Stifling free speech

Okay, here's the deal. It is entirely legal for people to call a radio station in response to a talk show guest they disagree with. It is their right to do so, protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

But if the McCain campaign had done what the Obama campaign has done, they would be excoriated.

Though we must acknowledge their rights, we nevertheless may criticize their method:

Never before had Rosenberg’s show been inundated with hysterical telephone calls and threatening emails aimed at not at debate but at disrupting a legitimate interview. The Obama campaign’s characterization of the Kurtz conversation as “the incoherent rantings” of an “unapologetic smear artist” is particularly absurd.

And we will note the hypocrisy:

During the August fiasco, outraged pro-Obama callers fumed that WGN had offered Kurtz an unchallenged forum, despite the fact that Team Obama had declined an invitation to appear alongside Kurtz for the duration of the program. This time, however, Freddoso was actually paired up with an Obama-supporting counterpart. This wasn’t good enough for the Obama thought police, who blasted out marching orders to shut down the discussion. Once again, the phones melted down. The Obama campaign should be proud.

I have no doubt that Obama would sign legislation re-instating the Fairness Doctrine should it come to his desk as President. But as these events show, fairness, no matter how it is defined, is not the agenda.

Update: Based on additional data, this appears to have been more along the lines of a denial of service attack. The goal was not just to express displeasure, but to clog the phone lines and bring down web servers to prevent the opposing point of view from being expressed. That does indeed cross the line. Perhaps not to the level of a crime, if only because existing law may not cover this situation, but certainly beyond the bounds of what is right.

Fiscal responsibility

I have long considered it likely that the majority of the blame for the current financial crisis does not rest with the Bush administration. I've read a few things to support this, but until today I hadn't seen it laid out so clearly and completely. As it turns out, the Bush administration tried to do something about the impending collapse, with predictable results:

The credit crisis and the lack of oversight over government-subsidized lenders like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac occurred on the watch of George Bush, and many blame his economic team for their lack of oversight in the collapse. Barack Obama has made this point one of his major campaign themes, arguing that John McCain would provide more of the same failures that Bush did. However, what many do not recall is that Bush wanted to tighten oversight with a new regulatory board for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other government recipients for the express purpose of addressing bad loan practices — and Democrats blocked it.

So who was responsible for those bad loan practices in the first place? Answer: it's who you think it is:

But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.

Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.

The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."

Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.

(Note: The actual name of the legislation passed in 1977 is the Community Reinvestment Act.) The article goes on to detail Clinton administration mismanagement that further contributed to the mess. I recommend reading all of it.

I included the last paragraph in the above exerpt for the sake of fairness because it points out that Wall Street isn't blameless in this disaster. Regulations to prevent that sort of thing may be in order. I'm not an expert, though, which is why I link to people who are. It is increasingly clear, though, that the Bush administration was at least trying to stave off an impending disaster the seeds of which were planted during past Democrat administrations. Big surprise.

Stalling for power

According to Amir Taheri in this opinion piece for the New York Post, Obama has attempted to usurp the role of the President and the State Department in foreign relations:

While campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

He also attempted to usurp the President's role as Commander-in-Chief of the US armed forces:

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Taheri provides his thoughts as to why Obama might have done this. For example:

Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation. Indeed, say Talabani's advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.

Now I'm going to take this with a grain of salt; this is an opinion piece after all. As Fox News is reporting, the Obama camp has denied the allegations in Taheri's article. But if it's true, my understanding is that it's a violation of Federal law. I'm going to keep my eyes open for any additional information on this.

Selling faith

I heard about this on the Glenn Beck radio show this morning while driving to work. The Obama campaign is now selling "faith merchandise" so that people of faith can show their support. You too can pick up a rally sign or a button at the Obama store. There's also a Believers for Barack Obama website. It doesn't appear to have any links to the merchandise, but it is paid for by the Obama campaign.

As Mr. Beck noted this morning, if the McCain campaign were to sell "Believers for Palin" merchandise, they would be excoriated in the press. But since Obama is the Messiah, it's only natural that "people of faith" would support him. Right?

Guilt by geographic location

The concept of guilt by association is nothing new. But this is something I've never seen before:

It has been years since groups such as the Montana Militia, the Posse Comitatus and the Sagebrush Rebels, and individuals such as Terry Nichols and Ted Kaczynski have made us wonder why so many "angry white men" populated our rural regions. Many of us have forgotten the threat once posed by domestic terrorists and instead have turned our attention to foreign terrorists. But we should never forget that in the late 20th century, ultra-Christian, antistatist and white-supremacist groups flourished in the states of the Pacific Northwest - called by many the "Great White Northwest" - the very region that Sarah Palin and her family call home.

I know a lot of people who live near me in this very same Pacific Northwest who would be rather surprised to know that they're white supremacists. Some of them aren't even white!

In the penultimate paragraph the author, Catherine McNicol Stock, writes:

There is no evidence that Palin was ever affiliated with white-supremacist groups during her years in Idaho or at home in Alaska. On the other hand, the beliefs of ultraconservative, evangelical churches like her family's come dangerously close to those of the Christian Identity movement of those years. Likewise, Palin's husband was a member of a political party whose members favored secession for Alaska, suggesting an affiliation with radical antistatism.

Emphasis is mine. Wow, so lack of evidence to the contrary is now evidence. Say, Ms. Stock, there's no evidence that you're someone who supports taking property away from private individuals and giving it to developers so that property tax revenues can be increased. But the city in which you work, New London, Connecticut, has a history of doing exactly that. To paraphrase the final paragraph in your "article," perhaps somewhere on the record you've voiced condemnation for those actions. But it's hard to know where you stand on issues of property rights and the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Thus it is high time to review the cultural ideals and models of the radical liberals from New England and find out for sure where you stand.

Hat tip Mike.

Flawed analogy

The GeekWithA.45 provides three definitions of what a "community organizer" is.  It's pretty clear which one Barack Obama was.

During times of ordinary peace, follows and promotes the teachings of Saul Alinsky for the purpose of organizing the community into a coherent voting bloc. The minimum objective of this activity is to use this amassed power for the purpose of obtaining financial, regulatory and legal benefit from governmental and private sources. The implicit goals of the activity includes delivering a payload ideological indoctrination to that group, fostering the usual Leftist outcomes of dependency, collectivism, and the downwards spiral that comes with "progress" through wealth redistribution rather than the achievement of financial independence.

This leads me to address the analogy that Democrats and leftists have recently worn out:  "Jesus was a community organizer.  Pilate was a governor."

Well allow me to retort!

I'll start with Pilate.  He was not, in reality, a governor, at least not as we use the word today.  He was the prefect of Judea during the time it was under Roman control.  He was appointed to his post, not elected by the people.  And he didn't actually govern.  His duties were primarily military, and he was also responsible for collecting imperial taxes.  The actual government in charge of civil administration was local.

That brings us to Jesus.  For most of his life, he was a carpenter.  Then, at around 30 years old, he began his ministry.  Depending on your views, he became an itinerant preacher, a prophet, an avatar, or the saviour of mankind.  His actions were those of a teacher, and did not fit any of the definitions of "community organizer" noted in the post linked above.

The analogy fails, though it doesn't surprise me they keep saying it.  Obama is the Messiah after all.

Pigstickin'

Republicans and conservatives, as you might expect, reacted negatively to Obama's comment that, "You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." Now I don't know if he was trying to make a subtle, or not so subtle, dig at Sarah Palin. To be honest, I don't really care. No, what struck me was that it sounded like an attempt to sound all folksy and rural and it fell flat. He followed up the comment with, "You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it's still going to stink after eight years."

It doesn't come across on the screen but, if you listen to audio of his remarks, it's clear he's struggling with the metaphors. He's from Chicago, he's from an urban environment and culture. It sounds to me like he was trying to come off as something he isn't. And it didn't work.

Is Scalzi losing it?

One of my favorite science fiction authors of recent years, John Scalzi, has a few words for Democrat and liberal commenters on his weblog.

John, you're a great author, and I love your books, but you really need to stick with what you're good at.

Did you really not know that coming out of the GOP convention, the GOP candidate might have a poll bounce? Likewise, were you somehow surprised that the GOP might try very hard to make this campaign about something other than actual issues?

Just like the Democrats. Hope and Change are hardly issues.

The GOP picks a woman VP 24 years after you do, for the same goddamn reason you did (a contentless call to shore up a shrinking base), and you act like you’ve never seen this movie before?

Watch it John. If a Republican said that, he or she would be labeled a sexist so fast the words would emit Cherenkov radiation.

For God’s sake, she’s scandal-plagued Atwater spawn from a state with the population of Fort Worth, Texas, whose job it will be to work the lights of the Naval Observatory for four years. She’s a walking, taking advertisement for how easily placated religious conservatives are at this moment in history.

Here you have a prime example of elitism, folks. It doesn't get any plainer than that. Scalzi has only made it big as an author in the last few years which goes to show that elitism doesn't require one to be among the elite.

Please accept that the GOP will feast on every single fucking instance in which you show even the slightest hint of entitlement to the presidency.

You damn betcha. And well they should.

Please accept that the GOP SOP is to win by any means necessary, and that they’ve cultivated an entire generation of political strategists and media lackeys who can’t think in any other way, and whose allegiance to the party is reflexive and far stronger than their interest in things like facts.

Only differences are that the Republicans know it, and the Democrats enjoy support from far more and more prominent "media lackeys."

The GOP will crush you — again — if you keep doing it. For fuck’s sake, they’ve played you exactly the same way since the 2000 election. Will you please exhibit a learning curve. You’ve been here before.

Stupidity should hurt. Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Well, if Republicans have a winning strategy, and use it again, who are the crazy ones?

I notice that you're only calling out Democrats and liberals, John.. Think there might be a reason for that?

It's interesting. I've met various science fiction authors in my time and to be honest, many of them struck me as being of average overall intelligence. Not that they were stupid or anything, and as writers they definitely had a good command of language. But I guess this is just further proof that writing good science fiction doesn't require one to be a genius.

Unfriendly work environment

A coworker of mine has a small Obama poster in her cubicle. It's the one evocative of Communist propaganda that says "HOPE" at the bottom. Now, of course, I don't have a problem with that. I gotta wonder, though: What would happen if I put a McCain-Pain sticker or sign up in my cube? Would someone tell me I need to take it down because it makes somebody "uncomfortable?" Would it suddenly just disappear one day?

No, probably not. I'm certain my coworker wouldn't do anything, but I'm not entirely certain that nothing would happen.

Quote of the day

Remember: Standards are good. Double standards are twice as good.

Ignore this man

After all, he's just a dumb soldier who didn't have any other option, or who was duped into it by a duplicitous recruiter.

Memo to Chris Gregoire

You're running against Dino Rossi, not George Bush. Just thought you'd like to know....

The Aristocrats

No, I'm not talking about that rather famous joke. I'm talking about the characterization of Cindy McCain as aristocratic. For example, it has been noted that during her speech in which she referred to Barack Obama as "elitist" she was wearing earrings worth an estimated $280,000 (assuming that her earrings were real three-carat diamonds).  As has also been noted, there is a difference between "wealthy" and "elitist."  Whether or not Obama deserves such characterization I'll leave for you to decide.  However, I would like to bring up some interesting information which I think pertains to whether or not Cindy McCain is truly "aristocratic" and a comparison between the McCains and Obamas when it comes to helping out their fellow citizens, especially those less fortunate than themselves.  After all, that's what the Democrats say they're all about, and what they accuse Republicans of not caring about at all.

First up, we have a description of the charitable giving from John and Cindy McCain:

In 2007, the Arizona senator reported $405,409 in total income and contributed $105,467, or 26 percent of his total income, to charity.

In 2006, Mr. McCain said he had $358,414 in total income and donated $64,695, or 18 percent of his total income, to charity.

...

Mrs. McCain has donated the same amount to charity as her husband — a total of $170,162 for each of them — over the past two years, his campaign said.

...

Mr. McCain’s campaign said he donates his royalties from his books to charities and that “this sum has totaled over $1,800,000 since 1998 when he signed his first book deal.” The campaign said his book income added up to $256,898 for 2006 and 2007.

The senator’s campaign also said that Mr. McCain has donated to charity a total of $450,000 since 1991— money he received from increases in his Senate salary — “because he opposed the Congressional pay increase at that time and pledged not to accept the pay raises.”

Next up, a rather complete rundown of Cindy McCain's charitable activities:

But beyond the designer clothing and the perfect blond hair is a Cindy McCain few have ever seen, one who contrasts sharply with the smiling, glossy image she projects alongside the senator on the campaign trail.

This Cindy McCain harbors a ruggedness and fearlessness befitting her war-hero husband.

She has waded through minefields in Cambodia. Slept out in the bush in tents in Angola. Comforted children under the broiling sun in Morocco.

But the 53-year-old's extensive charity work has been largely overlooked.

This is just a taste so read the whole article.

Now how about Barack and Michelle Obama?  Let's take a look, shall we?

On their just-filed 2006 tax return, Obama and his wife, a hospital administrator, reported taxable income of $983,626 and claimed deductions for $60,307 in charitable donations. In 2005 they earned a combined $1.65 million and gave away about $77,300.

In 2002, the year before Obama launched his campaign for U.S. Senate, the Obamas reported income of $259,394, ranking them in the top 2 percent of U.S. households, according to Census Bureau statistics. That year the Obamas claimed $1,050 in deductions for gifts to charity, or 0.4 percent of their income. The average U.S. household totaled $1,872 in gifts to charity in 2002, according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

...

From 1997 through 2002, the Obamas reported devoting less than 1 percent of their household income to charity. In 2005, as the book-deal money poured in, they reported $1.65 million in combined income, with $77,315, or 4.7 percent, going to charity.

Only a few of the tax returns released by Obama detail the recipients of his charity. In 1998, when the Obamas reported a combined household income of $191,146 and $1,100 in cash donations to charity, the biggest gift went to Trinity. It totaled $400, about 0.2 percent of their combined income.

In 2005 they gave the church $5,000 and in 2006 it received $22,500. Over the past two years, the Obamas have claimed charitable deductions for $45,000 in gifts to reading programs; $31,000 to CARE, an international aid group; $13,107 to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation; and $5,000 to the Muntu Dance Theatre. Michelle Obama serves on the board of directors of the South Side dance troupe.

And this is from the Chicago Tribune, his hometown newspaper.

Now I know the Obamas have done some charity work besides donations. However, there doesn't seem to be much information on what it might be. I did find this, but it's pretty thin.

Obama has dedicated time to neighborhood projects in poor communities.

He spoke at an event for K.I.D.S., a charity supporting disadvantaged children.

...

Obama spoke at a charity event for girls in Omaha, helping to raise $154,000 for the group.

In 2007, Obama created a “doodle” which netted nearly $7,000 in an auction for NF, Inc.

If anyone knows of anything else, please let me know.  I want to be as fair as possible on this issue.

Now whether or not wearing such expensive clothing and jewelry during her speech was particularly wise is a matter for debate.  I think the Republicans should have known she'd become the target of such criticism and had her tone it down, especially after Michelle Obama's speech the previous week where she was rather understated in how she dressed.  But to take base such a broad characterization on that one event, without doing any research like I've presented here, is irresponsible at best.

Regardless, how the candidate's spouse is dressed during the speech is not an indicator of how qualified he is to hold office.  Characterizing the Obamas as "elitist" is based on their words and deeds, not how they dress.  But to the left, impressions and feelings are as important as logic, perhaps even more so.

O'Reilly on Obama

As I noted earlier, Barack Obama was interviewed yesterday by Bill O'Reilly.  As a followup, O'Reilly devoted his latest column to his thoughts about the interview.  A couple of things stood out:

As far as philosophy goes, Senator Obama is convinced that the federal government should be in control of income distribution and, to some extent, should regulate the free marketplace. That is a classic liberal position, and Obama promotes it well.

Nothing surprising there, but it sums up pretty concisely Obama's very liberal views.  It's not new at all.  It is, as Bill says, classically liberal.

On the foreign policy front, Obama has convinced me that he is tough but cautious. He rose up quickly because he vehemently opposed the Iraq war. But now I see a man who understands the victory that has taken place in Iraq. I don't believe he wants to screw that up. I could be wrong.

Okay, I can accept that.  However, I still think he should admit that he was wrong about the surge and that John McCain was right.  He won't, though, as it's not good politics and would likely offend his base.

After going mano-a-mano with Obama on television, I am also persuaded that he is a sincere guy—that he wants the best for all Americans. He's an ideologue, but not a blind one. He understands that his story is incredible, and, I have come to believe, he is grateful to the American system for allowing it happen.

I've never said that Obama didn't want what was best for America and its people.  Though I disagree strenuously and passionately with his political positions and intentions, and question his judgment, I don't think he intends to do evil.  I think his policies will be destructive but I do believe he thinks they will be beneficial and he feels strongly enough about them that he's willing to fight for the power to implement them.

That doesn't mean I'm going to take it any easier on him, though.  And I will certainly call him on it when his methods, or those used by his supporters, cross the line as they so often have, especially with regards to Governor Palin.

Update:  And I reserve the right to change my mind should new facts become available, or should Obama say or do something that belies the above conclusions.

Flyin'

In the comments to Bill Whittle's latest post, a commenter going by the handle Richard R wrote the following:

Something I found out last night.

We all know John McCain was a fighter (actually, light bomber) pilot.

Cindy's a Pilot too, she has a Cirrus.

Sara Palin is a pilot. Todd Palin is a pilot. They own a Supercub on floats.

I've poked around and it looks like it's all true.

Now I'm a private pilot myself so I know what it takes to get your license. It's not the most difficult thing in the world but it takes dedication, intelligence, and the ability to keep track of several different things at once. It also requires that you keep calm in stressful situations.

But perhaps the most important thing is that the federal regulation of pilots is one of the few areas of government where the emphasis is on personal responsibility. As the pilot in command, I am responsible for the conduct of my flight. If something goes wrong, it's on my head with few exceptions (such as a maintenance error that I wouldn't be expected to discover). It's perfectly legal for me to take someone flying who is not a licensed pilot and hand over control of the aircraft. I can even let that person operate the aircraft through the entire flight including takeoff and landing. However, if that person crashes the plane, or otherwise screws up, it's my fault and I'm the one that will have my license suspended or revoked, or even harsher penalties applied.

Knowing that both McCain and his running mate are pilots tells me that they understand the concept of responsibility and that they're capable of handling themselves in sticky situations. That their spouses are pilots is an added bonus.

If you want peace...

The saying goes, Si vis pacem, para bellum. Translated from Latin, it means "If you want peace, prepare for war." Its simple wisdom is as applicable today as it was in ancient Rome. Yet there are those that believe that preparation for war only serves to make it more likely.

The world will have peace when the whole world wants peace. As long as there exist people who desire war, those who desire peace must be ready and able to defeat them when their desires are made manifest.

It takes a big man to admit he's wrong

However, Barack Obama has done nothing of the kind.

Yesterday, Obama sat down with Bill O'Reilly for an interview. Regarding the troop surge which has had such dramatic success, he had some comments:

As recently as July, the Democratic presidential candidate declined to rate the surge a success, but said it had helped reduce violence in the country. On Thursday, Obama acknowledged the 2007 increase in U.S. troops has benefited the Iraqi people.

“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.” (Emphasis mine -RR)

At least he's admitting that it has worked, though to say that nobody anticipated that it would ignores George Bush, Obama's opponent John McCain, and a host of commentators and bloggers who all supported the decision to send more troops over and get the job done right once and for all.

However, he added, the country has not had enough “political reconciliation” and Iraqis still have not taken responsibility for their country.

It's still a work in progress, true, but progress is being made as demonstrated by the U.S. military turning control of the Anbar Provice over to the Iraqis.

We're winning in Iraq. It's time to accept and support it.

Hanson does it again

In his piece, Target Palin, VDH takes on several of the issues that have evolved since the announcement of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate.

On the contrast between Palin and Biden:

When Palin talks about her present life it sounds as authentic as Biden’s showy populism came off as false. Enraged feminists are apparently the gatekeepers for less well-educated American women, who are supposed to have 0-1.5 children not 5! Their husbands must be professors, lawyers, CEOs, editors—not snowmobile champions, union members, oil workers, and fishermen—or, worse, all in one! And unlike a Pelosi, Quinn, or Clinton, Palin, God forbid, did not rely on a powerful, wealthy husband or father to energize her career. Worse still, she took no women’s studies class, never attended the Ivy League, and shoots moose. The danger is not just that Sarah Palin could win McCain the election, but she could expose the entire flimsy structure of doctrinaire liberalism as the hypocrisy—and chauvinism—it has become.

On the double standard propagated by the Left and the media that is now more obvious than ever:

Obama’s violation of drug laws with a “little blow” was youthful exuberance; Palin’s husband’s DUI was more proof of a working-class messy family.
...
Criticizing Clinton’s engaging in sex in the oval office and lying about it to the American people were once “the politics of personal destruction”; lying that Sarah Palin might not have been the mother of her 5th child is the mere overreach of the blogs caused by the improper vetting of the McCain campaign.

Not to mention lying about it under oath which is the crime for which he was actually impeached.

The immediate ferocity of the reaction by the Left and the mainstream media to Palin's nomination is unprecedented. The unfounded attacks on Palin and her family, particularly her daughter, and the flat out lies that have been told about them are truly disgusting.

It serves to demonstrate how scared they really are and it's going to backfire, at least to a degree. It may even outrage enough people that the media is finally truly called to the carpet for their obvious but unadmitted bias. At least I can hope.

The non-existent bit-bucket

Mike tips us off to a post at LGF documenting continued efforts to hide the fact that the Democrats' staunchest supporters include raving lunatics of the type mentioned in my previous post. It seems the Kostards haven't figured out that once something's on the Web, it's forever. All we have to do is pay out the rope, folks. Then, once they've tied the knot and slipped the noose around their collective neck, just pull the lever, sit back, and watch them dance.

Oh, by the way, the reference to hanging in the previous paragraph should not be taken as a racist comment referring to the practice of lynching. But I'm sure it will anyway. I'm white, after all, and can't help myself.

The Dogs of (Political) War

The 2008 Presidential campaign has already turned pretty nasty.  The attacks from the left have already begun in earnest; in particular on two different but related fronts.

The first is that of the direct, physical assault.  Yesterday during the first day of the Republican National Convention, some enterprising radicals thought it would be a good idea to harass arriving delegates and even commit vitriolage.  In some cases, they didn’t even wait for the buses to arrive before committing their assaults.

You will note that there were no “conservative protesters” (an oxymoron, really) at the DNC last week, let alone anybody doing anything like this. If there had been, you can bet whatever amount you like that it would have been all over the news in lurid headlines and breathless prose.

The second front is the more “respectable” one, if no less repugnant.  Since the announcement that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will be John McCain’s running mate, the Democrats and their supporters have been pulling out all the stops in the effort to smear her in any way they can, regardless of how baseless and ridiculous their allegations.  They are descending far below the level to which they in their fevered imaginations can even contemplate the Republicans sinking.  It has the air of desperation about it, which means that they’re truly concerned even though they’ll never admit it.

Of course, since they’re right, dammit! anything and everything is justified.  Any target, from Palin to her husband to her children and even her unborn grandchild is fair game.

Palin and her family are going to be put under a media microscope the likes of which has never before been seen.  I hope they’re up to it.  Unlike Obama, they don’t have the luxury of declaring topics “off limits” if they’re inconvenient.

All class, all the time.

First up, we have Michael Moore, prevaricator extraordinaire and hero to those that the Democrat party should be ignoring, but that instead appears to be their base:

“I was just thinking, this Gustav is proof that there is a God in heaven,” Moore said, laughing. “To have it planned at the same time – that it would actually be on its way to New Orleans for day one of the Republican Convention, up in the Twin Cities – at the top of the Mississippi River.”

After that comment, Moore backed off a bit and did say he hoped nobody got hurt and he hoped everybody is taking cover. However, he failed to make note of the $43.625 billion in damage the last hurricane to strike New Orleans caused – Hurricane Katrina in 2005 – and the billions of dollars the storm cost taxpayers.

Now frankly I'm not surprised that Moore said this. Disgusted, yes, but I've been disgusted with him for years.

On the other hand, somewhat surprised (but only somewhat) to hear the same sentiment from National Chairman of the Democratic National Committee Don Fowler during an in-flight conversation with Congressman John Spratt of South Carolina. Video below, commentary at RedState.



So New Orleans is going to get pasted again. People may die and who knows how much property damage will be done. Fuel costs will rise again because of all the refining capacity that's in danger and the economy will suffer, affecting the poor the most. But it's all okay, you see, because it will help Democrats gain power. Ha ha ha. Sickening.

Contrast this with what the Republicans are doing:

John McCain tore up the script for his Republican National Convention on Sunday, ordering the cancellation of all but essential opening-day activities as Hurricane Gustav churned toward New Orleans.

“This is a time when we have to do away with our party politics and we have to act as Americans,” he said as fellow Republicans converged on their convention city to nominate him for the White House.

The President is also ordering his priorities correctly:

President Bush is skipping the Republican National Convention on Monday and will travel instead to Texas to meet with emergency workers and evacuees as Hurricane Gustav bears down on the Gulf Coast.

Maybe it's just me, but I think there's just a slight bit of difference.

Gustav approaches the Big Easy

There's a good chance that Hurricane Gustav will strike New Orleans, at least indirectly. This time, things are going to be a bit different than they were three years ago when Hurricane Katrina hit the city.

Police with bullhorns plan to go street to street with a tough message about getting out ahead of Hurricane Gustav: This time there will be no shelter of last resort. The doors to the Superdome will be locked. Those who stay will be on their own.

Authorities issued the warning Friday as new forecasts made it increasingly clear that New Orleans will get some kind of hit — direct or indirect — as early as Monday.

And those among New Orleans' 310,000 residents who ignore orders to leave accept "all responsibility for themselves and their loved ones," said the city's emergency preparedness director, Jerry Sneed.

I sense that MSNBC is emphasizing the "you're on your own" aspect for a reason but I'll let that slide for now. There is also an extensive plan to evacuate those who can't get out on their own. Hopefully things will go better than they did three years ago, and hopefully the levees will hold and the city won't flood. Still, when a hurricane hits a major city like New Orleans, there are usually at least a few casualties. My thoughts are with the people of the Gulf Coast and I hope things turn out as well as they can.

Whatever happens, however many are injured or die, whatever the property damage ends up being, one thing's for sure. George Bush will be blamed.

Freedom for me, but not for thee

We hear all the time from the outraged Left about how Bush and the Republicans are stifling dissent and squelching free speech, all the while proving that their allegations are factually false because they're still talking.

Well now freedom of speech really is under attack, but it's not a Republican that's threatening it:

You can expect hardball in a presidential campaign, especially one in a country as divided as ours seems to be. But the kind of hardballs being pitched is an indication of the people and policies that an incoming administration will be employing.

That is why it’s particularly troubling that the Obama campaign has filed a criminal complaint against the people behind an ad being run that links Obama to avowed terrorist William Ayers.

The link in the excerpt is to Ben Smith's Blog where he notes that it isn't just Republicans and conservatives who have come under attack. Obama's general counsel, Bob Bauer is an equal opportunity assaulter:

It's worth noting that this isn't the first time Bauer has called for criminal investigations and prosecutions into the donors to independent groups critical of Obama, including one supporting John Edwards and another supporting Hillary Rodham Clinton. His words did have the effect of scaring their donors and consultants, but haven't yet appeared to result in any prosecution.

Chilling, and a foreshadowing of what's to come under an Obama administration. Additional commentary can be found at The DC Examiner. Hat tip to Mike at Cold Fury for bringing this to my attention.

Democrats have long held themselves up as the champions of free speech and all the other rights and freedoms (with one exception, of course) enumerated in the Constitution or elsewhere. While many, if not most Democrats really do support these rights, that support isn't universal among the Left. I've brought up the Fairness Doctrine before and my fear that it will be revived even worse than before under an Obama administration. This just confirms that my fears are justified. John Hinderaker at Powerline is equally concerned:

Obama's suggestion that it is illegal for a 501(c)(4) entity to fund issue ads that are negative toward him appears ludicrous. Here's the real question, though: if Obama is elected President, will he appoint an Attorney General who will carry out politically-motivated prosecutions like the one he is now demanding? I suppose we can't know for sure, but why wouldn't he? If he demands criminal prosecution of free speech that opposes his political interests when he's a candidate, why wouldn't he order it as President?

Answer: No reason at all.

Funny money

I live in Snohomish County, Washington. One of the larger local fairs is happening now and somebody thought it would be funny to sell fake 3$ bills "depicting Barack Obama wearing Arab headgear and featuring a camel" at the booth for the Snohomish County Republican Party.

Naturally, Obama supporters are all up in arms about this despite, as noted in the article:

"I don't think it's funny," said [Snohomish County Republican chairwoman Geri] Modrell, who said she ordered the bills removed as soon as she learned about them. "They were offensive. The volunteers are being told very clearly they must not do these sorts of things."

Now I personally don't condone these fake bills either. It reflects poorly on the Republican party and distracts from the real issues that I have with Obama, namely that he's a full-blown socialist. Even so, the reaction of some people is overblown:

Susan Ronken, a volunteer at the nearby Democratic Party booth at the fair, also saw the bills, which were present at the booth for at least two days this week.

"It was an absolute hate crime," said Ronken, who lives in Stanwood.

Give me a break. Satire yes, slander at worst, but a hate crime? Yet another example of someone claiming victim status in order to obtain power over those she disagrees with and shut them up.

Something else that piqued my interest was this:

The bills offended some passers-by at the fair, including Ronnie Thibault, a Monroe woman who said Republicans at the booth threatened to call security on her after she complained.

"My first reaction was, 'Are you kidding me? Really?' " said Thibault. "Even if a person is a Muslim, so what, but he [Obama] is not."

Thibault, who describes herself as a "hard-core Democrat," said she would have been just as offended if the Democratic booth at the fair had sold offensive depictions of Republican John McCain, who is expected to be nominated as the GOP presidential candidate next week in St. Paul, Minn.

This is pure speculation on my part but I suspect she did more than just complain which is what prompted the people manning the booth to consider calling security. She is, in her own words, a "hard-core Democrat" which implies that she is, shall we say, passionate about her views and her opinions of those who oppose them. As far as her claim that she'd be equally offended by an offensive description of John McCain, well I'll go ahead and give her the benefit of the doubt on that one, though it wouldn't surprise me if she expressed her offense somewhat less vehemently.

Never let the facts get in the way

During the run-up to last Tuesday's primary election here in Washington State, I had been hearing radio ads paid for by the campaign of Christine Gregoire attacking her most likely opponent (since confirmed by the primary vote) Dino Rossi. As you might recall, Rossi initially won the gubernatorial election in 2004 but ultimately lost by a very, very slim margin after the Democrat Party paid for a manual recount that overturned the results of the machine recount.

One of the ads, as noted in this article at the Seattle Times, said that "Rossi voted to increase the state gas tax in 2003 and that he once supported the largest cut in transportation funding in state history." The article is referring to television ads but the radio ads I heard were basically the same content.

Of course, as I suspected and as the article confirms, "The ad accurately reports Rossi's votes, but omits important context surrounding the issues." Covering that context would entail excerpting a significant portion of the article so instead I'll just ask you to read it for yourself.

Interestingly, the radio ads were airing on the local conservative talk radio station. I guess if they want to pay the money, the station will take it, even though the ads will be mostly ignored by the station's listeners.

Because we're not a Communist Dictatorship, that's why!

In a speech yesterday, Barack Obama had this to say:

Everybody's watching what's going on in Beijing right now with the Olympics. Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are vastly the superior to us now, which means if you are a corporation deciding where to do business you're starting to think, "Beijing looks like a pretty good option." Why aren't we doing the same thing?

Yeah, Beijing looks pretty good. But only from certain angles.

Hugh Hewitt in this bit at Townhall sums it up nicely:

I suppose so. Provided you don't mind de minimus pollution controls, employing people under Chinese labor conditions, and you don't mind construction standards in the countryside that allow the collapse of thousands of buildings including schools when the earthquake hits, killing tens of thousands.

Obama has said a lot of stupid things recently, but the idea that totalitarian eye-candy engineering proves Beijing is the better than America is near the top of the list.

To be honest, I'm amazed that world records are falling the way they are at the Olympics in swimming and track given the pollution in the air. The swimming venue is indoors so I'm assuming its air is filtered. But the track and field venue (the "Birds Nest") is open air. Still it wouldn't surprise me if they expended the effort to install air filtration systems that provide relatively clean air at the level of the field and lower seating, not to mention the power it takes to run them.

Who you hang with, disarmament, and free speech

Yet another reason to question Barack Obama's judgment when it comes to those he associates with:

As an “ordinary American,” I sincerely question whether Barack Obama has the judgment to be president. His lack of judgment in choosing Eric Holder as a top adviser on his campaign -- the man partly responsible for pardoning terrorists who proudly claimed responsibility for my father’s murder -- serves as primary evidence supporting that judgment.

Holder now leads Obama’s team selecting his running mate for vice president, perhaps Obama’s most important decision during the campaign. Mr. Holder, formerly the No. 2 official in former President Bill Clinton’s Justice Department, often is mentioned as a potential attorney general in an Obama administration. This is the same man who was a driving force behind President Clinton’s pardons of members of the notorious Puerto Rican terrorist group, the Armed Forces for National Liberation (FALN).

I've been saying, and even his supporters have agreed, that Obama desires the disarmament of the law-abiding American citizenry:

But that’s only the tip of the iceberg with this guy. During the 109th U.S. Congress, he voted against Senate bill 397, which outlawed frivolous lawsuits against gun companies. And while campaigning for the presidency in Pennsylvania earlier this year, he voiced his support for reinstating the assault weapons ban and spoke openly about his opposition to laws which allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns on or about their persons.

I always wondered what plans Clinton had for us if he could ever take away our guns, and now I wonder why Obama has been such a vocal critic of private gun ownership in the years leading up to his run for the presidency. What type of “change” does he have in store for the American people if he can succeed in disarming us?

But we the people are not the only ones he wants to disarm:

Obama wants to disarm America nationally by defunding the missile defense initiatives of which Ronald Reagan dreamed and which President George W. Bush has begun implementing. In a video message to his supporters in 2007, Obama promised that, if elected, he would not “weaponize space” and that he would cut investments in the “unproven” missile defense systems Bush already has in place (add to this his additional promises to “slow our development of future combat systems” and pursue a “world without nuclear weapons” by reducing our own supply first, of course -- it’s almost as if you can hear John Lennon asking us to “imagine there’s no heaven”).

Obama’s opposition to self-defense through missile defense equates to the disarmament of our allies around the globe (if there is no missile defense shield to deploy at home, there will be no shield to deploy abroad). This belief will not be lost on former Soviet satellites, which can see what Russia has done to Georgia in the past weeks and ascertain the kind of “change” Obama has in mind for them if he succeeds in denying them their best means of self-defense.

Regarding his desire to eliminate on a practical level the Second Amendment, it has been remarked in response that what's really more important is freedom of speech and that we no longer need the Second to uphold the First in the information age. But don't harbor any illusions that free speech is going to be any more sacred should Democrats control both the executive and legislative branches.

Enter, once again, the Fairness Doctrine. Should Obama be elected, I fully expect the Democrat-controlled Congress to work as hard as it can to put legislation reinstating this odious practice on his desk. And he will most certainly sign it, with a flourish.

It will be enforced against conservative talk radio, essentially destroying the medium. It will be enforced against conservative websites, newspapers, and television network (note the singular). Should it be enforced against liberal radio networks (i.e. NPR), websites (i.e. Daily Kos), newspapers (i.e. the New York Times), and television networks (i.e. all but Fox News), the enforcement will be token in nature with the requirements to fulfill their "obligations" being so easy to meet they are essentially meaningless.

Expect to see the definition of "hate speech" expanded exponentially. Expect to see the word "tolerance" redefined to match what we now call "acceptance" or even "endorsement." Expect to see the nonexistent "right" not to be offended enshrined in regulation.

Don't think it can happen here? Think again. It's already happening in Europe and Canada. We even have Supreme Court Justices who think that European law should inform the decisions of that highest court. If you think it can never happen here, you are a fool. I'd like to think it's unlikely. But I won't make the mistake of believing it to be impossible.

Prophetic

I have an Xbox 360 and one of the games I have is Rock Band. As those familiar with the game know, there are many additional songs available for download from the Xbox Live Marketplace. One such song is Electric Eye by Judas Priest, part of a pack which includes the entire Screaming for Vengeance album.

The lyrics to the song are here.

Judas Priest is from Great Britain. The album was released in 1982. Given how much of a surveillance state Britain has become, this song is particularly prophetic, although the electric eyes are CCTV cameras and not satellites in orbit.

It's the shoes

Isabel Wilkinson over at the Huffington Post has noted the following about John McCain's choice in footwear:

This summer John McCain is traveling in style. He has worn a pair of $520 black leather Ferragamo shoes on every recent campaign stop — from a news conference with the Dalai Lama to a supermarket visit in Bethlehem, PA. The Calfskin loafers, with silver-tone "Gancini" buckles, are imported from Italy.

Really, with all of the issues that the candidates will face during this election, you concentrate on McCain's shoes? Is that all you got? Besides, what kind of shoes does Obama wear? What about Hillary? Wanna bet they're not cheap either?

The thing is, it looks like he's wearing the same pair of shoes in all of the pictures. Yeah, they may be expensive Italian leather, but they're obviously comfortable and durable. For a man who spends as much time as he does on his feet, that's of paramount importance. I'd say he's getting his money's worth.

The double standard

There's something that's been on my mind lately. During the 2004 Presidential election, much was made by the Left of the fact that John Kerry had served in the regular Navy - and had served in Vietnam, don't forget - while George W. Bush had served in the Texas Air National Guard without seeing any combat. Despite the evidence presented by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth about the quality of Kerry's service, there is no denying that he actually did serve and actually was in Vietnam. During the election, Kerry's supporters repeatedly pressed the argument that Kerry's wartime service made him more fit to serve as Commander in Chief than George W. Bush.

Now the situation is reversed and the differences between the candidates is even more extreme. John McCain served in the Navy as a pilot and was shot down over Vietnam. He spent five and a half years in a POW camp where he was tortured. And, unlike waterboarding, there is no dispute that what he experienced was truly torture. His opponent, Barack Obama, never served in the military in any way.

Naturally, Obama's supporters are not saying that McCain's military service makes him in any way better suited to serve as CinC. In fact, unsurprisingly to me at any rate, quite the opposite is occurring:

One aspect of McCain's presidency that I have not seen addressed is the precise form of his military experience. We have had good presidents with military experience - Eisenhower and Carter come to mind - as well as good ones without it - FDR and Clinton, to name two.

But military experience is not all equal. Slogging through the mud is not the same as calibrating a nuclear submarine. And of all the possible military experiences, that of bomber pilot to me is most suspect.

The update to the original post is a particularly splendid example of spin and rationalization:

Update: several folks have pointed out that George McGovern was a bomber pilot, or shared experiences from ones who took their actions with great seriousness. Perhaps being a bomber pilot is one of those intense experiences that reveals underlying character, rather than forming it.

The hypocrisy is palpable. John Hawkins at Right Wing News shares my view.

Inherent in the system

Click here for Hillary Clinton's letter to the Superdelegates. Read it and then come back. Didja read it? Good.

So Clinton is making the point that she's more likely to defeat John McCain in the general election than Barack Obama is.

One of the arguments she makes to support that assertion is that, "nearly all independent analyses show that I am in a stronger position to win the Electoral College, primarily because I lead Senator McCain in Florida and Ohio." This does not mean that she thinks she'll win the popular vote, but the all-important Electoral College vote. Even though Democrats stated that Bush really lost the 2000 election because he lost the popular vote, should Clinton, or Obama, repeat that achievement, expect the Democrats and the media to be curiously silent about it.

Another argument she makes is that more people voted for her in the primaries than for Obama, indeed more than for any Democrat candidate in the past. In her words, "I expect to lead in the popular vote and in delegates earned through primaries."

First of all, if I'm interpreting it correctly, she's completely ignoring the delegates earned through the caucuses in those states which held them, including my home state of Washington.

Second of all she doubtless includes the votes in Michigan and Florida, the former of which didn't even have Obama on the ballot since he obeyed the DNC's ruling regarding Florida holding its primary too early and withdrew his name.

For the sake of argument, though, let's concede that her argument is correct and that she has a better chance of defeating McCain than Obama does. Let's also assume that enough superdelegates agree to make the difference and hand the nomination to Clinton if they vote for her. Will they?

Before I attempt to answer that, let's take a look at the superdelegate system and the reason I, at least, think that it was put in place. Quite simply, the superdelegates exist to override the will of Democrat voters (and caucus attendees) if the party elite decides that the people made the wrong choice. After all, the people can't be trusted to make such an important decision correctly all the time, right?

So given that, and given the assumptions above, will the superdelegates give the nomination to Hillary when all is said and done? I think it's unlikely. The reasons? There are two: The 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections, especially the former where Gore did actually win the popular vote. During and after those elections, and especially after the Florida debacle in 2000, the Democrats made such a big deal about how so many voters were disenfranchised (most if not all allegations of which were not supported by the evidence) that they don't dare give the impression that they're doing the same thing even though the superdelegate system is designed to do exactly that. They're stuck between a rock and a hard place on this and they're trying their damnedest to navigate these tricky waters successfully. I think this is why the remaining uncommitted superdelegates are biding their time waiting to see the final results of all the primaries. And even now there are superdelegates announcing support for Clinton.

But Clinton obviously doesn't care. She's willing to say and do anything to win the nomination and then the general election. Even if it means truly disenfranchising the majority of Democrat voters and caucus attendees. And she either thinks she can pull it off, or she is trying to damage Obama sufficiently that he'll lose the election and thus give her another shot in 2012.

Free speech is not without consequences

Whenever someone on the left strays from the reservation, the hatred and vitriol that comes their way from the far end of the spectrum can be stunning. Joe Leiberman is a classic example and I'm still tickled that he ran as an independent and was still reelected.

The latest Democrat to be made an example of is Geraldine Ferraro after she made comments to the effect that Barack Obama's race does indeed have something to do with why he is where he is. From her article at Wikipedia:

In a March 7, 2008, article in the Torrance, California newspaper, The Daily Breeze, Ferraro said regarding Clinton's nomination rival that "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept". Ferraro had made a similar comment in 1984 about Jesse Jackson. The comment drew heated criticism from the Obama campaign and many others, and although Clinton expressed disagreement with its substance, she did not call for her resignation from the campaign. On March 11, again speaking to the Breeze, Ferraro remained defiant: "I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?" Ferraro refused to apologize. She resigned from Clinton's finance committee the next day, citing a desire to stop hurting the campaign. On March 12, 2008, MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann described Ferraro's remarks as "despicable."

Enter left wing Air America talk show personality Randi Rhodes. At a recent public appearance in San Francisco, she had something to say about both Ferraro and Hillary Clinton (video at the linked page):

Air America host Randi Rhodes called both Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton "whores" in a recent appearance, seen below. Rhodes, who hosts a weekday radio show on Air America, said to the cheering crowd, "What a whore Geraldine Ferraro is! She's such a fucking whore!" She then proceeded to say, "Hillary is a big fucking whore, too" to a mixed audience reaction. "You know why she's a big fucking whore? Because her deal is always, 'Read the fine print, asshole!'"

As a result, and to my pleasant surprise, she has been suspended by Air America. Even they understand that there are lines you don't cross. Rhodes had the right to speak her opinion. However, she is now being taught the lesson that freedom of speech comes with responsibility and that just because she has the right to say what she wants, nobody else is obligated to facilitate that right. Kudos to Air America and I hope that they don't cave in to pressure and change their minds.

Too many blows to the head I guess

Back when he was running for Governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura appeared on a morning show. I don't remember for sure but I think it was the Today Show and I think he was talking with Matt Lauer so I'll assume that's the case for brevity's sake. The topic of gun control came up. Ventura stated his opposition to gun registration and cited "what happened in the Philippines" in support of his view. I'm assuming that what he was referring to was registration followed by systematic confiscation of firearms by the government. Lauer said, "This isn't the Philippines," to which Ventura replied, "So?" He was exactly right. While it is less likely to happen in this country, historically registration of firearms by a nation's government has almost always been followed by confiscation. Ventura earned significant respect from me that day.

However, he just blew it all.

Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura vehemently savaged the official 9/11 story on a syndicated national radio show today, saying the WTC collapsed like a controlled demolition and was pulverized to dust as he also highlighted the impossible 10 second free fall speed of the towers.

Wow, I guess taking steroids really does mess with your brain. He apparently watched "Loose Change," the movie which purports to show how 9/11 was a big government conspiracy, and now his eyes have been opened.

"To me questions haven't been answered and are not being answered about 9/11," said Ventura, before highlighting the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story tall skyscraper that was not hit by a plane but collapsed in its own footprint in the late afternoon of September 11.

That's because it was next to one of the collapsing towers and suffered substantial damage from the debris that struck it as the tower collapsed. When that tower came down, that kinetic energy had to go somewhere. A lot of it ended up in material shooting out the sides at substantial velocity.

"How could those buildings fall at the speed of gravity - if you put a stopwatch on them both of those World Trade Center buildings were on the ground in ten seconds - how can that be?" asked Ventura.

When that much weight starts falling, the remaining floors will present very little resistance to that kind of momentum. The entire structure above the impact point of each tower started falling as a single unit. Once it fell even a few feet, there was no stopping it and the lower structure only barely slowed it down.

The former wrestling star then questioned how low-temperature burning jet fuel could melt steel.

"Jet fuel is four fifths kerosene - which is not a hot burning fuel - and they wanted us to believe it melted these steel structured girders and caused these buildings to pancake collapse to the ground?" he stated. "I was on the site within two weeks after it happened and I saw none of these pancakes - wouldn't they all be piled up in a huge mass on the ground and yet everything was blown into dust - when you look at it from that aspect none of it makes any sense," said Ventura.

Rosie O'Donnell was wrong about this, and so is Ventura. Pour some jet fuel on the ground and light it. If it burns, it'll burn slowly it's true. But when those planes hit those towers, their kinetic energy was translated into an enormous amount of heat. The jet fuel burned, but it wasn't the only thing burning. Paper, wood, and other flammable materials all contributed to the heat, and they can burn mighty hot when in a concentrated area with good airflow. Not to mention the initial weakening of the structures by the impacts themselves.

As for the "pancakes" see above about the tremendous kinetic energy. When the concrete floors came down, they were pulverized, and as noted above a lot of that material was blown out the sides, damaging adjacent buildings.

"Never before in the annuls (sic) of history has a fire caused a steel structure building to fall to the ground like these two did," he concluded.

Never before has a steel structure building been subjected to that much initial structural damage and had that much concentrated fire in the damaged area. The event was completely unprecedented.

Having undergone Basic Underwater Demolition Seal training, Ventura is speaking from an experienced standpoint and he unequivocally stated that he thought the buildings were deliberately imploded.

The kind of training he underwent had nothing to do with bringing down large structures. It's a completely different kind of demolitions than what SEALs do. And since there's no mention of him actually using what he learned in a practical application he probably doesn't have any real world experience to back up his assertion.

How much explosive material do you think is required to bring down a building, even one like the Las Vegas hotels he mentions? How long does it take to prepare the building? The structural members have to be exposed and, in many cases, deliberately weakened. The explosives have to be placed and wires have to be run. Does he honestly think all the required activity could have occurred with absolutely nobody observing any of it? Does he honestly think that, with all of the people it would have required, especially those with experience in demolishing large buildings, that it could have stayed a secret?

Ventura also questioned the lack of wreckage outside of the Pentagon after Flight 77 allegedly struck the building.

"When I was watching Loose Change with a friend of mine - he happens to work for a company that helps build the Boeing airplanes and they said that when the engines completely disappeared and were destroyed, his response was, excuse my French - bullshit!," said Ventura.

"I turned to him and said why and he said because they're made of titanium steel - they can't disintegrate."

What does this guy's company do? Is it involved in materials science? Without a name and company, this particular argument is meaningless; it’s a classic example of the “appeal to authority” logical fallacy. And though I don't doubt titanium is used in jet engines, it certainly doesn't comprise the majority of material and isn't used for the engine housings. Like with a collapsing building, a large aircraft flying at speed has tremendous kinetic energy and when it impacts the ground or a building, much of that energy becomes heat. The rest simply causes the aircraft to be pulverized. There's a video of an F-4 Phantom being crashed at high speed into a concrete block wall. The plane is simply flattened and powdered like it's made of chalk. Look at pictures of any airliner crash site and you'll see the same thing. Every time I have I've wondered where the plane went. And there was indeed wreckage found, quite a bit actually, just not a lot of large pieces.

The definitive debunking of these myths, for myths they certainly are, was done by Popular Mechanics. I humbly suggest that Mr. Ventura read it before spouting any more Truther nonsense.

What media bias? Part the uncountably infinite

Well here's another go at trying to post regularly here. My brother has finally started posting here and now has his own place as well so go check it out. Now on to the story....

It's old news now but Detroit's Mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick, has been criminally charged for lying about a sexual affair that he had with his former chief of staff, Christine Beatty, who has also been charged:

In a Monday morning press conference, Wayne County's top prosecutor, Kym L. Worthy, charged Kilpatrick with eight felonies, including perjury, obstruction of justice and misconduct for the text messages he allegedly traded with his paramour, Christine Beatty.

But the reason I'm bringing this up is one that has been repeated time after time. I searched around for the various news stories describing this situation. I probably looked at about twenty in total. Of those, only two mentioned that Kilpatrick is a Democrat. Yet another example of the media attempting to downplay the party affiliation of a Democrat involved in scandal. At this point I can safely say that if the party is not mentioned in the first paragraph (or the headline), the story is about a Democrat. Republicans' party affiliation is almost invariably revealed early.

Wow, this Blogging stuff gets addictive!

So, I've decided to start my own blog, Griffon's Lair, right here on Blogger. Check out my first post. I get to use my favorite word again!

Arthur C. Clarke, RIP

Sir Arthur C. Clarke has died.

A profound moment of silence is indeed called for.

I did not give as much of my time to Arthur C. Clarke's work as I gave to Isaac Asimov or Robert Heinlein (the other two of the Big Three described by Bruce Webster here).

But! There's no question that his impact on future writers and scientists has reverberated down through the years and affected me in my daily life constantly.

I may not have the words to properly eulogize Sir Arthur, but others will. Break out your google fingers this morning and check around.

Fare thee well.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Flouting the rules=disenfranchisement?

Facing strong opposition, Florida Democrats abandoned plans to hold a do-over presidential primary with a mail-in vote and threw the delegate dispute into the lap of the national party.

(But wait a minute; why is there an issue here? The DNP already settled this question, before the primary!!)

Of course, is anybody surprised it's coming down to this? I know Hillary Clinton isn't. (Come to think of it, she probably is surprised, and steaming mad, that the whole primary hasn't been settled in her favor already.)
It's also no surprise that now when things become important, suddenly the democrats shouldn't have to follow the rules, not even their own!
According to the rules of the Democratic National Party, if Florida held their primary before a certain date, the DNP would not recognize it as a valid primary, and would not be counted toward choosing which candidate the democrats would put up for President. Florida, and Florida's democrat voters *knew* this. They defied the party anyway, and the DNC enforced their rules. Well, so far anyway...

So of course, what happens when things start getting a little rough in Democrat-Land? Here comes that word:

Michael Steinberg, a lawyer for Victor DiMaio, a Democratic Party activist from Tampa, said Florida's Democratic voters are being disenfranchised by not being permitted to have their say in choosing their party's nominee. The action violates DiMaio's constitutional right to equal protection, he argued.

So check me on this; The primary is a way for a certain group of voters to decide who they're going to back for office in a general election. This is a procedural vote for members of a subset of the american voting public. No office is being filled here. Where's the disenfranchisement? Not to mention, where were the state's democrats when the state decided to forge ahead with this defiance? Where were their voices then? (Same question to Florida Republicans actually).

Question: When a vote is called, and you flagrantly violate the procedures for how your vote is cast, are you disenfranchised? I say no. I say you played yourself. In fact, Florida knew this going into the vote. They didn't agree with the rules, didn't follow the rules, and did it hoping that something just such as this would occur. So arguably, Florida is getting exactly what it wants, at the expense of it's representation within the Democrat party.

Pardon me if I giggle. Would the word 'schadenfreude' be appropriate here? It is probably one of my very favorite words of all, and I very rarely get to use it (much less experience it). So permit me my moment... ah. Go Florida!!

In a very rare case for me, I find myself agreeing with the DNP:

"The citizens of the state of Florida are not being treated equally," Steinberg told the judges. But Joe Sandler, a lawyer for the Democratic National Committee, said the party has the right to set its own ... rules and not seat delegates who refuse to follow them.

Actually Michael Steinberg, I daresay the (democrat voting) citizens are being treated exactly equal. Equal to any set of members within the DNP who violate the procedures of the party. Just ask Michigan. Hehe. (of course, we can already predict what's going to happen next in Michigan, can't we?) And, oddly enough, ask the members of the Republican Party in Florida and Michigan. Their primaries violated their party procedures as well, and they also are being treated according to their party's rules. Of course, on the Republican primary side, the question is settled already, without FL or MI.

(Of course, to a Democrat, equal means "I get it my way." Again, this time it's being used against other Democrats. Schadenfreude? Me? Hehe.)

...let me tell you what your tax dollars bought...

On one hand, it's great to hear that a soldier is proud of his equipment. On the other hand, he's kind of busy you know... fighting a war. Couldn't he be doing something better with his time then being made to defend his ride against his own government (the one that supplied him with it in the first place).
Anyway, I enjoyed reading this first-hand account of how the Stryker MGS [Mobile Gun System] is being used in the field. I didn't even know it (this variant of the Stryker) existed. Actually, I don't know too much about the Stryker at all except that everybody seems to badmouth it.
And as you read this, tell me that you never had some criticisms of your own when it came to *your* favorite ride. Nothing's perfect, eh? (Yeah, I know; your old Chevette can't truly be compared to a soldier's armored fighting vehicle, but hey.)

Hat tip: Instapundit

PS: I'm RadarRider's little brother. You can see me listed as a contributor to this blog. So perhaps I should contribute? My first post here at Flying Above the Radar. :-)

Fred bows out of the race

Fred Thompson has withdrawn his candidacy for the Republican Presidential nomination. I'm pretty disappointed at this news. I won't second-guess Fred's decision because I am not him, nor am I an expert at campaigning for President. However, I would have liked to see him stay in it and campaign in Florida, especially since only Republicans can vote in the Republican primary in that state. It's possible that Democrats voting in earlier Republican primaries (such as South Carolina) had an effect on the outcomes so Florida would have been a better indicator of true Republican sentiment.

Again, I am not an expert but I do think there are some things Fred could have done better. Jim Geraghty has some words on the subject that I agree with. And it's too bad that the opportunity to refuse to do a show of hands in a debate didn't come sooner. But what's really sad is that more people didn't see Fred for what kind of President he would have made, whether because of the distortions of the media or their perception that he was "lazy" or didn't have the required "fire in the belly." And now too many of use who did won't have the chance to demonstrate it.

Nevertheless, what's done is done. I know I speak for a lot of folks when I say I'm sorry to see you go, Fred. I was really looking forward to voting for you in the Washington State primary and now I won't be able to unless I write your name in. Thanks for trying, and I hope you don't give up on politics altogether. This country needs as many people as possible for whom Federalism is the central tenet of their political views.

And now I have to figure out who I'm going to vote for and, with Fred no longer in the race, it will be a difficult decision indeed.

Update: The ever-irascible Kim du Toit is not as charitable in his initial reaction. I know how he feels. I want to be mad at Fred for pulling out so soon but I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and temper my response. Perhaps in the coming days his reaction will prove to be justified. Until and unless that happens, however, I stand by the above.

Dan Rather plays the victim

LGF points to an Associated Press article which explains that Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS for firing him may be allowed to proceed. As noted toward the end of the article:

Rather was removed from his "CBS Evening News" post in March 2005, six months after he narrated a report that said Bush disobeyed orders and shirked some of his duties during his National Guard service. The report also said a commander felt pressured to sugarcoat Bush's record.

As noted at LGF, the article makes no mention of the following facts:

• The story was based on documents which were later proven to be fraudulent. (They were not forgeries which would imply that they were copies of legitimate original documents.)
• Even after the documents' validity was disproven, Rather continued to assert that the story was true even though he had no real proof.

As these were germane to the case, the fact that the article omitted them is, well, not surprising at all. This is the AP after all.

So why is Rather suing CBS?

Rather, whose last months at CBS were clouded by a disputed story on President Bush's Vietnam-era military service, says his employers made him a "scapegoat" to placate the White House after questions arose about the story.

No, Dan. They let you go because you are a partisan idiot who wanted so badly for the story to be true that you kept saying it was so even though your evidence was shown to be false. You were sullying CBS's name every minute you kept it up and they decided they already had plenty of problems with their credibility without you making things worse.

You have freedom of speech. You have the right to speak your opinions. However, CBS is under no obligation to facilitate it. You work for them, you represent them and what you say reflects on them regardless of any disclaimers to the contrary. They had every right to let you go.

Why the media dislikes Fred

The Fred File blog at Fred Thompson's official web site linked to a post by Ron Winter addressing among other things the media's criticism of Fred on his "late" entry into the race and how he's running his campaign. He writes:

Thompson has been roundly criticized in the media for not entering the fray earlier, and for not making a big splash when he did formally declare. It should be noted that the media which is criticizing Thompson is the same media that decides whether or nor a candidate has made a "splash" - contingent entirely upon the level of play the media gives to the story.

Thompson has been slammed by the media because he isn't playing by the media's rules. Yet for all the criticism, Thompson is moving steadily upward. The truth is, Thompson is simply walking a different path to the same goal, and it may be a better route.

But Fred's sticking to his guns and doing it his way. This leads to the following comment of which the last paragraph is the money quote:

There is a tenet in public relations and political circles that you never argue with the media, not matter how badly they have misquoted you. I don't agree.

If the media is being partisan, and unprofessional, I believe you should grab the offender straight on and demand a correction. If the media outlet refuses to correct its mistakes, take out an ad pointing out the discrepancy, the refusal to tell the truth, and let the voters see what you really said. I also believe in bringing your own tape recorder or video camera to any interview so you have your own evidence of what was said.

The media is not sacrosanct and it is long past time to be treating irresponsible and unprofessional reporters as saints who can't be questioned or challenged.

Emphasis mine.

Read the other posts linked to at Fred File as well. It's clear that the media doesn't like Fred Thompson and they provide several good reasons for this. Yet I'm thinking that there is something more behind this.

I posit the following:

• The mainstream media is, in general, biased toward liberal views and thus, again in general, towards Democrat elected officials and candidates.
• The mainstream media is thus scared witless by the prospect of President Fred Thompson.
• The mainstream media fears that Thompson has a good chance of becoming president if nominated, regardless of who the Democrat nominee is.
• The mainstream media thinks that certain other Republican candidates can more easily be defeated by Hillary or Obama.
  

It therefore follows that the media would very much like someone other than Fred Thompson to be the Republican nominee, someone they feel has a good chance of losing to either of the two Democrat candidates most likely to be nominated. And thus we can conclude that the media will do what it can to drag Thompson down and elevate one or more other Republican candidates which is what appears to be happening.

Personal Privacy and False Familiarity

The ever-irascible Kim du Toit has some thoughtful words about the expectation of privacy in our personal lives and how we interact with people we don't know. He contrasts the culture here in the United States with that of his home country of South Africa:

We Americans are too quick to impose ourselves on other people, too quick to want to establish some kind of personal bond with total strangers.

”Hi; my name is George, and I’ll be your server tonight.”

1.) I don’t care who you are.
2.) Obviously you are my server, because you came up to my table carrying a menu.

It’s that kind of false familiarity which gets on my nerves, and makes me want to say something extremely rude back to the person—because assuming familiarity with me is horribly rude to start off with.

He also addresses the privacy of "public" people such as celebrities and those who have been caught up in important events.

Now I admit that I tend to be very friendly to the people who are providing me service. Part of the reason is that I'm a generally gregarious person, though I do have times when I just want to be left alone. Another part, however, is that I've done that type of job myself when I was in college and I've learned not to be a jerk. Of course, if service is poor or I have an issue with the establishment I'm not going to ignore it, but being friendly up front tends to result in better service. Imagine that.

Even so, I don't offer details of my private life nor solicit such details from them. I'm more than polite, which may push Kim's comfort boundaries, but I save the private stuff for if and when I get to know someone better.

Fred Thompson's problems

Paul Ibrahim compares and contrasts the Republican candidates. He begins:

Mitt Romney said it best in last week’s debate: “We're not going to get the White House nor strengthen America unless we can pull together the coalition of conservatives and conservative thought that has made us successful as a party. And that's social conservatives. It's also economic conservatives. And foreign policy and defense conservatives.”

After going through the issues he has with all of the others, he comes to Fred:

This leaves us with Fred Thompson, who, ironically, is the candidate best described by Romney’s words about the Republican tripod. In short, Thompson holds the same conservative positions of all the other candidates combined, and has none of their flaws. In fact, any close observer of the campaign season would tell you that Thompson has been on the receiving end of barely any substantive attacks on policy issues. This is no coincidence. And it is the reason he has had to bear the brunt of shallow attacks about his demeanor, campaigning style, and laziness (whatever that means).

Of course, Fred isn't without his issues either:

You know a candidate is solid when his biggest problem is his unwillingness to follow the pack on campaigning styles. You know you can trust a candidate when, unlike his opponents, he is regularly unmentioned by accuracy watchdogs like FactCheck.org following debates. And you know what you’re getting in a candidate whose campaign rhetoric so closely matches his legislative record.

I'm sure there are a lot of people in the media that are scared witless by the prospect of President Fred Thompson. So when you read opinions about how he's "lazy" or "doesn't seem to care" about his campaign, keep in mind the source. And then read the updates at Fred08, see just how busy he actually is, and note where he's making his appearances. From the reports it's clear that he's taking his message to the people where they live and work, eschewing such events as fancy campaign dinners at a thousand bucks a plate. Leave that to the Democrats.

Krauthammer on religion and politics

I think he pretty much nails it:

In the same way that civil rights laws established not just the legal but also the moral norm that one simply does not discriminate on the basis of race -- changing the practice of one generation and the consciousness of the next -- so the constitutional injunction against religious tests is meant to make citizens understand that such tests are profoundly un-American.

Now, there's nothing wrong with having a spirited debate on the place of religion in politics. But the candidates are confusing two arguments.

The first, which conservatives are winning, is defending the legitimacy of religion in the public square. The second, which conservatives are bound to lose, is proclaiming the privileged status of religion in political life.

There's nothing wrong with one's opinions and decisions being informed by one's religious beliefs. To ask someone to go against those beliefs simply because of how they are arrived at is asking him or her to violate their integrity.

I don't know if I necessarily agree with his statement that "Europe is one of the freest precincts on the planet." Why this is so I leave as an exercise for the reader.

Don't forget Afghanistan

In case anyone is wondering if we're making any progress in Afghanistan, I present this:

Afghanistan's government flag was raised Wednesday on what had been one of the biggest strongholds of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and a leading world center of heroin production.

Coalition forces aren't messing around. When you're dealing with an enemy that respects only force, you use a lot of it:

Embedded with a team of British troops and a detachment/"A–team" of U.S. special forces, I watched the Taliban being pounded these last few days with overwhelming force -- vapor trails circled in the clear blue sky over the Helmand desert as B1 and B52 bombers backed by A10 tank busters, F16s, Apache helicopters and Specter gunships were used to kill hundreds of Taliban fighters.

As in Iraq, the enemy isn't just indigenous:

U.S. forces believe the Taliban were backed by a large strength of foreign fighters, including those linked to al Qaeda. Soldiers who I accompanied found one dead fighter whose notebook revealed he was from Pakistan.

It just further hammers home the point that Afghanistan and Iraq are two campaigns in a larger war. Iran is yet another, albeit one that hasn't escalated to the point where we take military action.

H/T Mike at Cold Fury.

Fred's the man

Yeah, I know I said I'd start posting again and I haven't. It'll probably take a while to get back in the habit of regular updates. For now, though, I have an announcement.

I hereby declare that I support Fred Thompson for President of the United States.

Having said that, should he not be the Republican nominee, next November I will vote for whoever is, and do so with a clear conscience.