Wednesday, April 16, 2008

The Politics of Gesture

The Politics of Gesture

Hillary Clinton's new proposal to create a "Cabinet level Department of Poverty" with the mission to end poverty, once and for all, would be funny if it were not so dangerous. Before anyone tries to deny that this is her intent you need to read her own words:
“I believe we should appoint a cabinet level position that will be solely and fully devoted to ending poverty as we know it in America,” she solemnly intoned. “A position that will focus the attention of our nation on the issue and never let it go. A person who I could see being asked by the president every single day what have you done to end poverty in America? No more excuses. No more whining, but instead a concerted effort.”
No room for ambiguity there. After almost fifty years of Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" we have just as many Americans who are counted in the ranks of those who live their lives in poverty as we had when we started, in 1964. Granted that our poor often have their own homes and cars, and even cell phones and designer jeans, they are still listed as being under "the poverty line."

Politicians always want to be seen as the source of the cure to all our ills, or as Michael Medved puts it:
The entire proposal highlights the Democratic Party’s current addiction to the politics of gesture dictated by the “Do Something Disease.” Under the grip of that dread malady, public figures feel the compulsion to stage a response to any perceived problem – even if that reaction accomplishes nothing in terms of meaningful solutions.

The Do Something Disease compels posturing that shows off the compassion of politicos, rather than policies that actually improve the lives of afflicted citizens. Results don’t matter, as long as the leader manages to demonstrate concern. Good intentions—feelings-- count for everything, with no consideration of real world consequences.
This proposal of Hillary's is another example of the intellectual bankruptcy of the liberal left in this country. Do something, and we can feel good about it. Results may be unattainable, but we can congratulate ourselves for the effort. Oh, and give Hillary the credit. In fact give her credit for intending to put forth the effort by voting for her today.

That is the dirty game electoral politics has become - promise anything, with little or no regard for results. Give her an "A" for effort, and elect her to the most powerful electoral position available. After all, no pols are ever held to making their promises come true, are they? Is Obama being held to his promise to utilize public campaign financing? No, of course not, since he now sees an advantage in changing his mind. He made a pledge, which, for a politician, is no more than a feeling. After all, don't they all do it?

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Caught in the Act

Caught in the Act


This kerfluffle over Obama's remarks in San Francisco is a very big deal. It may signal the end of Obama's candidacy as a viable chance for the first Black man to be nominated to be president. It has assured that he will never be President. For the record, his remarks were:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate, and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

This is a classic instance where a candidate does what they all do - tailor their message to a single audience. Clearly Obama was feeling safe in the bosom of one of America's wealthiest households. But one of the attendees had the temerity to make a tape of his remarks, and then the gall to release it to the public.

Wake up Obama, this is the new world, the you-tube world, where you can no longer assume that you have any privacy at all. Now blue-collar, working class whites, a group you despise, one you feel completely separate from, but need for election, has heard you, in your own voice admit that you have no respect for them. They now know that you will be no champion for issues they can relate to. Obama, you work in the house now, and have turned your back on the field workers. But turnabout is fair play. They can not be counted upon to support you now.

As Newt Gingrich has noted elsewhere:
If you go to the most expensive private school in Hawaii and then move on to Colombia University and Harvard Law School, you may not understand normal Americans -- that's the impression created by Senator Barack Obama's recent comments.

For Obama, it seems, the beliefs of normal Americans are so alien to his leftwing viewpoint that he has to seek some psychological explanation for what he thinks are weird ideas. They can't really believe in the right to bear arms. They can't really believe in traditional marriage. They can't really believe in their faith in God. They can't really want to enforce the law on immigration. And because ordinary Americans can't really believe these things, they must just be bitter and frustrated.

This is the closest Senator Obama has come to openly sharing his wife's view that "America is a mean country." Not since 1988 Democratic presidential nominee Mike Dukakis have we seen anyone so out of touch with normal Americans. It makes perfect sense that it was at a fundraiser in San Francisco that he would have shared the views he has so carefully kept hidden for the entire campaign.


Obama has not done well with blue-collars against Hillary before. He will look back at those poor showings wistfully when he sees how badly he does in Pennsylvania.

He may have managed to lose Pennsylvania with this one. He may even have done the impossible - let the nomination get away.

He has assured himself that he can never win the general election. And it will be HIS racism, not ours, that brings him down.

Fascism

Fascism

We are witnessing the end of what used to be called Liberalism. As Pat Caddell, democratic strategist said during the attempted takeover of the U.S. government by Algore in 2000, the party of his grandfather was taken over by gangsters. They just want power. And current democrats have continued the tradition, as they have moved liberalism over into territory previously occupied by fascism.

Current liberals are the heirs to Fascism, as they exhibit these traits:

1. Intolerance to any opposition to the Party line.

2. Destruction of the free market.

3. Nationalization of all industry, as well as;

4. Government regulation on businesses.

5. Free health care.

Throw in a smattering of good old Nazi Socialism: organic farming, anti-smoking, pro high minimum wage, abortion, euthanasia, gun control, speech codes, racial quotas, animal rights - (Yup, the Nazis were all those), and Voila!

You have the Western Liberal.

Friday, April 11, 2008

Obama's Pastor Disaster

Obama's Pastor Disaster


[When I find stuff this good, I just have to reprint it. This guest post, by Mark Steyn, syndicated columnist of renown, now fallen on hard times by a ludicrous law suit, is a classic, and at only three weeks old, that's near-record time for attainment of classic status.]

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright thinks that, given their treatment by white America, black Americans have no reason to sing "God Bless America." "The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America," he told his congregation. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human."

I'm not a believer in guilt by association, or the campaign vaudeville of rival politicians insisting this or that candidate dissociate himself from remarks by some fellow he had a 30-second grip'n'greet with a decade ago. But Jeremiah Wright is not exactly peripheral to Barack Obama's life. He married the Obamas and baptized their children. Those of us who made the mistake of buying the senator's latest book, "The Audacity Of Hope," and assumed the title was an ingeniously parodic distillation of the great sonorous banality of an entire genre of blandly uplifting political writing discovered circa page 127 that in fact the phrase comes from one of the Rev. Wright's sermons. Jeremiah Wright has been Barack Obama's pastor for 20 years – in other words, pretty much the senator's entire adult life. Did Obama consider "God Damn America" as a title for his book but it didn't focus-group so well?

Ah, well, no, the senator told ABC News. The Rev. Wright is like "an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with." So did he agree with goofy old Uncle Jeremiah on Sept. 16, 2001? That Sunday morning, Uncle told his congregation that the United States brought the death and destruction of 9/11 on itself. "We nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," said the Rev. Wright. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards."

Is that one of those "things I don't always agree with"? Well, Sen. Obama isn't saying, responding merely that he wasn't in church that morning. OK, fair enough, but what would he have done had he happened to have shown up on Sept. 16? Cried "Shame on you!" and stormed out? Or, if that's a little dramatic, whispered to Michelle that he didn't want their daughters hearing this kind of drivel while rescue workers were still sifting through the rubble and risen from his pew in a dignified manner and led his family to the exit? Or would he have just sat there with an inscrutable look on his face as those around him nodded?

All Sen. Obama will say is that "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial." And in that he may be correct. There are many preachers who would be happy to tell their congregations "God damn America." But Barack Obama is not supposed to be the candidate of the America-damners: He's not the Rev. Al Sharpton or the Rev. Jesse Jackson or the rest of the racial grievance-mongers. Obama is meant to be the man who transcends the divisions of race, the candidate who doesn't damn America but "heals" it – if you believe, as many Democrats do, that America needs healing.

Yet since his early twenties he's sat week after week, listening to the ravings of just another cookie-cutter race-huckster.

What is Barack Obama for? It's not his "policies," such as they are. Rather, Sen. Obama embodies an idea: He's a symbol of redemption and renewal, and a lot of other airy-fairy abstractions that don't boil down to much except making upscale white liberals feel good about themselves and get even more of a frisson out of white liberal guilt than they usually do. I assume that's what Geraldine Ferraro was getting at when she said Obama wouldn't be where he was today (i.e., leading the race for the Democratic nomination) if he was white. For her infelicity, the first woman on a presidential ticket got bounced from the Clinton campaign and denounced by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann for her "insidious racism" indistinguishable from "the vocabulary of David Duke."

Oh, for cryin' out loud. Enjoyable as it is to watch previously expert tossers of identity-politics hand grenades blow their own fingers off, if Geraldine Ferraro's an "insidious racist", who isn't?

The song the Rev. Wright won't sing is by Irving Berlin, a contemporary of Cole Porter, Ira Gershwin and Lorenz Hart, all the sophisticated rhymesters. But only Berlin could have written without embarrassment "God Bless America." He said it directly, unaffectedly, unashamedly – in seven words:

"God Bless America

Land that I love."

Berlin was a Jew, and he suffered slights: He grew up in the poverty of New York's Lower East Side. When he made his name and fortune, his marriage to a Park Avenue heiress resulted in her expulsion from the Social Register. In the Thirties, her sister moved in with a Nazi diplomat and proudly flaunted her diamond swastika to Irving. But Berlin spent his infancy in Temun, Siberia (until the Cossacks rode in and razed his village), and he understood the great gift he'd been given:

"God Bless America

Land that I love."

The Rev. Wright can't say those words. His shtick is:

"God damn America

Land that I loathe."

I understand the Ellis Island experience of Russian Jews was denied to blacks. But not to Obama. His experience surely isn't so different to Berlin's – except that Barack got to go to Harvard. Obama's father was a Kenyan, he spent his childhood in Indonesia, and he ought to thank his lucky stars that he's running for office in Washington rather than Nairobi or Jakarta.

Instead, his whiny wife, Michelle, says that her husband's election as president would be the first reason to have "pride" in America, and complains that this country is "downright mean" and that she's having difficulty finding money for their daughters' piano lessons and summer camp. Between them, Mr. and Mrs. Obama earn $480,000 a year (not including book royalties from "The Audacity Of Hype," but they're whining about how tough they have it to couples who earn 48 grand – or less. Yes, we can. But not on a lousy half-million bucks a year.

God has blessed America, and blessed the Obamas in America, and even blessed the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose bashing of his own country would be far less lucrative anywhere else on the planet. The "racist" here is not Geraldine Ferraro but the Rev. Wright, whose appeals to racial bitterness are supposed to be everything President Obama will transcend. Right now, it sounds more like the same-old same-old.

"God Bless America

Land that I love."

Take it away, Michelle.

Guest post, ©MARK STEYN

Let's 'Surge' Some More

Let's 'Surge' Some More


Guest Post By MICHAEL YON
April 11, 2008

[Editor's note: I have been a fan of Michael Yon's battlefield writing for years, and he has been on my blogroll since 2004. Now that he has posted this essay on the wall Street journal Online, I feel that I must reprint it here.]

It is said that generals always fight the last war. But when David Petraeus came to town it was senators – on both sides of the aisle – who battled over the Iraq war of 2004-2006. That war has little in common with the war we are fighting today.

I may well have spent more time embedded with combat units in Iraq than any other journalist alive. I have seen this war – and our part in it – at its brutal worst. And I say the transformation over the last 14 months is little short of miraculous.

The change goes far beyond the statistical decline in casualties or incidents of violence. A young Iraqi translator, wounded in battle and fearing death, asked an American commander to bury his heart in America. Iraqi special forces units took to the streets to track down terrorists who killed American soldiers. The U.S. military is the most respected institution in Iraq, and many Iraqi boys dream of becoming American soldiers. Yes, young Iraqi boys know about "GoArmy.com."

As the outrages of Abu Ghraib faded in memory – and paled in comparison to al Qaeda's brutalities – and our soldiers under the Petraeus strategy got off their big bases and out of their tanks and deeper into the neighborhoods, American values began to win the war.

Iraqis came to respect American soldiers as warriors who would protect them from terror gangs. But Iraqis also discovered that these great warriors are even happier helping rebuild a clinic, school or a neighborhood. They learned that the American soldier is not only the most dangerous enemy in the world, but one of the best friends a neighborhood can have.

Some people charge that we have merely "rented" the Sunni tribesmen, the former insurgents who now fight by our side. This implies that because we pay these people, their loyalty must be for sale to the highest bidder. But as Gen. Petraeus demonstrated in Nineveh province in 2003 to 2004, many of the Iraqis who filled the ranks of the Sunni insurgency from 2003 into 2007 could have been working with us all along, had we treated them intelligently and respectfully. In Nineveh in 2003, under then Maj. Gen. Petraeus's leadership, these men – many of them veterans of the Iraqi army – played a crucial role in restoring civil order. Yet due to excessive de-Baathification and the administration's attempt to marginalize powerful tribal sheiks in Anbar and other provinces – including men even Saddam dared not ignore – we transformed potential partners into dreaded enemies in less than a year.

Then al Qaeda in Iraq, which helped fund and tried to control the Sunni insurgency for its own ends, raped too many women and boys, cut off too many heads, and brought drugs into too many neighborhoods. By outraging the tribes, it gave birth to the Sunni "awakening." We – and Iraq – got a second chance. Powerful tribes in Anbar province cooperate with us now because they came to see al Qaeda for what it is – and to see Americans for what we truly are.

Soldiers everywhere are paid, and good generals know it is dangerous to mess with a soldier's money. The shoeless heroes who froze at Valley Forge were paid, and when their pay did not come they threatened to leave – and some did. Soldiers have families and will not fight for a nation that allows their families to starve. But to say that the tribes who fight with us are "rented" is perhaps as vile a slander as to say that George Washington's men would have left him if the British offered a better deal.

Equally misguided were some senators' attempts to use Gen. Petraeus's statement, that there could be no purely military solution in Iraq, to dismiss our soldiers' achievements as "merely" military. In a successful counterinsurgency it is impossible to separate military and political success. The Sunni "awakening" was not primarily a military event any more than it was "bribery." It was a political event with enormous military benefits.

The huge drop in roadside bombings is also a political success – because the bombings were political events. It is not possible to bury a tank-busting 1,500-pound bomb in a neighborhood street without the neighbors noticing. Since the military cannot watch every road during every hour of the day (that would be a purely military solution), whether the bomb kills soldiers depends on whether the neighbors warn the soldiers or cover for the terrorists. Once they mostly stood silent; today they tend to pick up their cell phones and call the Americans. Even in big "kinetic" military operations like the taking of Baqubah in June 2007, politics was crucial. Casualties were a fraction of what we expected because, block-by-block, the citizens told our guys where to find the bad guys. I was there; I saw it.

The Iraqi central government is unsatisfactory at best. But the grass-roots political progress of the past year has been extraordinary – and is directly measurable in the drop in casualties.

This leads us to the most out-of-date aspect of the Senate debate: the argument about the pace of troop withdrawals. Precisely because we have made so much political progress in the past year, rather than talking about force reduction, Congress should be figuring ways and means to increase troop levels. For all our successes, we still do not have enough troops. This makes the fight longer and more lethal for the troops who are fighting. To give one example, I just returned this week from Nineveh province, where I have spent probably eight months between 2005 to 2008, and it is clear that we remain stretched very thin from the Syrian border and through Mosul. Vast swaths of Nineveh are patrolled mostly by occasional overflights.

We know now that we can pull off a successful counterinsurgency in Iraq. We know that we are working with an increasingly willing citizenry. But counterinsurgency, like community policing, requires lots of boots on the ground. You can't do it from inside a jet or a tank.

Over the past 15 months, we have proved that we can win this war. We stand now at the moment of truth. Victory – and a democracy in the Arab world – is within our grasp. But it could yet slip away if our leaders remain transfixed by the war we almost lost, rather than focusing on the war we are winning today.

Mr. Yon is author of the just-published "Moment of Truth in Iraq" (Richard Vigilante Books). He has been reporting from Iraq and Afghanistan since December 2004.

Monday, February 25, 2008

Climate Modelers May Have Got It Wrong

Climate Modelers May Have Got It Wrong

As pointed out in The National Post, from Canada, where they have to take winter cold much more seriously than down south in the U.S.A.,

"And it's not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma.

According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.

"We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.

But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.

Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats."

He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.

The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased."

This article in the journal Nature by Toggweiler and Russell has all the details. These former Global Warming believers, and they privided some of the evidence for the IPCC report, seem to have recanted. It is not the thermohaline circulation, they say, it is the oceanic winds. Thus CO2 lags warming, because it is a result of warming, not the cause. Now that cooling has set in, CO2 will decline.

So it is not just conservative whackos who are declaiming the effect of mankind's burning of fuel that is making the world an unlivable place, the same lefty loonies who cried wolf before are taking their words back. Al Gore is in hiding, and humanity just survived a close call. And so it goes.

Friday, February 15, 2008

What About Heath?

What Happened to Heath Ledger Can't Happen To You


When the news broke about the tragic death of actor Heath Ledger, many people were shocked and saddened. But now that the news is breaking about exactly what caused Ledger’s death, many people are likely to be wondering if they could share a similar fate. And that’s making me angry.

The initial autopsy on Ledger was “inconclusive,” but now the New York City medical examiner’s office has released toxicology reports revealing that Ledger died of “acute intoxication” from a combination of prescription medicines – two kinds of sleep aids, two anti-anxiety drugs, and two different painkillers. The official cause of Ledger’s death is now listed as “accidental overdose.”

It’s sad, of course. But I’m enraged that many of the so-called “experts” who are quoted in the news stories are turning Ledger’s overdose into an object lesson on the dangers of mixing prescription medications. And how they’ve reached this conclusion is a little beyond me.

If you’re one of the many people who routinely take a combination prescription drugs under the supervision of your doctor, DON’T PANIC. While a degree of common sense is certainly required when taking multiple prescriptions, I’m here to tell you that it’s not likely that Ledger died because he mixed up his pills. But that’s exactly the spin that’s being put on this story.

A pharmacologist professor from Duke University commented on the overdose by saying, “This is not rock star wretched excess. This is a situation that could happen to plenty of people with prescriptions for these kinds of drugs.”

A medical toxicologist from the NYU School of Medicine said, “If you see one doctor for one thing and you see another doctor for another thing, neither the physician nor the patient may realize they’re getting two similar medications.” And then she followed up with this amazing statement: “Patients should be aware that this happens on a regular basis and it doesn’t just happen to celebrities.”

Stop it! Yes, Ledger’s death is tragic. Yes, he was only 28. Yes, it’s sad that he leaves behind a two-year-old daughter. I’ll even agree that he was a talented actor. But it seems that the Hollywood spin machine has gotten their hands on this story and twisted it into a case of a patient being killed because he confused his medications. And that’s not only a laughable conclusion, but also an incredibly irresponsible one for ANY doctor to imply. Heath Ledger, like many other substance abusers, imbibed a frightening combination of powerful narcotics in an attempt to get high, and it killed him. Plain and simple.

Let’s all just take a moment and review the facts here. First of all, let’s take a look at the medications in Ledger’s system: The narcotic/painkiller Oxycodone (better known as Perodan and OxyContin); the narcotic/painkiller Hydrocodone (also known as Vicodin); the anti-anxiety drug Diazepam (you know it as Valium); and the anti-anxiety drug Alprazolam (that’s Xanax). I’ll spare you the medical names for the prescription sleeping pills he took – Unisom and Restoril.

What did that professor from Duke say? That this “wasn’t rock star wretched excess?” She’s got to be kidding. All you need to do is glance at the entertainment section of any newspaper and you’ll see stories about celebrities battling with addictions to JUST ONE of the drugs that were found in Ledger’s system. But Ledger seems to have popped down a greatest hits line-up of all the most popularly abused prescription drugs.

And yet Newsweek has actually run a story with a headline that reads “A Tragic Lesson: Could Heath Ledger’s overdose have been prevented?” You don’t even have to read the article; I’ll tell you the answer right now: yes. If Ledger wasn’t abusing prescription drugs, he wouldn’t have overdosed and died. Period. And you only need to see one TV commercial for a prescription sleeping pill to realize that they must be taken with great caution. And yet Ledger took TWO KINDS of prescription sleeping pills (and who knows how many of each), and then washed them down with FOUR OTHER KINDS OF NARCOTIC.

Still, the Newsweek article focuses on consumers’ “lack of awareness” about the risks of certain drugs, and mentions that Ledger had told the press that he’d “had difficulty sleeping” last fall. So that somehow excuses taking six narcotics in one sitting? Whatever happened to a warm glass of milk?

There’s an ambiguity to the term “accidental overdose.” It implies a mistake. But the media is using it in a way where that implication puts Ledger in the same category as, say, a grandmother who dies because she somehow misunderstood the directions on her prescription bottle. It’s ridiculous. How many heroin addicts do you think overdose on purpose?

I’m not quite sure why it is that no one seems willing to call a spade a spade in the case of Ledger’s death. And it sickens me that there are people in the medical community so willing to jump on board of the party line and act as though what happened to Ledger could just as easily happen to anyone. It couldn’t. I can’t speculate on whether or not Ledger was trying to commit suicide. A head of forensic Science at John Jay College commented that “this was not a deliberate attempt to kill himself.” Maybe not. But it was definitely a deliberate attempt to get high. What’s even more amazing is that these doctors are pointing to the dangers of multiple prescriptions in spite of the reports that Ledger had been struggling with substance abuse for years.

Are Americans overmedicated? Definitely. Are there potential dangers to taking multiple prescription drugs? Of course. But if you’re patient on two or three prescription medications, should you fear that you’re about to become the next Heath Ledger? Unless you routinely abuse those medications, the answer is a resounding no.

Guest Post written by:
William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.

Friday, September 21, 2007

White Supremacists In the Mainstream Media

Guest Post from Patriot Post

White Supremacists in the Mainstream Media

Earlier this year, I wrote a column titled Murder in Black and White, which detailed the torture, gang-rape and murder of a young couple, Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. Their five attackers—four men and a woman—dumped his battered body by a train track and threw her charred remains in a trash bin.

The point of that grim essay was to highlight the mainstream media’s disparate treatment of interracial crimes.

Indeed, there are some 17,000 murders committed in the U.S. each year, but this double murder was clearly far more barbaric, far more monstrous than most. Yet it never made a headline more than 20 miles from the crime scene—not on NPR, not on CNN or the networks, not in The Washington Post, not in The New York Times.

Was the MSM’s lack of interest in this case race related, given that the two victims were white and the five defendants are black?

Yes.

How do I know?

Consider this case in point: Last week, six white West Virginia lowlifes were charged with the kidnapping, torture and sexual assault of a 20-year-old black woman, Megan Williams. This was a brutal crime, to be sure, but Megan Williams is alive today, having been rescued by local sheriff’s deputies. Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, as we know, were not nearly so fortunate.

Within 24 hours of the arrests in the West Virginia case, stories were headlined on CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times—even the BBC—and numerous reports have been filed subsequently.

Was the MSM’s acute interest in this case race related?

Yes.

In fact, no sooner had Williams’s attackers been arrested than the FBI and federal prosecutors joined the investigation to determine if the victim’s civil rights were violated, or if her assault qualified as a “hate crime.”

To this day, however, searches of the massive news archives of CNN, The Washington Post and The New York Times for the names “Channon Christian” and “Christopher Newsome” render exactly zero references to their names in any news story—that’s nil, naught, zip and zilch.

There is nothing unusual about the racial component of the Christian and Newsom murders. Indeed, while blacks represent just 12 percent of the U.S. population, black perpetrators are convicted by their peers in more than half of all murder and manslaughter cases. In other words, per capita, black-on-white crime is far more prevalent than the inverse.

However, the contrast in how the MSM reported these two cases betrays a prevalent white-supremacist mindset among liberal journalistic scribes.

By discounting the newsworthiness of black-on-white crime such as the murders of Christian and Newsom, and at the same time trumpeting the newsworthiness of white-on-black crime such as the assault on Williams, the MSM is, in effect, insisting that white people should be held to a higher standard than black people. In doing so, the MSM is essentially saying, “It isn’t news when blacks prey on whites, because we expect them to behave like vicious animals, but it is headline news when whites prey on blacks, because we expect whites to be more civilized.”

Additional evidence of this underlying media hypocrisy is substantiated through the MSM’s coverage of race-baiting opportunists who inject themselves into racially charged criminal cases.

For example, if a racially motivated hate group like the KKK showed up to protest on behalf of white defendants in a white-on-black crime, they would rightfully be skewered by the media. However, when racially motivated haters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson show up to protest on behalf of defendants in a black-on-white crime, they are canonized as civil rights saviors.

In fact, this week Sharpton and Jackson, with more than ten thousand of their ilk in tow, swamped the small town of Jena, Louisiana, to protest charges against six black youths (the so-called “Jena Six”) for brutally beating and stomping a white classmate—charges that were reduced from attempted murder to aggravated battery.

“You cannot have justice meted out based on who you are rather than what you did,” Sharpton argues, implying that because the defendants in Jena are black, and there was racial tension among the youths, the charges are unjust. “This is the most blatant example of disparity in the justice system that we’ve seen. You can’t have two standards of justice.” (Unless, of course, you consider Sharpton’s fabrication of the Tawana Brawley rape hoax a “blatant example of disparity in the justice system.”)

According to Jackson, “Across this country, there are two justice systems—one for blacks and one for whites. Black young men are not more likely to commit crimes than whites, but they are more likely to be stopped by police, more likely to be arrested if stopped, more likely to be charged if arrested, more likely to be jailed if convicted, more likely to be charged with felonies and more likely to be tried and imprisoned as adults.”

Actually, black youth are far more likely to commit crimes than white youth, and for that reason they are more likely to be stopped by police (including black police officers), more likely to be arrested and, if charged, convicted (often by black-majority juries).

District Attorney Reed Walters refuted the claims of Sharpton and Jackson, saying, “This case has been portrayed by the news media (emphasis added) as being about race and the fact that it takes place in a small Southern town lends itself to that portrayal, but it is not and never has been about race. It is about finding justice for an innocent victim and holding people accountable for their actions.”

It is worth noting that neither Jackson nor Sharpton offered a word of sympathy for the actual assault victim.

Remarkably, Jackson complains, “This isn’t just a Southern problem. A study of five states in the Northwest and Midwest showed that blacks are incarcerated at ten times the rate of whites.”

Indeed, this is not “just a Southern problem,” but, in fact, a cultural problem. Too many black men do not take responsibility for themselves or their families, in part because racists like Jackson and Sharpton have inculcated black folks with the notion that they are “victims” of white folks.

Of course, since Jackson fathered a child out of wedlock with an aide (and then paid her $40,000 from his “nonprofit” Rainbow/PUSH Coalition for “moving expenses”), he is not really in a position to advocate for responsible fatherhood.

Hoping that the Louisiana “injustice” will jumpstart racial strife across the nation, Jackson insists, “In Jena, the protest will begin, but it won’t end there. This situation is explosive—not only in Jena but across the country.”

Meanwhile, back in West Virginia, the NAACP has arrived on the scene to “monitor” justice in the Williams case, and no doubt Sharpton and Jackson will follow.

However, still no word on when “journalists” at NPR, CNN, The Washington Post and The New York Times will headline the torture, gang-rape and murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom.

This essay was first published on Patriot Post.

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Democrats Have Not Changed

Democrats Have Not Changed

I can not read anywhere as much as I need to - or used to, but I rarely miss David Warren. He may be Canadian, but that does not stop him from being a more than average writer, almost necessary, in fact. He almost always gets it right. And so it is with a recent post about Iraq, and how things are looking up, and how the democrat forces are praying that the clock runs out on victory, so they can feast on another American defeat. But within that post, there is a great description of how the Democrats of today are alike to those of the Viet Nam era. As he writes:
[i]t is important to remember the history. A previous generation of these Democrats first insisted on shoving their South Vietnamese allies aside, and trying to run the war for them; then of imposing all kinds of restraints on their battlefield commanders which, in aggregate, made victory impossible. And then, when they tired of the war, they abandoned the Vietnamese to their fate, with the additional Congressional touch of cutting off South Vietnam’s supply of arms and ammunition. Finally, they just watched as the Communist guerrillas from the jungle were replaced by North Vietnamese regulars in tanks, driving openly down the American-built highways to receive the surrender of Saigon, while the U.S. Seventh Fleet was hovering offshore, with the equipment to "mow them down to marmalade."

It was a rout so ignominious, that it destroyed the credibility of the United States, probably adding ten years to the life of the Soviet Empire. It inspired Communist advances in Afghanistan, Angola, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, and elsewhere; and, little appreciated at the time, Islamist advances overtly in Iran, and covertly throughout the Muslim world.

Such Democrats -- not all Democrats, there were “Scoop Jackson Democrats” throughout the Cold War -- often complain that their Republican opponents “question their patriotism,” when all they have done is advocate a policy of defeat and humiliation for the United States abroad. All I can add to Dr Johnson’s famous remark that “patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel,” is the observation that traitors tend to be especially sensitive to the charge of treason.
Precious, absolutely on the mark. I know that fossils like David Warren (and me) are always getting back to Viet Nam, but we do need to learn the lessons that 58,000 of my contemporaries lost their lives for, or they will have given their lives in vain. I keep telling myself that, if only we can get past the next election in one piece, everything will be all right. And we just might.

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Churchill (Winston, that is) on Islam

Churchill (Winston, that is) on Islam

Islam may indeed have its virtues, but they must be sought for carefully and objectively. Winston Churchill, "the greatest man of the 19th century and the greatest Englishman of all time," put it thus:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

"A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50, London: Longmans, Green Co., 1899).

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Building the Arab Bomb

Building the Arab Bomb

Now that the Muslim world has become convinced that the U.S. will withdraw from Iraq, the Sunni Arab world is preparing for dealing with a nuclear armed Shia Iran. This should have been self evident, but our political and chattering classes are absolutely clueless when it comes to the rest of the world. They think that anyone who does not know English is an idiot, and is unprepared to undertake their own defense. In their racist worldview the Arabs are children, utterly unable to pursue their own interests without American interference.

Of course, this is not the case. If the Persians are capable of operating a nuclear program, then the Arabs are as well. Now, I am not sure if either of them is. But it is clear that the Pakistanis are able to at least expolde a single nuclear test. So why not the Arabs?

It is easy to understand the dynamic at work. The Sunni are used to weilding power in Arab lands, and have seen the Shia as a mostly Persian phenomenon. The Shia Arabs in their midst are seen as mere heretics among them, and more "modern" Arab states have been pretty tolerant about them. Now that the U.S. has interfered with the natural order of things, and created a powerful Shia Arab state in Iran, and then seen, with American withdrawal looming, an Arab/Persian Shiite axis rising in the East. The American interference has had much to do with this axis forming, but, if America does in fact withdraw, expect Washington to take a "Who, us?" position, disclaiming any and all responsibility for helping to creat this morass. But that is exactly what happened.

For more detail on this story, check out this week's Front Page article on this subject, with more links and background.

Saturday, December 16, 2006

A Plan for Victory in Iraq

A Plan for Victory in Iraq

So now along comes a think tank, The American Enterprise Institute this time, with a plan for Iraq that includes, for the first time, Victory. Imagine that? Actual victory over the enemy. Winning. If only. James Baker and a few other members of Daddy's crowd have just freshly minted a plan for ignominious defeat. Defeat is so loved by the Left, and count about half of the American electorate as being on their side in this, that it appears to have the upper hand. It will take a giant of a man to resist the forces of defeat. I don't know if President Bush has it in him to resist them. We can only hope that he does.

One thing we do know: If the President succeeds in this, and changes course in Iraq, and therefore snatches victory out of the jaws of defeat, the American media will never give him credit for it.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

The Loneliest Man

The Loneliest Man

As Tony Blankley points out on Townhall, President Bush now has the weight of the world on his shoulders. Like Abe Lincoln before him, he has major decisions to make, with the lives (and deaths) of thousands, nay, millions, in the balance, and he has not the faith of many, even in his own administration. Yet he must make them, alone.

He has demonstrated the temerity to act without the support of popular opinion, and the ability to do it right (at least sometimes), but none of this makes it any easier. We can only pray for him, since we can not help him.

If Iraq falls into the abyss, he gets the entire blame. The sufferring, however, gets spread over the lives of many others. But at least it is him, and not a lesser man, like his last few predecessors, who has this cross to bear. I have faith in him. Not a lot of faith, but faith, nonetheless. With no clear or right way out before him, he must make the least wrong choices. I wish him luck.

Friday, November 10, 2006

War? What War?

War? What War?

Bill Clinton thought terrorism was a law enforcement matter. Kerry thought it could be reduced to a "nuisance." Now Pelosi says Iraq is not a war but a "situation." Should we issue car bombers parking tickets?

Gen. Douglas MacArthur once said that in war there is no substitute for victory, but future Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told Fox News' Brit Hume on Wednesday that in Iraq there is no substitute for withdrawal — that Iraq is "not a war to be won but a situation to be solved."

This is music to the ears of al-Qaida leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. As we have written, they have proclaimed Iraq a central front in the terror war, the future heart of a caliphate stretching from Morocco to India. Pelosi does not want us to win that war.

But then, Democrats haven't wanted us to win in any war since World War II, not even the Cold War. This is why for the next two years we need to be afraid, very afraid.

Democrats don't believe America should win its wars or even confront its enemies. Just talk to them, appease them. Over the next two years they'll provide such aid and comfort to our enemies both orally and, if possible, legislatively.

This is old whine in a new bottle. In a nationally televised debate on Jan. 29, 2004, Sen. John Kerry, who doesn't think our troops are the best and the brightest, said he thought the Bush administration had "exaggerated" the terrorist threat and that terrorism was "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation."

This from the man who, along with Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, opposes the Patriot Act, NSA surveillance of terrorist communications and the monitoring of terrorist finances. He also wants lawyers for the likes of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Muhammed and would have our troops read jihadists their Miranda rights on the battlefield.

In a 2004 New York Times article, Kerry said that we had "to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance" like other things "we're never going to end," such as prostitution and illegal gambling. But 9/11 was not a bank robbery in Boston, and Kerry reflected the quintessential Democratic Sept. 10 mentality.

The "place we were" before 9/11 was in the terrorists' bull's-eye. In 1993, as if anyone needs reminding, terrorists attacked the World Trade Center for the first time. A truck bomb (sound familiar?) left a crater six stories deep, killing six and injuring 1,000. The perpetrators' hope was that one tower would collapse into the other, killing tens of thousands. That was treated as a law enforcement matter — a situation.

There were other "situations" — the U.S. withdrawal from Somalia after U.S. troops were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, encouraging Osama bin Laden to strike America; the 1996 bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia; the 1998 attack on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden.

All these were acts of war requiring a military response. But on the Democrats' watch, we did nothing. Pelosi would have us, as in Somalia, withdraw under fire and rally around the flag — a white flag.

Iraq is a central front on the war on terror — the terrorists say so. That is where they want to defeat us. And if they do, car bombs may go off one day on the streets not only of Baghdad, but also Baghdad by the Bay — San Francisco.

Americans are not against the war, only the way they perceive it being waged and our apparent lack of success at curbing the violence duly covered by our anti-war media. It should not go unnoticed that war supporter Joe Lieberman survived Nov. 7, but anti-war Lincoln Chafee did not.

As Gen. George Patton said, Americans love a winner. And that's what we need right now, a Patton — not a Pelosi.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Change is to be Expected

Change is to be Expected

There are many who believe that Algore is a true believer in the Global Warming scenario he is pushing. One wonders if he can be an honest messenger if his film is so thouroughly shot full of lies and exaggerations. Atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service, a climate physicist, reveals the truth about this and other things in his weekly column, The Week That Was. Human Events Online has an article summarizing the latest from Singer. A sample:
The basic flaw in the argument for global warming is its assumption that the Earth's surface temperature is a constant, and that, if it threatens to vary in some inconvenient direction, mankind's puny efforts are capable of maintaining it within a degree or two of its present level.

The truth is that the Earth's temperature is always changing to some extent, up or down. Within historic memory, the canals of Venice froze solid during the medieval Little Ice Age, and Greenland was verdant enough, during a warm spell, to earn its (currently) wildly inappropriate name. Over longer geological periods, the Arctic has sported palm trees (no polar bears then!) and the latitude of Connecticut was under a mile-thick layer of ice. Just now, according to Dr. Singer, we are seeing a warming trend of about one-tenth of a degree centigrade per decade, or roughly a degree per century.

There is nothing we can do about this, and no reason why we should try -- let alone spend hundreds of billions of dollars trifling with titanic forces we can't even comprehend.
Read the whole thing. After that, Singer's site has the details. If you want sources to refute Algore's new propaganda film promoting the Global Warming hoax, it is all there.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Inconvenient Truth

Inconvenient Truth

Algore is on a mission - a mission of propaganda and self-aggrandisement. As quoted in Canada Free Press:
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
[snip]
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
A lot of good information there, a pithy retread of some reasons to believe that all the answers are not in, and the world might just survive, even without Algore as president.

Bush Upbeat

Bush Upbeat

President Bush just got back from a lightning strike into Baghdad, and he emerged in one of those moments of clarity that he has from time to time. He was quotable and confident. He said:
"If we stand down too soon, it won't enable us to achieve our objectives," the president said.

He said the withdrawal of U.S. and coalition forces would depend on how well the Iraqi people accept al-Maliki's new unity government.

Bush said enough American forces would remain in Iraq "for the government to succeed."

Pulling out too soon "will make the world a more dangerous place. It's bad policy," Bush said.

"My message to the enemy is, don't count on us leaving before we succeed," Bush said.

As to war critics, Bush said, "my message to the critics is, we listen very carefully, and we adjust when needed to adjust."
These moments of eloquence are all too rare from him. Expect his poll numbers to rise.

UPDATE: The Washington Post has more quotes.

Thursday, June 08, 2006

A Small But Significant Victory

A Small But Significant Victory

Last night the terror leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi was killed by American action, along with his "spiritual leader."

Many observers, including President Bush, downplayed the significance of the action. Yet the importance of the death of this man and much of his staff cannot be underestimated. This was an especially effective leader, and the director of a strategy of quasi-random killing. Without the head, the organization he built will be crippled, at least for a time. Of course, Wretchard at Belmost Club has much more.

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Happy Food

Happy Food

There are many people whose view of reality is so estranged from common sense that they would (at least in their fantasy world) create a society where everyone is healthy, wealthy, and wise. They can only posit such a world if they ignore the fact that such a life is an attainment that is only, and can only, be available to an elite portion of the population. Even if energy could be produced cheaply enough that material wealth was available to everyone, there would be those who would make different choices than your elitist utopian tenured professor.

Such a view has been espoused by University of California at Berkeley journalism professor Michael Pollan, who has argued in the New York Times Sunday Magazine (Note: Link will only work for elite readers, who pay tribute to The New York Times Online) that it would be anathema to the organic foods movement for such victuals to be affordable to the common man, i.e. available from Wal-Mart.

A hilarious sendup of Pollan's essay appears in today's TCS daily, and is available for the price of a click to anyone, us regular people as well as Pollan's beloved BoBos (otherwise known as Granola people with money). If you want a good laugh, and have the time, try the link to Pollan's article, as it will be free for a few more days (and thereafter might just be available through oversight) but for an even better laugh read Joyner's piece in TCS Daily. It's much funnier. Try this:
The perfect should not be allowed to become the enemy of the good. In an ideal world, local farmers would produce delicious foods grown without any harm to the environment at prices we could all afford while simultaneously making an excellent living. The livestock would all live happy lives, singing their little animal songs, dying a natural death and yet remaining tender and tasty. We would then get together and cook them over our campfires which produce no smoke, sing our little campsongs, and eat our meals in perfect harmony.

That world, unfortunately, does not exist.
At least Joyner is trying to be funny. Uncaring elitists like Pollan are not really funny. They are pathetic, and dangerous.

Monday, June 05, 2006

Are They Even Immigrants?

Are They Even Immigrants?

We are a nation of immigrants. A "melting pot." Every one of us, including those who consider themselves and their ancestors indigenous, immigrated here from somewhere else. Anti-immigrant or nativist tendencies are therefore rare. But. There must be a balance between the needs of those who have made their lives here and those who want to come here. We can divide that latter group in two. We will call the first part immigrants. The other part, for lack of a better word, are aliens. What is the difference?

An immigrant is a person who wants to make a better life in a new country. An alien wants a better life, and wants to use our country to do it. It is easy to tell the difference. An immigrant is proud of America, learns the language, follows the rules. An alien flies the flag of a foreign power, sends money back to his homeland, and waits for any opportunity to go back. To visit. For once he gets here, he often wants to stay.

That is the situation as it is today. Immigrants face a draconian set of laws and regulations - obstacles set up precisely because We the People value citizenship so highly, and do not allow it to be given to others lightly. In short, we make immigrants prove themselves worthy, before we bestow all the blessings of liberty upon them.

Most Americans have no idea how difficult a course it is that we have placed in the immigrant's path. Draconian is not too strong a word for it. For the penalty for failing to do something required, or missing a deadline, by even a single day, is expulsion, often forever. For minor infracions, up to a decade. If they intend to become citizens, and most immigrants do, they must learn the language, and our history. A new citizen knows more American history than most native born High School graduates. We place time limits and deadlines upon them, and if they fail to perform up to standards, they are out. Some immigrants become aliens when this happens, but most of them do their utmost to qualify. They are, after all, immigrants, and their fondest wish is to become Americans.

It is an almost uniquely American phenomenon, but an immigrant can become an American. One can not go to France and become French, nor to Italy and become Italian. nor to India, and become Indian. These, and most other countries have so-called second generation immigrants, with nominal citizenship, even voting rights, but significant barriers remaining to what we call naturalization. It takes several generations before an immigrant can become Mexican. But an immigrant to the United States of America can come here, and within ten years can become an American. A citizen with all the rights and responsibilities of any other American. Maybe with an accent, but an American nonetheless.

So we do not just confer upon immigrants a legalistic protection scheme, but we welcome them into our family. We therefore, quite properly, have certain requirements before we do so. We require, for instance, that immigrants not be common criminals in their previous life. We will not allow those with contaigious disease to immigrate. We expel those who violate our laws. Other than the President and the Senate, the vast majority of Americans likes these things the way they are.

If we can agree that the one million or less who are newly arriving immigrants each year are not enough, then, and only then, we should increase the various programs that allow them entry. But aliens? Illegal aliens? First thing, and the consensus exists for this right now, close the border. Next, and this is more tricky, we need to get control of those who come here legally, and overstay their vises. Official estimates puts the number of these at as much as half of our illegal alien problem. Then we must stop the ease with which aliens can get lawful employment. Once we have done these things, the flow of new aliens will slow down, and we can decide what to do with those who have slipped between the cracks. It is entirely reasonable to stop the bleeding before beginning the surgery. Senate S.2611 would attempt to do both. We can not. We must not. Immigrants follow the laws, and pay their taxes. Aliens do neither. We must treat them differently. We need immigrants. Aliens, we do not.