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.