case in his past in The Times. In his letter, said a person familiar with its contents who asked to remain anonymous, Hsu contended that those articles were planted "by a politician who pledged 'hope and change' " -- an apparent reference to Sen. Barack Obama, Clinton's main rival for the Democratic presidential nomination.Obama's camp ridicules the idea, of course. However, the Democrat-infighting is far more entertaining that those of the Republicans. Popcorn.
"The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief..."
--Senator Hillary Clinton to General David Petraeus following his Iraq progress report submitted to the US Senate on September 11, 2007.
Clinton & Co. need to explain.But they won't; it's not required in order to win--at least not yet.
UPDATE: The general responds: "Hey, Chica; you voted for the war and asked for a report!" Well, he didn't use those words exactly (click for video).
(Thanks to Don Surber)
Richard Miniter lays out the specifics of his broken relationship with Sandy Berger, Clinton Adminstration National Security Adviser from 1997 to 2001. Berger, infamous for smuggling classified documents out of the National Archives in 2005 and for "inadvertantly" destroying them, has recently been named as one of Senator Hillary Clinton's "top three foreign policy advisers" in her campaign to (re)take the White House. (The other two are former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke.)
Of the appointment, Miniter asks, rhetorically, no doubt:
Did she bring him aboard to reward him for his criminal destruction of classified material? Or did she sign him up because of his stellar record in fighting bin Laden in the late 1990s?Both, with the first being most important as it demonstrates loyalty. Back in January of this year, Ronald A. Cass pointed out that
Mr. Berger's willingness to risk everything to suppress the information goes well beyond ordinary concerns against excessive disclosure.Miniter reminds us that the copies known to have been taken and destroyed by Berger are only unique in that they contain hand-written notes in the margins; notes which were penned by President Clinton. The copies were those of the
Millennium After-Action Review, a binder-sized report prepared by Richard Clarke in 2000—a year and half before the 9-11 attacks. The review made a series of recommendations for a tougher stance against bin Laden and terrorism.Allegedly, Former President Clinton's notes could have been construed as a lack of presidential desire to confront Osama and his terrorists cohorts in spite of the continuous attacks sustained on US interests in the 1990s and in spite of Osama's objectively expressed intention to keep upping the ante--fulfilled by 9/11. Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified documents and received what amounted to a slap on the wrist for his "mistake": a $56,905.52 fine and two years probation
with his probation conditioned on his not committing "another federal, state, or local crime," and on his performance of 100 hours of community service. In addition to other standard conditions of probation (such as not associating with persons engaged in criminal activity, permitting visits by probation officers, and so forth), U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson also approved an unusual plea bargain term as a further condition of Berger's probation: "Defendant shall have no access to any classified material for a period of three (3) years."Additionally, Berger gave up his law license--an act which allowed him to avoid having to face a disbarment hearing, and, therefore, having to publicly testify to his actions.
Between the recent revelations regarding a certain Mr. Hsu and the appointment of Berger, one can see that the "culture of corruption" is alive, well and proceeding apace--just not on the Right. And, as Beldar asks in the link above, why would Senator Clinton use such a man as a "foreign policy adviser," a man whose guilty plea and subsequent conviction of mishandling and destroying classified materials appear to demonstrate sloppiness at best and a threat to national security at worst?
Because Berger's actions were no accident and, therefore, not at all sloppy. But what of national security?
Does anyone care about these flagrant demonstrations of Clintonian (lack of) character besides Right-wing bloggers? Judging from the lack of Leftist outrage regarding the Hsu saga and the fact that the senator remains the front-runner to win the Democrat presidential nomination in 2008, I'd say 'no'. Ronald Reagan was called the "Teflon President," but compared to the "Co-Presidents," the Great Reagan was an amateur in this regard. And--unlike the 1980s--the fact that such information on Berger and the Clintons is available at the fingertips of the American public makes the last point that much more striking. Apathy, lack of integrity, the Big Media's demonstrable partisanship--as personified by the New York Times--and the politically-correct desire to have a woman--any woman, as long as she's a Democrat--as US president will cause such dangers to be ignored.
Hang on. Starting in 2009, it's going to be a bumpy four years.
RELATED: Speaking of Norman Hsu, this morning the Mesa County (Colorado) Sherriff's Department issued some interesting information regarding the campaign-finance bundler to the Stars (of the Democrat Party). Hsu is being held in the Mesa County Detention Facility as he awaits extradition to California.
From the New York Post:
WASHINGTON - The New York Times dramatically slashed its normal rates for a full-page advertisement for MoveOn.org's ad questioning the integrity of Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. [SNIP]
According to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, "the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692."
A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate. [SNIP]
"I'm surprised they had to pay anything at all for the ad," [a Republican aide on Capitol Hill] said. "They could have just asked the editorial page to run it and it wouldn't have cost them a cent."I bet the PR director and the MoveOn spokesman didn't even hesitate when they gave out the pertinent information.
Allahpundit is surprised. I'm not. After all the New York Times executives can give discounts to whom they wish and, really, what is anyone going to do about it?
The discount demonstrates plainly and finally, for all to see, that the NYT sees itself as an ally to the radical anti-Warrior Left. And its executives are proud of this fact.
Actually, the openness is refreshing. My dad once opined that an adversary who is up front about his enmity is far less dangerous than the one who 'smiles in your face' and plots your destruction in secret.
So, thank you very much, New York Times. I, for one, appreciate your honest enmity.
UPDATE: I stated above that the NYT can offer discounts to whom they wish. However, that might not be the case. Uncle Jimbo of Blackfive has filed a Federal Election Commission complaint about the Petraeus ad, petitioning "my government for redress of grievances, specifically illegal political advertising practices by the New York Times and MoveOn.org." Me like!
The Vietnam Memorial in DC was vandalized this past weekend. The damage is likely permanent. (See the black substance at bottom part of the Memorial.)
The Park Service employee who talked to me said that the initial diagnosis was that the oily substance had stained the stone. He said another analysis would take place tomorrow.Why do they hate us? Frankly, I couldn't give a rat's diseased backside.
UPDATE: This article implies that the National Park Service Maintenance and Staff believe that the damage is fixable.
As do I.
Uncle Jimbo lets loose one of his characteristic and entertaining rants in response to today's
circus Senate hearing featuring General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker:
In a take one for the team kind of mentality, I have watched as much of the weasel fest on Capitol Hill as I could. I work from home and much is on computer, so I could have the bastiges on in the background. I have seen mental midget after politcal hack after deranged partisan pay no attention to the two gentlemen calmy not killing them while blowing all kinds of methane only rarely related to the truth. [SNIP]
Between the disgusting haters of MoveOn and the lying, posturing, back-stabbers of our Congress, I'll take the haters. At least they are honest if not honorable. The parasites I saw attacking the very idea of victory are neither.All I can add is: co-sign. And I'd like to thank Jimbo for his selfless devotion to duty in watching the hearings. It's probably a good thing that he watched the festivities via computer. With TVs being cheaper to replace, Jimbo might have been tempted to give his a lead injection under such conditions.
ABC's Jan Crawford Greenburg speculates that the White House will nominate former US Solicitor General Theodore "Ted" Olson to be Alberto Gonzales's replacement as AG. Gonzales announced his resignation last month.
Senatorial Democrats who might be inclined to oppose the nomination have some decent ammunition.
Olson argued on behalf of George W. Bush in the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore  and is considered one of the nation’s top Supreme Court lawyers.On the other hand, if Greenburg is correct that the announcement will become public tomorrow, the Senate Donkeys will have to tread lightly.
[Olson] was serving as solicitor general when his wife, noted commentator Barbara Olson, was killed in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. She was a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight  that crashed into the Pentagon, killing her and 58 other passengers and crew members.September 11th is also Ted Olson's birthday. (He has remarried.)
If the White House employed any adviser possessing any Machiavellian skills to speak of, it would have announced the nomination today. The Democrats' self-righteousness preaching couldn't get any louder than it already is regarding other subjects. However, if Greenburg's speculation is true, I would think that the timing decision would be Olson's to make. Decency is more important than tactics.
But regardless of the date of the announcement, an Olson nomination would be perfect in its symbolism; as an in-your-face move directed at multiple targets.
(Thanks to Ace of Spades HQ)
So here it is again. It's September 11th and it's Tuesday. But what does that mean or, rather, what should it mean?
Sure, every time I see video of the attacks I'm angry anew, but what does that anger serve? The anger does subside, but memory remains. Not just the memory of the emotions evoked by the day, but the memory of why that day occurred; of why they hate us.
Good old Osama has submitted a second message for us in as many days. This one features a message from Abu Musab Waleed al-Shehri, one of the hijackers who commandeered American Airlines Flight 11, which collided with the North Tower on the day in question. (It seems that each of the hijackers recorded a "will" before going after those virgins.) Osama--who does like to go on--introduces Al-Shehri's message from the grave, saying that the latter had "helped his religion and pleased his Lord"--whoever al-Shehri's lord may be. As the words of both men are spoken (in Arabic, of course, with English subtitles), the fiery destruction of the Towers can be seen looping in the background.
However, those visions didn't evoke anger in me this time, but scorn and, dare to say, derisive laughter at how little Islamists understand the West as it is personified by America--at least the part of America which refuses to be cowed by such images. The Devil hates to be ridiculed, as C.S. Lewis reminded us in The Screwtape Letters.
Osama and his ilk believe that all we infidels are afraid of dying. Of course, this is false, as demonstrated by the numbers of the men and women who have volunteered to join the US Armed Forces since September 11, 2001--even one Scott Thomas Beauchamp. And, in spite of the recent antics perpetrated by the Left, I think that the "woof tickets" which the Islamists continue to sell have an unintended effect on the vast majority of the American viewing public: it hardens the resolve to defeat them.
I hadn't planned on putting forth an anniversary post today because many of the other commemorations seem to rather wallow in grief and sadness and I didn't want to be a part of that. In the couple of years subsequent to the attacks, the nearly unbearable emotions were understandable. But now I think it's time put away the tears and to remember that we're in this fight for the long haul and that we're in it to make sure that another 9/11 doesn't happen again.
We shouldn't be afraid of dying and, unlike Islamists, we should go on living. By that, I don't mean merely breathing, eating, sleeping and sorrowing over what has been lost, but living well. And keeping watch.
Blessedly for we who live in the USA, we can do both. If we remember that, we can't never be defeated.
UPDATE: I participated in this Zogby poll, am one of those 46 percent of Americans living in the western part of the country who thinks about 9/11 at least once a week and one of the 91 percent who thinks that another attack on the homeland is inevitable--but thinking about such and fearing it are two different things.
However, "remembrance without resistance to jihad and its enablers is a recipe for another 9/11."--Michelle Malkin
BTW, I put up the flag in front of the house at sunrise.
UPDATE: This blog receives a lot of hits from Google searchers who use the key words "PICTURES OF BODIES FROM 9/11." This will invariably take the searcher to my 9/11/2003 post entitled "Fear Itself," in which no bodies of 9/11 victims are featured, of course.
While my first reaction upon discovering this fact was to exhort these searchers to "go away, you ghouls," I reconsidered and now think that reading that post might be helpful to such people. Hey, I can be an optimist on occasion.
UPDATE: On further consideration, I thought that it might be hospitable to add a helpful, directional update at the top of "Fear Itself."
Notice how the anti-warriors attempt to "support" the troops by interfering with General Petraeus's free speech? I hope that many others are taking note. See you in a bit.
Today, as every interested party knows, General David Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I), and Ryan Crocker, US Ambassador to Iraq, will give the House an assessment regarding progress in that country. Tomorrow, the two will take it to the Senate.
However, many anti-war types have seen fit to get out in front of the report in order to attempt to discredit it and, therefore, Petraeus. One of the most heinous efforts appears in today’s version of the New York Times; an advertisement courtesy of MoveOn.org. Submitted for your "approval."
Over and over again, I’ve asserted here that the Left’s hatred of the troops was poorly disguised and that, one day, they would soon be unable to hold up even the tatters of that disguise. Well that day has arrived.
We know, of course, that the anti-warriors use the “chickenhawk” smear in attempt to silence civilian supporters of the war. However, that the anti-warriors have the jaw-dropping gall to use “traitor” and “puppet” to smear a general who leads troops in Iraq (and, by the way, to smear all the officers and senior NCOs who provided the information which the general will present to the Congress), make me say that there is no hope for the anti-war Left.
(Thanks to the Weekly Standard)
UPDATE: Swamp Politics has a transcript of the fine print:
General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there was “tangible progress” in Iraq and that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward.” And last week Petraeus, the architect of the escalation of troops in Iraq, said, “We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress.”
Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed. Yet the General claims a reduction in violence. That’s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don’t count. The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you’re shot in the back of the head — not the front. According to the Associated Press, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we’ve been there. We’ll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won’t hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.
Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war. We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops. But we won’t hear what Americans are desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops. General Petraeus has actually said American troops will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years.
Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.
[The New Republic] forgets that [Scott Beauchamp] works for the United State Army, not the New Republic. [SNIP]
Am I supposed to feel guilty that [the war turned Beauchamp] into a monster before [Beauchamp] ever got [to the war]?Meanwhile, there is still no update from TNR regarding the Beauchamp situation since late July; that is, nothing in public.
Major John Cross - Executive Officer, 1-18 Infantry (Vanguards), Second (Dagger) Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division - was the lead investigating officer. After days of careful scrutiny and interviews with all involved personnel, he found all charges made by Beauchamp in The New Republic to be false.The details which Major Cross provides seem to confirm what we already know. Additionally, the Army seems to be allowing Beauchamp the opportunity to clean up his act and "to complete his tour of service in an honorable fashion." Good.
(No, this isn't a commentary on Michael Vick. However, while I have the opportunity, I'd like to say that Vick makes flesh the quote "a fool and his money are soon parted.")
Dogs get on my nerves. Oh, not all of them, or even most of them. As a matter of fact I love dogs…just not the ones who have idiot humans in charge of their existence.
Since the first week of August, I have made it my business to take a power walk 5-6 days a week for a certain distance. I've lost ten pounds since then.
The first time that I walked this particular distance, it took me 62 minutes, however, just this Saturday, it took 55 minutes. I would guess that the distance is roughly 3.5 miles.
I live in a lower- to middle- middle-class neighborhood. Nice, if old, houses. Manicured yards. Mostly black and Hispanic American residents, along with at least one white American and at least one Korean-American. Some blocks have fences in the front yards, some don't (only one resident on my street has the front yard fenced off and that fence has been in existence for some thirty-five years.)
When I walk, dogs bark at me, of course. But, for the most part, these dogs bark at me from behind gates that keep them from chasing me as I exercise.
What ticks me off is not only the dogs that get loose but the attitude of the owners when I threaten to pepper-spray or bust a cap in said dog.
Last week I was chased by a Chihuahua. Don't laugh. Would you like get bitten by one of those little buggers?
The owner, obviously roused from his bed by the dog's barking, came out to "reign the dog in." The owner--who could have benefited from some sort of exercise himself-- had obviously merely slipped on a pair of shorts in order to come outside without being arrested. The man called the dog and it broke off its attack.
But when I resumed walking, the dog began to chase me again.
Me: "Dude, could you get your dog?"
Dude: "Could you wait until I come outside?"
Me: thinking "hey, you fat bast*rd, you're already outside, but your dog is still chasing me," but saying, "I'm trying to exercise here, but your dog is still chasing me!!"
Short version of the story: he flipped me off--even after I tried to make nice. So I called the cops on him. I don't walk by his house anymore.
Can a person walk down a sidewalk without being chased by a dog or without having to put up with a dog's irresponsible and obnoxious owner?
UPDATE: 53 minutes this morning. No dogs.
Here are examples of the type of pornography to which we straight women respond. I bet that all you married guys know that the positions in which these men have contorted themselves bring the desired results.
Oh and don't worry. Your boss won't mind if you click the link.
(Thanks to Ace of Spades HQ)
UPDATE: Is it hot in here or is it just me?
I got angry earlier today. This fixed it right up.
(Thanks to the Corner)
This story interested me, for obvious reasons (hint: LuoAmerican.com).
Family gatherings for Collins Omondi once were boisterous affairs here on the verdant shores of Lake Victoria. But in just 11 years, AIDS has killed seven of his uncles, six aunts, five cousins and both his parents. His extended family now consists of one surviving uncle, an aunt and their 2-year-old child -- all of whom have AIDS.I knew that continental Luos did not traditionally practice either male circumcision or female genital mutilation--when I mentioned it before I said that my kinsmen had sense enough to keep the sharp objects away from the "tools." However, I'm sorry to see just how much they have suffered from merely living as they always have. (The article contains some interesting examples of tribal discrimination against Luos due to this practice; discrimination unrelated to HIV, that is.)
Omondi, 28, a tall, broad-shouldered fish trader, has come to believe that a quirk of culture contributed to the decimation of his family. They were Luos, members of the only major tribe in Kenya that does not routinely circumcise boys. The absence of this ritual, Omondi said, helps explain why Luos are dying from AIDS at a rate unheard of among other Kenyans and rare in East Africa.
Within Kenya, roughly one in 17 adults has HIV. Yet among Luo adults, the virus has infected one in five. [SNIP]
Trials in Kenya, Uganda and South Africa have shown that circumcised men are 60 percent less likely to contract HIV.According to Kawango Agot, a Luo and a circumcision researcher, the idea of circumcision is more popular among the younger generations of Luos—especially since many members of the older generations have suffered for maintaining tradition—they’re dead. Agot, whose husband died from AIDs, downplays the culture clash and gets to the bottom line:
What I care about is people are dying.It seems to me, however, that the culture clash is an integral part of that bottom line.
The leader of the Council of Luo Tribal Elders, Meshack Riaga Ogalo—whose body opposes circumcision--believes that another type of culture clash is part of that same bottom line and presents a decidedly different view of the problem at hand. He believes that
the true source of high rates of HIV in the tribe, which is one of Kenya's largest with a population of about 4.5 million, is not the lack of circumcision but the abandonment of traditional culture, especially by fishing communities.Christianity, of course, doesn’t condone “love affairs,” better known as fornication, but I see where the man is coming from.
"Nowadays, because of Christianity [sic] and all kinds of civilization, you introduce something like love affairs. The world is now horrible[...]"
Still others Luos worry about their civil right to remain as they are:
"If you are telling me to get circumcised at this age, it's like telling another tribe to remove the teeth [a traditional Luo rite of passage into adulthood]."Could be. But if one is dead, rights are moot.
Whatever choice you make, brethren, choose to live.
(Thanks to Memeorandum)
From the Blotter's Brian Ross:
Intelligence sources tell ABC News they believe the video message from Osama bin Laden is authentic, recently produced and evidence the al Qaeda leader is still alive.As most can guess, the video is scheduled to be a prelude to the sixth anniversary of 9/11, which again falls on a Tuesday.
According to government sources, an initial analysis of the tape indicates "a lot of chest thumping" and of course historical references "alluding" to the successful attack on New York.Lots of "Hair Club for Jihadis" jokes are being made about the following two photos.
The "phony beard" may be an important clue as to where bin Laden is hiding, according to Clarke.If that 2007 photo really is Osama, he looks like shizam regardless of the "upgrade." Being on the run tends to have that effect.
"One place where a beard would stand out would be southeast Asia, the Philippines, Indonesia," Clarke told ABC News. "No one's thought he was there, but that is an environment where most men, Muslim men don't have beards."
I can't wait to hear what ObL has in store for us this time.
UPDATE: More details:
The video includes references to current events in the U.S. involvement in the war in Iraq, the official said. That would bolster the video's authenticity, which intelligence officials still are trying to confirm.
The new video of al-Qaida leader bin Laden — his first in three years — runs nearly 30 minutes long, said the government official who has seen a transcript of its contents and spoke on condition of anonymity because it has not been made public.
Bin Laden makes "no overt threat" in the video, the official said.
UPDATE: Partial transcript here.
"People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there."(Emphasis mine.)
No comment. Too busy laughing.
The transcript indicates that bin Laden refers to a statement from a U.S. soldier in Iraq, from an interview taped by a British journalist. Quotes from the interview aired in a July report on ABC News.One of Osama's suggested methods of ending the Iraq War:
"It would benefit you to listen to the poignant messages of your soldiers in Iraq, who are paying -- with their blood, nerves and scattered limbs -- the price for these sorts of irresponsible statements,” the transcript says.
...do away with the American democratic system of government. "It has now become clear to you and the entire world the impotence of the democratic system and how it plays with the interests of the peoples and their blood by sacrificing soldiers and populations to achieve the interests of the major corporations."How little he understands us. But if he did, he wouldn't be on his Jihad in the first place.
Democrat campaign finance
bungler bundler Norman Hsu was apprehended last night in Grand Junction, Colorado as a result of being an Amtrak passenger. It seems that Hsu took so ill during his voyage that the paramedics were summoned.
Amtrak personnel [sic] took him to St. Mary's Hospital in Grand Junction, Colo., a hospital spokesman said.Schadenfraude on the Right is running deep this morning.
There, he was arrested by the FBI a few hours later on a federal charge of unlawful flight to avoid prosecution. He was expected to appear before a federal magistrate-judge as early as this morning, pending his likely extradition back to California.
When I first heard that Hsu had been caught and about his mode of transportation, I wondered about the route of the train. A Rocky Mountain News/AP report implies that the train's endpoint was Denver. But whether Denver was the endpoint of the train or not, it would be interesting to discover what Hsu's planned route of escape had been. I'm thinking that Hsu might have been trying to reach a place where he could avail himself of the bustling business that is human smuggling.
And, okay, yes, I'm laughing also.
UPDATE: The termination point of the California Zepher route--Hsu's train--is Chicago.
UPDATE: More from the San Jose Mercury News:
Hsu was traveling on Train #6, according to Cliff Cole, an Amtrak spokesman. Hsu boarded the train in Emeryville [CA] and was scheduled to get off the train in Denver, Cole said. Cole had no information as to who - if anyone - Hsu may have been traveling with.
What's in Denver? Why, a sizeable human trafficking network.
[Colorado State] Representative [Alice] Borodkin [D] cited that human trafficking is the third largest money maker for organized crime activities in Colorado.Hsu was looking to flee the country on the down-low.
UPDATE: How did Hsu's 1992 felony conviction affect his legal resident status?
Hsu's disappearing act seemed to be a reprise of a move he pulled 15 years ago, when he failed to show up for sentencing in the same grand theft case. Hsu was facing up to three years in state prison, a $10,000 fine and restitution payments after pleading no contest to a single count of grand theft in what prosecutors described as a $1 million fraud scheme.
But while free on bail after his plea, Hsu dropped from sight for 15 years, apparently spending time in Hong Kong, the Philippines and Taiwan, only to emerge in recent years as a seemingly wealthy New York resident who donated generously to Democratic political campaigns, regularly attended fundraisers and was photographed with party leaders.(Emphasis mine.)
Is Hsu an illegal alien?
My fault. Hsu is a naturalized citizen. I still don't know whether the felony conviction can affect his citizenship status or whether it did.
(Thanks to Hot Air)
My gratitude goes to CEK for the gift of 98.6 Degrees: The Art of Keeping Your Ass Alive; a survival guide. Nice to know that somebody loves me. /fishing
...links, that is. I have to go have my
head examined eyes checked this morning and have another obligation right after that, so if you have any questions to ask or interesting items to submit, be my guest.