True or False: Black People Should Vote for Black Politicians

Apparently, that's what some (fortunately not all) blacks think.

Here's a woman who happens to disagree. Stacey Dash, an African-American actress, who did vote for Barack Obama in 2008 but who voted for Mitt Romney in 2012, has a different idea about how to decide on a candidate: "I chose him [Romney] not by the color of his skin but the content of his character."

There's a thought. Why didn't someone else think of this?  Oh wait.

Some of her black brethren don't agree. Stacey's been the recipient of some pretty nasty tweets by the so-called tolerant left. 

Here's an interesting discussion on the issue, posted on the Huffington Post ("Black People for Obama: African-American Support for Obama Called Prejudice, Blind Loyalty," by Jesse Washington).

And here's a snippet of an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN.

Thoughts After Reading "A Thousand Splendid Suns"

OK, so I cried at the end, I admit. Hosseini finally got to me, a bit shamelessly, but I think Mariam deserved the attention she finally got, albeit belatedly. 

Reading this novel was a really strange experience for me. I found myself getting really annoyed with the author. When I got to the part where Mariam refused to see her father and tore up his letter without reading it, I actually got angry. This was after the scene where Mariam and Rasheed go to all the trouble of walking to a hotel and borrowing a phone to try and call Jalil (Mariam's father) to ask for financial help--to keep the family from starving--it's a big build-up, and you think, finally, maybe at last, these poor wretches will get some help, only to find out that Jalil is dead and gone, and that whole segment where the reader clings to a little hope for some sort of relief was for naught. 

Angry at the author for manipulating me into a false hope? 

I've never read a novel where I actually found myself wanting to pray for the protagonists. Pray for a character in fiction? How bizarre is that? Yet that's how I felt for Mariam and Laila when they were about to run away from Rasheed. You just knew this wasn't going to be easy in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. I walked away from the book, dreaded starting up again. And of course, I was right, it didn't go well for these women. 

Nothing, it seemed, would go right, especially for Mariam. 

Angry at the author because he seemed determined to make life as miserable for these women as he possibly could. Unrelenting sorrow, unrelenting humiliation. Like a cruel, sadistic puppeteer, he never let up. 

But perhaps that was his point. He pulled back the veil that shrouds western eyes from the cruelty of the Taliban, the indignities women especially but men as well experience in these horribly oppressive societies. 

Reading this novel made me so thankful for freedoms I barely think of as freedom: freedom to step outside my door, get in my car, run a quick errand, wear what I want, say what I think, watch and read and write and wear and eat and sleep when and where and what I want. 

Thankful for my beautiful America. 

I did cry at the end, for Mariam, a sad, wretched and, ultimately, heroic woman.

Not So Fast, Your Majesty?

The Chicago Tribune editorial board wrote the following in yesterday's paper: 

But in this country we don't change bad laws by presidential fiat. We change them by having Congress rewrite them or by starting from scratch. Obama doesn't want to reopen this law for fear that Republicans and some Democrats will substantially rewrite it. But that's what has to happen.

Nice to hear some objectivity from a mainstream paper. True, the Tribune's editorial philosophy leans conservative, but they did endorse Obama for president in 2008 and again 2012. So kudos to them for somehow managing to remain detached ideologically in both their endorsements and their analysis of policies.

Wish my paper (Los Angeles Times) would take a page from their playbook; its board members continue to insist, for example, that the Affordable Care Act is fine, just give it a few months, a year, max. Indeed, their guy can do no wrong. Here's what they wrote on the same day regarding Obama's "decree" that consumers should be allowed to keep their current insurance policies for another year: 

The move is a desperate attempt to fulfill a promise President Obama never should have made, and the legal authority for it is sketchy. What's more, it may not be possible at this point for insurers to revive policies they've already canceled. Worst of all, Obama merely punted to next year the fight over the law's insurance reforms, which he has done a remarkably poor job of explaining and selling. The only good thing about the delay is that it might stop Congress from making a more damaging change to the law.

A gentle rebuke, yes. But scrap (rewrite or repeal) the law? Nothing doing. The real bad guys in that scenario would be in Congress. Nope. Good, bad, or ugly, keep your cotton-picking hands off the ACA, thus saith the LAT.

Stop Digging. Start Over (Chicago Tribune editorial, November 15, 2013. 

His Highness Has Spoken!

So first, the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" was passed illegally. At least that's my understanding. Aren't bills supposed to originate in the House and then move to the Senate, not the other way around? 

And it was passed without a single Republican vote, with virtually no input from Republicans (not for want of trying--they were muscled out of the entire process).

Then Obama decided unilaterally to exempt certain special interest groups (labor unions among them) from the penalties of ObamaCare. 

Now Mr. Obama is acting unilaterally again, this time offering to extend for a year those insurance policies that had been cancelled because they didn't comply with the Affordable Care Act. A whole year? Golly gee! Thanks, Mr. Obama!



What's next, your majesty?

Obama, the Great (Prevaricator)

I think it's safe to say that he's got chutzpah (which, come to think of it, means audacity). But is it also safe to say we've been snookered? 

So by now we all know he's a liar. But what we didn't know was the depth of his antipathy towards Americans. He really thinks he can stand there and say, no, what I really meant was . . . 

In case you Obama supporters still think he's some sort of a knight in shining armor, here's a montage of his promises, followed by yesterday's incredible charade. 

Note that the assurances ("if you like your health care plan, you can keep it") began as early as 2008 and were repeated again and again as recently as this year, even though the administration already had been warned two years ago that people would, in fact, lose their insurance policies.


 
It's clear he was lying. Yet instead of owning up to it, he has the nerve, the audacity, to stand in front of the cameras and say, basically, Hey you schmucks, here's what I really said:



"What we said was..." 

Oh really?

This is incredible on so many levels, not the least of which is the fact that the people who voted for him (this includes nearly everyone in my extended family) probably don't have a problem with this. 

We are schmucks*, we've been swindled but good, and if Obama fans haven't figured it out yet, eventually they will. Just today, in fact, Kathleen Sebelieus admitted to Congress that

"employer based insurance plans will also be cancelled as a result of grandfathering caveats and government requirements making plans illegal under Obamacare" (read entire article here).

So yes, it's safe to say, we've been screwed.

*Note: "schmuck" is Yiddish for "penis." I didn't know that, but in this case, I guess the metaphor works. He's the Grand Poobah of Schmucks, and he's screwed us all.

Maybe the Thrill is Gone for Chris Matthews?

Back in 2008, MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews made this "objective assessment" of Barack Obama:



Of all the left-leaning media personalities, Chris Matthews personifies, in my view, all that's wrong about journalism. One might even consider him a caricature. The fact that he could even admit on air about having a "thrill up the leg" after listening to Obama speak, and consider the statement an"objective assessment," goes beyond caricature. Matthews is the same person who told Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe, shortly after Obama was elected, "I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work." When Scarborough asked if that was an appropriate thing for him, as a journalist, to say, Matthews said, "Yeah, that’s my job. My job is to help this country."

Nearly six years into Obama's disastrous presidency, it appears that at least a few Obama loyalists in the media are starting to emerge from their euphoria. It's a bit of a culture shock, for instance, to listen to Chris Matthews today, throwing a few of his celebrated hardballs leftward. Here he is, asking the same kind of questions many of us on the right have been asking for over a year, regarding the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012: 

How come this is shrouded in mystery? What I can't understand is all these months later we're still trying to figure out what happened. I just want to know, as an American, what happened? Did everybody do what they were supposed to do? Did everybody make a really good desperate effort to save the lives of our people over there or didn't they? If they didn't, that's a problem, but I want an answer. 

Good questions. Questions that should have been asked (and not just by Republicans) from Day 1. Instead, like docile, well-trained house pets, the mainstream media compliantly accepted the Obama administration's deceptive narrative, letting both him and Hillary Clinton off the hook, and allowing the Republicans to be the "bad guys" in their attempts to get to the bottom of this story. 

I guess the thrill is gone, at least for Chris Matthews, and hopefully, for other mainstream journalists, as well. I won't say too little, too late. I will say (again), shame on those in the media who continue to lob softballs at the Obama administration. And not just about Benghazi. There are more scandals in this administration than there are journalists, it seems. Perhaps now, as the health care debacle continues to come apart at the seams, and the president's bald-faced lies get more and more scrutiny by an increasingly skeptical press, these other scandals will be re-visited more objectively.

Here's the rest of the Hardball segment, if you're interested. 

Real Clear Politics: Chris Matthews on Benghazi

Thoughts After Reading "The Kite Runner"

I brought Khaled Hosseini's The Kite Runner with me on a 3-day weekend visit to Columbus, Ohio, to visit my son. I'm still working on another novel, which I'd tried to finish before my trip, but too many things conspired against my finishing that book, and I didn't want to bring an almost-finished book on a cross-country trip in which inches and ounces are precious commodities. So I left Wouk's Brooklyn at home, tucked Hosseini's Kabul inside my backpack, and finished it in 3 days. The cover image didn't even make it to my blog's sidebar (What I'm Reading).

I've been meaning to read this. It's been sitting in my bookcase (right next to A Thousand Splendid Suns, also still unread), for awhile. As usual, I'm several years behind the rest of the reading world, scrambling to catch up, hoping someday to keep pace. Anything I say here will no doubt be redundant. The book came out in 2003--what's left to say? But here are my thoughts anyway, for what they're worth. 

The grand themes, as I see them, are courage and honesty and family love. Courage, as in not cowardly. Honesty, as in not only truth-telling, but truth-living, being true to who and what you are. Amir argued this point to himself when he discovered the truth about his relationship to Hassan, the lies he'd been led to believe all his life, the truth about his father. "I may be a coward, but at least I accept that I'm a coward," he told himself. Nevertheless, there he went anyway, venturing back into Taliban-controlled Kabul to rescue Hassan's small son, setting up a face-to-face meeting with a brutal Taliban leader to try and negotiate for the boy's freedom, fully aware that he could be walking toward his own death. What was driving this recklessness? What replaced the cowardice that had haunted him his entire life, ever since the day when, as a 12-year old boy--immobilized, petrified, horrified--he watched Hassan get beaten and raped, watched, knowing there was nothing he could do to stop it; realizing, too, that Hassan would have done anything in his power to stop it had the situation been reversed. The choice Amir made to stay hidden, to slip away, to pretend he hadn't seen what happened, would have repercussions for decades in the lives of all the characters in this story. 

There would be no reconciliation, no pardon, no public renunciation of his sin, but redemption is another of the grand themes in this book. Amir does find redemption at the end, awkwardly, clumsily, painfully. The courage he discovers is not the courage of a man facing death (which he does), but the courage to tell his wife the truth about his hidden shame, the courage to talk candidly about his father's sin in a society that shuns such sin. 

Honesty and courage, interchangeable in this story, leading to redemption. Leading, too, to faith, another of the great themes. Finding peace, if not solace or answers, face-down in prayer. 

Who is the kite runner of the title? Hassan, the hair-lipped boy, of course. But also, as the final pages show, Amir, his own upper lip now cleft--the result of a terrible, nearly fatal beating--Amir, broken, hobbled, but also healed, and forgiven, is the kite runner.

Old People

Found this song, well searched for it, actually, after Peggy Noonan mentioned it in the book I'm reading. I hadn't heard of it before. She referred to Bette Midler's version, so I searched for that, listened, cried, but then I wondered who wrote the song (John Prine) and found a video of him performing. Posting them both here. 

"Hello in There" 


Ow. 

Here's the songwriter's version. 

The Internet Knows

I've been reading Clay Johnson's book, The Information Diet, and also listening to what Eli Pariser has to say (he wrote The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding From You, which I haven't read yet). I think Johnson got some of his ideas for his book from Pariser, but no matter. They're both making the same points, which has to do with how the Internet (Google, Yahoo! News, Facebook, are mentioned specifically) use sophisticated algorithms to basically give users the information they want (or what the Internet thinks they want) based on their browsing history.

So many unclear pronouns in that paragraph. Sorry.

The point these two men and others are making is that the Internet is, if not creating, then it's perpetuating the polarization that exists in society. The phrase I'm hearing is confirmation bias, which is "the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions" (I got this definition from Science Daily). What's going on is the Internet somehow keeps track of our online activity, our "clicks"--articles we read online, links we follow, websites we visit, articles or sites we "like" on Facebook, etc.--and then, when we search for information in a search engine like Google, the top results conform to the kinds of links we've clicked on before. To illustrate this, Pariser asked two friends to Google the word "Egypt" and then show him the search results. One friend's results were all about the political uprising in Egypt while the other friend's results had to do with pyramids and traveling to Egypt. Same search term, two different users, completely different results.

Pariser calls this trend "concerning" since it appears what's going on is when we search for information on the Internet, we're not getting what's true or current or relevant about something but rather what conforms to what we want to be true about something. Confirmation bias. 

Certainly, we can take control of our searches. There are strategies for forming queries that filter out some aspects and include another. And yes, those are the strategies I teach in my English 100 classes. But not everyone has the time, interest, inclination, or patience, let alone the cognizance to either recognize or appreciate the need for such deliberate use of the Internet. The very fact that we're searching the Internet for something suggests that we're in a hurry. The analogy to fast food that Clay Johnson uses in his book is apt: a quick burger satisfies the empty belly much the way a random Google search satisfies the unfocused mind. 

For the record, both Pariser and Johnson are lefties. Pariser founded MoveOn.org and Johnson started Blue State Digital. But I like them anyway! They both seem to appreciate and even respect the notion that there's more than one way to view the world. After he left MoveOn.org, Pariser went out of his way to befriend conservatives so he could hear what they had to say (he has an interesting story about how Facebook "hid" his conservative friends from his newsfeeds). 

Contrast this with most people on the left who not only don't befriend conservatives let alone listen to their viewpoints (test it: ask your favorite lefty which conservative author he listens to or reads--I'm willing to bet they have no answer), but actually dismiss conservatives altogether. Some even go so far as to label conservatives dangerous and their views taboo (that's the latest from Al Gore regarding people who challenge the idea that human behavior is responsible for global warming). And the current drama in Washington, D.C. over the president's flawed health care law has Democrats calling Republicans terrorists and anarchists. The president's own spokesman told Jake Tapper on CNN News that they won't talk with people who have bombs strapped to their chests. So much for actually listening to the other side.

Anyway, here's a 15-minute interview with Pariser. I'll add his book to my list of things to read next.

"I Need Thee Every Hour"

Lovely hymn, lovely voice, crazy talented kid.

Insufferable Facebook-isms

I'm tempted to post this article (linked below) called "7 Ways to be Insufferable On Facebook" on my Facebook page. However, if I did, I suspect that might make me insufferable. 

Here's a snippet.

A Facebook status is annoying if it primarily serves the author and does nothing positive for anyone reading it . . . To examine this a bit, let’s start by discussing the defining characteristics of statuses that are not annoying.

To be unannoying, a Facebook status typically has to be one of two things:

1) Interesting/Informative
2) Funny/Amusing/Entertaining 

You know why these are unannoying? Because things in those two categories do something for me, the reader. They make my day a little better.

Ideally, interesting statuses would be fascinating and original (or a link to something that is), and funny ones would be hilarious. But I’ll happily take mildly amusing—at least we're still dealing with the good guys.

On the other hand, annoying statuses typically reek of one or more of these five motivations:

1) Image Crafting. The author wants to affect the way people think of her.

2) Narcissism. The author’s thoughts, opinions, and life philosophies matter. The author and the author’s life are interesting in and of themselves.

3) Attention Craving. The author wants attention.

4) Jealousy Inducing. The author wants to make people jealous of him or his life.

5) Loneliness. The author is feeling lonely and wants Facebook to make it better. This is the least heinous of the five—but seeing a lonely person acting lonely on Facebook makes me and everyone else sad. So the person is essentially spreading their sadness, and that’s a shitty thing to do, so it’s on the list.

The author then provides examples of insufferability, nearly all of them falling under the general heading of "image crafting." Rather hilarious, not to mention embarrassing. I wonder how often I've been insufferable. I think I was pretty insufferable during the 2008 election of he-who-shall-not-be-named.

The scary thing is, if the entire concept of social networking is designed to promote, propagate and perpetuate narcissistic behavior, why do I continue to skulk about in this community? Yet when I think of closing up my account once and for all, I wonder what I'll miss out on. And so I linger.  

Anyway, here's the article. Very funny. Not sure who the author is, but it's from a blog called wait but why. 

"7 Ways to be Insufferable on Facebook"

Prager U: "Why America Invaded Iraq"

I'm posting this 5-minute video, "Why America Invaded Iraq," presented by British historian Andrew Roberts (bio here). 

People who are still convinced of the "Bush lied/people died" meme will find something to criticize about his analysis, but I'm of the opinion that there was both logic and sound analysis behind the decision to go to war.

This brief presentation addresses the argument that Saddam Hussein presented a huge obstacle to peace in the Middle East, that the goal of removing him in order to allow a "functioning democracy" a chance to spread in the region made sense, especially since Hussein refused to comply with U.N resolutions, dismissed U.N weapons' inspectors, had a history of using poison gas during the Iran/Iraq war, and refused to back down, even after having seen his military defeated in 1999 when he invaded Kuwait.

Even the argument about Bush being wrong that Hussein had WMD's falters when examining the facts known at the time about Hussein. Not only did Hussein have a history of using these weapons, he tried to convince the world that he would use them. Bluffs like this (assuming it was a bluff) cannot be ignored. Bush was not alone in taking him seriously. The decision to go to war came with the agreement of our allies, and members of Congress, including key Democrats like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, and others.

 

Source: Prager University

Back to the present. It's fascinating to see John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, etc. arguing in favor of bombing Syria and punishing Bashar al-Assad for using poison gas. Putting aside the question of whether or not this is a good idea, I can't help but wonder if at least some of the WMD's being employed by al-Assad were at one time used by Saddam Hussein. 

During the heated debate over whether or not Hussein actually had WMD's, culminating in the conclusion that he did not, I recall some mention of whether it was possible that he had possibly smuggled the weapons out of the country during the time weapons' inspectors were evicted. Where might the weapons have been concealed? None other than Syria. 

Here we are, a decade later, watching Barack Obama (he of the Bush lied ilk) being forced to make the hard decisions that his predecessor confronted. How ironic would it be if the very weapons al-Assad is using today are the very ones that Hussein used during his reign?

Will the Real Racist Stand Up?

The rodeo clown who wore an Obama mask while being chased by a bull at the Missouri State Fair has been castigated as a racist and banned (for life!) from ever performing at the State Fair again. 

He made fun of the president--no, let me rephrase that. He made fun of Barack Obama, who is black. Apparently he didn't get the memo: it's OK to poke fun at George Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, et al. But poking fun at Barack Obama is off limits. There will be no clowning around with Our First Black President.

Rodeo clown, banned for life from performing at the Missouri State Fair, tarnished forever as a racist, receiving death threats, getting spat upon, because he dared to poke fun at at a black president.

Welcome to Barack Obama's America.

The rodeo clown, whose name is Tuffy Gessling, finally decided to tell his side of the story. Here he is, being interviewed by KCTV Channel 5 News. Listen to him, decide who the real racists are in this story, and then, feel free to chalk up yet another example of how this country has become race-obsessed in the wake of America's first African American president. So much for Dr. King's dream of a colorblind society.

KCTV5

It's the Little Things That Matter in the Long Run

... like fractions of seconds:

... and superfluous letters of the alphabet:

  












Some things don't seem fair or right. But rules matter, I suppose. Once we yield (oh, let them have the win--what's .01 of a second? or, give the kid a break! What's an additional syllable?), then subsequent wins lose their luster. 

The swim team loss makes sense, but I'm not so sure about the Jeopardy! loss. There's no mistaking the fact that his kid had the right answer, extra syllable notwithstanding. The judges in this case had to know this and could have given him a pass. But they didn't.  Harsh, yes? But perhaps in the greater scheme of things, the boy will benefit from this momentary disappointment and be a better (smarter, more accurate) speller down the road. Unless, of course, media and public pressure cause the Jeopardy! folks to capitulate. And then, of course, the boy will have learned a different lesson altogether. 

After Zimmerman Acquittal

After listening again and again, ad nauseum, to President Obama's impromptu comments made at a surprise press conference last week, as well as the obsequious commentary by most news outlets that followed, including the one I'm posting below, by Mark Shields and David Brooks of the PBS Newshour, I find I have to toss my two cents into the pile. 

But I'll make it quick, since most of it's already written. I don't often post comments online, but in the case of Shields and Brooks, I couldn't help it. I was pretty appalled by the apparent lack of perspective, especially coming from David Brooks. It's already established that he has a sort of man-crush on Obama, but in this case, I had hoped that, at the very least, Brooks might have been able to put a proper distance between his reverence for the man and the disconnect between the circumstances related to the Zimmerman trial and Obama's comments. 

Alas, Mr. Brooks disappointed, and I'm beginning to wish the NewsHour would replace him with another conservative to provide some kind of balance to this conversation since the distinction between the two pundits is getting pretty blurred.

So here's Shields and Brooks, responding to Obama's speech (a speech that, by the way, offended me deeply, particularly his comments about white men locking car doors when they see a black man walking by, or white women clutching purses a little closer when a black man enters an elevator), followed by the comments I posted (including discussion with someone named Elizabeth), followed by commentaries published today in the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal. 

Watch Shields, Brooks on Obama's Remarks on Race and Confrontation on PBS.

My response to Shields and Brooks’ praise for Obama’s post-Zimmerman acquittal comments:

Neither of our esteemed pundits here were able to stop gushing about Obama long enough to observe that the Zimmerman trial was not, in fact, about race, that Obama's comments were not relevant to the trial of George Zimmerman, that George Zimmerman was not, in fact, a racist, and who, by the way, was not, in fact, white. Darn, those facts. Nevertheless, Shields and Brooks still are enthralled. Sorry, gentlemen. Let's be clear: Obama was not being presidential. He was being divisive and disingenuous, and true to his credentials, he was being a "community organizer," rallying the people who tomorrow will rally in the name of Trayvon Martin to perpetuate the false narrative that this trial was about race. Facts, truth, that's what's missing from this conversation.

Someone named Elizabeth replied to my comment:

The trial was less about Zimmerman being racist and rather a racist system in which an unarmed 17yr old could be killed and there NOT be an investigation. A system in which Martin was deemed guilty based solely on the statements by his killer. A system in which only the deceased was drug tested. A system in which there was no investigation for 45 days and likely would not have been without national public outcry. I can tell you this, as a parent of 17yr old, I would DEMAND an investigation if my child was shot and killed while walking home. If you have children, it is likely you would demand it too.

My response to Elizabeth:

Of course there needed to be an investigation. That goes without saying. What there didn't need to be was a scapegoat. What there didn't need to be was a "conversation" based on this tragedy. What there didn't need to be was a cynical exploitation of a set of circumstances that could have been dealt with at the local level, with justice probably being done, without politicians like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and the Congressional Black Caucus and the president himself interjecting their views and elevating poor Trayvon Martin into something he never was: a martyr, a symbol for their cause. He was just a kid, not a perfect kid, just a kid. And Zimmerman, just a guy, not a perfect guy, just a random guy. And this thing happened. And it was terrible. And yes, I have children, and yes, I would demand justice. But what I wouldn't want is for this situation to be cynically exploited.

Elizabeth's reply:

It wasn't until there WAS national outcry, that an investigation was started. Till that time, Martin's parents pleas for an investigation fell on deaf ears. As far as the Sanford Police Dept was concerned it was "case closed".

My reply to Elizabeth:

If it was, as you say, "case closed," perhaps it's because the case was more complicated than it appears. From the trial, we learn that GZ was in bad shape, was bruised and beaten, that he was devastated when he learned TM had died, that he was cooperative, that there had been crimes in the neighborhood, that he was not the racist the media portrayed him to be, that this was not a white on black crime, on and on. It seems the outcry was based on what people thought it was, not what it actually was. That's not to say GZ shouldn't be held accountable for what happened--wrongful death, manslaughter, whatever. But the politics propelled this into something it never was. That's what's troubling. At least, that's how I see it.

Recommended Reading

"Rhetoric, Race, and Reality in America," by David A. Lehrer and Joe R. Hicks (commentary in Los Angeles Times)

"The Decline of the Civil Rights Establishment," by Shelby Steele (commentary, Wall Street Journal)

What's So Controversial About This?

Since the Los Angeles Times (among other papers) won't publish this ad by Heroic Media in support of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Act because it's "too controversial," I'm posting the ad here, with this question: Since when is it controversial to publish images of babies? 

Obviously the "controversy" here is not the picture itself, which is not offensive, but what's implied by the picture: that babies at this stage of development can be legally aborted even though scientific evidence and advances in neo-natal medicine have conclusively determined that the unborn can feel pain, can even survive outside the womb, indeed, are as much human as you and I. 

The "controversy" is not the image itself but what's implied by the picture: that these tiny human beings are not protected by the very people entrusted to their care: the adults responsible for conceiving them and the government entrusted with guaranteeing them life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. 

The "controversy" is not the image itself but what's at stake by the publishing of the image: the awakening of a seared, collective conscience that maybe the so-called constitutional "right" to abortion must be re-examined. The unborn are not property, not things, not political football. They are people. They're human. They're vulnerable. They need heroes, not cowards.

That's the controversy. By refusing to publish the ad, the Los Angeles Times and their ilk are exposed as the cowards that they are. 

"Fall Forward" (Denzel Washington)

I like this commencement speech by Denzel Washington (University of Pennsylvania, 2011). He seems sincere, humble, honest. The speech is sweet, funny, a little clumsy, but ultimately, quite moving.

I like his emphasis on faith, on persistence (even after failure), on trying things you don't feel comfortable doing (like speaking at commencement ceremonies). I like that he himself didn't quit, even when he almost flunked out of college. 

I like that he's a man of faith. Thank you, Lord, for this man, for this speech. It's a good message for this generation.

"Hope"? Nah. "Change"?

Yep...

Someone posted this on Twitter

Democratic Leadership: A Study in Smarmy

Henry A. Waxman, U.S. Representative (33rd Congressional District, California)

 Don't you just love Democrats? 

“These people have to ridiculed,” explained Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI). . . They have to be run out of town rhetorically . . . "

Waxman added that Obama might take unilateral action on climate change. “He’s not running for re-election."

 Nice, gentleman. That's exactly how we Americans want our elected leaders to govern.

"Dem Strategy: Climate Change Opponents Must be Ridiculed" (Breitbart News).

Time to Diet, Ms. Latifah

Now that the American Medical Association has declared obesity a disease, it will be hard to look at people (like the beautiful Queen Latifah) without wondering if her doctor has had "the talk" with her and whether she'll comply with Uncle Sam's expectation that she lose weight. 

"AMA Declared Obesity a Disease," by Melissa Healy and Anna Gorman, Los Angeles Times (June 18, 2013).

Sarah Palin Was Right

Remember when Sarah Palin was mocked for suggesting that ObamaCare contained what she called death panels?



It appears Miss Henny Penny was right all along. Here are a few excerpts from an article that appeared this week in the Wall Street Journal, written by David Rivkin and Elizabeth Foley ("An ObamaCare Board Answerable to No One")"

Signs of ObamaCare's failings mount daily, including soaring insurance costs, looming provider shortages and inadequate insurance exchanges. Yet the law's most disturbing feature may be the Independent Payment Advisory Board. The IPAB, sometimes called a "death panel," threatens both the Medicare program and the Constitution's separation of powers. At a time when many Americans have been unsettled by abuses at the Internal Revenue Service and Justice Department, the introduction of a powerful and largely unaccountable board into health care merits special scrutiny. . . 

The ObamaCare law also stipulates that there "shall be no administrative or judicial review" of the board's decisions. Its members will be nearly untouchable, too. They will be presidentially nominated and Senate-confirmed, but after that they can only be fired for "neglect of duty or malfeasance in office" . . . 

The IPAB's godlike powers are not accidental. Its goal, conspicuously proclaimed by the Obama administration, is to control Medicare spending in ways that are insulated from the political process. . . 

The power given by Congress to the Independent Payment Advisory Board is breathtaking. Congress has willingly abandoned its power to make tough spending decisions (how and where to cut) to an unaccountable board that neither the legislative branch nor the president can control. The law has also entrenched the board's decisions to an unprecedented degree. . . 

ObamaCare mandates that the board impose deep Medicare cuts, while simultaneously forbidding it to ration care. Reducing payments to doctors, hospitals and other health-care providers may cause them to limit or stop accepting Medicare patients, or even to close shop. These actions will limit seniors' access to care, causing them to wait longer or forego care—the essence of rationing. ObamaCare's commands to the board are thus inherently contradictory and, consequently, unintelligible. 

Once again, the Obama people speak from both sides of their mouths: no, you may not ration; yes, you will in all likelihood be forced to ration. 

Read full article here. And below is an ad where Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman is seen essentially concurring with Sarah Palin, albeit from a cynically leftist point of view. 

I don't expect any apologies to Ms. Palin will be forthcoming; I do, though, expect Congress to take the WSJ writers' advice to "act quickly to repeal this particular portion of ObamaCare or defund its operations." That would be a start. 

Recommended Reading: "Night," by Elie Wiesel

You cannot read this book and not ask the question: Why? Not just, Why did this happen? (in part, we know: evil men do evil deeds) but, Why did people let this happen? And not just people. The Jews themselves. Why didn't they rise up, fight, resist, before these great horrors could be realized? 

On page 11, Mr. Wiesel writes about how the Jews of Sighet, Transylvania, were ordered to wear the yellow star, and his father, a well-respected member of the community, tried to calm the fears of the community by saying that it was not all bleak. "The yellow star? So what? It's not lethal." 

Shortly thereafter, the members of the community were sealed off from the rest of Sighet in two ghettos from which they were not permitted to leave. This is not right. This is not normal. Why didn't they fight, resist? Instead, they tried to live their lives as normally as possible. "The barbed wire that encircled us like a wall did not fill us with real fear. In fact, we felt this was not a bad thing; we were entirely among ourselves." 

Even worse: "People thought this was a good thing. We would no longer have to look at those hostile faces, endure those hate-filled stares. No more fear. No more anguish. We would live among Jews, among brothers."

In the margin on page 11, I wrote: Why didn't they revolt? Why passively comply?

On page 12, Wiesel answers: "Most people thought that we would remain in the ghetto until the end of the war, until the arrival of the Red Army. Afterward everything would be as before. The ghetto was ruled by neither German nor Jew; it was ruled by delusion." 

Yes, delusion. 

Later, he described his family's preparation for transport (by cattle car) to the concentration camps: "It was already four o'clock in the morning. My father was running right and left, exhausted, consoling friends, checking with the Jewish Council just in case the order had been rescinded. To the last moment, people clung to hope." 

Yes, that's it. Hope. Earlier in the book, referring to the spring of 1944, before the Germans arrived in Hungary, he explains:

The trees were in bloom. It was a year like so many others, with its spring, its engagements, its weddings, and its births. The people were saying, "The Red Army is advancing with giant strides . . . Hitler will not be able to harm us, even if he wants to . . ."

Yes, we even doubted his resolve to exterminate us. Annihilate an entire people? Wipe out a population dispersed throughout so many nations? So many millions of people! By what means? In the middle of the twentieth century?

The idea was absurd, so absurd that even as they were surrounded and isolated and tagged and rounded up and herded like animals and stuffed inhumanely into cattle cars, carrying their belongings, they clung to hope. Just a temporary inconvenience, it will be over soon and things will go back to the way they were.

My signed copy (a gift from my brother)

It wasn't until they stepped off the cattle cars (that first "journey" itself was torture) at Auschwitz and saw the fires and smelled the burning flesh that they understood: "The beloved objects that we had carried with us from place to place were now left behind in the wagon and, with them, finally, our illusions."

Meanwhile, the world "remained silent." That was the name of the book in its Yiddish iteration: And the World Remained Silent. 

You read the rest of the book wondering how he, how anyone, survived. Any one of these experiences would be enough to kill: starvation, illness, bitter cold, infections, sores, bacteria, beatings, physical labor, the arbitrary "selection" process sending some to the crematoria. Even at the end, as the war neared its end and the liberators were closing in and the camps were being evacuated and the prisoners were rounded up and made to run to the next camp. Running, running, running for miles and miles in the bitter cold, the driving snow, running in pitch darkness, goaded along by SS guards who called them "filthy dogs" and shot anyone who stumbled; this was pure senseless torture, forced to run for miles, some of them barefoot, all of them starved but given no food, no water. Elie Wiesel himself had an infected foot, recently operated on. How did he survive? His father, up until that point, was still alive, though barely. Wiesel describes how, after arriving at last in Buchenwald, many many more would die simply by lying in the snow and falling asleep. He himself welcomed the idea of sleep, of death, of feeling nothing. He resisted, thinking of his father.

His father died there in Buchenwald on January 28, 1945, and the camp was liberated three months later on April 11. Even after liberation, Elie nearly died of what he said was a form of poisoning. But somehow he survived, along with thousands and thousands of others who suffered similar horrors: men, women, children. 

Their bodies survived, but did their faith? I'm not sure. Before the camps, Wiesel had been a pious Jew, but very early in the book, he tells of losing his faith. It was before death and dying had become commonplace, and someone began reciting Kaddish for those who had died in the crematoria. "For the first time, I felt an anger rising within me. Why should I sanctify His name? The Almighty, the eternal and terrible Master of the Universe, chose to be silent. What was there to thank him for?" 

I don't know if Elie Wiesel ever returned to his faith, if he ever resolved the contradiction between Almighty God acquiescing to Undiluted Evil, but here he is, speaking with Oprah Winfrey, about the afterlife. He obviously believes in an afterlife and genuinely expects to see his parents and his younger sister, who perished in the concentration camps, again someday.

The President's Speech Commemorating D-Day

Yesterday, June 6, 2013, was the 69th anniversary of D-Day, the day the Allied troops landed on the beaches of Normandy to fight a great evil. Our current president did not commemorate this historic day. Apparently he did not commemorate it last year either, nor the year before. 

Listen, then, to the eloquent words of former president Ronald Reagan on June 6, 1984, remembering "the boys of Point du Hoc." 

We're Gonna Need a Bigger Boat

I think this is bigger than we initially thought (new acronym: PRISM, which stands for. . . ?). 
  Some initial reports: 

From The Guardian: "NSA Taps into Internet Giants' System to Mine Users Data."

From The Washington Post: "NSA Slides Explain the PRISM Data-Collection Program."

From The Washington Post: "U.S. Mining Data from 9 Leading Internet Firms; Companies Deny Knowledge."

Here are a couple of screen shots of the no-longer "top secret" slides from NSA:

New York Times Scolds Obama While Conservatives Shrug: What's Going On?

Bad boy, tsk tsk. Thus saith the Grey Lady. Some excerpts: 

The administration has now lost all credibility. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it.

Mr. Obama clearly had no intention of revealing this eavesdropping, just as he would not have acknowledged the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, had it not been reported in the press. Even then, it took him more than a year and a half to acknowledge the killing, and he is still keeping secret the protocol by which he makes such decisions. 

We are not questioning the legality under the Patriot Act of the court order disclosed by The Guardian. But we strongly object to using that power in this manner. It is the very sort of thing against which Mr. Obama once railed, when he said in 2007 that the Bush administration’s surveillance policy “puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide.”  

All of this in response to the scoop by The Guardian (would it be asking too much for the American media to get a scoop about the Obama administration?) in which we (Americans) learn that "the National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America's largest telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April." 

The interesting thing about this latest scandal is that conservatives don't seem too worked up about it. I listened to Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, and Hugh Hewitt basically say so what? I read in National Review Online that this is basically no big deal. Andrew McCarthy explains that "telephone record information (e.g., the numbers dialed and duration of calls) is not and has never been protected by the Fourth Amendment." So McCarthy makes a distinction between the records (numbers called, etc.) and the content of the discussion (not recorded, no wire-tapping, etc). 

I don't know. I'm not sure I'm convinced. I listened to Jake Tapper interview Glenn Greenwald, who was the reporter from The Guardian who wrote the story, and if you listen to what Greenwald is saying, it's pretty alarming. You can listen to the interview here. I think what's bothering me is the fact that this isn't a selective use of the Patriot Act. I mean, if the administration had reason to believe that someone--a person who was a Verizon subscriber--was a suspected terrorist, then yes, I agree, the Patriot Act would give the administration authority and power to examine his or her phone records. But to cast this huge, wide net--all Verizon subscribers, including my sister, my daughter, etc.? And probably (we'll soon hear) AT&T customers (including yours truly)? 

Really, Mr. Obama? You? You who criticized President Bush when he used the same authority in the aftermath of the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks?  

Still Crazy (on him) After All These (Lies)?

(With apologies to Heart and Paul Simon...)

Sadly, I know the answer to this question. No matter what he does, doesn't do, says, retracts, lies about, distorts, Barack Obama can do no wrong. 

I still remember the argument (yes, sadly, argument) between me and a family member after the election. I was (sad shocked depressed upset) about Mitt Romney's loss and s/he called to "see if I was OK" (so condescendingly kind of this person to call). Rather than be gracious and knowing I would be picking a fight, I said "nope," and then went full frontal assault. This had the desired effect of putting this relative on the defense, which quickly mutated to offense, at one point declaring that he/she was "further to the left than Obama." 

Further to the left of the most leftist president we've ever had? Maybe this was said to score points, or as a barb, meant to hurt. Logistically it puzzled me. There's not much room to the left of Obama, yet there, triumphantly, smugly, perched this family member. 

Needless to say, the "conversation" (such as it was), ended in short order. Yes, I called back a few minutes later to apologize, and all is well and forgiven though surely not forgotten. 

At least I have not forgotten. How far left can these people go before they realize how truly corrupt and unscrupulous their guy is? 

"The most transparent administration" is . . . not, at least according to Katherine Meyer, a Washington D. C. lawyer who specializes in the Freedom of Information Act law. Here's what she said a year ago (quoted here in Politico): 

Obama is the sixth administration that’s been in office since I’ve been doing Freedom of Information Act work … It’s kind of shocking to me to say this, but of the six, this administration is the worst on FOIA issues. The worst. There’s just no question about it. This administration is raising one barrier after another … It’s gotten to the point where I’m stunned — I’m really stunned" (Read full article here).

Jack Gillum of the Associated Press (posted here at Breitbart.com) reports that high level members of the Obama administration are using "secret government email accounts they say are necessary to prevent their in-boxes from being overwhelmed with unwanted messages." 

How convenient. Not only are their in-boxes clear of annoying clutter, they're also free from annoying scrutiny. Gillum writes: 

The secret email accounts complicate an agency's legal responsibilities to find and turn over emails in response to congressional or internal investigations, civil lawsuits or public records requests because employees assigned to compile such responses would necessarily need to know about the accounts to search them. Secret accounts also drive perceptions that government officials are trying to hide actions or decisions.

So despite claims to the contrary, Barack Obama's administration is the least transparent administration (hello, liberals, are you listening? This includes Richard Nixon's). You'd think this would be enough to give any well-meaning liberal pause, but no. It seems nothing can dim the sheen off their adored president: Fast and Furious, multiple terrorist attacks on our soil, drone attacks on U.S. citizens, IRS bullying of conservative Americans, intrusion on the right of the press to do their job, the still unresolved mystery that terrible night in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9 /11 when four Americans were killed and ODL (our dear leader) was AWOL. And let's not forget the "Affordable" (hahahaha) Care Act, which will be impossible to implement, especially in California, and is based on untruths and manipulation of data (see Wall Street Journal article, "ObamaCare Bait and Switch" here). 

Doesn't matter! They voted for him! He's their guy! So, even though Barack Obama is deceptive, duplicitous, arrogant, condescending, narcissistic, and political in the truly worst sense of the word...they're still crazy on him. 

"Obama's Scandalous Second Term," by Brian and Garret Fahy (Town Hall) 

It's Getting Awfully Chilly, Mr. Obama

What follows is a smattering of articles that came up with a simple Bing query using search terms "chilling" and "Obama administration." Not all of these are from "right-leaning" publications or authors.

"Obama Administration Mistakes Journalism for Espionage," by Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post. "The Obama administration has no business rummaging through journalists' phone records, perusing their e-mails and tracking their movements in an attempt to keep them from gathering news. This heavy-handed business isn’t chilling, it’s just plain cold. It also may well be unconstitutional."

"Spying on the Associated Press," New York Times, Editorial. "The Obama administration, which has a chilling zeal for investigating leaks and prosecuting leakers, has failed to offer a credible justification for secretly combing through the phone records of reporters and editors at The Associated Press in what looks like a fishing expedition for sources and an effort to frighten off whistle-blowers."

"Sharyl Attkisson's Computers Compromised," by Dylan Byers, Politico.  "Attkisson told WPHT that irregular activity on her computer was first identified in Feb. 2011, when she was reporting on the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal and on the Obama administration's green energy spending, which she said 'the administration was very sensitive about.' Attkisson has also been a persistent investigator of the events surrounding last year's attack in Benghazi, and its aftermath."

 "Obama Whistleblower Prosecutions Lead to Chilling Effect on Press," Huffington Post (not sure who the author is here). “'I can tell you that people who normally would meet with me, sort of in a more relaxed atmosphere, are on pins and needles,' [Jonathan] Landay said of the reporting climate during the Obama years, a period of unprecedented whistleblower prosecutions. The crackdown on leaks, he added, seems 'deliberately intended to have a chilling effect.'”

"How Hope and Change Gave Way to Spying on the Press," by Kirsten Powers, The Daily Beast. "Even one outlet [Fox News] that allowed dissent or criticism of the president was one too many. This should have been a red flag to everyone, regardless of what they thought of Fox News. The math was simple: if the administration would abuse its power to try and intimidate one media outlet, what made anyone think they weren’t next?"

 "The Obama Objective: To Control the News," Investors Business Daily editorial. "The latest news that the Justice Department investigated Fox News reporter James Rosen and two other newsmen in the normal course of their investigative reporting on a national security matter — coming on the heels of their seizure of Associated Press phone records — suggests an administration obsessed with controlling the news itself with a heavy hand reminiscent of totalitarian regimes. . . Our question: When, and where, is this war against the media going to stop?"

 "Culture of Intimidation," by Ben Shapiro, Breitbart.com.  "The intimidation comes from the top down in the Obama administration. And it is pervasive."

 The War on Whistleblowers, a documentary by Brave New Foundation. "Speaking truth to power is now a criminal act." Here's a trailer: