Race baiters apologize for lying about Jena 6 incident

Ooops, wait. I made a mistake. There was no apology.

But they did lie about the incident being racially motivated, which I have been saying for a long time ( I wrote a January 2008 column about it and a blog post here that contains a link to a great column about the incident by Charlotte Allen)

Five of the six black high school students charged with attempted murder in 2006 for allegedly beating a white classmate pleaded no contest in a Louisiana court Friday, closing the book on a racially charged case.

The men agreed to plea deals that settled lawsuits filed against them by Justin Barker and his family the year after the December 4, 2006, incident in the town of Jena, population 3,000. The case was referred to as the "Jena Six."

To refresh your memory, the six African American yutes beat the crap out of a white boy because they claimed he hurled racial epithets at them. Then all sorts of tall tales erupted, not the least of which were the three nooses hung from the "whites only tree of knowledge" which painted this case as not one of thuggery (which it was) but of the black victims rising up against their white oppressors (which it was not).

The case drew national headlines when the teens were charged with attempted murder and conspiracy to commit attempted murder.

After the charges triggered protests from critics who said they were too strict, a judge reduced the charges against Shaw, Jesse Ray Beard, Robert Bailey Jr., Carwin Jones and Bryant Purvis to battery and conspiracy.

The sixth defendant, Mychal Bell, pleaded guilty in December 2007 to a misdemeanor second-degree battery charge and was sentenced to 18 months in jail.

At the hearing, attorneys representing the five men read a statement expressing sympathy to the Barkers and acknowledging that Justin Barker did not use a racial slur. They also apologized to the residents of Jena for the uproar caused by the case.

For those of you taking notes, those of you who may understandably be a bit confused in navigating these ever-changing waters of what is and and is not racist, this incident is not going to offer much clarity for you. Questioning the legitimacy of the racial aspect of this incident was in and of itself considered racist during the time it was happening. If you weren't cheering on the "modern civil rights movement's" version of Montgomery, Alabama or denouncing the continued prominence of the Jim Crow south in this day and age, then you were a racist. Even if you were a white person who had no opinion on this incident, you probably were harboring an "undercurrent" of racism.

Now, just like the Duke Lacross rape case, the false charges of racism will be quietly swept under the rug so that the race baiters can use their same weapons another day.

Nope. There's absolutely no need to correct the record. Move along. There's nothing to see here.

H/T to Wyatt at Support Your Local Gunfighter.

How do you silence dissenting opinion? Call it racism.

Having been a casualty of this kind of tactic in the recent past, I'm only mildly surprised that the target this time is Fox News, the only network news left that doesn't follow Barack Obama around in slobbering worship (see here and here and here just for starters). Blonde Sagacity calls my attention to this Facebook Group, whose mission, I suppose, is to speak "truth to power." Here's their purpose (and yes, they put it in all caps, just in case you weren't clear about how angry they are.):

WE ARE IN THE YEAR 2009 AND STILL WE HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THE MEDIA ONLY COVERING THE NEGATIVES OF THE AFRICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY. CALLING OUR FIRST AFRICAN AMERICAN PRESIDENT A SENATOR. NOT GIVING HIM THE PROPER COVERAGE AND SUPPORT. TRYING TO PIN ALL THE BLAME ON HIM AND HE HAS ONLY BEEN IN OFFICE FOR 100 DAYS. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. WE SHOULD HAVE BOYCOTTED FOX AFTER KATRINA WHEN THEY CALLED OUR PEOPLE LOOTERS AND RUFUGEES. THIS IS THE GROUP WERE WE STAND UP AND SAY NO MORE!!!!!

The goal of these types of people, and the cowardly lackeys who cave into their demands, is to de-legitimize any criticism of the current administration by calling it racism or claiming that the critics are themselves racist. Barack Obama is the most radical president this country has ever seen; the policies he has rammed through congress in his six months in office stand in direct contradiction to our founding pricipals. But instead of debating the criticism on the merits, these people use smear tactics and bullying by leveling false charges of racism. It's an old and proven tactic of the left and instead of losing it's effectiveness during the reign of our first President of the "post racial era", it's actually gained effectiveness as a bludgeon to keep the illusion of hope 'n' change alive.

I weep for the future of our country.

The Tragedy of Michael Jackson

Michael Jackson's life was a tragedy long before his death yesterday. Because of his enormous success, he was able to surround himself only with yes men--sychophants who never contradicted him and never had the power to save him from himself. He was so famous and so rich he could create an alternate reality for himself with his own rules.

For years, every time I heard a song by the Jackson Five, I felt sad thinking of the cute little boy he was and how far away that little boy was from the freak he had become. The freakish plastic surgery, the allegations of pedophilia, the incredible financial debts, odd mannerisms, the dangling baby, and the whole Jackson family's bizzarre tendency to put their psychological quirks into song, sadly now seem to overshadow his tremendous talent. As the news media now trots out the enablers he surrounded himself with, both famous and freakish themselves, (Liz Taylor, Madonna, Corey Feldman, Uri Geller), it's easy to forget now, 15 to 20 years after the peak of his popularity, what a gifted entertainer he was.

Before he was Jacko, he was the King of Pop. The clip above is from the Motown 25th anniversary show and it shows a Michael Jackson on the cusp of super stardom. Many people will remember it, as I do, as the first time they ever saw Jackson's signature Moonwalk. Forget the Michael Jackson weirdness for a few minutes and jump back into the mid-eighties to enjoy what was truly a landmark performance by one of the greatest entertainers of all time.

Best blog post title ever

And a tidy sumnation of Obama foreign policy this week:

Obama: I Don't Want to Meddle, and I Certainly Still Respect the Islamic Regime and Supreme Leader, and the Hot Dog Invitation is Still On, But Oh, By the Way? All the Protests? You're Welcome

Ace of Spades HQ. Read the post here.

Daddy's Little Girl

Belgian Kimberley Vlaminck said last week she woke up in horror to find her face covered in the stars of various sizes which spread out over the left-hand side of her head.

She went on to blame the Flemish-speaking tattooist for not being able to understand her French and English instructions.

In an absolutely shocking turn of events, it turns out that Kimberly was lying about falling asleep in the tattoo parlor. She made the story up because her father was furious when she came home.

I can't imagine why:



You know, as parents, most of us would die for our kids. We nurture them, we raise them as best we can and we try to protect them from harm. We agonize over boo boos and age 20 years if we have to take them to the hospital. We pay for braces, contact lenses, fashionable clothes, dermatologists, etc.

And sometimes we get rewarded for that hard work with this. The minute they turn into legal adults.

Amid a frenzy of media attention, she then vowed to sue tattoo artist Rouslan Toumaniantz for the £9,000 she needs for laser surgery to have them removed.

She said after the tattooing: 'It is terrible for me. I cannot go out on to the street. I look like a freak.'

Yup.

However, things could be worse for Kimberly's father. Much, much worse:


This is the guy who did her tattoos. She could have told Toumaniantz to give her the same look.

Or she could have introduced Toumaniantz as her fiance.

I'm sorry. I'm sure he's a really nice guy. But I just. Don't. Understand.

Bucknell: Affirmative action is discriminatory

But only when conservatives do it. Inky:

The "affirmative-action bake sale," at which the Bucknell University Conservatives Club charged different prices depending on a customer's race, was shut down by the administration in April. But it didn't end there.

Bucknell president Brian C. Mitchell has received about 100 letters, e-mails, and phone calls protesting the administration's response.

A Philadelphia-based national free-speech group this month blasted the school in a news release that began, "Student rights are under assault at Bucknell University. ..."

And a fledgling group of alumni and other interested parties issued a statement of concern last week.

The controversy at Bucknell - a 3,500-student liberal arts university in Lewisburg, Pa., about 75 minutes north of the state capital - is not unique.

College campuses across the country frequently must deal with delicate issues of free speech, political posturing, and race relations.

"Delicate issues" of free speech? Free speech has only become a "delicate issue" because of the left's continuing attempts to silence free speech through political correctness.

In March, the [Bucknell Conservative] club complained that the administration shut down another of its activities - passing out anti-stimulus handbills that blared "The Socialist State of America" on the front with President Obama's face. On the back, the fake dollar bills read: "Obama's stimulus plan makes your money as worthless as Monopoly money."

That incident and the bake sale prompted the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) to get involved.

"We want everyone around Bucknell to know that Bucknell is not a place that respects students' rights," said FIRE's Adam Kissel.

FIRE has successfully defended student groups at the College of William and Mary, Northeastern Illinois and DePaul Universities, the University of California, Irvine, and the University of Colorado at Boulder when those schools attempted to stop bake sales, Kissel said. The group, which was co-founded by University of Pennsylvania history professor and free-speech advocate Alan Charles Kors in 1999, takes on cases of free speech at the nation's colleges and universities. Its Web site is www.thefire.org

Bucknell officials said that the school's reactions to the bake sale and the handbill handouts were not an issue of free speech, but rather of campus "safety and fairness."

Ahh, yes. Break out the old "student safety" trope when any group of students deigns to stop marching lockstep with the University's agenda of politcal correctness. What's left unspoken is why there would be any danger or "safety" issues resulting from a bake sale. I wish the University would elaborate on that.

Students did not have the required prior permission to hand out the handbills at the cafeteria entrance, the school said. Permission is required to prevent cross-scheduling and allow management to prepare for "possible reactions" to the events, "including for the safety of those involved," Bucknell's general counsel, Wayne Bromfield, wrote in a response to FIRE dated June 11.

And the bake sale was "discriminatory," Bromfield wrote.

"If students wish to engage other students in related discussions, there are opportunities for doing so that do not require us to sanction disparate treatment of our students, faculty, staff or visitors based on ethnic, racial, gender, religious, or other demographic distinctions," he wrote.

So the University squashed the free speech demomstration based on the premise that an "affirmative action" bake sale was "discriminatory."

Of course affirmative action is discriminatory; that's the point of it--to promote one group of people over another based upon the color of their skin. The Bucknell Conservative Club's crime was speaking that out loud.

But as I said, it's only offensive when conservatives do it. When women's groups do it, they are sparking important and critical dialog:

Fiddling while Iran burns?

Hot Air has the best coverage of what's been going on in Iran this weekend here and here. If you haven't been following this important story, catch up now. Then read this and tell me: Is this just Obama being "cool-headed" in a crisis, or is our President woefully naive, out of his league and in denial regarding foreign policy?

Count me in the latter group. We should be speaking up for Democracy, not cowering and dithering over whether voicing one of the founding principals of this country constitutes "meddling." Especially now, when the vilolence of the Republica Guard against civilians over the weekend has apparently produced "quiet" on the streets of Tehran today.

World of Warcraft: Denied

H/T Hot Air

Hope & Change: More Government Goodies

For the past two weeks, I have been hearing a program called "SafeLink Wireless" advertised on the Preston and Steve Show on WMMR:

Lifeline Assistance is part of a program that was created by the government to provide discounted or free telephone service to income-eligible consumers. To help bring you this important benefit, SafeLink Wireless is proud to offer Lifeline Service. Through our Lifeline Service you will receive FREE cellular service, a FREE cell phone, and FREE Minutes every month! SafeLink Wireless Service does not cost anything – there are no contracts, no recurring fees and no monthly charges.

Any Minutes you do not use will roll-over. Features such as caller ID, call waiting and voicemail are all also included with your service. If you need additional Minutes, you can buy TracFone Airtime Cards at any TracFone retailer Walmart, Walgreens, Family Dollar, etc). SafeLink Airtime Cards will be available soon.

Your exact benefits, including the number of free Minutes you will receive, depend on the state you live in.

Where to start?

First of all, this service is not "free." If you pay taxes, you pay for this service. Second of all, how much is the advertising campaign for this program costing us? The Preston and Steve Show is the top rated morning show in Philly; it goes without saying that advertising rates are pretty pricey.

Finally, when did cell phone service become a critical necessity that a government program needed to be created to provide this for the "less fortunate?" From the name of this program, we can assume that we are supposed to come to the conclusion that having cell phone service is a matter of "safety" therefore it should be considered a "crisis" if there is a segment of society that cannot afford it, no matter that there are plenty of pre-paid cell plans out there that are very reasonably priced. Cricket Wireless and Metro PCS deal exclusively in programs like this, but most of the major providers also have a prepaid option. The plans require no credit check, no contract and many offer free cell phones. Indeed, even deactivated cell phones will still connect to 911 without a carrier.

In Pennsylvania, aside from the caller ID, free voice mail and call waiting (services, by the way, that are an additional charge on you land line) you get 42 "free" minutes. Every month. With rollover.

The widespread use of cell phone technology is a pretty recent phenomenon--it makes you wonder how people survived without it before it became mainstream (much like health insurance--remember the old days when people were just happy to have hospitalization?) It also makes you wonder why free land line service was not deemed a critical service in the past.

Possibly because telephone service is not a right; it's a privilege people are willing to pay for. And cell phone service is a luxury.

Meanwhile, the nanny state continues it's relentless creep.

Fallout over White House fly assassination

A reader quipped in response to my post yesterday that he thought "President Obama was against capital punishment." My return quip was a throway sarcastic line about how mad PETA was about it.

That was before I found out that PETA really did issue a statement on the "execution:"

But now People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, calling it an "execution," wants the commander-in-chief to show a little more compassion to even "the least sympathetic animals."

"Believe it or not, we've actually been contacted by multiple media outlets wanting to know PETA's official response to the executive insect execution," a blog on the group's website explained. "In a nutshell, our position is this: He isn't the Buddha, he's a human being, and human beings have a long way to go before they think before they act."

The group has sent Obama a device that traps a fly so it can then be released outside.

"We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals," PETA spokesman Bruce Freidrich explained.

And Iowahawk reports about a lawsuit filed in connection with the assassination:

The widow of the housefly murdered by Barack Obama during a recent CNBC television interview announced this morning that she would be filing a wrongful death suit against the President in federal district court. The plaintiff brief -- citing pain, suffering and loss of income -- seeks a formal apology and compensatory damages, including an unspecified quantity of shit.

"Bob was wonderful husband and provider," said the widow, Mrs. Vivian Vvzzvzwwzzz, wiping tears from her compound eyes. "Even though he was always busy at the Rose Garden turd pile, he always flew home in time to tuck in our maggots."

The 17-day old widow said the grieving process since the murder has taken its toll.

"Although it's been nearly 48 hours, I still get an empty feeling in my thorax everytime I think about it," she said. "I feel like I've aged an entire week. Mating season is over, and here I am, stuck trying to raise 532 larvae on my own."

Vvzzvzwwzzz described the "abdomen-wrenching horror" she experienced while watching the President casually assassinate her husband during the live broadcast.

"It was just before supper time and I was predigesting the evening shit for the kids," she recalled. "When I looked up at the TV I saw Bob there, and of course I was pretty excited. He started waving at me, and then, all of a sudden, SLAP! My whole world, my life, layed smashed across the back of Obama's left hand. And with 360 degree peripheral vision and hundreds of eye facets, it was impossible to look away."

Ever since the incident, Mrs. Vvzzvzwwzzz said she had been trying to piece her life back together.

"I just get paralyzed wondering how I'm going to raise my larvae for the next six days, alone, without any kind of support," she said. "Most days I just end up on the clung to the ceiling, numb and crying, eating a rancid bowl of Ben & Jerry's."

Wuss Diplomacy

That big international test Joe Biden warned us about? It's here. As Iran struggles to find it's identity, Barack Obama sits on the fence.

Today's WSJ:

The President yesterday denounced the "extent of the fraud" and the "shocking" and "brutal" response of the Iranian regime to public demonstrations in Tehran these past four days.

"These elections are an atrocity," he said. "If [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad had made such progress since the last elections, if he won two-thirds of the vote, why such violence?" The statement named the regime as the cause of the outrage in Iran and, without meddling or picking favorites, stood up for Iranian democracy.

The President who spoke those words was France's Nicolas Sarkozy.

The French are hardly known for their idealistic foreign policy and moral fortitude. Then again many global roles are reversing in the era of Obama. The American President didn't have anything to say the first two days after polls closed in Iran on Friday and an improbable landslide victory for Mr. Ahmadinejad sparked the protests. "I have deep concerns about the election," he said yesterday at the White House, when he finally did find his voice. "When I see violence directed at peaceful protestors, when I see peaceful dissent being suppressed, wherever that takes place, it is of concern to me and it's of concern to the American people."

(...)

The Obama Administration came into office with a realpolitik script to goad the mullahs into a "grand bargain" on its nuclear program. But Team Obama isn't proving to be good at the improv. His foreign policy gurus drew up an agenda defined mainly in opposition to the perceived Bush legacy: The U.S. will sit down with the likes of Iran, North Korea or Russia and hash out deals. In a Journal story on Monday, a senior U.S. official bordered on enthusiastic about confirming an Ahmadinejad victory as soon as possible. "Had there been a transition to a new government, a new president wouldn't have emerged until August. In some respects, this might allow Iran to engage the international community quicker." The popular uprising in Iran is so inconvenient to this agenda.

President Obama elaborates on this point with his now-frequent moral equivalance. Yesterday he invoked the CIA's role in the 1953 coup against Iranian leader Mohammad Mossadeq to explain his reticence. "Now, it's not productive, given the history of the U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling -- the U.S. President meddling in Iranian elections," Mr. Obama said.

Krauthammer on Fox's All Stars:

I find the president's reaction bordering on the bizarre. It's not just little and late, but he had a statement today in which he welcomed the Iranian leader's gesture about redoing some of the vote, as you indicated.

And the president has said "I have seen in Iran's initial reaction from the supreme leader." He is using an honorific to apply to a man whose minions out there are breaking heads, shooting demonstrators, arresting students, shutting the press down, and basically trying to suppress a popular democratic revolution.

So he uses that honorific, and then says that this supreme leader — it indicates that he understand that the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election. Deep concerns? There is a revolution in the street.

And it is not about elections anymore. It started out about elections. It's about the legitimacy of a regime, this theocratic dictatorship in Iran, which is now at stake. That's the point.

What we have here is a regime whose legitimacy is challenged, and this revolution is going to end in one of two ways — suppressed, as was the Tiananmen revolution in China, or it will be a second Iranian revolution that will liberate Iran and change the region and the world.

And the president is taking a hands-off attitude. Instead of standing, as Reagan did, in the Polish uprising of 1981, and say we stand with the people in the street who believe in democracy. It is a simple statement. He ought to make it.

And it is a disgrace that the United States is not stating it as simply and honestly as that.

Iowahawk captures the true spirit of the administration's reaction in a message authored by "Barack Obama":

Now, I know that our two nations have had our differences in the past, and so it would be totally understandable if some of you were possibly upset my previous statements expressing "troubled concern" and "measured consternation" over your current situation. Please, do not interpret those statements as somehow taking one side or the other. I was not trying to be provocative or inflammatory, and far be it from me to interfere or play favorites. As we say over here in the Great Satan, "I don't have a dog in this fight," and so I was merely "calling 'em like I see 'em." Frankly, if America is going to regain respect as a geopolitical superpower, we need to make the tough call to sit quietly on the sidelines. That's why I have instructed my diplomatic team remain strictly neutral and to "let 'em play." With time and patience, I hope you will come to think of us as a bigger, flatter version of Switzerland. With less yodeling.

A closing thought from that WSJ piece above:

Less than a fortnight ago, in Cairo, Mr. Obama touted his commitment to "governments that reflect the will of the people." Now the President who likes to say that "words matter" refuses to utter a word of support to Iran's people.

If it walks like a duck....

Fox News:

The government watchdog President Obama canned for allegedly being "confused" and "disoriented" fired back sharply Wednesday, saying the White House explanation for removing him was "insufficient," "baseless" and "absolutely wild."

Gerald Walpin, who until last week was the inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, told FOXNews.com that part of Obama's explanation was a "total lie" and that he feels he's got a target on his back for political reasons.

"I am now the target of the most powerful man in this country, with an army of aides whose major responsibility today seems to be to attack me and get rid of me," Walpin said.

Surprisingly, this move by the Holy Obama Administration raised eyebrows on both sides of the aisle. Walpin says he would never accuse Obama of being confused and disoriented simply becuase he can't remember how many states are in the Union or Joe Biden of being confused and disoriented for being confused and disoriented. So is this, as Walpin claims, a politically motivated firing, if there's a target on his back, why is that target there?

Walpin, though, concluded that his firing stems from bad blood between him and the board, as well as with Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson -- an Obama supporter whom he had investigated for alleged misuse of federal funds. He said his performance at the May meeting drew criticism because he issued two reports critical of the board. In one, he criticized the settlement reached in the Johnson case; in the other, he criticized the use of millions of dollars for a program at the City University of New York.

...it's probably a duck.

The source of all liberal wisdom on the economy

In my internet travels, I have encountered many smug, self-assured obnoxious liberal posters who know next to nothing about business or the economy. Yet that doesn't stop them from commenting on such issues because they have Paul Krugman. Paul Krugman, like Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore, is a Nobel Prize Winner, therefore all the economist any liberal needs to back up his arguments. If Paul Krugman says it, liberals lap it up with a spoon without questioning it.

Therefore it is with great satisfaction that I pass along this unearthed gem from 2002 courtesy Mark Hemmingway on The Corner today:

To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

Ahem. So much for the liberals' infallible sage of economics.

Meanwhile, John T. Simpson, over at Big Hollywood, talks about propaganda techniques used by Hitler to discredit his opponents:

The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belong to one category.”

Which is strikingly familiar to this statement by Paul Krugman:

“At this point, whatever dividing line there was between mainstream conservatism and the black-helicopter crowd seems to have been virtually erased.”

Which brings to mind another theme of liberal propaganda: keep repeating something until it becomes "true".

Obama strikes fear into the hearts of our adversaries

The fawning media react to this show of unprecedented toughness by our metrosexual President by giddily pointing out that Obama is as ruthless as a mafioso and as swift as a ninja.

***Retch***

ABC = Pravda

Because we've been told over and over again that universal healthcare is not only necessary, but simply EVERYBODY wants it, and since we've also been told that it's a forgone conclusion that it's going to happen anyway, there's simply no need to present an opposing point of view:

Drudge:

ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE
Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Highlights on the agenda:

ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.

The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.

The Director of Communications at the White House Office of Health Reform is Linda Douglass, who worked as a reporter for ABC News from 1998-2006.

Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of ABCNEWS:

Dear Mr. Westin:

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.

Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff

MORE

ABCNEWS Senior Vice President Kerry Smith on Tuesday responded to the RNC complaint, saying it contained 'false premises':

"ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.

"ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience."

Well all I have to say to that response is **WHEW!!!***

Thank goodness the completely objective ABC News is going to be there to hold the Obama Administration's feet to the fire by asking those "direct questions". It's all those OTHER news outlets who have taken a, shall we say, more "partisan approach" to the news. (Who out there right now is imagining the heads of NBC, CBS and CNN calling for the head of whoever let this deal go to ABC?)

Ken McKay must have simply misunderstood the entirely benevolent nature of this informative and balanced event.

As Dana Perino points out:

Perhaps ABC will help provide more clarity and “select” people who will ask tough questions; however, no matter how tough the questions are, President Obama will have home-field advantage. And it’s hard not to look like you’re in the tank when you’re anchoring from the Blue Room.

President Obama gets to lead the news with his announcements every night. What might provide a more informed debate would be to use ABC’s considerable resources to go outside the Beltway and Manhattan and see what the rest of America is thinking about health-care reform.

Why not just program a screening of Michael Moore's "documentary" Sicko. It would be a lot more subtle.

Wake up call in Feltonville

Over the weekend, the Inky's Annette John-Hall had a piece about a remarkable man in Feltonville. Ted Canada lost his daughter, Latoya Smith, 22 and his granddaughters Aaliyah Griffin, 6, and Remedy Smith, 11 months after Donta Cradock plowed his vehicle into them after he and his brother, Ivan Rodriguez stole a motorcycle and fled police. Mr. Canada. 45, is no stranger to tragedy. In 2005, his son Lamar was shot 18 times and killed in North Philly. In 2007, his granddaughter Kamiya Jeffrey, 3, was hit by a car when she ran out into the street.

You might expect a man like this to give up, to find fault in everything and place blame wherever he could.

But Ted Canada is a man of integrity. Amidst the terrible tragedies that have befallen him, Mr. Canada has remained, as John-Hall calls him, a "pillar of the community", an inspiring leader who sees and understands the problems that have torn apart his family and are tearing apart his neighborhood:

"I have so much frustration in me, but I have to be strong for my family. They need me."

Still, when Canada thinks about the senselessness of the devastating crash - how both suspects were out on the street despite outstanding warrants, and how Donta Cradock, 18, the alleged driver, had been AWOL from a Pittsburgh-area juvenile facility since April 15 - he couldn't help but ask "what if."

"The system failed," Canada said. "The cops did their job. They arrested these guys, and put them in jail, but they can't keep them in jail.

"The judicial system and the court system have to step up. ... We need to keep these people in jail to keep them from hurting people."

Would that there were more people like Canada and that they got the same type of coverage the "blame the cops first" crowd gets. Canada is a true community leader.

Despite such a horrific personal tragedy, Canada is moved to help others.
"I can't give up," he said. "I have to do what God put me on this Earth to do."

The urge that moved him to join Men United after his son's death is pushing him to create a new organization now - even as he prepares to bury more loved ones.

The group, he says, will be called Fathers Fed Up. Canada envisions its being a grief-support group for men, much like Mothers in Charge.

The father of nine believes Fathers Fed Up will be just what men need.

"Men need to be around other men so they can say what they feel. We men don't feel like we can cry in front of the ladies. We need men to support each other."

And then his voice broke.

Sadly, the first members of the organization, he said, would be himself and his son - little Aaliyah's father.

It gives me hope that there are people like Canada out there working for what's right. And it also gives me hope that they are starting to get the attention they deserve, because these are the people who can truly make a difference. God Bless Ted Canada and his family. May they remain strong in the face of overwhelming circumstances.

Blame the cops first

Four people are dead in the Feltonville section of Philadelphia, three of them are children. The first place to look for blame in this tragedy in Philadelphia? The police, of course. Inky:

Fleeing police after allegedly stealing the motorcycle at gunpoint, Cradock plowed his car into Smith's stoop, killing the three children - ages 7, 6 and 11 months - and critically injuring Smith. Yesterday, relatives still reeling from the previous night's horrors learned that Smith, 22, had succumbed to her injuries, too.

(...)

With citizens and vehicle-safety advocates questioning whether a police pursuit preceded the tragedy, police officials hurried to quell such criticisms, saying that the incident never evolved into a pursuit. They even took the unusual step of playing police-radio communication before the crash to demonstrate that no pursuit had occurred. (See accompanying story, Next Page.)

"In this situation, it did not get to that point," Commissioner Charles Ramsey said. "He's [Cradock] the one who killed those people. No one else but him. It was reckless. Hopefully after this is over, we won't see him on the street anymore."

Still, Ramsey added, a pursuit would have been justified in this case. Departmental policy allows pursuit if an officer believes it will prevent someone's death or serious injury, or if it's necessary to nab someone who committed or tried to commit a violent felony or who possesses a weapon.

Road-safety advocates AAA issued two statements yesterday, raising pursuit concerns. In the first, it called for an inquiry into the police pursuit. But after police officials denied a pursuit had taken place, a spokeswoman amended the statement to: "Philadelphia Police say an officer was following the suspect, but not in 'hot pursuit.' Nonetheless, something went horribly wrong when the suspect crashed in a group of innocent bystanders - and many questions have yet to be answered."

Even though the police say there was no hot pursuit---and even though Ramsay says in this case, hot pursuit would have been justified--these "concerned citizens" still have "unanswered questions."

By all means, lets focus on the cops in this case. Even though the cops say there was no chase, even though there were no skid marks, lets not even entertain the utter lack of regard these two animals have for private property much less the lives of people in the neighborhood. Oh, and did I mention....

Though just 18 and 20, respectively, Donta Cradock and Ivan Rodriguez already had racked up 13 arrests between them. And though they were wanted on bench warrants, they had no plans to lie low.

And from NBC10:

Vanessa Cradock told NBC 10 that she called her son’s probation officer more than a month ago to take her son and put him back in a juvenile facility.

But, no one would come to get him, she said.

Cradock said her son, 18-year-old Dante has been in and out of juvenile facilities since he was 13 years old. He has a record for armed robbery and has stolen cars.

His parents said he came home from a Pittsburgh facility around Easter time for a visit, but refused to go back.

Cradock said she also raised Ivan Rodriguez, 20, the other suspect involved in the events leading up to the car crash. Rodriguez is her stepson.

I really don't have any unanswered questions.

Calling Bonnie Erbe: There's hate speech out there that needs outlawin'!

It goes without saying that James von Brunn, the animal who killed Holocaust Museum Security Guard Stephen Johns in cold blood because of his contempt for Jews and Blacks, was an absolutely hideous human being. VonBrunn ran a website proclaiming for all the world his racism and has acted upon it in the past. Stephen Johns, on the other hand, was a hero, putting himself in harm's way to prevent the tragedy from becoming much worse.

As we all know, there are no laws --- yet --- against jackassery. And speaking of such, James Taranto draws calls attention to our old friend, The Reverend Jeremiah Wright:

...[A]s the Daily Press of Newport News, Va., reports:

Wright told the Daily Press that he has not spoken to his former church member since [Barack] Obama became president, and he implied that the White House won't allow Obama to talk to him.
"Them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me," Wright said. "I told my baby daughter that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office. . . .
"They will not let him to talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is. . . . I said from the beginning: He's a politician; I'm a pastor. He's got to do what politicians do."

Eighty-eight-year-old James von Brunn also did not care for "them Jews," as the Washington Post reports: "Von Brunn's writings condemning 'Negroes' and Jews were prolific." Reviewing a tract he wrote that was available online until yesterday, we noticed that he tends to spell the word JEW in majuscules and use it as an adjective as well as a noun, a practice straight out of the Anti-Semitic Manual of Style.

One has to wonder: will Bonnie Erbe conclude, as she did last week, that this type of speech should be outlawed? That Reverend Wright's historical documented anti-semitic speech is the kind of hateful speech that incites violence? From Erbe's last column:

This type of speech ought to be against the law. Anyone who issues statements containing such language ought to be prosecuted as an accessory to murder, as well as for partaking in domestic terrorism. What, after all, is the difference between Terry’s statement and releases issued by the Taliban calling on Muslims to kill westerners? There is none.

Free speech is one thing. Speech that beckons to the unbalanced to commit the ultimate crime is something entirely different.

My guess is that while liberals like Erbe have been making a big show of painting all pro-lifers as "haters", they will now be twisting themselves into knots defending that old eccentric anti-semitic "uncle" of Obama's, Jeremiah Wright.

UPDATE: If NBC is any indication, the spinning is already in full gear. Wright "misspoke" as was a victim of "poor timing":

In a classic case of horrible timing, the most embarrassing skeleton in Barack Obama's closet popped back into the news on Wednesday -- the same day as the fatal attack on the DC Holocaust Memorial Museum.

In a classic case of horrible timing, the most embarrassing skeleton in Barack Obama's closet popped back into the news on Wednesday -- the same day as the fatal attack on the DC Holocaust Memorial Museum.

(...)

Even worse, Wright uttered these comments at the 95th annual Hampton University Ministers' Conference -- a place for supposed spiritual reflection and discussion. Wright apologized today, saying in a statement that he "misspoke."

"I apologize to the Jewish community and all others who were offended by the way in which I framed my comments," the Reverend said.

Wright's history of earlier racist and anti-American speech either "inspired" or "forced" (depending on one's partisan and charitable perspective) Obama's historic speech on race. While the Philadelphia-delivered speech didn't win him the Pennsylvania primary, it was well-received enough to calm the concerns of many middle-of-the-road white voters. In the carefully nuanced address, Obama denounced Wright's comments.

Final Destination

SkyNews via Hot Air:

An Italian woman has been killed in a car crash only days after she narrowly avoided being a victim of the Air France plane crash.
Johanna Ganthaler and her husband Kurt were on holiday in Brazil and were supposed to take Air France flight 447 back to Paris.

But they missed the doomed flight and decided to take a different flight home to Europe instead.

All 228 people onboard the Air France flight were killed when it crashed in the Atlantic.

But the two pensioners had barely managed to digest the terrible tragedy they had managed to avoid when they involved in a car accident.

Their vehicle crashed after veering across a road in Kufstein, Austria, according to the Italian news agency ANSA.

The car swerved into an oncoming truck and Mrs Ganthaler was killed.

Her husband was seriously injured.

Mrs Ganthaler was from the Italian province of Bolzano-Bozen.

Not to make light of a terrible tragedy, but this is right out of a horror movie:

The world's smallest violin plays for Phil Spector

The Age.com.au:

A prison mug shot of Phil Spector that has been released confirms what most have suspected - his curly shoulder length hair during his trial was a wig.

The music producer, sentenced last month to 19 years to life in a US prison for killing actress Lana Clarkson, had to take off the wig and is now wearing a Jewish yarmulke (skull cap) in his cell, his publicist Hal Lifson said.

"They took my husband's freedom and dignity. So why not his hair?" said Spector's wife Rachelle, who had previously suggested that her husband's thick mane of hair was his own.

"This is a personal matter," she said. "But in case you don't know, they don't allow for much accessorising while in prison."

The heart breaks, does it not?

So you think you can watch “So You Think You Can Dance” without your remote control?

Then I have seven words and one awful sound for you:

“I think I hear a train coming! WoooooOOOOoooOOOoo!”

I have not been a follower of Fox’s “So You Think You Can Dance” in the past, even though the subject matter—dancing—is right up my alley. My reason for this in the past has generally been the presence of Mary Murphy, a woman so obnoxious, that even Paula Abdul at her most chemical-induced incoherence looks demure. I simply cannot stand her. It’s not that she’s a person you love to hate; she is person you just simply cannot abide. This is not mere enthusiasm on display, this is practiced, over-the-top, look-at-me obnoxiousness. Her voice, even when she is not screaming, is so unpleasant, it feels like you are hammering an ice pick into your ear drum. Then twisting it. I think rubbing ground glass into your eyeballs or sleeping on a bed of fiberglass would be less painful.

With my daughter manning the remote control through last night’s show, I think I’ve discovered a way to enjoy this year’s exceptionally deep talent pool without sacrificing my ears. Simply engage “mute” every time the comments come to Mary Murphy. Otherwise I'd be missing stuff like this:

Is anonymous blogging the bane of the Internet?

One of my pet peeves is anonymous posting on the internet. Often times it removes all traces of civility from the political debate and just degenerates into name calling. My feeling is that if people have to put their names to a comment, they are more likely to think out their comments before posting them, which is why I maintain a no-tolerance policy of anonymous commenting on my blog. WSJ's Taranto addresses this issue in yesterday's Best of the Web in the context of a kerfuffle over at The Corner wherein National Review's Ed Whelan revealed the true identity of a liberal blogger who blogs under the name of Publius:

Why, then, did so many find fault with what Whelan did? Because it was bad manners. Revealing the identity of someone who prefers to remain anonymous has the potential to cause upset or even harm. It is an aggressive act--which does not necessarily mean it is wrong, but social harmony requires that people refrain from aggressive acts absent strong justification.

When Whelan revealed Publius's identity, he felt he was justified. "One bane of the Internet is the anonymous blogger who abuses his anonymity to engage in irresponsible attacks," he wrote. This is certainly true, although we do not know enough about Publius to say whether he is "one such blogger," as Whelan then asserted. Since Whelan himself now thinks the revelation was unjustified, we defer to that view.

This points, however, to a paradox of anonymity on the Internet. Writing online frequently has a disinhibiting effect. It is easier to be obnoxious when you are alone with your computer than when you are face to face with the target of your aggressions. It is easier still when your target doesn't know who you are.

I don't insist that people use their real names when posting on my blog; I would have no way of enforcing that. But I do insist that you have some kind of identity so that they will be held accountable for past comments. But even that is not enough to encourage civility. I'm not talking about bloggers who consistently post to their own blogs using a nom-de-plume, because I understand the need for anonymity in many cases. For an example of the kind of anonymous internet flaming I'm talking about, simply open any newspaper's website. Undoubtedly, the most inane and imflammatory comments you will ever read are in the comments of the articles, especially when those commenters are using a "nom de plume" and face no repercussions for random comments. They post simply to get a reaction.

If you are unwilling to sign your true name to your internet posts, I generally take those comments far less seriously than I take those thoughts posted which are signed by real people. Anonymous internet flaming, on the other hand, is cowardly and it does nothing to advance the anonymous poster's point of view.

Obamacare!

Michele Malkin is running an Obamacare poster contest. This is one of my favorites, but stop by to see them all here and here.

How and why our Government is killing the American Auto Industry

Looks like the UAW is not the only politically preferred group that is getting a government sponsored soft landing courtesy of the Obama Administration. Holman Jenkins in Yesterday's Political Diary (subscribers only):

Toyota isn't worried about an invasion of Chinese small cars in the lucrative U.S. market -- because Toyota concludes that the new Obama fuel mileage rules will serve nicely as a protectionist moat against upstart car builders.

That was the analysis outlined by Toyota's Canada boss recently for a University of Windsor audience. Stephen Beatty, managing director of Toyota Canada, said the company's big thinkers now lean to the view that the latest U.S. mileage timetable requires so much technology to be placed in new vehicles that the standards effectively prevent or will long delay the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) from producing for the U.S. market.

"They simply don't have the base technology to meet those requirements," he said, according to an account in the Windsor Star by reporter Chris Vander Doelen.

The bill to meet the new mileage rules is expected to reach between $1500 and $3000 per car. Add expensive western safety requirements such as mandatory stability control, and up-and-coming car makers would have to undertake heavy extra investment and undergo a steep technology learning curve just to bring stateside the small, simple vehicles they build for home-market consumers.

Toyota itself is rolling out a new Prius and stepping up production volumes even though the Obama-friendly vehicle is a slow seller and money loser at today's fuel prices. Part of Toyota's bet is that the cost of participating in the U.S. market going forward will be prohibitive for all but the biggest, incumbent car makers. Nor would it be the first time corporatist favoritism came disguised as environmental regulation. Those grins on the faces of Detroit auto executives at Mr. Obama's fuel mileage announcement last month may not have been entirely plastic after all.

Meanwhile, WSJ's James Taranto bestows kudos on Ruth Bader Ginsberg (!) for upholding her Constitutional duty:

Congress established bankruptcy courts to provide for the orderly restructuring and liquidation of financially distressed companies, and the decisions of these tribunals are subject to review by the ordinary judicial courts. The Obama administration's plan for Chrysler--which involved giving a politically favored constituency (the United Auto Workers) priority at the expense of both taxpayers and legally privileged secured creditors--was an effort to circumvent the rule of law.

In addition to the principle at stake, the Supreme Court has an institutional imperative to intervene in this case. The administration is attempting to seize power that rightly belongs to the courts (and to Congress, since lawmakers could rewrite the bankruptcy law if they chose). We have often criticized the Supreme Court for overstepping its power, but it would be just as wrong for the court to shirk its responsibility to exercise its power legitimately.

And today, Holman Jenkins turns his sharp eye back to GM:

Mildly laughable is the recent published insistence by Obama car czars Steve Rattner and Ron Bloom that GM would be run on a strictly commercial basis while in government hands. Would that it had ever been so.

Already federal money is clearly being used to provide a softer landing for the UAW than labor would have gotten in a bankruptcy reorganization under private investors. The bailout has also deeply politicized the company's business model by privileging its money-losing domestic operations, saddled with the UAW, over its money-making foreign ones. A truly commercial vulture investor would have done the opposite: dumped North America and kept the promising businesses in China, Russia, Europe and Latin America.

(...)

But then GM has suffered from excessive political attention for most of its existence. Wonder where its famously defensive, obfuscatory "culture" comes from? This is where. The company never has been able to launch a model or close a factory without weighing the political consequences. It can't control its dealer network because dealers are a powerful interest group in every state capital. GM cannot market a car without first knowing how regulators will treat it for fuel-economy purposes, so GM can know how many it can afford to sell (if it's a big car) or how many it must sell (if it's a small one).

Most of all, GM cannot sit down with the UAW without knowing that Democratic politicians, on whom GM relies for help in Washington, will only be satisfied if the UAW (with its power over the re-election hopes of officeholders all over the upper Midwest) is satisfied.

Government does not belong in business, because government is not in business; this massive power grab by the Obama administration (and it can truthfully be called nothing else) is nothing more than an effort to dispense government goodies to politically favored constituencies to ensure votes. This whole situation should send a chill up the spines of all thinking Americans.

Is anyone really buying into this?

The Obama Administration's new emphasis on "jobs saved or created" by the stimulus package is a perfect illustration of how this administration is built on nothing but a manipulation of language. While "jobs created" over a given time period is an actual real measurement, "jobs saved" is nothing but a made up number. As usual, I find myself ont he same page with the Wall Street Journal, today it's William McGurn:

Of course, the inability to measure Mr. Obama's jobs formula is part of its attraction. Never mind that no one -- not the Labor Department, not the Treasury, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics -- actually measures "jobs saved." As the New York Times delicately reports, Mr. Obama's jobs claims are "based on macroeconomic estimates, not an actual counting of jobs." Nice work if you can get away with it.

And get away with it he has. However dubious it may be as an economic measure, as a political formula "save or create" allows the president to invoke numbers that convey an illusion of precision. Harvard economist and former Bush economic adviser Greg Mankiw calls it a "non-measurable metric." And on his blog, he acknowledges the political attraction.

"The expression 'create or save,' which has been used regularly by the President and his economic team, is an act of political genius," writes Mr. Mankiw. "You can measure how many jobs are created between two points in time. But there is no way to measure how many jobs are saved. Even if things get much, much worse, the President can say that there would have been 4 million fewer jobs without the stimulus."

Mr. Obama's comments yesterday are a perfect illustration of just such a claim. In the months since Congress approved the stimulus, our economy has lost nearly 1.6 million jobs and unemployment has hit 9.4%. Invoke the magic words, however, and -- presto! -- you have the president claiming he has "saved or created" 150,000 jobs. It all makes for a much nicer spin, and helps you forget this is the same team that only a few months ago promised us that passing the stimulus would prevent unemployment from rising over 8%.

This is a perfect example of the core problem I have with the Obama Administration: they think that the American public is either so enraptured by him, and/or is so incredibly stupid, and that with the cooperation of a complicit media, they will be able to perpetuate this ruse without any consequence to their popularity.

And tragically, they are proven correct in this assumption every damn day.

Bonnie Erbe: Pro-life speech should be illegal

The insufferable Bonnie Erbe predictably mourned the loss of her hero, late term abortion provider George Tiller, in her recent column. The reason "Dr." Tiller was murdered, according to Erbe, was inflamatory "hate speech" by the pro-life movement. This speech, concludes Erbe, should be illegal:

Dr. Tiller’s murder is not the first by anti-abortion extremists and it won’t be the last unless America’s pro-choice majority draws a defined line in concrete terms that prevents incitement to murder. Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, and stoker of much anti-abortion violence published a press release right after Dr. Tiller’s murder saying:

“George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama administration will use Tiller’s killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder.”

This type of speech ought to be against the law. Anyone who issues statements containing such language ought to be prosecuted as an accessory to murder, as well as for partaking in domestic terrorism. What, after all, is the difference between Terry’s statement and releases issued by the Taliban calling on Muslims to kill westerners? There is none.

Free speech is one thing. Speech that beckons to the unbalanced to commit the ultimate crime is something entirely different.

It's important to keep in mind that it is perfectly OK and natural for a liberal to call for the silencing of conservative opinion. Imagine what would happen to a conservative writer who suggests that violence in the black community resulting in deaths of citizens and police officers resulted from say, oh, I don't know, a type of "free speech" like rap or hip hop that glorifies gang violence and violence against women and police officers?

Bonnie Erbe is becoming a one note wonder. This is not the first time in recent memory that she has called for restrictions on free speech. Erbe seems to think that dissenting opinion is dangerous and the public should only be spoon fed liberal-endorsed ideas, because, after all, they know best and are therefore better equipped to guide the great unwashed masses in forming opinions in their soft little minds.

Or it could be because Erbe is so very closed minded that it affects her ability to effectively in make her points in her syndicated column.

What's Next?

Following my abrupt dismissal from the ranks of Times Herald contributing columnists, I found myself rattling around at kind of a loose end. Many people asked me, "Now what? What's next?"

I came to the answer a few weeks ago, as I made the decision to go back to school and finally--hopefully--get my degree. So I enrolled at Villanova, signed up for an accounting class and declared my major as Business. I have a long row to hoe; my goal is to finish within six years.

For those of you who may have noticed my posting has been less prolific of late, this is the reason. I still plan on blogging as much as possible, because there is still so very much to talk about, criticize and rail against; so much, in fact, it's sometimes overwhelming. Which is all the more reason for finding time to post.

Because we've been a world power long enough

H/T Tony Phyrillas

It's 1978 again

WSJ's Holman Jenkins:

We're still waiting for the brave, original thinking that we were told Mr. Obama represented. Like Washington circa 1978, he has landed for once in a situation where something more than symbolism is required of him. He has finally glided into the land of the real, where the key measurable outcome is no longer whether an audience is glowing with self-approval when he leaves the room.

Have any of these Obama-worshipping lefties who elected him figured this out yet? Have any of the Dems who thought they were getting a Messiah figured out that he's nothing more than a Chicago machine politician concerned only with bestowing favors upon favored constituencies, in this instance Big Labor Unions?

My guess is that the smarter ones are starting to get it. The rest are still drunk on the promises of hope and change.

as always, Jenkins' whole article is definitely worth reading, but that paragraph really stood out and a fundamental truth. Read it all here.

Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect Welfare

America is an Obamanation has a great new board game: Obamopoly. (Click link to see the whole game)

The object of the game is to destroy American capitalism by having the government take over everything!

Tokens include a bus, a teleprompter, a sprig of arugula and a waffle iron.

Wanna play? No??? Too bad, you're already playing... and quite frankly, in this game, nobody wins!

If it's not already in stores, it totally should be.

H/T IMAO

New Moon

THE TWILIGHT SAGA: NEW MOON trailer in HD


Yes, of course I love the Twilight saga and I am unashamed to admit it. Here's a little taste of "New Moon", which is arguably my least favorite of the four books (not enough Edward) but at least jacob's looking yummy enough to distract from his character's inherent annoyingness.

Government Motors

Iowahawk gives us a vision of the future



And WSJ's Daniel Henninger laments the loss of our car culture with a list of car songs for Obama's next iPod gift to a VIP:

How long before the midnight drag races return on dark and dusty roads?

When Barack Obama announced that the government will use its fist to wave onto the highways of America cars that get 39 miles to a gallon of liquefied switch grass or something, he said, "Everybody wins."

Everybody? What country has he been living in? This marks the end of the internal combustion engine as we knew it, and it is the way Americans have defined, designed and literally driven much of the nation's culture for as long as anyone can remember. Car culture is America's culture.

(...)

At Mr. Obama's "Everybody wins" announcement ceremony in the Rose Garden, no one knew better how much has been lost than the cowed auto chiefs arrayed behind him. CAFE, the fuel-mileage standards Congress mandated 34 years ago, gradually squeezed the size and life out of America's cars. But something's getting phased out here other than gas-fueled cars.

Some of the most famous celebrity converts to the politics behind this new, shrinking world of plug-ins once wrote and sang paeans to muscle cars and a more muscular culture.

Track 3: "Born to Run" by Bruce Springsteen. Clip: "Beyond the Palace hemi-powered drones scream down the boulevard."

Time was Bruce Springsteen knew that "Jersey boys" mainly meant steel, chrome, rubber and auto tech. Check out the lyrics to "Pink Cadillac" ("but my love is bigger than a Honda") or the car-crazy "Racing in the Street," invoking Chevys with 396 Fuelie heads, Hurst speed-shifters and Camaros running "from the fire roads to the interstate."

(...)

We are being offered a different world now. One designed, defined and driven by a new set of un-fun obsessions -- carbon footprints, greenhouse gas and alternative energy. This large transition passes before us, barely seen, as the gray water of public policy. Hardly anyone notices how much is being changed.

To put a stop to the new sin of spending too much time out on Highway 9, we are getting the mark-up hearings this week in Washington for the Waxman-Markey climate bill. It's 900 pages long, dripping with thousands of Mickey-Mouse rules to reorder how we live. A Senate Finance Committee document last week on the Obama health-care plan proposes "lifestyle related revenue raisers." Lifestyles like drinking beer. This is the "taxing bad behavior" movement. They get to define what's bad.

(...)

This tension over how we live arrived before the world began standing on its head over global warming. The guys in the hemi-powered drones used to mock the granola and Birkenstock crowd. Look who's on top now.

"Everybody wins?" Not quite. What's winning is a worldview that goes deeper than the data beneath global warming. The gasoline cars they want to turn into scrap were about a lot more than the thrill of roaring on.

The cars and their culture were a manifestation of what made the U.S. really different. The cars, like the country, were big, fast and unfettered. Their drivers were delirious with the possibility of finding something new in life. "It's a town full of losers, and I'm pullin' out of here to win!"

When Americans grew up, that's just what a lot of them did -- win. Now, it looks like we're being asked to throttle down to government-approved survival. They're even running the car companies, telling them what to build, and then they'll pay people to buy the product. Save the planet and lose the nation's heart.

The likelihood of resistance to this timid ethos from anyone in politics is remote. It was tough to watch former A-4 Skyhawk pilot John McCain try to outbid Barack Obama for the green lifestyle vote in the debates. We'll see what happens when people walk into auto showrooms (if they exist) and every car has a wheelbase of about 100 inches.

Maybe they'll bolt. Maybe the car culture will revert to where it began, when the whiskey runners in the South ran from the revenuers. This time the cars themselves will be bootlegged -- fat, fast and gas-powered -- racing through the night on off-map roads while the National Green Corps -- enacted by Congress in the second Obama term -- looks for them from ethanolic choppers overhead. Reborn to run.

Murderer Murdered

A late term abortionist was murdered in his church yesterday. It is the first murder of an abortion doctor in more than a decade. NBC:

Late-term abortion doctor George Tiller, a prominent advocate for abortion rights wounded by a protester more than a decade ago, was shot and killed Sunday at his church in Wichita.

Deputy Police Chief Tom Stolz said Tiller, 67, was serving as an usher during morning services when he was shot in the foyer of Reformation Lutheran Church. Stolz said the gunman fired one shot at Tiller and threatened two other people who tried to stop him.

A 51-year-old suspect was detained in suburban Kansas City three hours after the shooting, Stolz said. Police had been looking for a gunman who fled in a 1993 light blue Ford Taurus registered in the Kansas City suburb of Merriam, Kan.

Although Stolz refused to release the man's name, Johnson County sheriff's spokesman Tom Erickson identified the detained man as Scott Roeder. He has not been charged in the slaying. Sunday night, he was taken from the Johnson County jail where he had been held for six hours. He was expected to be taken to Wichita for questioning.

Court records and Internet postings show that a man named Scott Roeder has a criminal record and a background of anti-abortion postings on sympathetic Web sites.

Scott Roeder will now be painted as the face of the pro-life movement. Dr. Tiller, however, will be painted as a brave hero:

"Dr. Tiller's murder will send a chill down the spines of the brave and courageous providers and other professionals who are part of reproductive-health centers that serve women across this country. We want them to know that they have our support as they move forward in providing these essential services in the aftermath of the shocking news from Wichita," Keenan said.

President Barack Obama also expressed outrage over the killing.

"However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence," Obama said.

I did not realize that the President of the United States made it a practice to comment on every murder committed in the United States. Oh, that's right, he doesn't. It's only when it's someone who represents a cause near and dear to Obama's heart. It's also worth noting that Tiller had also donated thousands of dollars to then-Governor, now Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius.

As one of the few doctors in the nation to perform late-term abortions, Tiller had been a high-profile target of abortion opponents for decades. His clinic, Women's Health Care Services, was bombed in 1985, and Tiller was shot in both arms in 1993 by abortion protester Rachelle "Shelley" Shannon of Grants Pass, Ore.

In 1991, the Summer of Mercy protests organized by Operation Rescue drew thousands of anti-abortion activists to this city for demonstrations marked by civil disobedience and mass arrests. After those protests, Tiller kept mostly to his heavily guarded clinic, although in 1997 he opened it to three tours by state lawmakers and the media.

The clinic is fortified with bulletproof glass, and Tiller hired a private security team to protect the facility.

Scott Roeder has single handedly given the abortion rights crowd soapbox from which to preach their sides' "moral superiority" and portray the entire pro-life movement as crazy murderers. Tiller was a "brave" doctor and grandfather who simply desired to "help" people by providing late term abortions.

Let's concede right now that murder, even of a murderer, is wrong and insert all applicable denunciations here. However, it doesn't matter that many, if not all, of the pro-life groups who have targeted "Doctor" Tiller for his practice of late-term abortions, have denounced this act, because of the atmosphere we live in now, Scott Roeder just marginalized the entire movement.

And that's the real tragedy of this act.