The last twelve hours have been tough for me. I was out Sunday night visiting some apolitical friends when the word came down that bin Laden was dead, and out of respect for their hospitality, I did not turn the conversation beyond satisfaction that the mastermind of the greatest single act of murder in all of our lifetimes got what was long overdue coming to him.
Harley Carnes, CBS News
When I got in my car to go home, I listened to KCBS, the all-news channel in San Francisco, which I already had on the radio on the way; I was listening to the simulcast of 60 Minutes asLara Logan told her chilling story of barely surviving gang rape by Egyptian men in Tahrir Square.I heard the CBS News announcer -- Harley Carnes -- as he ran down the details as they were known, talking back and forth with experts whose names nor voices were recognizable to me. Carnes then spoke with Terry McGovern, the daughter of a WTC victim. Ms. McGovern said that the elimination of bin Laden restored her faith in government, quoting drooling Bush-hater Maureen Dowd in the process. Carnes agreed, saying that it seemed for so long that the government was like the Keystone Kops, and that finally they were able to get something accomplished.
My stomach started turning as I felt the story turning political. Then as a D.C. reporter described the celebratory scene outside the White House, Carnes, apropos of nothing, said that President Obama would get a bump up in his approval rating as a result. "Uh, we'll see about that," the reporter replied. Carnes doubled down: "Oh, sure he will." When I got home, I surfed the web on my phone while still in my car to see just how much of a left-wing wacko Harley Carnes was.
I found some brief commentaries that he does for CBS News Radioon his personal website (he's also a novelist), and was shocked. The topics he tackled: "What a mess Libya has already become." "This time a government shut-down might be a good thing - because unlike Washington - the people get it, the U.S is broke - we can't afford this government." And this one [which is really worth a listen]:"It is fair to ask the question now -- are you better off today than you were two years ago? And how will the answers be presented to you?"This guy sounded more like a more even-tempered Bill O'Reilly than David Gregory.
I then wondered what was wrong with me -- why couldn't I shut down my media bias calibrator long enough to enjoy the justice, as did Carnes? Honestly, I don't think it's my fault. After a lifetime of news addiction and about twenty-two years of recognizing and being able to predict slant(beginning with the character assassination of Dr. Eric Foretich),it's cut into my brain now. It's as if I'm on a fishing boat in rough seas, and to remain upright, I lean starboard when the vessel tilts port. If I lose that balancing mechanism, I'll be sliding all over the decks, flailing all over.
I'll take the hit now for not being sufficiently appreciative of the Obamastration's part in getting bin Laden. We all know good and well that it's going to be used as a bludgeon against Republican candidates in 2012 -- the media will trumpet this success as if it is a counterbalance to his economic incompetence and the amorphous folly of the Libyan intervention. Long-term, losing my vigilance for just a second doesn't feel like it's worth the risk of reverting back to a being a bleating sheep like so many clueless "independents," who are mostly people who believe whatever the MSM tells them.
UPDATE: Here's the latest "Not Just Another Story" commentary from Harley Carnes regarding whether photos of bin Laden's corpse should be released to the public:
Osama bin Laden is dead, shot in the head by U.S. Special Forces that crossed over into Pakistan and invaded his compound near the capital of Islamabad -- all without prior authorization of the Pakistani regime.
That President Obama would have the boldness to charge into a Muslim nation whose relations with the U.S. have been spotty over the years is something that really should have been expected, as is indicated by the 2008 interview that he gave to ABC News' former nightly anchor, Charles Gibson.
I'm having problems locating the video of that interview, so for the time being, I will just post the transcript of the relevant part.
GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?
OBAMA: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.
GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?
OBAMA: Now, as for our right to invade, we’re going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.
GIBSON: But, Senator, I’m asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.
OBAMA: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.
GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a "yes"? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?
OBAMA: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.
All right, I have found the video -- thanks for waiting. Here it is.
Congratulations to all of you people who actually, y'know, pay attention to the news, and recognized where this was going. For the rest of you: Didn't those answers have more gravitas when you thought Obama had given them?
(NOTE: The clip of the Allred press conference initially posted below was taken down by YouTube due to copyright violations by the user in unrelated videos. It has been replaced by the story as it aired on the weekday TMZ syndicated show.)
In case you're not a baseball fan and haven't heard the news, here's a quick recap:
On Saturday, April 23, 2011, 33-year-old Justin Quinn, father and fan of The2010 World Champion San Francisco Giants, drove from Fresno to San Francisco with his adorable nine-year-old twin daughters to watch a game between the Atlanta Braves and TheWorld Champion San Francisco Giants (it never gets old!) at AT&T Park.
The Quinns arrive early enough to watch the Braves take batting practice and warm-ups, and take their place in the front row of the left field bleachers hoping to catch balls hit over the fence. As some Braves players go about their preparation on the field, some Giants fans heckle them.
In response, Braves pitching coach Roger McDowell -- a retired player and member of the legendary pitching staff of the 1986 World Champion New York Mets -- heckles back, in "homophobic" terms. In the course of profanely accusing three male hecklers as being a "homo" "threesome," he makes an obscene gesture with a baseball bat and his fingers meant to signify sexual penetration.
Mr. Quinn, who is not McDowell's target, objected to obscene words spoken and suggestive gestures being performed in the presence of his children (or anybody's, for that matter).
McDowell responds by telling Quinn that children don't have any [bleep]ing business being at the ball park, and wielding a bat menacingly, asked Quinn how much he thought he teeth were worth.
Quinn notified AT&T Park security, who aided him in making a complaint about McDowell's abusive behavior.
So far, I'm with Mr. Quinn. He had a perfect right to expect ballplayers and coaches to act professionally and responsibly, even in the face of heckling, and especially in the presence of children. One never goes to the ballpark expecting that a coach will threaten bodily injury while holding a baseball bat (even if it's just for show). On top of that, it's difficult to believe that McDowell -- who pitched in the Majors for twelve seasons -- could have been reacting that day to something he hadn't been subjected to at Shea Stadium in New York, Fenway Park in Boston (his Mets defeated the Red Sox in the '86 Series), Philadelphia's infamous Veterans Stadium (where football fans once booed Santa Claus and pelted him with snowballs), or the Giants' old stomping ground, Candlestick Park, not a friendly place for Dodgers pitchers.
But then, for reasons that are at the moment still a mystery, celebrity attorney Gloria Allred pops up out of nowhere into the situation -- with Quinn, his wife (?) and his pre-pubescent girls in tow -- in her natural habitat: Before a bank of microphones with clicking cameras and bright flashes popping.
What happens next would be unbelievable if you had put it in a screenplay.
From TMZ (a site that I hate, but that had the most complete video):
Allred, seated at a table with a baseball bat in front of her and flanked by the Quinn twins as if they were bookends, recounted McDowell's crude sexual remarks. As the girls sat and looked at her with rapt attention, Allred spoke of how McDowell was at one point "thrusting his hips forward and backward in a sexual manner..." She said that McDowell AND the Atlanta Braves ought to be fined, suspended, and made to apologize to the Quinn family.
Quinn, taking his turn with his prepared statement, then claimed that in addition to being offended and disgusted, he actually felt threatened, saying he didn't know if McDowell was going to attack him with the bat. He added that he thought about Brian Stow, the Giants fan who is still in an induced coma after nearly being beaten to death in Dodger Stadium's parking lot on March 31.
At this point, I have to call BalderdaSh on Quinn (the kiddies, y'know). The outfield walls in AT&T Park are eight feet high in center and left field. The 50-year-old McDowell would have to be an Olympic high-jumper if he wanted to be able to reach Quinn unless he leaned over the fence. All Quinn would have to do is back up out of the front row if he felt like his choppers were actually in danger. I find it difficult to believe that a guy in Quinn's shape truly feared he would be physically harmed by McDowell.
The twin girls then read their own prepared statements ("I hope that you never go to a baseball game where you were in a bad situation like I was," one read). And finally, to demonstrate exactly what obscene gesture McDowell made, she held the fat end of the bat, papa Quinn formed a circle with his fingers, and she started sliding the bat back and forth. Back and forth. Back and forth.
Then Allred started to put the bat down. But apparently, someone in the pool of photogs didn't get the shot. She lifted the bat back up, and Quinn prepared his fingers. Back and forth. Back and forth.
Right in front of the daughters.
McDowell issued a statement apologizing within minutes of the press conference's end:
"I am deeply sorry that I responded to the heckling fans in San Francisco. I apologize to everyone for my actions."
The Braves management issued a statement:
“We were made aware of an incident in San Francisco this past Saturday. We are concerned by these allegations and the behavior described by a witness today. This in no way represents the Braves organization and the conduct we expect of our employees. We will withhold further comments until we finish gathering information.”
Bud Selig, IMHO the 2nd worst commissioner in Major League Baseball history, issued a statement of his own:
“I was informed today that Roger McDowell, a coach of the Atlanta Braves, is being accused of engaging in highly inappropriate conduct toward fans at a game in San Francisco. Although I do not yet have all the facts regarding this incident, the allegations are very troubling to me. The Atlanta Braves have assured my office that they will immediately investigate the allegations, and report the results of the investigation to me. After I have all the facts, I will make a determination of how to proceed.”
If you know Allred as well as I do, you know that only one shoe has thusfar dropped. The second one is going to be the one that either shakes loose some cash, shakes up the political world, or both. Quinn says he's not gay, but hates discrimination, and wants to teach his young girls to stand up against it. Maybe so, but I tend to think he's not putting himself out there before the globe without thinking that with Allred on board, there's some gold at the end of that rainbow (minus her share). It certainly seems to me that a good father wouldn't want to subject his young daughters to that terrible, awful, vulgar stuff over and over and over and over and over again. Not for nothing, anyway.
The article above no longer refers to Allred as "infamous." But I will. She's a high-profile ambulance chaser who doesn't care as much about the law as she does trying to extract large amounts of money out of famous and/or rich people by embarrassing them on a large multimedia stage.
For example: She was able to get $10 million out of Tiger Woods in exchange for the silence of one of his mistresses, skank-to-the-stars Rachel Uchitel. What did Uchitel do to earn that money besides mess with a married celebrity? Nothing. Woods did nothing illegal, just immoral, but so did Uchitel, so what principle was Allred serving besides lining her own pocket?She tried to pull the same trick (pun intended) with a porn star who played a few rounds with Tiger, but he refused.
More recently, in October 2010, Allred represented illegal immigrant Nicky Diaz Santillian, the former housekeeper of billionaire GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman. At stake this time for Allred wasn't money, it was something that money couldn't buy -- free bad publicity for a political opponent. Diaz *admitted* she gave her employment agency falsified legal documents to qualify for work in California. With polls showing Whitman and Democrat retread Jerry Brown in a dead heat, Allred held one of her trademark press conferences.Sounding much like the cleaning woman [in] the "The Red Dot" episode of "Seinfeld,"
Diaz said she was stressed out by the work she did for Whitman. How badly stressed? She worked for her for *nine years,* before Whitman got word that Diaz was illegal and fired her. Truth was, there was no way that Whitman and her husband could have known Diaz was illegal, sincethe reputable agency through which they hired Diaz was the victim of her scam.In addition, when a notice arrived at the Whitman residence suggesting that Diaz's SSN was errant, they left it up to her to resolve, trusting her integrity and believing it was a clerical error. Whitman ended up losing to Brown largely due to the stunt, which sullied her name among Hispanic voters whose main source of news is Spanish-language media. In the end, Diaz & Allred never sued Whitman for being abusive (and certainly didn't want her to be charged for hiring an illegal), only failure to reimburse Diaz for overtime and mileage. Her somewhat trivial legal complaint was simply a conduit through which Whitman could be portrayed to undecided voters as an evil hypocrite.
One would be naive to believe that the 4-figure settlement was the extent of her compensation.
This raises the question, how did Justin Quinn, a supposedly unassuming father of 9-year-old twin girls from Fresno, get involved with a superstar Southern California celebrity attorney who is, yes, infamous for being a puppeteer to sympathetic victims for mutual financial benefit? He doesn't say, and nobody seems to be asking (nice job, Suzanne Shaw). But he's asking for the weight of the world to come down on Roger McDowell, whose actions were inexcusable and outrageous for a person who was not assumed to be drunk.
NOTE: He is responding to non-audible questions.
Quinn ideally wants McDowell to resign, and for Major League Baseball and the S.F. District Attorney to get involved. Seems to be a negotiating tactic, IMHO. Key phrase in the NBC11 interview of Quinn via Skype: "I don't know what can bring that moment back for me as a parent." I'm sure Gloria can think of $omething.
Below is my reaction to a piece written for The Root, a blog dedicated to African-American issues. Naturally, the overwhelming majority of its content (as in everything I've ever read on it) is pro-Democrat and anti-Republican, and really anti-Tea Party.
In a column entitled "Race-Baiting Is Different From Racism" and subtitled
"When ColorOfChange.org campaigned against conservative provocateur Andrew Breitbart's presence on Huffington Post, it was for what he's done, not what he feels, say leaders of the organization", COC co-founder James Rucker and campaign manager Dani McClain insist that Breitbart got off easy due to too much respect issued to him by other white journalist types. They were upset because HuffPo founder Arianna Huffington and founding editor Roy Sekoff admitted in an interview that they even though they ejected Breitbart from the site, they did NOT believe he is racist.
This is the original draft of my comments on the below-quoted part of the Rucker/McClain piece before I had to divide it into two parts to fit it into The Root's comments section (links added):
This same reluctance (cowardice? postracial delusion?) was evident in some of the coverage of our campaign. David Weigel at Slate conflated our members' efforts against Breitbart with Media Matters' work monitoring Fox News, characterizing both as " … a liberal campaign aimed at getting conservatives off the air, off the Huffington Post front page, off Fox News. It's as blatant as the conservative campaign to dismantle the liberal media."
Well, no. Unless there's a conservative campaign afoot to keep race-baiters who intentionally deceive from appearing as trustworthy, ethical pundits on the Sunday-morning shows and network news, then there's really no comparison. Perhaps Weigel realizes this but fears what an honest assessment of Breitbart's race problem might do to his own bona fides as an objective journalist.
You folks haven't been paying attention, because Weigel has no "bona fides as an objective journalist."He was exposed as a hardcore lefty when his participation in the now-defunct pro-Democrat, anti-Republican JournoList mailing list was leaked to Tucker Carlson's right-leaning Daily Caller website.His supposedly objective column in the Washington Post examining the right wing was belied by his angry, profane rants on JournoList about Glenn Beck, James O'Keefe, Newt Gingrich, and Sarah Palin (partial list). When Rush Limbaugh was hospitalized in December 2009 with chest pains, we know now, Weigel snarked to fellow left-leaning JournoList reporters "I hope he fails." Following those revelations, Weigel was dismissed from the Post, but retained by its parent company, which operates Slate.
When it comes to Weigel's comparison that you find wanting, I say it's perfectly sound. It's true that what he described as "the conservative campaign to dismantle the liberal media" is not narrowly focused on -- to quote you -- "keep[ing] race-baiters who intentionally deceive from appearing as trustworthy, ethical pundits on the Sunday-morning shows and network news." But the default position on those programs is that it is fair to assume Republicans have "a race problem" (quoting you again) unless they make grand gestures of ideological departure from traditional Republican positions (e.g. Jack Kemp). No amount of equitable treatment of non-whites on a personal basis-- even marriage --can do anything to alter that template unless it is expressed in *political* outreach leftward. Calling out the common presumptions as fraudulent is part of the larger fight against prejudicial treatment of the right-of-center in the mainstream media, and need not be specific to quashing race-baiting. The fact that you have felt it necessary to issue your statement above because Huffington & Sekoff admitted that they did not believe Andrew Breitbart is a racist proves my point. As media figures to the left of Fox News, they ran afoul of an unwritten law, and you fancy yourselves as the enforcers.
Finally, your assertion that somehow Breitbart had "destroy[ed] Sherrod's career" is laughable when one examines the facts of not only Sherrod's resignation under pressure from the Obama Administration, but the circumstances under which she even got the position.
Let's recap: According to Sherrod, she was pressured by an aide to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to announce her resignation in a phone conversation while she was driving on a Georgia freeway. Why right then? Because the USDA wanted to head off a discussion of the controversy on Glenn Beck's TV program that afternoon. (Remember that it was under the heat Beck brought upon your pal Van Jones that he resigned as Green Jobs Czar at midnight on the Sunday of a three-day holiday weekend.) Initially, the NAACP backed the decision to shove Sherrod out, based on the incomplete video of her discussion of how she pulled back assistance to a white farmer. Beck ended up actually sticking up for Sherrod, and criticized Breitbart for commenting on the video before he knew the context of the total speech.The NAACP did an about-face, claiming that it had been "hoodwinked" by Breitbart.Even Bill O'Reilly apologized for jumping to conclusions. The White House issued an apology to Sherrod. Vilsack offered an apology and her job back, but Sherrod refused the offer. Her "career" and her reputation were restored as quickly as they were tarnished, but she chose to walk away rather than return.
How did Sherrod get the job, anyway? The exact circumstances are unknown, but here's what we know:She was named Director for Rural Development for the state of Georgia on July 25, 2009.Mere *days* earlier, New Communities, Inc., a farm trust that Sherrod co-founded with her husband in 1969 (but had ceased operations in the mid-'80s),was given a cash award of $13,000,000.00 in the Pigford Farms settlement.Over $4,000,000.00 of that total amount was specifically termed as "lost wages," and Shirley and her husband Charles each personally received $150,000.00 each for "pain and suffering" (three times the average settlement issued to Pigford plaintiffs). The Sherrods were newly-minted multi-millionaires when she was appointed by Vilsack, who as Ag Secretary is the one who ultimately authorized their payment.
(I won't speculate in print about that last part, because I don't have a lick of evidence backing up what I'm thinking. But think about it.)
It's not only ridiculous to suggest Breitbart "destro[yed] Sherrod's career," it's outrageously disingenuous. The Sherrods were the most richly compensated awardees of the entire Pigford suit out of tens of thousands of filers stretching back to Clinton's second term. She didn't need the job when she got it, and she doesn't need it now. But the bitterness she has expressed after being booted from her USDA position could be predicted by anyone in the audience of that famous videotaped speech, in which she said"Have you heard of anybody in the federal government losing their job? That's all that I need to say, okay?"
Tell me what you think. Comment below, link if you like.
I heard part of the audio of this conversation earlier today on CNBC on Rush Limbaugh's show this morning, and my jaw dropped at the 1:29 mark. I sought out more of the conversation, and sadly, it affirms the worst fears I have about how little lawmakers think about the lasting effects of the legislation they pass, keeping their focus on the next election and/or what's in it for them individually. Members of both parties are guilty of this, but this is regarding the ticking neutron time bomb that is ObamaCare, the biggest looming threat to the nation's long-term financial stability, so it stands to reason this anecdote is undoubtedly about a Democrat.
"I went to Congress lobbying last year for the real estate industry three weeks before the passage of the health care bill, and whenever I do this for the industry, I always save one question for myself. And so I ask a simple question for the first guy that I met. And I said, 'What about the eleventh year? You guys constructed this health care bill with six years of costs and ten years of revenue. What about the eleventh year?' And the guy looks at me and says, 'I'm eighty!' I rest my case. And you know, you wanna get scared, that's scary!"
Watch the entire clip. If you don't understand how anyone could be against ObamaCare and new banking regulations that are supposed to prevent the kind of recklessness and abuse that caused The Crash of '08, pay attention to Zell. He well represents those of us who know the devil is in the details of the 2,000+ page bills that few people (including legislators) have read, but that we all are bound by once they are shoved down America's collective throat.
Now, the question is: Who is the eighty-year-old in question? We know it's a "he," and that he was eighty at about this time in 2010, three weeks before (presumably) the final passage of ObamaCare on March 19. Obviously, Zell won't tell. Any detectives out there?
Here's a still image of the Gagster riding on to the Staples Center stage in a translucent egg, also from Mediaite.
Many have accused the singer/songwriter/musician formerly known as Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta (whew) of ripping off another flamboyant Italian-American singer, Madonna (nee Madonna Louise Ciccone). But the idea of emerging from an egg onstage predated Gaga's emergence from wherever she came from in 1986.
The above photo is from an evening of June 1979 in San Diego, CA at San Diego Stadium, home of Major League Baseball's San Diego Padres. A police motorcade has brought in an armored car with a giant egg on top, flanked by four security guards. Watching the entire spectacle is a crowd of over 47,000. Inside the egg is perhaps the most famous costumed mascot in the history of professional sports, The San Diego Chicken (aka The Famous Chicken, formerly the KGB Chicken). Inside the Chicken costume is Ted Giannoulas, who only five years before was a San Diego State student that agreed to wear a chicken outfit at an Easter Sunday promotion by a radio station. The pay rate: $2.00 per hour.
To make a long and nearly unbelievable (but true) story short(er), through appearances for KGB-FM at San Diego Stadium, Giannoulas became as big a draw to Padres games as the team itself, which rarely shined on the field. He stole the show wherever he went, even causing rock legend Elvis Presley (on his final tour) to laugh so hard, he couldn't complete a song without commenting on the Chicken dancing along. Then the station unceremoniously dumped Ted, and put another guy -- who had none of Giannoulas' comedic capabilities -- in the suit that Ted made famous. The station figured the KGB costume was what made the Chicken popular, not the person inside. They were wrong. Crowds not only didn't react to the new dude in the suit, at one point he was actually chased out of San Diego Stadium! Giannoulas created his own costume to resume his passion, but KGB filed an injunction to prevent him from doing so. Ted sued KGB for the right to perform as the character he alone created, and won in California's Supreme Court.
Free as a bird to resume his unlikely career, Giannoulas plotted a grand re-entrance. Below is video of the KGB Chicken's rebirth as "The Famous Chicken" with commentary by Ted -- who I don't believe has been photographed out of his costume since the '70s -- in an interview with Red Door Interactive CEO Reid Carr.
Since then, Ted has traveled throughout the United States and the world as a uniquely American ambassador of slapstick fun. At 56, he's just beginning to slow down a bit, but he's had a career longer than most comedians and every one of the athletes on the field when he first started out. And it all began with a college kid taking a short gig for cash and the accidental discovery he had a natural gift for making large numbers of people laugh.
Oh, yeah, I almost forgot ... in answer to the question, "Did Lady Gaga rip off her egg idea from the San Diego Chicken?" the answer is definitely "no," presuming she came up with it on her own. But among outlandish performers who exited a giant egg wearing a yellow costume in front of thousands of people in a sports facility, Giannoulas beat Germanotta to the punch. It only makes sense that when it comes to eggs, The Chicken came first.
(For the record: Among the two of them, I find the San Diego Chicken more entertaining.)
In the course of researching a longer, more detailed story I'm preparing regarding Rush Limbaugh's imitation of Hu Jintao and the over-the-top response by California State Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco), I found a detail that has escaped notice thusfar (to my knowledge).
For those of you who were in a coma the first week of 2011: In the immediate aftermath of the Tucson massacre, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik couldn't stop himself from inserting his fact-free, pro-Democrat personal opinion about what might have spurred Jared Loughner to mass murder, asserting that there was "no doubt in [his] mind" that political "vitriol" constantly spread by television and radio commentators would eventually be proved to be a significant contributing factor.
Here is Dupnik being grilled gently by Fox News' Megyn Kelly on Monday, January 9, 2011:
Fast forward to two and a half weeks later, Wednesday, January 26, 2011. At this point, it has long been established by Loughner's friends, former girlfriends, creeped-out college classmates, frightened teachers, and investigators combing his personal effects that contrary to the media narrative Dupnik reinforced, the 22-year-old was a time bomb destined to explode Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' world years prior to Sarah Palin's "crosshairs" map, the ObamaCare vote, the Tea Party movement, or the first primary victory of then-Senator Obama. On this same day: On his California State Senate homepage, State Senator Yee makes public a vile, profane, obviously racist (and somewhat illiterate) faxed death threat his office received from a person specifically making reference to Limbaugh's artificially controversial 18-second impersonation of President Hu.
I will NOT link the image of the fax here, but an accurate description of it is in the text of the press release:
The faxes received by Yee include a graphic of an American flag adorned pickup truck dragging a noose.
The faxes that were sent to Yee’s office today also state (with misspellings):
FIGHTING The Marxist Nigger Thug Hussein Obama & Fish Head Leeland Yee
To: JoBama Rectum Sniffing Moron LEELAND LEE
Achtung! [German word meaning “watch out”]Fish Head Leeland Lee. Rush Limbaugh will kick your Chink ass and expose you for the fool you are.
Without exceptions, Marxists are enemies of the United States Constitution! Death to all Marxists! Foreign and Domestic!
However convenient it is to State Senator Yee to receive hate mail mentioning Rush Limbaugh in the same proximity as an image of a pickup truck dragging President Obama's head in a noose (a detail not specifically mentioned in the statement), there is no doubt in my mind that the fax is authentically from a bonafide racist. It has the same type of crude, pre-Photoshop, clip art, ransom note graphics as I remember from the eighties, when disciples of Tom Metzger's White Aryan Resistance group would paste ugly posters like that in Bay Area phone booths (remember them?).
I hesitated to publish the text of the threatening fax, but I needed to -- it's relevant to the disclosure that preceded it on Yee's release (link, bold mine):
SAN FRANCISCO – After condemning offensive comments by Rush Limbaugh, Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) today was sent a racist death threat via fax to his San Francisco and Capitol offices. The faxes have been turned over to the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms to investigate.
The expletive-laden faxes contain graphics and language similar to messages Yee receive [sic] in April 2010 after he called for Sarah Palin’s speaking fee at California State University to be disclosed. Recently, the Pima County Sheriff’s Office in Arizona contacted Yee regarding the April faxes and a possible connection to faxes found during the investigation surrounding the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.
Yee's previous claim to national fame was demanding that a private education foundation associated with Cal State-Stanislaus reveal how much it was paying Governor Palin to come to Turlock, CA to speak at a $500-per-person fundraiser. The foundation insisted it wasn't legally required to reveal the contract. CSUS said it had no information about the foundation's contract. Then dumpster-diving Palin-hating students found shredded pages of the contract the university said it didn't have, containing the quasi-damning revelations that Palin would be receiving less than her previously-reported $100,000 fee, that she wants to fly the 2,700 miles from Alaska first class (or, alternately, by Lear Jet), and that she insists on bendable straws for her lectern water bottles. What a diva, right? In the end, Palin's speech went on without a hitch.
But, I digress. One April 2010 faxed threat -- one of at least two missives much more disgusting than the recent ones -- is described thusly on Yee's page:
The fax, which included a graphic of an American flag adorned pickup truck dragging a noose, also states “FIGHTING The Marxist Nig**r Thug Hussein Obama” and “Safeguard the Constitution, Death of all Domestic Marxists!”
Not to discount the danger (at worst) or discomfort (at the least) that such a slimebag may cause to State Senator Yee, but come on ... it's the same sicko.
Now, back to Pima County. If we take Yee's Chief of Staff Adam Keigwin (author of the press releases) at his word, as of January 26th, Sheriff Dupnik's office "recently" had requested to see Yee's April threat faxes in association with the investigation of Jared Loughner's savage attack: A "possible connection to faxes found during the investigation surrounding the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords."
Huh? You mean a "possible connection" between the looney loser whose closest associates agreed within hours of the shooting he didn't pay close attention to politics, didn't listen to talk radio, didn't vote in 2010, didn't pledge allegiance to the right or left, and whose stated conspiratorial obsessions were devoid of bigotry? You mean the guy we can reasonably presume didn't send either fax to Leland Yee since whoever sent the January one could not possibly be in police custody, where Loughner has been since he was held down by bystanders in that Safeway parking lot in Tucson?
Dupnik's office has put a gag on details about Loughner's attack, so we have not lately seen nor heard the Sheriff double, triple, or quadruple down on his pseudo-prophetic opinions about its root causes. But his department is still spending time chasing down information about threats that appear to be irrelevant to the prosecution of the individual we all know murdered six of his constituents! This indicates to me Dupnik knows the chances his bold assertions were prescient are dwindling, and he's got to scramble to avoid being exposed as unduly political and unprofessional.
Pardon the mixed metaphors, but in short: Dupnik is grasping at straws to cover his posterior. Not a good look.
Coming up: Why Leland Yee's and other Chinese-American politicians' offense at Limbaugh is selective, overblown, and IMHO, insincere.
It turned out to be the most viewed piece in the history of REACTOR, my sporadically-updated blog created out of cubicle boredom in 2005.
Here's how I ended it:
Palin's point about the dangers of installing dynasties may have been made in an indirect fashion through young Luke's megagaffe. As we can see from his performance yesterday morning, he's been deemed ready for the big time by the asleep-at-the-switch suits at NBC News despite the fact he's still swimming in the shoes of his late, legendary father, Meet The Press host Tim Russert. While he still has time to learn, let's be serious about the here and now: If he was Luke Smith, Luke Jones, or Luke Doe, he would never see the business end of an NBC News camera.
Harsh? Yes, uncomfortably so. True, nevertheless? You betcha.
Here's how Master Luke covered the Arizona massacre as the news came in (h/t Media Resource Center):
While this is another screw-up for Luke, things are moving in the right direction. This is, after all, a journalistic error, not a spelling error.
The following is my reaction to Meghan "The Brain" McCain's latest missive on The Daily Beast titled "What We Need to Learn From Arizona." Except that apparently what we "need to learn" are lessons that have nothing to do with what actually occurred in Tucson.
Here's a link to the original piece. Please come back here for my comment -- I can't be sure that the Beasties will approve it. I've had several remarks there spiked going back to 2008.
Quoth the Meghan:
"What is particularly sad and telling about the climate of today’s media cycle is that it seems to have taken the media this kind of moment to start analyzing their own rhetoric—even if that rhetoric wasn’t the reason for the tragedy."
Congratulations, Meghan, you have just joined the millions and millions of sheep who have swallowed the MSM narrative and regurgitated it to the rest of us for our consumption. Fortunately for me, I long ago lost a taste for semi-digested propaganda.
In case you live in such an impenetrable bubble that you haven't yet heard or [had] someone tell you, allow me: You're being manipulated. Scratch that -- you're being duped. And, funny thing is, you seem to enjoy it.
How dare I write such a thing, you may ask? Simple: you just admitted it yourself. Here's more you:
"Although I do not believe this shooter's motives had anything to do with the current political climate, it’s good that the media is questioning the dangerous levels that the rhetoric has reached nonetheless."
You see? You know good and well "rhetoric wasn’t the reason for the tragedy", but instead of upbraiding the media for pretending that it WAS about the rhetoric (for obvious partisan purposes), you boldly continue with their big lie by furthering a national discussion on an unrelated "conversation" -- which was started in the spirit of partisanship by the left, and promoted through the means of libel and slander of the right.
Meanwhile, the reasons why Ms. Giffords got shot and six people were killed -- y'know, the REAL reasons -- go underexplored by the media and most self-described center-left folk. They're kinda occupied, despite the fact that the similarities between Loughner and the Virginia Tech shooter are eerie; isolated, severely creepy marginal college students with paranoid theories and violent fantasies that frightened teachers and students alike, enough to get them barred them from their campuses. Somehow, they each got ahold of a firearm, and -- in the words of Drowning Pool -- "Let the bodies hit the floor." Teachers, counselors, parents, and surviving "friends" say "I KNEW he was nuts, but I didn't know he was THAT nuts." The only significant difference is that Loughner was stopped before he offed himself.
But, apparently, y'all think it is more important to seize this moment to focus attention on YOUR pet peeve: That goldarn angry rhetoric. And it was really important to take advantage of the situation as the story unfolded, because if it turned out the gunman was yet another Arab dude who turned out to be a Muslim extremist, we wouldn't have had squawking heads, bilious bloggers, and a media whore county sheriff blaming Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck for murders they didn't commit. Such blood libel (yeah, I said it, and I meant it) was needed to get the ball rolling.
Getting to the bottom of the real reasons why six people are dead and making necessary changes to prevent something like this from happening again can wait until next time the culprit is not a Islamist. First things first, right, Meggie?
And you thought incest was just for rock stars and hayseeds!
Nope, nowadays Ivy League academics with national reputations are getting into the act -- namely, Columbia University political science professor David Epstein. From the December 10, 2010 edition of the Columbia University student newspaper, the Spectator (link mine):
Political science professor David Epstein, 46, was charged Thursday with having a sexual relationship with his daughter, 24.
He was arrested Wednesday morning and charged with one count of incest in the third degree at an arraignment hearing on Thursday. According to police, the relationship appears to have been consensual.
Epstein declined to comment when reached on his cell phone Thursday evening.
His wife, Sharyn O’Halloran, chair of the executive committee of the University Senate and a tenured professor, also declined to comment when reached by phone.
As recently as 2009, Epstein was a contributor to the leftist blog The Huffington Post (which, to its credit, reported the story). His most notable opinion piece (pictured on the right, click to enlarge) was "Palin Proves Voters Were Right in 2008", written two days after then-Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's July 4 press conference announcing she would resign. Wrote Epstein:
Palin has done what weak, self-centered people do when the going gets tough -- they quit and blame someone else.
Remember that quote, folks. It will be interesting to see if Epstein fights to maintain his position at Columbia, and what his excuses will be for sex with his own offspring. Grab some popcorn -- and a barf bag.
Much has been made of his bashing of Palin in conservative media, but that's par for the course among admitted, committed leftists. My concerns about l'affaireEpstein have more to do with the responses among people like the contributors and daily surfers of HuffPo and the culturally influential people of Northeastern academia. They have been challenged to address a scandal that they never would have imagined could happen to someone like Epstein (and, by extension, them), and it seems that too many for comfort will tip in favor of apathy -- that because the father-daughter lovers were "consenting adults" (as far as we know), it's salacious rubbernecking at something that's really not a big deal. "Nothing to see here, move along."
As noted byThe American Spectator's Robert Stacy McCain on December 10, "some commenters at the [Columbia Spectator] Web site are mystified as to why it's illegal: "Wait, why is consensual incest a crime? It might not be appealing to everyone, but if they're adults and they consent, who cares what they do?" One clueless senior said the following upon learning of the arrest:
"Raahi Sheth, CC ’11, an economics and political science major—who had an Epstein (sic) as a major adviser—said he was surprised to hear of the allegations, since Epstein has always been helpful.
“He’d always been fairly jovial,” he said. “He seemed to be a very nice guy.”
Here was my reaction, posted on McCain's AmSpec blog December 11 (edited to include links, italics, and blockquotes):
Hear ye, all you people who rend your garments and begin boycott blogs whenever someone speaks aloud the blasphemy that rulings against laws prohibiting same-sex marriage will ultimately lead to the legalization of polygamy and/or incest. Within this sordid event lies (upon serious analysis) the evidence proving your outrage reactionary and shallow.
The attitude toward laws prohibiting incest expressed by the "consenting adults" crowd within the Columbia community are the blueprint for an off-ramp of the Rubicon Bridge expressway designed by David Boies, Theodore Olson, and anti-Proposition 8 activists who believe same-sex marriage is a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The bedrock of their Federal case for having the California Constitution's sole definition of marriage as one man-one woman struck down is to have unelected jurists determine whether there are sufficient reasons to prohibit additional forms of marriage. On that particular docket is their support of same-sex marriage within two parties, but their position as advocates of such unions sets the table for future challenges to the idea that marriage ought to be limited to just two individuals, be they straight, gay, or bisexual. In short: If their California victory currently being appealed should be confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, all future challenges to America's longstanding marital norms won't be based on the question "Why expand marriage rights?" but "Why should marriage rights NOT be extended?"
For people who insist that's a wild, dystopic projection, consider this: The 2008 California Supreme Court opinion striking down the 2000 voter initiative cementing traditional marriage into the California family code (In re Marriage Cases) was carefully designed to mirror its previous 1948 decision striking down anti-miscegenation laws (Perez v. Sharp). Had someone declared 62 years ago that establishing a right for blacks and whites to marry would eventually lead to marriage of two men or two women, that person would have been called insane. After all, sodomy was a crime -- who was going to allow two homosexuals to get married as if they were two members of the opposite sex? Neither the affirming nor dissenting opinions in Perezeven address sodomy law.But twenty-one years later in 1969, the state legislature decriminalized sodomy under the "consenting adults" banner. That opened the door that has, to date, been busted down twice; in 2008 and in 2010.
"[L]egally speaking, I do have my doubts about why the law should see this as any different from any relationship between consenting adults,There used to be an adherence to natural law in the West that saw all such relations i.e. same sex relations, incest, bestiality, as the same legal category. We abandoned that some time ago, and are we better for having done so? I don't know, but those people that see this as deplorable need to show why it is any different from the other categories of behavior that used to be prohibited under a concept of natural law like gay sex."
The prosecution rests.
On a side note regarding Epstein's wife, Professor O'Halloran (who apparently is not the mother of the daughter in question), this is what the Spectator said about their relationship in its 2008 Valentine's Day article, "Married Profs Bring Love To Work" (bold mine):
“Our complementary skills lead to a great partnership,” she said. This collaboration is present in their home as well, where, according to O’Halloran, an economist, they “split household chores along comparative advantage and our marginal rates of productivity are maximized at every turn.”
I don't believe in psychic phenomena or synchronicity, but it's very -- for lack of a more fitting description -- spooky. The folks at Reason.com (whom we know don't believe in that stuff) and I posted eerily similar thoughts around the very same time: Thursday morning, October 28, 2010. The topic: The annual mournful whining from mainstream media figures about how negative political campaigns have gotten.
The freaky stuff will make itself apparent later. First, you will read what I wrote in response to an article for the NBC Bay Area (i.e., television station KNTV San Jose) website by reporter Tom Sinkovitz. The report, titled "Looks Like They Are Staying Negative, Folks," was fleshing out an incident in a joint appearance at an annual state-sponsored "women's conference" by California Governor Schwarzenegger and gubernatorial candidates Jerry Brown (D) and Meg Whitman (R). Conducting a thirty-minute interview with the three of them was NBC's Matt Lauer, host of Today. In the accompanying video clip, you can see Lauer concluding the interview by making an attempt to shape the remaining days of the campaign by trying to shame Whitman and Brown into making a pledge "to end the negativity."
(A brief aside: Notice that only Whitman is pictured in the title frame for this video, and not Brown.)
Matt -- presuming he, y'know, watches NBC News -- was aware at that moment that Brown has opened up a lead in most polls that either is close to or exceeds error margins, and that Whitman must take drastic measures in order to close the gap. As any astute observer knows, that means going (more) negative. It stretches the bounds of credulity to think that Lauer (who, remember, is NOT a California resident) was unaware that Brown has nothing to lose by agreeing to this supposedly spontaneous request, and that he was ever-so-cordially requesting that Whitman fall on her $160 million sword rather than fight to the last moment.
Oh, you're so disappointed, Tom - politicians aren't going to play nicey-nice. How old are you, 12?
Listen up, kiddies: Negative political tactics weren't invented during this campaign, since the invention of TV, or even in the past two centuries. Thomas Jefferson made remarks about John Adams that would be interpreted nowadays as "homophobic." Grover Cleveland was elected despite the rumors about his having an illegitimate child - John Edwards wasn't the first guy accused of it. You all sound like a mother wincing every time her halfback son gets put on the ground when he carries the ball. It's part of the game, Mom, so get used to it!
What's most ridiculous about such hollow calls for civility in campaigning is that it ignores three realities: 1. Negative campaigning works, 2. Every winning candidate who has a viable opponent has done it and will continue to do it (even YOUR favorite pol), and 3. Voters are NOT now nor have ever been sufficiently informed by political advertising in the first place!
What negative ads do is fill in the blank spots left by the sunny, smiling self-profiles that are like video of a cheeseburger with little resemblance to what you actually unwrap at a franchise joint. In the midst of his ads with teachers lauding his leadership, how many people knew Brown conceded his educational experiments as Oakland mayor [were] a failure before Whitman's negative ad? How many people knew of Whitman's history with Goldman Sachs before Brown's negative ad? Are those things you would have rather NOT known about either candidate before making a choice?
It's not the candidates' job not to offend your fragile sensibilities, it's your job to discover the truth neither side wants to admit, and to cast aside nonsense that has nothing to do with their ability to govern (such as that housekeeper compost Gloria Allred cooked up). It's not fun wading in the muck to get the facts, but you would think people would want to now more than ever. Grow up!
OK, now the spooky part. I wrote that part about Thomas Jefferson's attack on the manliness of John Adams before I was aware of the video below, which it seems was being posted on YouTube at about the same moment. It is Reason.tv's magnificent skewering of bemoaners of the tone of political ads, such as Lauer. Don't drink any beverages as you watch -- you will laugh so hard you will launch it on your screen halfway through, and the rest of it will be all blurry.
In July 2010, when a tempest in a teapot resulted from Sarah Palin having accidentally coined the word "refudiate" (a fusion of the words "repudiate" and "refute"), I noted here at REACTOR that the same leftist partisans promoting the "refudiate" kerfuffle as proof positive Palin was an idiot had previously been hoist with their own petard in January 2010, when they suggested that Palin had invented the word "mandation."
To recap: The Professional Palinphobes, who grit their teeth with disgust while watching her every move in the hope of documenting and inflating her every infinitesimal error, watched Palin in her role as Fox News contributor sharing her thoughts on President Obama's first State of The Union address. In an interview conducted by Sean Hannity, she warned about the ill-effects of "mandation of health care," i.e., passing a law saying that purchasing health insurance was mandatory. The Sarah-haters, having never heard the word "mandation" before, leapt to the conclusion that since they first heard it from Palin, it couldn't possibly have been in the English language.
Left-leaning quasi-journalists like bloggers Shannyn Moore of her blog Just a Girl From Homer, Media Matters contributor Oliver Willis, and Mediaite.com's Colby Hall sprung into action. A commenter on Moore's blog wrote:"'Mandation' is not found anywhere in the dictionary. I taught U.S. History and ... government [] for 33 years [and] I can say that if [Palin] had been a student in one of my government classes, she would have failed the course."Willis -- whose blog is falsely subtitled "Like Kryptonite to Stupid"-- wrote "America’s Idiot and Fox News front woman Sarah Palin has made up a new word." Of the word "mandation," Hall of Mediaite.com initially wrote,"No, that’s not a real word."
Of course, the mainstream media (or, as Palin has re-dubbed them, the lamestream media) was not interested in highlighting how Palin had schooled her enemies on "mandation," but made space to incorporate "refudiate" into news reports about the Ground Zero Mosque controversy. Rarely do nationally-televised or printed MSM journalists miss a chance to ridicule Palin for the most dubious of reasons, especially if she's making a pertinent point; it reinforces the narrative that it is dangerous to take her seriously.
It is that which I thought was afoot when I saw this tweet from NBC News' Luke Russert on Monday morning (October 25, 2010) regarding Palin's backing of Alaska GOP Senate nominee Joe Miller. Miller is facing an independent run by Lisa Murkowski, the GOP incumbent he defeated in the Republican primary. She also is the daughter of Frank Murkowski, the Alaska Governor that Palin defeated in a 2006 primary (click to enlarge):
"Oh, brother," I thought -- could Sarah Palin possibly have confused the words "destiny" and "dynasty"? That's an egregious grammatical error, much worse than merging the words "repudiate" and "refute," which, while not synonyms, are actions commonly performed consecutively; one can repudiate a false charge, and then refute it. On the other hand, there's no way to mix up "destiny" and "dynasty" -- middle school-level vocabulary words -- unless...
You have no idea what either word means,
You don't know how either is properly pronounced,
You don't know how to sound out words phonetically, and
You can't break words down syllable by syllable.
It was difficult for me to believe, but I clicked on the link, assuming that Russert had caught Palin in the act, and that she was in for more guffaws from the genii that put Barack Obama into office (heh). The link brought me to NBC News' First Read, which you can see below (click to enlarge):
I was waiting for the whammy showing that Palin had confused "destiny" and "dynasty." I read, and kept reading. And reading. Finally, Russert brought down the hammer (click to enlarge):
Palin then takes a swing at the Murkowski family, saying,
"Joe Miller will fight for the people of Alaska, and this great country.
Public service should be an honor not a family dynasty."
Wait a minute...it doesn't say "destiny," it says "dynasty"! What the French?
I went to the most trusted repository of Palin information on the Internet -- Conservatives4Palin.com -- to see what was really up. Sure enough, one of the editors had already posted Sarah's appeal for Miller, and it was properly spelled (click to enlarge):
My first instinct after this was to accuse Luke Russert of deliberately making believe that Palin had gaffed. I tweeted this, cc'ing Newsbusters' and Palin's own Twitter accounts:
I wanted to get a screencap of the First Read page before it vanished, because sometimes that happens to inaccurate news reports. I opened another browser, pasted the tinyurl link, and guess what? The headlines had changed! "Destiny" had become "dynasty" in the sixteen minutes in-between my accessing that story the first and second times.
So, it seems that after Russert wrote this report, and it was uploaded to the NBC News site, it was finally reviewed and proofread. As Palin might say, that's backasswards! Even worse, it shows that neither Luke Russert nor his editors can be depended on to tell the difference between words as dissimilar as "destiny" and "dynasty" -- and, it appears, neither can his MSNBC colleague Norah O'Donnell, who retweeted it within minutes...
...that is, unless, she didn't bother to read the story either.
It wouldn't be surprising if that was the case with the lovely Norah. She is chief among the MSMers who believe the worst about Palin first, and checks the facts later. Prime example: January 2009, when she said in a jovial three-way conversation with a Democrat strategist and fellow Sarah-sliming MSNBCer Lawrence O'Donnell that Palin had called Barack Obama "a terrorist" during the 2008 campaign. Remember that?
Palin's point about the dangers of installing dynasties may have been made in an indirect fashion through young Luke's megagaffe. As we can see from his performance yesterday morning, he's been deemed ready for the big time by the asleep-at-the-switch suits at NBC News despite the fact he's still swimming in the shoes of his late, legendary father, Meet The Press host Tim Russert. While he still has time to learn, let's be serious about the here and now: If he was Luke Smith, Luke Jones, or Luke Doe, he would never see the business end of an NBC News camera.
Harsh? Yes, uncomfortably so. True, nevertheless? You betcha.
