OK, I think it's time to spell out just why so many people on the right come across as "anti-intellectual" or "anti-elite." And the reason is based on one of the most fundamental rules of science.

Supporters of President Obama like to tout his intellectual credentials. Columbia, Harvard Law, Harvard Law Review Constitutional Law scholar, and so on. (Just don't look too carefully for actual proof of his intellect -- don't ask for his grades, his writings, or stuff like that. Just take his success there at face value.)

They especially like comparing his resume' to that of Sarah Palin's -- four schools, five years, one degree.

Obviously, Obama is a genius and Palin is a moron. Especially if you listen to them speak -- one's a gifted orator (especially with TOTUS at hand), the other's a down-home country bumpkin hick.

Here's where that fundamental rules of science kicks in:

Experiment always trumps theory.

Where Palin absolutely demolishes Obama is in reality. He's go the fancy certificates; she's got a Ph.D. from the School Of Hard Knocks.

Yes, she went to four schools over five years for her degree. That's because she paid her own way through, worked various jobs to earn her tuition, and went where she could afford to.

Obama dabbled briefly in the private sector, a low-end drone at a trading house. Then he discovered the delight of the public payroll.

Palin, on the other hand, helped start a couple of businesses. She's had to make -- and live within -- budgets. She's had to make payroll.

Obama went into public service as a career. Palin went in because she saw things that needed fixing, kept finding more things that needed fixing, and walked away when her enemies found a way to threaten her family's security.

Obama needs to be in office. Palin doesn't.

The fundamental difference between a lifetime academician and theorist like Obama and a lifetime pragmatist like Palin is that Obama is fundamentally incapable of recognizing and admitting that his theories might be wrong. If they don't work, then obviously he didn't explain it well enough, he didn't spend enough money, or the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy sabotaged it.

Palin, on the other hand, understands The First Rule Of Holes and The Definition Of Insanity. When something doesn't work, she looks at it again and, if necessary, tosses it aside.

It's not that the right is anti-intellectual. The right reveres great intelligence. But, to reveal my Dungeons and Dragons background, it also understands that Intelligence is different from Wisdom. And in a crunch, we'll trust Wisdom over Intelligence -- because Intelligence unchecked by Wisdom leads to hubris.

And in the hands of the powerful, hubris often leads to catastrophe. In Obama's case, it's clear that his inability to conceive that he might be wrong tends to make him "double down on stupid" -- witness how his reaction to the overwhelming public disapproval of ObamaCare (to the point where Democrats who voted for it are refusing to acknowledge their support for it) means, to him, that he has to just keep on trying to "educate" us about how wonderful it is. He simply can't grasp that a lot of us already know the details, and still reject it.

It's not the intelligence that turns off conservatives. It's arrogant, all-knowing intelligence untempered by wisdom and experience that turns us off. And we're not that respectful of those who worship that strain of intelligence.

It's a pity that the left can't accept that there is a diversity of intelligence, and the best minds embrace more than one strain.

Permalink | Comments (26) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Politics

And there was a time when it was dealt with harshly.

Today... not so much:

Iran is paying Taliban fighters $1,000 for each U.S. soldier they kill in Afghanistan, according to a report in a British newspaper.

The Sunday Times described how a man it said was a "Taliban treasurer" had gone to collect $18,000 from an Iranian firm in Kabul, a reward it said was for an attack in July which killed several Afghan government troops and destroyed an American armored vehicle.

...

The newspaper's correspondent, Miles Amoore, said he met and interviewed the treasurer, who he said had been an illiterate farmer who was taught to read and write, plus basic accountancy, by the Taliban last winter.

"We don't care who we get money from," the treasurer was quoted as saying. He described the relationship with Iran as a "marriage of convenience." Iran is a predominantly Shiite country, while the Taliban is dominated by Sunni Muslims.

'For jihad'
"Iran will never stop funding us because Americans are dangerous for them as well. I think the hatred is the same from both us and Iran. The money we get is not dirty. It is for jihad," the treasurer told Amoore.

In addition to the $1,000 bounty on U.S. troops, the unnamed man said Iran paid $6,000 for the destruction of a U.S. military vehicle.

In the mean-time, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is up to his old tricks:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has questioned the accepted narrative of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, saying it was still not clear who was behind them.

"Something happened in New York and still nobody knows who the main perpetrators of that act were," Ahmadinejad told diplomats and newspaper editors late on Sunday while on a brief visit to Qatar.

"No independent people were allowed to try and identify the perpetrators," he charged.

Iran is a blight that the world will have to deal with... sooner or later.  Prior to their having nukes would seem to be best but... what the heck do I know.

Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Iran

This is an amazing time in American political history. We are seeing, in one of its purest forms, Darwinian evolution as applied to political movements, as the two main factions are constantly changing and adapting to an utterly unstable environment. And the changes and adaptations are absolutely fascinating to watch.

Human beings, by nature, look for patterns. It's hard-wired into our psyches. But in politics, the circumstances are so constantly changing that there is barely enough time for a pattern to emerge before it becomes obsolete.

Here's the pattern I've noted in the last decade or so of political history.

When a party finds itself shut out of power (no presidency, minorities in both Houses), it starts to fall apart a little. The leaders who oversaw the decline aren't exactly exiled or excommunicated or executed, they just lose their relevance. They're still around; it's just that no one pays them much attention.

Instead, a faction begins forming within the party. But that's not quite true; the faction sees itself as apart from the party. It doesn't see itself as part of the whole, but sees the party as a useful structure to infiltrate and use to achieve their goals.

This faction has some rather unusual characteristics. For one, it tends to be largely leaderless. It is self-organizing, with some people assuming leadership roles, but there is no single leader or even a cabal that runs the whole thing.

For another, it tends not to focus on principles or issues, but at its core embodies a mood. An attitude. It's fundamental nature is emotional, not rational.

For a few years, it amasses power. It draws members and money. It finds a few cooperative candidates and back them -- hard. Should any "establishment" types choose to challenge (or, more accurately, resist) these chosen rebels, they are turned upon with exceptional ferocity -- suffering far worse attacks from their putative "constituents" than they have from their nominal political adversaries.

These movements reach their peak during a presidential election, when they have a national campaign that their widespread arms can unite around. And the candidate they choose to back isn't someone who comes from their ranks, but instead is one they can imbue with their beliefs. A candidate who is a bit of a blank slate, one with a few easily-recognizale traits that they can identify with, but enough ambiguities that they can project the rest of their agenda on to.

This is, in a nutshell, how the Nutroots responded to the 2000 elections and ended up giving us all President Obama.

And it is, in a nutshell, where I see the Tea Party movement heading -- probably climaxing in 2012.

Who will be the candidate that the Tea Party will rally behind? Who will be the right's Barack Obama? It's way too early to tell -- but there's one person right now who seems to fit the mold to a T.

Who on the right is is strongly admired by the Tea Party, but not truly of the Tea Party? Who is looking to curry their favor, but retain their independence? Who has the kind of personal charisma -- not the kind that attracts everyone, but polarizes them into either strongly liking or disliking them -- that captures political fancy? Who has clearly-stated principles, yet remains ambiguous enough about a lot of issues that people can see and hear what they wish? Who seems to be more driven by emotion than intellect, who seems most about a mood and attitude than anything else?

Most importantly, who is most often compared -- and contrasted -- with President Obama, by both sides, in an attempt by one side to denigrate the other?

Who the hell else could it be but Mama Grizzly herself, Sarah Palin?

It's way, way too early to predict who will be the Republican challenger in 2012. It's way too early to even know if Palin will be a candidate. But I do feel comfortable in saying that the candidate who best embodies the "Palin spirit" as it exists today will have a hell of a lot of popular support -- in utter disregard for the Republican establishment.

Permalink | Comments (53) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Politics

Last year I told you about my sister-in-law Karin, her husband Jeff, and their family of adopted children when one of their daughters, Kate, who they adopted from China had open heart surgery only months after coming home. I am pleased to report that Kate is a happy, healthy, and very active.

Now, Karin and her family have a new challenge in front of them, but not with one of their own. A baby girl named Joy who lives at Morning Star Foundation, an orphanage in China for children with special needs, is looking for a family who will adopt her and give her a loving home, but she has a serious heart defect that needs to be corrected with surgery.

In China this surgery will cost $5,000 and Karin and her kids are selling hand sewn doll pillow and blanket sets to raise the money. With Jeff's employer triple matching what Karin and the kids raise, they are doing well, but they need 30 more orders to put them over the top. If you have a little girl in your life who would love to have a pillow and blanket set for her dolls, please head on over to Karin's blog and take a look. They are only $11 a set and all the money raised will go to the Morning Side Foundation. This post has many of the fabric patterns they're offering with more here. I purchased two sets, one for my daughter and one for my cousin's daughter, to give to them as Christmas gifts.

If you're interested in purchasing a pillow and blanket set, you can place your order by using the PayPal button at the top of Karin's sidebar. Once you select how many sets you want to purchase, go to the checkout page and click the link for special instructions. You can put the names of the sets you want to purchase there. If you don't have a PayPal account, it's easy-peasy to set up and probably the safest way to make online purchases. If for some reason you can't access PayPal through Karin's blog, just leave a comment with your accurate email address and Karin will contact you for payment information and your shipping address.

Thanks so much in advance for your help. Feel free to forward this to any friends who you think might want to buy a doll pillow and blanket set for their daughter, granddaughter, niece, etc. It's such a great cause.

Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Personal

I've said recently that I generally like and respect Mormons. They tend to be honest, sober, honorable, decent, and eminently respectable people.

I also have an affinity for Jews. Their cultural strength, their humor, their perseverence, their sociability, and their rejection of evangelism all appeal to me.

As an agnostic, I happen to find both groups' spiritual beliefs odd at best and more often laughable, but I tend to keep the particulars to myself and don't make an issue of them -- unless pressed. But generally, I have an affinity for the individuals I've encountered.

A couple of years ago, I tossed out a quick article on a conflict between the two groups. It seems that a group of Mormons had come to the conclusion that it was their moral obligation to offer "baptisms" to the deceased, through family members, to spare their souls eternal damnation. Relatives of the departed would stand in proxy, and the dead would be posthumously adopted into Mormonism and added to the roles of the faithful. (Mormon genealogy records are astonishingly thorough, and have been a tremendous boon to historians and roots-seekers.)

That was largely ignored, until some Jews heard about certain particulars of the practice. It seems that a few Mormons had decided that since we all descended from Adam and Eve, we're all generally "family" -- and therefore anyone can stand in for anyone else in history. And that led to a whole bunch of Jews killed in the Holocaust being listed as Mormons.

The Jews' objection seemed rather abstract, but understandable: they said, essentially, "these are our people. They lived and died as Jews. They were killed solely because they were Jews. What you are doing is stripping them of their Jewishness -- denying what they held so dearly that it cost them their lives. Plus, historically, it's been a very bad thing when others start assembling lists of Jews. Please, stop doing that immediately."

The Mormons, officially, agreed and stopped the practice in regards to Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Unofficially, though, smaller groups of Mormons quietly ignored the request and kept it up.

As I said, I wrote a little piece at the time I first heard about it. I sided with the Jews, but I thought it was a fairly trivial and silly issue -- enough that I could whip up a quick article about it and have a little fun with it.

Hoo boy, was I wrong. That article exploded in my face. It seems EVERYONE had some serious opinions on the issue.

So I took a second stab at it, refining and clarifying my position. I hadn't the first time, because I didn't see it as that big a deal.

Ever tossed water on a grease fire? Me, neither, but I've seen videos. (Thanks, Mythbusters!) And that is a great metaphor for what I did.

Eventually, the heat got too high for even me to stand. I shut down the comments on both articles, then posted a summation where I didn't even bother to leave them open.

Well, Meryl Yourish informs us that apparently those Mormons are at it again. Or, rather, still at it -- they are STILL Mormons conducting their proxy baptisms of Jews killed in the Holocaust.

It's officially against Church rules, but the Church isn't really enforcing it. The article compares it to the 55-MPH speed limit that's on the books, but everyone ignores and is almost never enforced.

On one level, it's a supremely silly spat. Two groups are arguing about an absolutely abstract and pointless matter.

On the other hand, it's a simple matter of respect. The Jews have said precisely why they are so bothered by the practice, and those are valid reasons. The Mormon Church needs to decide whether or not it wants to demonstrate its respect for the Jews and get its members to knock it off, or if their "obligation" to the deceased takes precedence over not insulting Jews around the world.

I hope they do the former. As I said, I generally like both groups, and I don't like seeing them in conflict.

Permalink | Comments (25) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Religion

And poignantly true... Ann Coulter on liberalism:

In the druidical religion of liberalism, not separating your recyclables is a sin, but abortion is just a medical procedure.

She may at times be over the top... you can't count this as one of those times.

H/T Mr. Freeberg.

Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: The Looney Left

The hope represented by more Americans seeing this President for what he is:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-five percent (45%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21 (see trends).

...

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 42% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. This matches the lowest approval rating yet measured for President Obama. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove.

I can't help but focus however on the 24% who strongly approve.  What exactly are they approving of?  On what basis are they claiming that the man is doing a good job?  What are their standards?

What are they smoking?

Permalink | Comments (48) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Barack Obama

Seton Hall University is a private college in Northern New Jersey. It is not a community college. It is not our state college of Rutgers. The entrance to this school is privately self-determined, both acceptance and tuition.

Attendees, monies from mostly their parents, along with federal and state funding in the form of student aid, grants, and low-rate student loans support and maintain the existence of this institution and its many students.

That is fine. That is the way it is, and should be. Some children need assistance from the government (scholarships, grants, etc), and by bettering themselves, becoming intelligent, productive members of society, whatever assistance is provided them in the short term will be paid back a 100 fold in the taxes they will pay over their proud, productive lives.

Why, do you ask, am I bring this up? This institution's law center is now fighting for, without permission from it's benefactors or those who have financial help from the state or federal government (our tax dollars), the following issue:

From DailyRecord.com:

"Seton Hall Law School's Center for Social Justice filed a class action lawsuit today against New Jersey on behalf of low-income legal immigrants who have been denied state-funded Medicaid health insurance under the FamilyCare program due to recent budget cuts.

New Jersey discontinued Medicaid coverage for nearly 12,000 residents under FamilyCare between April and July because they had not been permanent residents for at least five years, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit argues the immigrants are being discriminated against based on their immigration status.

"Many of the 12,000 lawful permanent residents affected by these state-Medicaid cuts are hard-working residents of the state, who pay taxes and support their families by working in low-wage jobs," attorney Jenny-Brooke Condon, an associate professor at Seton Hall's Center for Social Justice said in a statement released by the law school. "Ensuring that the working poor receive essential, preventive healthcare and treatment for illness keeps New Jersey residents healthy, which, in turn, keeps them working."

The named plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, which was filed in conjunction with the law firm Gibbons P.C., include a single mother who had kidney surgery in 2007 and can no longer afford ongoing treatment, and a Manual Guaman, an Ecuador native and father of three, who suffered a severe allergic reaction in July and required emergency room treatment after he lost FamilyCare coverage."

No where can I find if prior to the declared enforcement of the 5-year rule, were these people eligible for this benefit, being here less than 5 years.

These legal immigrants are no doubt doing work that natural born American citizens won't do.

Just to throw this out there, but, I wonder how thorough the enrollment process was for this ambitiously generous program. We all know how scrupulous our immigration system is.

Basically, an immigrant who has supposedly been here for at least five years, was able to get the following free healthcare (as long as they didn't make enough money):

NJ FamilyCare is a comprehensive health insurance program that provides a wide range of services:

• Doctor visits
• Eyeglasses
• Hospitalization
• Lab tests
• X-rays
• Prescriptions
• Regular checkups
• Mental health
• Dental (for children)

As Seton Hall is funded by private money, taxed by the state and feds, it would seem to me, that, if any entity should be taking up a case like this, it would be done by state and federal divisions of justice.

Amazing.

Funding for township, county, state, and federal programs, immigrant or not, is decided everyday by elected officials.

These do-gooders, however, claim it is not legal that a state cut funding for a program for "legal" immigrants.

Welcome to America, amigos!

No matter what, shouldn't they be covered under Obamacare, anyway? You know, free stuff, and all? "Historic" reform? Kum-Bye-Yah? It was supposed to solve EVERYTHING, and it had to be passed right away.

Are older people who are approaching retirement age for social security suing the government since the eligible age has crept up for years? (It's been floated around recently to increase the retirement age to 70. All the money spent for this "safety net," and the best the government could do is not make it available until you are 70? Sheesh. I don't see too many 69 year old construction workers out there swinging sledge hammers.)

One of the reasons this article burned me up was, I have been working for the same company, same industry, for more than 20 years. I am 38. Since I was 18, I have been busting my pasty, white ass. Not because I expected any pot of gold, but because you sort of need to work in this country. And in this industry, ANYONE who has a sincere, healthy work ethic can be promoted to a position which will give you years of financial security.

I am also a member of a union. I hate unions.

I have been out on Worker's Compensation since May of 2009. Had a dozen or so "conservative" treatments, which ended up in my having 3 surgeries within a 6 month period. Last one having been preformed in February of THIS year (Disc fusions.).

The union I belong to administers our Health and Welfare benefits, including pensions.

I have detested my union for years due to the fact that MY dues politically benefit liberals, most of which are far left kooks, without exception.

That's a piece for another day.

What did I get after all my years of faithfully paying my union dues and working so my company could extract money from MY paycheck to contribute to MY union healthcare package?

It is my union's policy that, if you are unfortunate enough that your work-related injury has resulted in a 12 month period of being unable to work, they are legally allowed to terminate my family health benefits. I found this out the day AFTER my 12 months were up. If I could have afforded it, I could retain my benefits under COBRA (Thanks, Teddy K!) for a monthly, out of pocket fee, one larger than I could afford (Worker's Comp benefits pay 30% less than your normal pay-check, as well). So my wife and I have just enrolled in private, out of pocket insurance, which is quite taxing on our financial situation at this time.

Am I eligible for " New Jersey Family Care" as these immigrants are/were?

Nope. I supposedly make too much.

Am I eligible for ANY assistance due to losing my healthcare coverage as the result of an injury?

Nope.

So the overwhelming majority of people of this state have to work at jobs which provide them insurance or pay them enough to buy their own insurance, while those who immigrated from some hell-hole do as little as they need to be eligible for health insurance provided free to them by the taxpayers of New Jersey.

And now, these people are so pissed off that they can't receive free healthcare they are suing the state of NJ because, horror of horrors, you need to be here for 5 friggin' years. (Conveniently, the statement from SHU leaves out the fact that this new rule does not effect children OR pregnant women.) Nice incentive.

I wonder. When these immigrants came here, did they even THINK of having to pay for their own health insurance, or was it just a given, since liberals of this nation have pandered so much to them, they have been completely brainwashed into thinking that in America, it really is the land of the "free."

Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Education, Immigration, Patriotism

Coming our way via Vanderleun, something the notes at YouTube introduces thusly:

Nashville based songwriters Jamie Teachenor and "Banjo" Ben Clark team up for this exclusive release, aimed to raise-the-hair and boil-the-blood of every liberty-loving American ready to make a difference this fall...one vote at a time.

Please help the powerful voice of "We The People" ring through the halls of Congress by forwarding this to any and all who are fed up with the Elites in Washington who consistently ignore our cries.

If you're not registered to vote, PLEASE do so now, and may God bless America now and forever.

Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Patriotism

Eugene Robinson, under the guise of nonpartisan criticism, says the anger voters feel toward Democrats is nothing more than more than a childish temper tantrum. It's not that they are reacting rationally and predictably to the Democrats' arrogance and elitism. No, according to Eugene Robinson, the only possible reason is the voters' out-of-control emotions.

The American people are angry because President Obama presented himself as a centrist during the campaign, but upon taking office almost immediately he started governing as a radical leftist. They are angry because Obama pushed and Democrats in Congress passed a nearly one trillion dollar stimulus package because they said it was necessary to keep unemployment below 8 percent; it sent the unemployment rate soaring to nearly 10 percent . Voters are angry because those same Democrats blatantly ignored them and passed ObamaCare when they made it crystal clear they didn't want it. None of this is on Robinson's radar screen; instead, he chalks up voters' anger to irrationality. The Democrats and the liberals who support them dismiss the voters again at their own peril.

Update: For those who say Robinson never called the American voters spoiled brats, please read his op-ed about which he was speaking on Morning Joe, entitled "The Spoiled-brat American electorate." Allahpundit's post was the source for this one, which was why I linked to him and not to Robinson directly. Next time I will include a link to an original source since some commenters had difficulty finding it at Allahpundit's post.

Permalink | Comments (37) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Elections
Tags: Democrats, elections, Eugene Robinson

I went to the Fiesta supermarket this morning to stock up on provisions. Since today is the first weekend of college football some chicken wings seemed appropriate. Rather than the usual fried I decided to grab some jerk seasoning and toss them on the grill. So there I was in the little Caribbean section of the store when I see this unfortunately labeled product:

Yeah I know, I know. But come on people, do a little market research.

Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Photos

This past week there were a couple of incidents that viewed independently appear to be random, inexplicable acts of stupidity/cruelty. Viewed in tandem they raise some interesting questions about priorities and values.

The first was a YouTube video of a young girl standing on a remote riverbed tossing a half dozen puppies into the fast moving water. She turns out to have been a minor, from Bosnia, who was told by her grandmother to get rid of the three-day-old pups by throwing them in the nearby river. Why anyone who carried out such a task would be stupid enough to a) videotape the incident and b) post the video on YouTube is beyond me, but she did.

Of course, wantonly killing innocent puppies isn't something that I would do. But the fact is that there are thousands of unwanted animals born every day. Hell, there are hundreds of unwanted human babies exterminated every day. So I'm not going to come out and call the girl a monster. What she did was stupid and arguably cruel. Monstrous though? Different cultures have different mores and views toward how animals should be treated. That might be the only way they know how to deal with unwanted pets in Bosnia for all I know.

If she took them to a vet and had them put down they'd be just as dead. The fact she was able to casually toss them in a river just tells me she doesn't give a shit about dogs and if her Grandmother tells her to toss a litter of them into the river she'll do it.

Now understandably a whole bunch of people were outraged. Almost instantly animal rights groups mobilized to identify her - launching Facebook pages dedicated to the task and posting rewards for anyone who could identify her. Director Michael Bay stepped in and pledged a $50,000 reward for her prosecution. All the attention and furor paid off as the girl was identified today.

It goes to show that an Internet community can really get results when an incident pushes the right buttons.

In other news, twenty-eight year old human female Bethany Storro was innocently minding her own business on a public street during broad daylight in Vancouver, Washington when an as yet unidentified female walked up and threw a strong acid into her face. Luckily, she had just purchased and was wearing a new pair of sunglasses which helped spare her eyesight. Bethany will probably have to undergo multiple surgeries and likely will bear the scars of the attack for the rest of her life.

The initial round of stories only described her assailant as a "young female". It took a day or two for a full description "black woman in her 20s who was wearing a ponytail, green shirt and khaki shorts" to appear. Many stories still leave out that seemingly relevant information. Today, a sketch has been released.

I don't know why a news organization would omit very relevant information like a suspect's description, but I'd hate to think the fact it was a black suspect attacking a non-black victim caused some editors to hold back information that could help lead to an arrest.

Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that unlike puppy girl no one has come forward and offered big reward money for information leading to the arrest of someone who maliciously and knowingly tortured and disfigured a human female in broad daylight on a busy street.

For some reason that strikes me as a case of very misplaced priorities. I don't condone animal abuse, but disposing of unwanted puppies in an admittedly shocking and unorthodox manner in Bosnia is far less worthy of Internet sleuthing than random, disfiguring attacks on women in the US. Bethany's plight has drawn enough attention that we can be sure the local and state police will do all the can to find the suspect, but a $50,000 reward just might help convince someone to rat out the miserable acid-throwing bitch.

Permalink | Comments (21) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: News

Let's say you're the head of the NAACP. You've watched your organization's relevance decline for years. And, in recent times, more and more people have noticed that you've been bartering away your moral authority for political power, letting yourself become pretty much the chattel of the Democratic party. And then you find that in addition to your relevance, you've also lost a huge hunk of credibility with the incredibly inept way you handled the whole Shirley Sherrod fiasco. What do you do to regain some of your footing?

I don't know if there's a correct answer, but I do know there's one really, really wrong one:

Team up with the professional liars, spin masters, and ultrapartisan swine that make up Media Matters For America, Think Progress, and New Left Media to fabricate "expose" the double-secret hidden racist agenda behind the Tea Party movement.

This is what is known in professional circles (I won't say what profession) as "doubling down on stupid."

If anything, the NAACP should see some kinship with the Tea Party. Both groups' origins revolve around people feeling a sense of powerlessness, of resentment against government oppression, and uniting peacefully to demonstrate their numbers and their moral commitment to improving their lot and fulfilling the promises and principles of the nation.

Instead, the NAACP, for whatever reason (I'm going to go with naivete -- they've certainly showed plenty of that) has bought into the whole "the Tea Party is the new face of the Klan" line of bullshit the liberal establishment is trying to push, and sees this as their way of reliving their glory days.

They chose poorly.

They're standing on a banana peel, trusting their safety to people who have no sense of loyalty, and who will throw the NAACP under the bus the instant they become inconvenient -- in the model of their leader, President Obama. Their sole interest in the NAACP is in using what remains of that group's moral capitol to advance their own agenda -- to discredit the biggest genuine grass-roots movement in the United States in decades.

They're standing on that banana peel, and they have no idea that they're doing so. And they have no idea that they're being roped into a fight by con artists and cowards and frauds, trusting in the shield of their history to keep their targets from hitting back as they poke and bludgeon and harangue the Tea Party people.

A lot of Tea Party people will have no qualms about shoving back, and then that banana peel will assert its presence.

I'm not one of those people, though.

I'd have a very, very small qualm about it. I'd even feel bad about it.

Briefly.

Before I shoved real hard.

And then I'd really, really try to keep from laughing.

Permalink | Comments (32) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Race

Coming our way via this link sent by Steve Schippert in email who adds:

Not many seem to understand (or get the importance) of how the enemy sees the mosque.

It's not just about freedom of religion or property rights.

Permalink | Comments (84) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Ground Zero Mosque

It's Friday, which means it's time for the Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™. Enter your best caption for the following picture:

Due to the holiday, winners will be announced Monday night.

Permalink | Comments (103) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Weekend Caption Contest

Michael Sherer at Time magazine has penned a piece that must've been painful for him... certainly painful for many Democrats and many more of their psychopantic supporters in the media.

Obama is no longer The One:

When Obama arrived in office in January '09, his Gallup approval rating stood at 68%, a high for a newly elected leader not seen since John Kennedy in 1961. Today Obama's job approval has been hovering in the mid-40s, which means that at least 1 in 4 Americans has changed his or her mind. The plunge has been particularly dramatic among independents, whites and those under age 30. With midterm elections just nine weeks off, instead of the generational transformation some Democrats predicted after 2008, the President's party teeters on the brink of a broad setback in November, including the possible loss of both houses of Congress. By a 10-point margin, people say they will vote for Republicans over Democrats in Congress, the largest such gap ever recorded by Gallup.

White House aides explain this change as a largely inevitable reflection of the cycles of history. Midterms are almost always bad for first-term Presidents, and worse in hard times. "The public is rightly frustrated and angry with the economy," says Dan Pfeiffer, Obama's communications director, explaining the White House line. "There is no small tactical shift we could have made at any point that would have solved that problem." In more confiding moments, aides admit that the peak of Obama's popularity may have been inflated, a fleeting result of elation at the prospect of change and national pride in electing the first African-American President. As one White House aide puts it, "It was sort of fake."

It wasn't sort of fake... it was fake period.  Obama was sold to the American people as something that he wasn't.  And the American people are no longer buying the lie.

Back to the piece:

The fear most often expressed is that Obama is taking the country somewhere they don't want to go. "We bought what he said. He offered a lot of hope," says Fred Ferlic, an Obama voter and orthopedic surgeon in South Bend who has since soured on his choice. Ferlic talks about the messy compromises in health care reform, his sense of an inhospitable business climate and the growth of government spending under Obama. "He's trying to Europeanize us, and the Europeans are going the other way," continues Ferlic, a former Democratic campaign donor who plans to vote Republican this year. "The entire American spirit is being broken."

No sir... the American spirit is awakening... the American spirit is what's fighting Obama and his minions now... the American spirit is finally putting up her dukes and saying enough is enough... the radicals in power today will in November be feeling the onslaught of the American spirit...

It's actually an inspiring and moving thing.

It's hope and change to believe in.

Permalink | Comments (25) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Barack Obama

The Department of Justice has brought suit against Arizona sherriff Joe Arpaio:

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Phoenix, is the latest chapter in a bitter feud between Justice and Sheriff Arpaio, who is accused of failing to turn over documents sought since March 2009 that federal prosecutors say comply with its probe of alleged discrimination, unconstitutional searches and seizures, and English-only policies in his jails that discriminate against those with limited English skills.

Sheriff Arpaio, during a press conference in Phoenix, described the lawsuit as "harassment," saying thousands of pages of documents have already been turned over by his office to federal prosecutors.

"These actions make it abundantly clear that Arizona, including this sheriff, is Washington's new whipping boy. Now it's time to take the gloves off," he said.

"As for today's lawsuit against my office: These people in Washington met with my attorneys only a few days ago. And in that meeting, Washington got our cooperation; they admitted they already have thousands of pages of the requested documents; and they were given access to interview my staff and get into my jails. They smiled in our faces and then stabbed us in the back with this lawsuit."

...

The sheriff, first elected in 1992 and re-elected four times since, said the Obama administration "intended to sue us all along, no matter what we did to try to avert it," adding that "it's time Americans everywhere wake up and see this administration for what it really is: calculating, underhanded at times and certainly not looking out for the best interests of the legal citizens residing in this country."

Americans everywhere are waking up Sheriff Joe... and their voices will soon be heard.

We can see November from our back yards.

Permalink | Comments (30) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Illegal Aliens, Immigration, Justice

This week has been an interesting week in the offshore oil drilling biz. President Obama got his wrist slapped a second time for trying to shut down all drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and a second oil platform suffered a major fire.

President Obama's rationale seems to be that the risks of environmental catastrophe, like we maybe/nearly had with the BP leak, are too great. I'll let others fight over that one; I've got bigger fish to fry here.

We've had offshore oil drilling for decades. And in that time, we've had exactly one major disaster -- this summer's. That's a pretty impressive statistic. Unless, of course, you're a Gulf fisherman or someone else directly and severely affected by it. Then it's damned lousy.

Decades of safe operation, one bad incident, and Obama's ready to pull the plug. Why does that sound familiar?

Oh, yes, nuclear power. Decades of safe operation in the US, then one near-disaster -- and BAM! No new plants in the US. Period. The only reactors built since then have been bolted to US Navy submarines and aircraft carriers. And at Three Mile Island, nobody died.

Oh, yeah, there was Chernobyl, but the real lessons of that disaster is that Communism leads to lethal incompetence and mass deaths -- and a lot of us already knew that.

There are two points that need to be addressed here. The first is that, simply, we need energy. We need energy if we are going to survive -- not even prosper, just survive -- as a civilization. Our whole society is structured around relatively cheap, readily available energy. When we shut down whole categories of energy sources, we impair not only our ability to prosper, but to continue to exist.

The other is that everything has dangers. Despite what decades of scumbag lawyers have told us, nothing is perfectly safe, and we have no right to demand absolute safety. (This is, I believe, related to "no one must ever be allowed to fail, because it could hurt their fragile self esteem" movement that is crippling us as individuals.)

EVERYTHING has risks. Period. Nothing is absolutely safe. Life is about balancing the risks, taking chances, weighing the dangers versus the benefits.

Yes, we need to exert caution whenever we can. We need to give these highly risky endeavors like deep offshore drilling and nuclear power plants and whatnot several layers of protection, precautions, safety measures, and so on. We need to do all we realistically can to minimize our risks.

But we can't eliminate risk altogether. That's simply not possible. And all we do when we try to is to end up smothering ourselves.

In the case of Gulf drilling, we need to figure out what went wrong, and take steps from keeping it happening again. But we went decades without a disaster like we just underwent; to shut down all drilling is a gross overreaction. (It makes me wonder if "safety" is the only motivator here, or if it's part of some larger agenda.)

But we -- as individuals and as a society -- need to be able to take risks. We need to be able to risk failure if we are going to succeed. To avoid risk is to avoid change, to avoid growth, to avoid progress, to avoid success.

There is no such thing as perfect safety. We cannot hold out for certainty from risk. As Benjamin Franklin said, "In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."

Especially in a Democratic administration.

Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Society

I've long been a fan of Mitt Romney. I respect the guy. He was a very successful businessman who also saw his duty to give back to the people by serving in public office -- like his father. It's an American form of noblesse oblige.

It helps that he's a Mormon. The Mormons have some of the silliest, most absurd beliefs this side of Scientology, but pretty much every single Mormon I've ever met or heard of (short of Harry Reid and a couple of others) have been sober, upright, honest, honorable, decent, trustworthy people. Who happen to believe some very silly things. But I tend to judge conduct over beliefs, so I don't hold that against them.

Romney was governor of Massachusetts for four years, and during that time he signed that state's universal health care plan. And at that time, I had a pretty good idea of how that came to be.

When Romney was governor, he had very little real political clout. He had the "bully pulpit" and considerable executive experience, so he could quite often outmaneuver his Democratic opponents, but in the end, hard numbers set the rules.

During Romney's term, the Democrats held over 85% of each of the Houses. That means that Romney could have the support of every single Republican and 20% of the Democrats, and they could still override his vetoes. So he had to choose his fights very, very carefully, because if too many of his vetoes got overridden, it would snowball and he would lose what little real power he had.

When the health care plan started brewing, I could almost hear Romney's cool calculations. "This is going to pass, no matter what I do. So my choices are to take a principled stand and oppose it, or let it be known I'm open to the matter -- and then negotiate away the worst parts of it in exchange for my signature at the end."

In brief, Romney was facing down a rampaging bull. He could either stand up and get trampled, or jump aboard and hope to steer it away from where it could do the most harm.

In the end, Romney won some compromises, but signed off on what now a lot of people like to call "RomneyCare."

And it's turning into the disaster that a lot of us said it would be. For the first few years, the state managed the costs thanks to some hefty funds from DC, but they've dried up. The costs have been considerably higher than projected. And it's led to a lot of situations that we detractors predicted would happen, and the backers pooh-poohed.

Businesses have run the numbers, and realized that they were paying more in premiums than they would pay in fines if they dropped their coverage -- and have dropped it, knowing the state would pick up the slack.

Individuals have run the numbers, and realized that they, too, would pay less in fines than they would in premiums -- and dropped their coverage. It's not much of a risk -- should they get sick, they can then sign up immediately for coverage, as the state banned limits on "pre-existing conditions" and waiting periods.

Insurers have seen that the state will be setting their rates based on political pressures, in utter disregard of the profitability -- or survivability -- of the insurers. So they've cut back on their offerings, threatened to stop offering health insurance in Massachusetts, or just gone ahead and done so.

And the legislature is looking at huge budget shortfalls as "RomneyCare" sucks up more and more and more money each year.

As I said, I had inferred Romney's reluctant participation in the plan that bears his name. But it seems I was mistaken, because that's not what Romney apparently implied.

No, if you ask Romney today about the Massachusetts plan, he insists that he's proud of it and that it will work.

Sorry, Mitt. As long as you're willing to keep ownership of the disaster that is the Massachusetts health care "reform," which serves as a stark warning as to what we can all expect from ObamaCare, you're off my list of candidates I can support in 2012.

Permalink | Comments (35) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Health Care

A most thoughtful piece has been posted at Whosever Desires by Anthony Lusvardi deserving of your attention.  Teaser excerpt follows:

In the spring of 2000 I spent a semester in Jerusalem, taking classes at Bethlehem University (a Palestinian institution) and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.  Shortly before becoming a Jesuit I made another pilgrimage to the Holy Land, in the spring of 2006.

While in the Holy Land the second time I heard two Western tour guides, on separate occasions, tell an encouraging story about inter-religious cooperation.  When Pope John Paul II celebrated Mass in Bethlehem's Manger Square in the spring of 2000, the guides said, the mosque on the edge of the square silenced the call to prayer it normally broadcast at noon so as not to disturb the papal liturgy.  According to the guides, doing so was an unprecedented gesture of goodwill.

There's only one problem with this cheerful tale:  it isn't true.

I was in Manger Square that morning when the pre-recorded call to prayer came blasting over the Mosque of Omar's loudspeakers midway through the Prayers of the Faithful.  The lector paused, everyone stared at their feet in embarrassment for a few moments, and, when the recording finished, we went on with the Mass.  When I visited six years after the fact, I had a conversation with a local Christian who told me that the interruption of that liturgy is still seen as a painful reminder of that community's minority status.

Last week's discussion of the proposed Park 51 mosque reminded me of the tour guides' story.  The original post argues, quite rightly, that a greater knowledge of Islam and of things religious more generally, would be a good thing.  But underlying this argument runs an implicit narrative that goes something like this:  we're all pretty much decent folks and share the same basic human values regardless of superficial differences (say race or religion) and once we learn more about each other our suspicions and conflicts will melt away.

This story is one of the late twentieth century's great narratives and is implicit in many of the stories we read and movies we see.  It's present, in slightly different ways--to pick two recent films at random--in Invictus and Avatar.  It's the "story" implicit in John Lennon's "Imagine."  It's a particularly powerful story because quite often it is, thankfully, true, and it certainly shapes the way we understand our own history.  The civil rights movement--the great national story for many generations of Americans--is a version of this narrative.

This narrative is a good story in every sense.  When it's true, then things turn out better for everyone:  prejudices are overcome and we take a step toward a more peaceful world.  The narrative is a good story in the other sense of being a compelling tale:  there are both internal and external struggles to be waged and usually there are Good Guys and Bad Guys it's easy to root for or against.  (The villain in the Park 51 posting isn't too hard to spot, is she?)

But what happens when this narrative isn't true?

Finish this up at the link then consider passing it on... it's well worth the time it'll take.

Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Christianity, Ground Zero Mosque, Islam