Saturday, April 28, 2012

Correspondent's Dinner and Football Spiking

At tonight's White House Correspondent's Dinner (which your humble host sat through via feed in its entirety) Jimmie Kimmel mentioned the UBL raid right off the bat, which produced the most sheepish grin imaginable on the president's face.  He just can't hide the pride (and what it does to some on the right).

BTW, Kimmel tried to be fair in his roast and did hit Biden, Olbermann and a few other lefties (and made fun of the president's ears and eating of dog meat) but he also managed to thoroughly blast almost all the leading opponents including Mitt Romney, who was also the frequent target of the president's 'self deprecating' humor.

Before Kimmel took the state Obama got Trump pretty good and there was occasional hay made about birthers and socialism.  Kimmel told a fat joke at the expense of governor Christie--New Jersey is not called the "Olive Garden State" but he also said the North Koreans were sending Obama  'food aid' when making fun of the president's stick figure gait.  

But back to bin Laden.  There will be a blizzard of stories in the next few days explaining the gutsy call, many which will mention the negative nabobism from Biden and former defense sec Gates:
Gates has publicly acknowledged reservations. At the final April 28 White House meeting before the raid, Bergen says, Gates told Obama he would be “more comfortable” with “some kind of precision strike” rather than a commando raid.
This surgical strike business has always been perplexing.  Why would any president want to do a sudden secret explosion in the middle of Abbottabad, killing the most wanted terrorist in the world with no following media hoopla or explanations or proof or intel?  Well, it appears both Biden and Gates were worried about straining relations with the one state that has produced more terrorists than any other who also have nukes.  Perfectly sensible from a diplomatic standpoint.  Gates was basically advising a statesman's approach without fanfare.

Which was probably pondered all of 10 seconds by POTUS.  UBL was the most wanted man in the world and left a trail of American victims whose families needed closure.  To think any president would kill or capture him and not let the press know is unthinkable.  It certainly would have been less 'gutsy' though.

MORE  4/29/12

As we approach May Day, a celebration of the worldwide red movement and now the anniversary of the death of bin Laden, a few questions come to mind.  One, has anyone asked the president whether there was a plan to deal with UBL should he have been captured?  Early on in the explanations we were told the SEALS were prepared to capture the spiritual leader should he put up no resistance, so what was the plan? Wouldn't holding him at GITMO have inspired just as much terrorism as showing pictures of the bullet holes in his head?  How about interrogation?  What happened to the HIG?  And if Manhattan federal court was appropriate for the planner and facilitator of 9/11 (KSM) where would they have tried bin Laden?  

Meanwhile the Taliban are feeding western media BS about Zawahiri, who could be anywhere.  Z-man has always been the scarier of the two, pushing KSM and others to develop WMDs while bin Laden was busy talking to journalists in his hideouts.   What happens if we capture him?

JOKE'S ON HIM?   4/29/12 

Obama, now called the nation's chief entertainer by some in the press, has been criticized in the past for not engaging in the traditional self-deprecation and instead using the forum to score political points.   Although he was slightly more self-deprecating than normal last night (making fun of his hot mic moment using bathroom humor) most of his stuff was traditional, ie, partially designed to score political points.  The mock campaign commercial focused on Mitt and the dog, eventually showing a dog kennel strapped to the top of AF1.

Obama later made a joke about a dog being delicious but only in context to Palin's joke about the difference between a 'hockey mom and pit bull'.  Palin had said there was no difference aside from lipstick so when Obama said a 'pit bull is delicious' how many took that as making fun of eating dog and how many took it as an inference that Palin was a dog he was going to metaphorically eat?  And that's the problem with Obama's self-deprecation.  

Bottom line, he hit all his talking points: contraception, Mitt, birthers, distancing himself from the Secret Service and GSA scandals, Palin, and reminding everyone he got bin Laden and even Obamacare.  Mission accomplished.


...when as a liberal president you manage to shock even Arianna Huffington.  As much as I hate to admit it she's right--talking about getting UBL is fine, expected.  Saying your opponent wouldn't have taken him out, low-life and desperate. 

Side Tracks

For some reason all the talk of the action down in Colombia made me think of this song.

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Just Words

Perfect timing.  As the US prepares to try KSM out pops the former CIA chief of clandestine services Jose Rodriquez with his story on waterboarding.  It'll be on 60 Minutes on Sunday, along with an extensive investigative series about the racist railroading of George Zimmerman by ABC, NBC and CNN.  Ok, just kidding about that last part.

Rodriquez appears a salty ole CIA dog, saying KSM didn't give a 'rat's ass' about his waterboarding adventures and exclaiming 'bullshit' when told that their interrogation of Abu Zubaydah was a dead end that wasted resources.  Apparently he will go on to make the point that Obama is just killing these guys now instead of pouring water and on them and providing a diet of 'Ensure', asking which is more ethical.   It'll be interesting to see if Leslie Stahl has an answer.

Meanwhile, as 60 Minutes takes the opportunity to bash Bush again for torturing terrorists who killed 3000 people on 9/11 a federal judge has denied Larry Klayman's lawsuit against the government to force the release of the bin Laden shot-in-the-head pictures.  Nothing, despite earlier teases.   So we can't see the people jumping from the towers; we can't see the Mohammad cartoons; and we can't see any pictures of the world's most wanted terrorist-enabler in a toes up position to give everyone closure that he's really gone.  But we can talk endlessly about how cruel and "Orwellian" the Bush boys were for trying to figure out what bin Laden was going to blow up next.

Speaking of UBL his entourage of women and children were 'deported' out of Pakistan today, sent to the airport and put on a plane to Saudi Arabia--"their choice".   So the country of origin to most of the hijackers didn't want the body but were willing to take the family.   Evidently Yemen was too dangerous right now.

Speaking of women related to terrorists and Yemen, came across this story from 2007 recently, posted 40 days after Saddam was hung.  Hey just thinking here, we saw pictures of Saddam's sons shot all to hades and we saw pictures of Zarqawi after a bombing.  There were pictures of Saddam coming out of his hole and internet video at the end of his rope.  But maybe those were necessary during Bushitler's time to assuage the disbelieving media.  Imagine Cheney coming out and saying 'we got UBL, but we aren't going to show you any proof'.  Guffaws all around!

Anyway, the story about bin Laden's ancestral home features Saddam's daughter Raghad, apparently still wanted by Interpol and Iraq's new government while hiding in plain sight in Jordan with a bunch of daddy's money.  Or maybe she's just too knowledgeable to be caught.  She talks about the good old days of good will between Saddam's Iraq and Uncle Saleh's Yemen, then goes on to quote her father:      
She recited her father's last will which says, "I am happy because I will meet Allah and Saddam Hussain never haggled for his head...", concluding her speech by reading the slogan which her father Saddam was using. "Allah is greater, long live Iraqi people, long live free Palestine, Allah is greater, long live Jihad and Jihadists," shouted Raghad.
So there you go, the scotch drinking apostate who could never work with terrorists used his last printed words to praise jihad.  It's also ironic that 5 years later Saleh and Gaddafi are gone along with Mubarak, yet we know almost nothing about the connection of any of those regimes to Saddam's.  Hmm.   Well, at least they're all gone and the overseas contingency operation is 'over'.   Did we win? 

MORE  4/27/12

Breitbart is all over the memo discovered by Time regarding Admiral McRaven being given the strategic mission to get UBL, suggesting that it takes away the guts from Obam'as gutsy call.   Now, it's true that Obama might have thrown the Admiral under the bus had the mission gone horribly wrong--assuming it would have ever been a story in the first place--but this piece seems petty.

The gutsy part of the gutsy call was snatching Pakistan's cash cow, who was basically under house arrest, from under their noses.  That's not the kind of thing that if going awry gets credibly blamed on one Admiral.

As to Obama's claim that Romney wouldn't have been as gutsy, pure fluff, but it does show Obama's willing to spike the man-caused disaster football as much as it takes.   It also begs some questions posed by Slick Willie the narrator (who remember, tried harder than anyone to get bin Laden).

1)  Clinton said about the SEALS, "suppose they'd been captured or killed"?  By whom?  The CIA had cased the house for months. They would have known whether the place was an AQ garrison or a safe-house.  Obviously they considered it the latter and didn't think the SEALS would come up against a large resistance force.   If he means by the Pakistanis, why?  They are our allies in the GWoT! 

2)  "I cannot in good conscience do nothing; he took the harder and more honorable path" said Slick of O.   As opposed to what, hearing that UBL was there and NOT going in?  Considering the 'downsides', which would be worse, being told UBL was there and not going in, or being told he was there and going in only to fail and lose several troops?  I think the American people would have an easy answer to that question. 

3)  As to the Romney charge, well the same can be said of Clinton's wife and McCain, who both objected vigorously to Obama's promise to go after targets behind enemy lines in Pakistan if actionable intelligence was received.  And wow, that's exactly what occurred.   So it's not surprising Obama's doing some end-zone dancing.  Still, the political charge is specious because Romney never said he wouldn't go after UBL if actionable intel was received, he was simply responding to the idea that the entire WoT focused on getting one man.  But the ad isn't targeted to people who understand nuance.  

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Zeroing In

Sometimes you just have to scratch your head about this administration.  For instance, in the span of a few days one person from the State Department allegedly said "the war on terror is over" with mention of Obama embracing Islamists in the Middle East, while Axelrod was busy saying the GOP Congress was involved in a "reign of terror".  

Obama has done a pretty good job of whacking terrorists with warrant-less drones and special forces and he does have tremendous domestic power with the new military authority, so.....

Sunday, April 22, 2012

Earth Day Explained

Today is Earth Day.  To explain things a bit better ABC News has an interview with the associate communications director of the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, asking him 10 questions.  The interview was edited.

But not enough.

Below is another edit of the edited interview that will help to better explain what this thing is really all about..
ABC News: Lots of people say environmentalists are left wing. Do you consider yourself a liberal?
Deans: Absolutely not. I'm a classic independent. I was a newspaper reporter for nearly 30 years, most of that time with the Atlanta Journal Constitution.
Like Bill O'Reilly!
ABC News: In your new book, "Reckless," you accuse Republicans of committing an "assault" on the environment. Is there not a single Republican you like?
Deans: Dave Reichert (Washington) pretty consistently votes for a healthy future. Roscoe Bartlett (Maryland) is pretty strong on energy issues. Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tennessee) has been pretty good on clean air. Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio) has been good on efficiency.
So four.  Did they ask him which Democrats he didn't like?  If so it was edited out.
ABC News: Have environmental issues sunk into the background because of the bad economy?

Deans: We have 3.1 million Americans working in what they call the green jobs sector. That has been a bright light in a very dark economy.
He probably doesn't realize he just called Obama's economy 'very dark'.
ABC News: There are lots of people who doubt that global warming is caused by people. Do you think that the science behind it might not be perfect?
Deans:  When I go to see my doctor and he tells me I'm looking good, I'm not 100 percent sure he's right. But I will say this: There's no question that our climate is changing.
And in other news, the earth is rotating and revolving around the sun.
ABC News: Does President Obama have a rocky relationship with the environmental community? We've all heard about Solyndra, and the Keystone pipeline, and the forgotten solar panels on the roof of the White House. ...
Deans: I think President Obama has been extremely strong on environmental issues
As a classic independent, of course.
ABC News: Finally, tell us your favorite joke about environmentalists.
Deans:  They said, 'Oh, yeah, well, we had the bear here for you to shoot,' so Teddy Roosevelt refused to shoot the bear, of course.   I was down there right around the same time that Vice President Dick Cheney had gone shooting for birds down in Texas, so some of us couldn't help but think it was a good thing Dick Cheney didn't go down to the Mississippi Delta, because he would have shot the bear, and he would have shot the aide, too. That's not really very funny. I probably shouldn't have said it.
Oh those wild and crazy classic independents, always cracking GOP jokes.

Again, edited for clarity.  You're welcome.

Saturday, April 21, 2012

Bringing Men Together

From the traffic counter....

Notice the search referral:  "bouncing nude boobs".  Notice the source: UAE.

Now, it's impossible to say whether this was a strict Muslim sneaking into the den with the laptop or some sinful western apostate tourist.  But I'm going with the Muslim guy.  Why?  Because men are men.  We all like boobs, well, at least most of us.  It doesn't matter if we wear khakis and golf shirts, jeans and tees, or white gowns with funky head gear--deep down all the same. 

The visitor was probably disappointed, though.  These searches usually go to one of the most popular posts of all time on this low traffic juggernaut of a blog, one entitled "Boobs, Buds and Birthers".   It was actually just another ho-hum post about politics but included a link to a picture with a woman with artificial boobs the size of basketballs--fully clothed of course--to make a point about a proposed tax on cosmetic surgery.

But there you have it.  Of all the posts on this site, 99 percent of which deal with politics, terrorism or aviation, the most popular post is one that mentioned boobs.  It shouldn't be surprising.  It's not.  It's how the google works.  It's how a man's brain works.  Did you see the girl who brought down the Secret Service?  In one respect I'm glad to be able to bring men of the world together on a subject we all agree on but on the other hand some probably hate me for wasting their time.  But it's what a provocative title can do.  Now, if I wasn't so scrupulous I would put the word boobs in every single title.  Come to think of it, that actually might work pretty well for most of the political posts.          

Aviation Update

The tragic crash of Bhoja Air flight 213 is in the news, a Boeing 737-200 that went down on approach to Benazir Bhutto International in Islamabad, Pakistan on Friday.  As usual with air disasters there is already plenty of speculation as to cause, right now weather being the most probable.

According to and other sources there were indeed thunderstorms in the area with lighting, hail and gusty winds.  Landing short of the runway on approach is the classic "wind shear" event, something our US aviation system has spent a lot of time and money trying to prevent.  One of the leading experts in discovering these shears was none other than researcher Ted Fujita, whose claim to fame is the "F scale" for measuring tornado damage. 

But as usual there are conflicting reports.  Here's the London Telegraph with a early blurb supposedly coming from official sources in Pakistan:
Air traffic controllers at Islamabad's Benazir Bhutto international airport said the Bhoja Airlines plane was properly positioned when it begun its approach. Then, suddenly, it sharply descended, falling to 200 feet while still travelling at 300 miles an hour, three minutes before it was scheduled to land. The pilot issued a mayday call, saying a fuel tank had caught fire and the plane was out of control. He asked for help to attempt an emergency landing, telling controllers he could see the roofs of homes but not the airport's landing strip. But the airliner descended 50 feet more before its tanks exploded, said a report by Pakistan's civil aviation authority.
Subsequent to this leak the officials have had a news conference during which they reported no mechanical failure.  Not sure how anyone would know at this early juncture but it sounds as if somebody's not keeping track of the narrative too well.

For instance, the 'fuel tank on fire' explanation initially leaked based on 'a report' could rule out wind shear, although it would depend on what the pilot thought was on fire.  If the engine didn't flame out (due to hail ingestion or a firewalling of the power) a fire on board could certainly explain the sudden drop and why they had gone 'out of control'.  Then again if the plane was actually out of control it's unlikely the crew would have been asking for help on the radios in performing an emergency landing.  Indeed the early leak seems to be overcome by events at the latest news conference:
Mr Yousafzai said he had listened to recordings of conversations between air traffic controllers at Islamabad’s Benazir Bhutto international Airport the pilot, Noor Ullah Afridi. All had seemed normal, with the air traffic controller reminding the pilots to lower the plane’s landing gear in preparation for landing. “Suddenly, the blip disappeared from the radar screen and contact was lost with the plane,” Mr Yousafzai said.
In other words, no mention of a fire or a mayday or requests to make an emergency landing. Such changing narratives might be easy to dismiss had they not come from official sources. Or maybe that's exactly why it should be dismissed.  The idea of the fuel tank being on fire would suggest only two likely ignition sources--a lightning strike (very rare) or a man-caused disaster from a bomb or missile. Both could be considered 'acts of Allah', taking liability away from men and throwing it up to the heavens or to shadowy terrorists. Allowing the aircraft to make an approach with a microburst occurring on final approach might tend to put the liability elsewhere depending on their legal system.

But everything is still speculation.  A few things could help explain this better for the benefit of victims' families and aviation safety officials. One, they have the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder, which can confirm or deny the mayday call and indicate whether a catastrophic event occurred before touchdown.   Pakistan's Civil Aviation Authority says they are giving the data to Boeing for an investigation.  Presumably this means the NTSB will be involved but that wasn't stipulated.

Two, most modern jet aircraft in the US fleet now have onboard wind shear detection equipment so they can 'see' these shears on approach and peel off to try again later.  Did this older 737?   If so did the pilots heed the warning?    

Three, was there anyone on the passenger manifest of importance?  Bhoja Airlines released the list very early on, so chances are it was unremarkable as to VIPs.

And four, they need a detailed review of the weather conditions at the exact time of the crash.  Just saying 'there was bad weather' is not good enough--they need to pinpoint the heavy cells, lightning, and hail as finely as possible, assuming they have the technology to interrogate and record such things.  Early reports had the crash near the Chaklala military base in Rawalpindi (where KSM was captured), which is co-located with the Benazir Bhutto commercial airport:

The apparent crash site in "Hussein abad" would be consistent with a wind shear crash.   But it's along the final approach course so it could also be consistent with mechanical failure, a fire or explosion on board, or pilot error.

Finally, there's apparently a third world corruption problem to consider.  Investigators will have their hands full.

Side Tracks

Come November America will once again roll the dice on our future....

By the way, the entire "Turn of a Friendly Card" suite, including the above live, can be found here.

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Another Sad Anniversary

April 19, the anniversary of both the Branch Davidian catastrophe and the Murrah Building bombing in Oklahoma City. The bad memories have faded for media and most of the public aside from the family members of loved ones lost, but do we really know entirely what was behind the retaliatory strike on the Murrah Building?

For instance, several hours after the event Abdul Hakim Murad, a childhood friend of both Ramzi Yousef and the perpetrator of 9/11, KSM, took credit for the attack. Here's what a report prepared by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher said about it:
For example, of all the cities in the world, convicted terrorist Ramzi Yousef and Terry Nichols were in Cebu City in the Philippines at the same time three months before the Oklahoma City bombing. Yousef was the perpetrator of the first World Trade Center attack as well as the mastermind behind the planning of other high-profile attacks on Americans.

Furthermore, Ramzi Yousef’s phone records, from the months before he detonated the first World Trade Center bomb in early 1993, show calls placed to the Filipina neighbor and close friend of Terry Nichols’ in-laws in Queens, New York. The opportunity for interaction between American terrorist, Nichols, and al-Qaeda terrorist, Yousef, is evident.

One indicator that this terrorist act had broader implications came directly from Abdul Hakim Murad, Yousef’s roommate, childhood friend, and fellow convicted terrorist. On the day of the bombing, Murad claimed responsibility for this terrorist act from his jail cell in New York. He bragged to his prison guards, verbally and in writing, that the bombing of the Murrah federal building was the work of the “Liberation Army.”

His confession was similar to the one Yousef had made two years earlier in the immediate aftermath of the first attempt to destroy the Word Trade Center. Hours after he drove a Ryder truck into the garage of the north tower of the World Trade Center and detonated the deadly bomb, Yousef called the FBI from a pay phone in Newark International Airport and boasted that the “Liberation Army” had conducted the attack. He then boarded a plane and escaped, ending up in Manila, Philippines.
The notion of an Arab terrorist accomplice was basically squelched by the big media after the John Doe Number Two hysteria fizzled out a short while after the attack. And that was that. We never had a 9/11 type commission to find the truth, it was simply good enough to blame two lone wolf anti government rednecks and move on. And that narrative occasionally serves some political factions quite well.

Meanwhile Murad, Yousef and Nichols are sitting in jail in Colorado and Uncle KSM is about to go on trial again at Gitmo. He never took credit for Oklahoma City--and surely would have had he been involved. Nor did Yousef, but then again neither drove the truck or lit the fuse. It's amazing the loose ends of this story have never been tied up.

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Now Can We See the Khalidi Video?

What a shocker. The LA Times, despite protests from the administration, prints two grisly pictures of US troops posing with the remains of Taliban suicide bombers. Here they are trying to explain themselves:
“We considered this very carefully,” Maharaj said. “At the end of the day, our job is to publish information that our readers need to make informed decisions. We have a particular duty to report vigorously and impartially on all aspects of the American mission in Afghanistan. On balance, in this case, we felt that the public interest here was served by publishing a limited, but representative sample of these photos, along with a story explaining the circumstances under which they were taken.”
They have a duty to their readers! Well, here's how they explained NOT releasing a video showing Barack Obama hobnobbing with Bill and Bernadine Ayers at the Rashid Khalidi going away party during the 2008 elections:
"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."
Seems their promises to sources might have trumped their duty to readers on that one. Maybe the Times also has a duty to their preferred party. And before you say, "well, they are hosing Obama on these recent pictures" don't go so fast--the war is unpopular and Obama already has a timetable set for leaving. He didn't even acknowledge the heroic soldier who gave up his life to save the little girl, nor did the Times bother reporting on it.

Meanwhile, the media in general withheld pictures of the people jumping from the WTC on 9/11 and refused to print the Mohammad cartoons while going for broke on Abu Ghraib and almost every other embarrassing picture involving US troops. Just don't call them unpatriotic.

HT Pajamas Media


Never underestimate the administration's ability to turn something around to punish their enemies. Yesterday the president stepped outside the Oval to announce a proposal to limit oil speculation from Wall Street, which was designed to once again take the onus off his policies and put them on 1 percenters. Even analysts on CNN were left a little surprised.

But Dick Morris should not be surprised. Here's what he said back in 2008:
The Democrats are pushing legislation to restore the status quo ante and stop the brokerage firms from playing the oil futures game. Their bill would apply the restrictions on oil futures’ purchases to domestic American companies even if they trade off shore.

If there is any doubt that it is speculation, not the supply and demand for oil, that is driving up the price, look at this week’s history of oil prices. After Bush announced that he was rescinding his father’s executive order and permitting off shore drilling and after OPEC announced a weakening of oil demand, the futures market price dropped $15 per barrel. No new oil gushed through the system. The speculators just switched their bets from up to down. With the Democratic bill, they will just have to double their bets on horse racing and leave oil futures alone!

Some Republicans are reflexively opposing the Democratic proposal, citing the sanctity of free markets. But even Reagan didn’t want to allow unbridled gambling in oil futures. There is nothing wrong with letting the free market in oil determine the price of the product. And there is a lot right with letting it do so. But it is insane to let gamblers magnify the effect of anticipated changes in supply and demand, that may not materialize, by buying and selling oil futures. Oil is just too important strategically and economically to allow that kind of speculation.
Emphasis added to point out how the Obama people will be ready and waiting to pounce on the pushback. They don't throw this stuff out haphazardly. Caveat emptor, GOP. But the same can be said to some of these too clever by half Democrats, as will be pointed out shortly.

Everybody suffers when oil is speculated upwards. Not surprisingly many airlines are in favor of reforming the market back to the pre-2000 conditions, evidenced by this lobbying effort. Obama is trying again to deflect blame by bringing this speculation problem to light, perhaps thinking that nobody in the friendly mainstream will recall that neither he nor Pelosi bothered to make this case in 2006 or 2008. Back then the spikes were conveniently attributed to "oil men in the White House". With a community organizer in the White House it's now Wall St speculators causing the problem, so we need more "cops on the beat". What a tangled web they weave.

By the way, Obama referred to the 2000 reform having to do with Enron; how many people know that Paul Krugman was an advisor to Enron? How many know that Commerce Secretary Brown was accompanied by Enron officials when his plane went down in on his fatal trip to Croatia? Obviously Bill Clinton signed the reform that led to this campaign card--will anyone bother to make that point with Mrs. Clinton right there in the cabinet? Chances are if we hear anything about Enron it will be about Ken Lay, Bush, and Bush. Or Cheney. But those will be words, just words. The peeps will still be paying at the pump no matter what the clowns come up with, just as the Saudis and OPEC want it.

Monday, April 16, 2012

Farrakhan in Memphis

Drudge is trying to sensationalize Farrakhan's comments made at LeMoyne-Owen college in Memphis Saturday night by linking Breitbart's clip. Not to defend Calypso Louie but he was probably not talking about actionable intelligence. Then again, it's hard to say, we're talking about a guy who just called Jesus a Muslim.

The local paper doesn't provide much context, mentioning his visit and pointing out his past comments about the H1N1 virus conspiracy but nothing about leaders being imminently killed. They did quote an event organizer as follows:
Saturday, LeMoyne-Owen student government president SimmieRay Dinkins said Farrakhan's sometimes-provocative remarks were no deterrent in the school's pursuit of him as the conference's keynote speaker.
Great. Maybe they'll invite Herman Cain or Condi Rice in the near future if they haven't already. Meanwhile, as to the man Pastor Jeremiah Wright once bestowed with an award for greatness, it's just another normal speech.

Sunday, April 15, 2012

Is This a Trick?

Obama, probably using his Latin-tinged accent, speaking with Univision:
President Barack Obama has called on Republican Mitt Romney to release his past tax returns, saying that candidates for office need to be "as transparent as possible."
Of course this is a further attempt to paint Romney as Thurston Howell III, but doesn't he understand how some people might turn those kind of words back on him? For instance:
"I think that it's important for any candidate in public office to be as transparent as possible, to let people know who we are, what we stand for, and you know, I think that this is just carrying on a tradition that has existed throughout the modern presidency," Obama said in an interview scheduled to air Sunday on Univision's "Al Punto" program.
Really? Is he so insulated in the White House bubble that he's lost track of his own image or is this just another clever trick designed to drag Romney or his supporters into birtherism by luring them into retorting about the various transcripts, records, and writings still in Obama's personal vault? My guess is the latter--he knows the elite media has already 'investigated' and 'vetted' everything fit to print in his background therefore any further probing will be called racist, etc. Any campaign capable of using a Hillary Rosen type trick cannot be underestimated.

Saturday, April 14, 2012


Don't ever accuse Obama of a lack of transparency when it comes to releasing personal information, such as college transcripts, medical records or materials from his tenure at Harvard. He most certainly will release things--when they can be spun politically. Like his 2011 tax returns.

The Obamas are rich. Not quite as rich as Richie Romney (book sales have leveled off) but pretty well-off. And he's not denying that--he's using it to prove that his effective tax rate was perhaps lower than the average secretary, er, sorry, executive assistant.

And how, how did he do it? Not by using the Buffet break, but another break that "benefits the wealthy" according to Huffpo:
According to their tax returns released Friday by the White House, the president and the first lady claimed a $47,564 home mortgage interest deduction on their house in Chicago, which they bought in 2005 for $1.65 million. That equates to $13,318 in savings on their federal tax bill, according to an analysis by Michael Gillen, director of the tax group at the Philadelphia law firm Duane Morris.
They didn't have many capital gains to be taxed at the Buffet-friendly 15 percent rate so the spin is that he overly benefited from a perk of the rich--the mortgage deduction taken on his Hyde Park mansion. If only that unfair perk could be eliminated for the richest richies we might get back to fiscal health..
"Lots of middle-class people take the deduction and realize some savings on their tax bill, but they don't understand that it is badly skewed," said Seth Hanlon, director of fiscal reform at the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress. "A lot of people don't realize that the benefit can be taken on vacation homes or even a boat."
Then again, some might consider it the epitome of 'fair' insofar as the current code has no penalties for being successful. Buying that second home or boat can surely be called a stimulus, no? Why discourage it? After all, boatbuilders and carpenters need the work we're told. It's what God would do!

By the way, Huffpo's use of experts from the Center for American Progress should be a tell-tale; they probably coordinated the attack with the ultimate goal of redistributing wealth. Just don't call them socialists.

But such a strategy is both clueless and unnecessary. The last great liberal-Democrat president, William Jefferson Bubba Clinton III, somehow managed to balance the federal budget in the late 90s without resorting to any class warfare whatsoever. How, how did he do it? Well, he raised taxes to unprecedented levels in 1993 with a Democratic Congress, then Gingrich came to power in a tantrum in 1995 and made sure the extra revenue didn't get spent on frivolity. 'Presto', balanced budget. Shouldn't that be a template for the current crop of political leaders?

No, of course not. The GOP can't possibly call for a return to Clinton tax increases due to the Tea Party; Obama is a rigid ideologue who would lose most of the arrows in his class warfare quiver if he had to admit the Bush tax cuts actually helped middle class people and not exclusively Ann and Mitt. So the solution is out there but neither side is capable of engaging it, which is why we see these silly distractions.

It's too bad some in the GOP can't call Obama's bluff and demand we go back to the Clinton-Gingrich model of the 90s to return to fiscal balance again. That would force Obama to acknowledge that his real goal is not fiscal sanity, rather a strange desire to punish success, which in turn may cause some to reconsider all those stories about the kind of people he used to pal around with. Of course Gingrich could recommend it since he was there--but then again he can't, can he? So here we are.

Friday, April 13, 2012

Mitt Rockney is Just Too Rich

Or something, so says Maxine Waters..

So all this apologizing about insulting Ann Romney by using the oldest Democratic trick in the playbook (remember Bush 41 not knowing the price of milk--even if that wasn't quite accurate) is just another trick. They are trying like mad to continue the war on women while stoking class envy by using flacks to brand the Romneys as Thurston and Lovey, out-of-touch rich white people who don't suffer like the rest of us. The ultimate goal is getting out the narrative. Since it looks crass coming from the White House they use surrogates then the good cop, bad cop tactic. Yep, that's the winning strategy of these damn divisive statists. Thing is, it has worked before or they wouldn't be trying it.

Of course part of the narrative is that the chief sufferers didn't have the "luxury" (another code word) of Michelle being a stay-at-home mom. Wondering... since they are Democrats, and considering Michelle's above-average wages during the time her children were born, maybe somebody should ask why Obama didn't consider staying home. Seems kind of sexist to just consider the mom giving up the career.

MORE 4/13/12

Andrew Malcolm, a former LA Times blogger, asks someone to identify the angry doppelganger currently filling in for the president; the NY Times Blog tacitly acknowledges the anger, calls it a strategy, questions its usefulness, but provides some helpful tips.

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Glad his Faith is Restored

So Jonathan Capehart of the WaPo had his faith restored by the Murder Two charge laid on Zimmerman. Thank heavens. But what about our faith in the mainstream media?

For example here's Capehart, in the column on restored faith, repeating an already debunked ABC News distortion:
Zimmerman would be arrested and released because of his assertion of self-defense and Florida’s insane “Stand Your Ground” law. But nothing about his story made sense. Least of all his claim of having a broken nose or having his head repeatedly basehed into the sidewalk after a video was released of his arrival at the Sanford Police Department just 35 minutes after he killed Trayvon. It would reveal a relatively unscathed Zimmerman, not the man who said he was fighting for his life.
No doubt this has been an emotional issue for people of color but Capehart is a journalist working for a major influential paper, not an MSNBC host. He should at least try to keep up with the latest facts so as not to appear a hack. Just yesterday his own paper was heralding a tale told by Zimmerman's un-hired pro-bono spokeslawyers about being abandoned by George, who was on the run in another state. Title: "where is George Zimmerman"? Sounds dramatic and unhinged--the unstable killer is fleeing!

But again debunked--this time by the same prosecutor who just 'restored faith' in the system. Zimmerman turned himself in--in Florida--and hired a real legal team. The man had death threats and even the POTUS coming down on him. The Attorney General just congratulated one of the guys stirring the racial pot. Maybe Mr. Capehart doesn't actually read newspapers.

Not to say things were initially done correctly in this case, maybe they weren't. Cronyism exists, but cronyism isn't always a racial problem. Take for example the Martha Moxley murder case in Connecticut where the Kennedy's were involved. Pressing for justice in the American way, but becoming an advocate to the point of distorting facts, smearing people or deliberately misleading the public in pursuit of such a thing is not. Maybe now that Mr. Capehart's faith is restored in the justice system he can work to start restoring our faith in the fourth estate.

Just Another Contrail

What is it about contrails? Some people think they are actually chemical sprays coming from the government to kill everyone; others confuse them with missiles and meteors...

Just take a look at that report and marvel at the profound ignorance and sensationalism. All over a damned airplane.

On the other hand this was likely not a contrail, but it caused very little stir.

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

The Dangers of the Daddy Party

It's an old political saw--the Democrats are the 'mommy party' because they favor helping people over everything else, including common sense and finances; the Republicans are the 'daddy party' because they favor common sense and finances over everything else, including helping people. Dems feed on emotion; Repubs feed on logic and rules.

There is some truth to the characterization, but it varies from candidate to candidate. George W. Bush tried to make an end run on it by calling himself a 'compassionate conservative'. It sorta worked. Romney has famously referred to himself as a 'severe conservative'. Maybe prudent when one is a life-long moderate angling for conservative votes, but not very handy in a general against someone trying to set himself up as the chief mommy.

Obama is out touting his Buffett Rule (just another day of dividing America) not because he knows it will help the deficit or the economy, but because he thinks it will help his chances against Thurston Romney III. And why not? Most of the time people gravitate to the poor populist going against the evil magnate--just watch Turner Classic movies for awhile.

Part of that strategy is to label the magnate as cruel towards the fairer sex, someone whose authoritarian governance will threaten them right down to body, soul, spirit and offspring. It's unfair of course, since it's all a gimmick, but with Romney it might be working.

So what does the presumptive nominee do? Does he take a page from Kerry's playbook and appear at the beach? Does he take one from Gore's playbook and wear more flannel shirts? Or is that part of the negative image already? Does he keep a stock of valiums on hand and open his shirt collar an extra button? Or, when the time comes, does he waffle on Obamacare and other free stuff?

Or does he stick to the one he's bringing to the dance--the economy. After all, women are part of the unemployment numbers. Mommies will benefit from a better economy in every area.

Unfortunately Romney has always appeared a bit stiff in body and wobbly in belief. That image will be exploited continuously and ruthlessly until November. His wife softens it a bit, but she's not Mitt. His best chance will be to stick with his best chance, the economy. He can't out-mommy Obama.

Of course that leaves him open should the economy begin seriously improving through summer, which likely assures his place in the same historic dustbin along with Bob Dole, John McCain, and Walter Mondale. Variables always exist, such as 6 dollar gas or an Israeli attack on Iran, unsanctioned by Obama, which probably tanks the markets and causes Hizballah counter strikes in America. But even that could bring the masses to the side of the commander-in-chief, the guy who was holding out for peace unlike the daddy party candidate who wanted to kickass, etc.

Surely team Romney will be trying to counter this image with the correct VP choice. But picking another moderate might not bring out the base, who are desperately needed to win. Yet picking a more conservative female, let's say, will only shift the focus of the mommy party attacks as occurred with Palin. So we'll see.

Monday, April 09, 2012

The Ghost Returns

While Christians celebrated Easter Sunday an old foe took to the air in Iraq to commemorate another anniversary:
Duri, dressed in a drab green military uniform and black beret, reads remarks from sheets of paper, his hands shaking, and sometimes stumbles over the words.

"Our Baath (party), on its 65th anniversary, is in a major historic war," he said. "I call on this ... occasion for all the progressive resistance forces and all the national Islamic resistance forces to work for the liberation" of Iraq.

He alleged that "the political process today is ... for the benefit of Iran, which is carrying the most dangerous project for the Persians, with the intention of taking over Iraq and then destroying the nation."
Hmm, criticizing the Maliki government as tools of Iran. Is he still a foe or an asset?

By the way, it's funny how the AP and other mainstreamers covered this event, reminding us that al-Duri had both died and been captured more than once. Many also call him a force behind the insurgency, which could explain why he was high on both the American and Iraqi most-wanted lists (number two on ours, number one on theirs). Kinda funny for a guy who most Iraqis considered a joke. Perhaps he was less a joke to those in the know. This was from 2010:
Maliki's security adviser, Safa Hussein, warned in December that al-Qaida in Iraq has now fallen under the influence of the Baathists, led by Douri and his main rival, Gen. Mohammed Yunis al-Ahmad.
Indeed, on the latest video he was introduced as follows:
At the beginning of the video, a man in a military uniform introduces Duri and calls him the "high commander of jihad (holy war) and liberation ... and the general secretary of the Baath party."
Jihad, a religious thing. But religious men typically don't wear military uniforms. However, men who use religious zealots as useful idiots might. But that's in the past. It no longer matters; Iraq is no longer a story as Obama won the dumb war and brought home the troops by Christmas. All is well.

Sunday, April 08, 2012


On this day of good news the country sure needs some. It's amazing that in 2012, with a black president, the United States stands teetering on a racial divide. In the news, it appears they've captured some white suspects in the indiscriminate Tulsa shootings, a good thing.

But notice the description of the neighborhood found in this CNN story:
"For a white male to come that deep into that area and to start indiscriminately shooting, that lends itself for many to believe that it probably was a hate crime," Blakney told CNN.
This made me think of the brouhaha at National Review Online, where editor Rich Lowry has fired writer John Derbyshire for opining--on a non-affiliated blog--about similar things:
(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.

(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.
First, Derbyshire sounds like a guy who has never lived in the south. Second, his rules are overly harsh and judgmental, but like all such things they are based on vague truthisms. Notice the Tulsa pastor's apparent amazement that whites would be venturing so 'deep' into a certain part of their own city, which seems to confirm the Derbyshire generalization.

Of course the irony is that the poor victims didn't discriminate and were apparently responding to the shooter(s) as any normal human being would respond to a stranger asking for directions. Afterwards, the citizens living in the area were terrorized by the shootings every bit as much as the DC area was when John Allen Mohammed and his sidekick were shooting random people of both races while the FBI was frantically looking for a composite white guy.

But random racial crimes are seemingly becoming more frequent. A rash of stories have dotted the back pages of newspapers for over a year regarding flashmob attacks in cities all around the country, lately in places like Minneapolis, Baltimore and St. Louis. These attacks are not occurring deep in black neighborhood or in areas where blacks are massing for concerts, rather in the downtown entertainment sections common to most cities. Most of the victims seem to be white people. So following Derbyshire's rules 'non-black' people should desist attending downtown entertainment areas under the premise a flashmob might show up. Or just about anywhere. So much for generalizations.

With the Tulsa shooting, the Martin shooting, flashmobs and planned Occupy events we can all guess the likely future--saturation coverage of violence. If it bleeds and is politically correct, it leads.

In times like these we need calm and sober leadership more than ever. What we've seen so far is a leader self-identifying with certain victims and another chastising Americans as cowards for not wanting to discuss the issue. But there's always hope for tomorrow.


What's going on in Syria? Are innocent people still getting mowed down by a tyrant?


What's going on in Africa? While the Muslim Brotherhood meets at the White House stories are suggesting that radicals have virtually taken over the heart of the continent and some are worried they may align themselves with al Qaeda. Of course 'some' does not yet include most in the American media.

Also, don't we have troops over there looking for a crackpot Christian-based tyrant? No news on that operation either.


NBC says they have fired the 'veteran producer' who apparently mis-spliced a 911 call recording to make George Zimmerman appear even more racist than their previous stories and cable commentator had already indicated. That's good, but can't they name names? Maybe they're trying to protect him and family and will release it later but at the same time, maybe they didn't fire anyone at all.


The Masters final round is today. Golf nirvana. A lot was expected out of Tiger Woods, who hasn't won a major tournament since he was attacked with a nine iron in his front driveway several years ago. He won on tour 2 weeks ago, but this kind of stuff can't help....

The Tour may fine him, although they'd have to fine everyone who ever wacked a club into the ground or tossed it as golfers are prone to do. So they probably won't. But the role model thing is pretty much gone. President Obama weighed in on the Augusta National club not admitting women; will he weigh in now on unsportsmanlike conduct?

Oh well, it's a beautiful day in Augusta and Memphis. Life goes on despite the headlines. Family is coming over for an Easter dinner so this post will mark an end to concerns over current events and the direction of our country and transition to some needed fellowship this afternoon. Peace out and best wishes for a great Easter.

Thursday, April 05, 2012

Hijab Update

According to MSNBC there is a 'new twist' in the murder case of Shaima Alawadi, the hijab-wearing Iraqi immigrant found in her El Cajon, CA home beside a note calling her a 'terrorist'.

A new twist. Really? This was MSNBC's old twist:
"We're not going to cry, if that's what you wanted. We're not going to take off our scarf, if that's what you wanted," Alawadi's eldest daughter, Fatima, said at the vigil, addressing her mother's killer.

For many in El Cajon, the case has drawn parallels to that of Trayvon Martin, the unarmed black teenager shot in Florida last month by a Neighborhood Watch volunteer in a killing that has also drawn outrage because of its racial undertones.
The new twist is that there was friction between the daughter and her boyfriend, who didn't like the fact their parents were going to marry her off to a cousin per tradition. There was also friction between the deceased and her husband, who were evidently heading for divorce. So another epic media fail could be in the works. Go figure.

Wednesday, April 04, 2012

The Men who Attacked America

It's been a few days since a new insider bin Laden story has trickled out of the elite media. He'll be back, though, we're coming up on the one-year anniversary and there's also an election looming.

But you say, "bin Laden was the big fish". No doubt, he blessed 9/11. But the guy who actually dreamed up 9/11 and made it happen was named Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and he was captured on George W. Bush's watch in 2003.

And he still hasn't been tried.

Not that some haven't tried to try him, but it's been 9 years. Obama's minions were out acknowledging this, saying "it's about time" without the slightest sense of irony seeing as how their boss canceled the last trial in-progress as soon as he entered office. But there's talk of a new attempt, so here we go. An interesting question is how these terrorist narratives might line up: zombie UBL in the press versus breathing KSM in the courtroom. The last time we saw Mukhtar he was taking credit for almost everything.

The thing is, not everyone knows KSM. Oh, they know the weird hairy little man from the picture who is blamed for the attack, but how much more does the average person know? Do they know he's the uncle of Ramzi Yousef Abdul Basit Karim, aka the first World Trade Center bomber? Do they know both conspired with an actual pilot, Hakim Murad, a childhood friend of common Baluch heritage, to kill the Pope, Clinton and knock down ten US airliners over the Pacific well before anyone had bin Laden on the radar?

Maybe they don't know that Yousef and Murad were not AQ members and that KSM remained on his own through most of the 90s. Maybe they don't know that none were quite as pious as the Islamists tied to bin Laden or Zawahiri. Maybe they don't know that KSM was almost captured in the mid 90s while living in the UAE after the feds intercepted a love note he wrote to a dancer he had dated in Malaysia. Which means they also may not know that Bill Clinton failed to catch him in the mid 90s even though he was devoting more time than anyone to catching UBL (we now understand that presidents catch terrorists, of course).

Bin Laden was indeed the face of AQ and it's good that his rotted corpse is being nibbled on by Charlie the Tuna but KSM is the face of 9/11. UBL sat in his hut and blessed mass murder via writ through Quranic scriptures while doling out his Saudi oil inheritance. KSM killed Daniel Pearl with a sharp knife. He didn't need Quranic blessings to murder westerners.

Like UBL he used safe-houses in Pakistan and even the same courier--al-Kuwaiti. Yet after he was captured there were no leaked stories about how gutsy the Bush team was in nabbing the perpetrator of 9/11--on the contrary, they squirreled him away to secret prisons to mine him for intelligence on what might be coming next. And there were things coming next. His legacy is not of being shot by Navy Seals in the act of grabbing his trusty Kalashnikov but of having water being dumped on his nose by the CIA, ie, the victim of a Bush-Cheney war crime.

Assuming this tribunal goes forward there will likely be stories about KSM's exploits to accompany coverage. Like NBC's snippet coverage of George Zimmerman there will probably be some reshaping to fit the narrative if it can help Obama and hurt Bush-GOP in any fashion, so get ready. Perhaps coincidentally, a book about KSM has already hit the shelves called "The Hunt for KSM" written by Josh Meyer and Terry McDermott, a pair of former LA Times reporters.

The book is a good read with shortfalls. It cleverly tries to debunk some of the more conspiratorial views mentioned over the years by maintaining the 'super terrorist' rogue status despite shining no new light on how these super terrorists were actually funded or by whom. Or why a handful of Baluch natives would be so ticked off at America they wanted to knock down the Trade Center and other assorted skyscrapers. After all, what had we ever done to Baluchistan? Or for that matter Pakistan, other than help them help the Afghanis defeat the Soviets.

Anyway, the writers couldn't help choosing sides, taking the FBI over the CIA (Valerie Plame is just a memory now for lefties), which just so happens to line up well with Eric Holder's view of terrorism. Once again Ali Soufan is a hero while various CIA operators are made to appear as goofballs, know-nothings, or just petty bureaucrats, all save Michael Schuerer, founder of the Alec Station UBL group in CIA and a man who once wrote in a book that UBL was probably working with Saddam, which was flushed down the memory hole years ago.

They also rarely mentioned the name "Bill Clinton" while detailing terrorism in the 90s but had no such trepidation referring to Bush and Cheney in describing their short history on Mohammed between 2001 and his capture in early 2003.

Perhaps the clearest evidence of bias comes not from what was written, but what was not written. They detail the gumshoe vigor of FBI agent Frank Pellegrini in chasing the Baluchi boys for a decade but curiously mention little of informant Emad Salem, the Egyptian mole who had been inserted into the initial World Trade terror cell in 1992 before he got disgusted and pulled out.

Maybe that's because several months later, after a bevy of phone calls from the cell members to Iraq, Ramzi Yousef and Abdul Yasin showed up in New York and later turned the plot from a pipe bomb attack to knocking over two 110 story buildings with a massive cyanide bomb in an effort to murder several hundred thousand innocent New Yorkers.

The writers also provided a new version of the so-called terrorist summit meeting in Kuala Lumpur in 2000, describing only the two 9/11 hijackers in the condo without mentioning others or the fact there was an Iraqi airport greeter there who drove them to the safe house. The CIA was working that one and evidently lost them before they arrived in LA, later finding them but not informing the FBI in DC until a few days before 9/11, meaning we can't blame Robert Mueller while blaming the CIA.

Not all FBI agents got the glory. Ironically one who comes off less than spectacular is the late John O'Neill, G-man turned director of security at the WTC (killed there) who many claim tried to "warn America". The writers claim he was preoccupied with UBL while ignoring KSM because the Baluchi boys were old news or something, almost as if bin Laden was some kind of McGuffin.

And maybe he was. KSM and his Baluchi buds never stopped targeting America, with or without al Qaeda's support. They must be seen at least on the same level of depravity as UBL and Zawahiri and the book tries to correct that perception, which alone makes it worth the read. But elevating KSM might make the narrative problematic. Bin Laden is the kingpin bad guy, public enemy number one, who we got, and who we knew a lot about. We still don't know everything about KSM and crew, and the end is almost near.

Tuesday, April 03, 2012

Not the Onion

Good grief, is there any rule of law left? We have the president saying it's 'unprecedented' for the Supreme Court to overturn a Congressionally-passed law, which seems pretty darn close to their exact mission statement. As punishment the 5th Court of Appeals is giving the admin a homework assignment, which itself seems pretty unprecedented. Sorta like the notion of one political party forcing Americans to purchase insurance.

Now the president's illegal alien half-Uncle Omar, who just lost his driver's license for 45 days as a result of a plea in his drunk-driving case (ramming a police car) gets a 'hardship' license so he can illegally stay in America and drive back and forth to his job at a liquor store. Remember the old days when losing your drivers license was supposed to be a hardship?

It's simply impossible to make up this stuff.

Sunday, April 01, 2012

More on Hijabs

As the elite media remained focused like a laser on Martin vs Zimmerman NBC (the same network relegated to investigating itself in that case) is apparently trying to help CNN find a common thread between hoodies and hijabs by highlighting the murder of a Shiite Iraqi immigrant woman in California:
For many in El Cajon, the case has drawn parallels to that of Trayvon Martin, the unarmed black teenager shot in Florida last month by a Neighborhood Watch volunteer in a killing that has also drawn outrage because of its racial undertones.

"My condolences go out to the family of Trayvon," Alawadi's 15-year-old son Muhammed said at the vigil, as tears welled up in his eyes. "My candle goes out to you as well."

Some activists have begun linking the two cases on social media, spurring a popular #hoodiesandhijabs hashtag on Twitter. Martin was wearing a hoodie when he was killed. Students at several college campuses held "Hoodies and Hijabs" rallies on Thursday.
Read the comments, though. Many are saying what was said here when this came out last week--lots of possibilities. That's because such a conclusion requires only a basic modicum of common sense or perhaps a few re-runs of "Columbo". The police are playing their investigation very cool, as they should. If it turns out to be a redneck xenophobe, let there be swift justice! If it turns out to be an acquaintance of the victim, let there be swift justice! Justice is supposed to be blind. It seems that too many kneejerks in the media have apparently become blinded to that concept:
What is happening in San Diego?
Well, a murder happened, one murder, and nobody knows yet whodunit. That doesn't stop the kneejerk from citing a series of harassment episodes since 9/11, such as verbal mocking and rude comments, to make the case that the El Cajon case might already be closed.

Why, though? What's the point of the media behaving so irresponsibly and without seeming regard to the possible consequences of their reporting? Ratings? Yes, perhaps, but one has to also consider their general quest to get Obama reelected. But how does such reporting accomplish such a goal? Well, the sensationalism gets ratings and sets a narrative, which tends to create stories that divert attention from a multitude of actual problems by focusing blame on the "true evils" like rich people, Rush Limbaugh, George Zimmerman, and xenophobes clinging to their guns and God. Hey, that Mitt Romney's a white rich guy, isn't he?

MORE 4/1/12

Speaking of the story about NBC News doing an internal investigation about the misleading edit on the "Today Show" regards George Zimmerman, is it any coincidence that none other than Sarah Palin will be filling in on the show this week? NBC and the major networks (and Fox) do that kind of editing all the time; suddenly NBC launches an "investigation" right before Palin shows up at the network to host a show. Maybe they were afraid she would attack the very show she was hosting.