Usually I'd say Next over this, but it might be a little prudent positioning.

She says this while supporting the Arizona law, so it can be read as a case of understandable positioning, where she supports the substance but makes a (meaningless) appeal for a nicer "tone."

Since she herself is supporting the Arizona law, she's obviously not calling that racist.

California Senate candidate Carly Fiorina voiced support Friday for Arizona’s new immigration law even as she deplored a “racist tone” that’s developed in some corners of her party over the highly charged issue.

The former Hewlett Packard CEO said the lawÂ’s passage stemmed from WashingtonÂ’s failure to address the problem of illegal immigration through stricter border enforcement and a practical temporary worker program.

But when asked in an interview with POLITICO if Republicans needed to make any changes in their approach to the growing Hispanic community, Fiorina replied, "There has been a very unfortunate racist tone that has emerged in a lot of the discussion about immigration and that's inexcusable. We must be a country that welcomes legal immigrants to this country. We must be a country that recognizes that we have industries like agriculture that have depended on temporary migrant labor for generations."

She also went on to rubbish "comprehensive" solutions:

But she also broke with members in both parties who believe a comprehensive immigration package is needed to address the problem.

“So then Barbara Boxer, President Obama, say, 'oh my gosh, we have to have comprehensive immigration reform.' You don’t need comprehensive immigration reform to secure the border. And you don’t need comprehensive immigration reform to have a temporary worker program that works. Those are responsibilities of the federal government that they have today and they are failing at those responsibilities,” she said.

I'm giving her a little break, because it's always helpful for a politician to appear to have a position somewhere in the middle, rather than fully on one side or another. Based on her comments, she does appear to be almost all on one side -- so she's contriving an "extreme" position to the right of hers, one she says has a "racist tone." Thus putting herself in the middle -- she supports this law, sure, and wants to secure the borders first, but that's not the extreme position.

No, the extreme position is way outside of the mainstream, the one with a "racist tone."

I think that's excusable and even a bit clever, but Chuck DeVore isn't having any of that.

Chuck DeVore said, "It looks like Carly Fiorina believes her own fellow Republicans have a 'racist tone' on immigration -- or at least that's what she tells her friends in the D.C. press. I know better.

"Unlike Carly, I know and respect my fellow Republicans.

"Unlike Carly, I've been an active Republican and conservative all my life.

"Unlike Carly, I've lived in southern California for decades.

"Unlike Carly, I've led Hispanic American soldiers -- and been led by them.

"Unlike Carly, I've studied the border problem from the standpoint of a senior California National Guardsman.

"Unlike Carly, I've engaged the illegal-immigration problem as a lawmaker, a father and homeowner in affected communities.

"Most of all unlike Carly, I genuinely respect and understand Californians' concern about this pressing issue. The illegal-immigration problem has everything to do with safe communities, respect for the law, and taxpayer resources -- issues that cut across every divide of race, class, and politics.

"In Carly Fiorina's imagination, Republicans are racists who don't even welcome legal immigrants. That's an outright falsehood. Her interviewers didn't bring up racism -- she did. Her interviewers didn't conflate legal and illegal immigration -- she did. If we ever needed an illustration of just how deeply and reflexively Carly Fiorina has bought in to the left-wing and media narrative, this is it.

"On the one hand, I'm appalled at her slander of hardworking Americans who demand respect for the law. On the other hand, those same Americans will go to the polls on June 8th."

Posted by: Ace at 01:19 PM | Comments (81)
Post contains 691 words, total size 5 kb.

I'm thinking they're from Teabagistan.

The guy who threatened South Park was in Times Square that night, shouting Teabagger slogans through a bullhorn, like "Where's the birth certificate?"

A Queens Islamic group that warned the creators of "South Park" of retaliation for lampooning the Prophet Muhammed denied involvement Sunday in the Times Square bomb plot.

Younus Abdullah Muhammed, who runs the Web site RevolutionMuslim.com, said he was in Times Square at the time the car bomb was discovered, but he insisted he was not involved in the botched bombing.

"What do you think, I commanded somebody to blow up a building in the middle of Times Square?" a testy Muhammed told the Daily News.

NYPD detectives are looking into whether the attempted bombing is linked to a warning issued last month by the Revolution Muslim group against the Comedy Central animators.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said detectives have not ruled out a connection between the Queens group and the Saturday terror scare outside the headquarters of Viacom, which owns Comedy Central.

"It had nothing to do with the 'South Park' controversy. It was not an attack targeting Viacom," Muhammed said.

He seems awfully sure of the bombers' intended target for someone who wasn't involved at all. But then, these people (and I use that word advisedly) are extraordinarily arrogant in their certainty about a great many things (without any objective reason to possess such arrogance).

Security cameras caught a second man running from the car.

For what it's worth, I don't think the guy they catch on tape there is behaving particularly suspiciously. I think he's just a guy.

Allah thinks it's evidence against a jihadist attack that this was apparently so amateurish. I don't really see it that way-- sure, it seems (as of now) like they didn't have a lot of technical know-how, so we can conclude they probably didn't get much expert advice from someone else, but that could just be a case of badly executing poorly-understood directions.

Posted by: Ace at 12:54 PM | Comments (120)
Post contains 345 words, total size 4 kb.

Buy the ticket, take the ride -- HST

A federal jury in Knoxville last week convicted David Kernell, 22, of two charges in connection with the 2008 episode...

...Kernell was found guilty of computer fraud - a misdemeanor subject to a prison term of up to one year -- and obstruction of justice, which carries a maximum 20-year sentence...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 08:54 AM | Comments (257)
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

The Mustache speaks and a per the usual, it slices like a f'ing hammer.

After going through for the umpteenth time what everyone but a liberal Democrat understands...diplomacy and sanctions won't stop Iran, Bolton looks to the future to see where Captain Awesome's engagement policy leads.

It's not pretty.

It is hard to conclude anything except that the Obama administration is resigned to Iran possessing nuclear weapons. While U.S. policy makers will not welcome that outcome, they certainly hope as a corollary that Iran can be contained and deterred. Since they have ruled out the only immediate alternative, military force, they are doubtless now busy preparing to make lemonade out of this pile of lemons.

President Obama's likely containment/deterrence strategy will feature security assurances to neighboring countries and promises of American retaliation if Iran uses its nuclear weapons. Unfortunately for this seemingly muscular rhetoric, the simple fact of Iran possessing nuclear weapons would alone dramatically and irreparably alter the Middle East balance of power. Iran does not actually have to use its capabilities to enhance either its regional or global leverage.

Facile analogies to Cold War deterrence rest on the dubious, unproven belief that Iran's nuclear calculus will approximate the Soviet Union's. Iran's theocratic regime and the high value placed on life in the hereafter makes this an exceedingly dangerous assumption.

Even if containment and deterrence might be more successful against Iran than just suggested, nuclear proliferation doesn't stop with Tehran. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and perhaps others will surely seek, and very swiftly, their own nuclear weapons in response. Thus, we would imminently face a multipolar nuclear Middle East waiting only for someone to launch first or transfer weapons to terrorists. Ironically, such an attack might well involve Israel only as an innocent bystander, at least initially.

I've had this discussion with liberal friends about the cost of stopping or not stopping Iran and they all ignore the costs of "containment".

Even if you believe Iran will be rational and not nuke Israel directly or hand off some nukes to their terror front groups to do the job, you simply can't ignore 30 years of history. Iran has been a dangerous and belligerent nation without nukes. Why in the world would you think they won't ratchet up their non-nuclear attacks once they have the shield of nuclear weapons?

People always talk about the price of oil skyrocketing if Iran is attacked. Well, it will. For awhile. Now if Iran gets the bomb, it will sky rocket whenever the Iranians want it to. They won't have to attack anyone directly (with or without nukes), they'll just issue a press release to stir up the markets and presto...several billion dollars more whenever the IRGC needs some more pocket change.

Yes, there are costs and dangers in attacking Iran. The thing is, adults living in the real world, not The Republic of Unicorns and Rainbows, understand there are real costs and dangers in not stopping Iran.

Alas, there's no reason to think this administration is populated by adults. Witness their latest plan to get rogue nuclear countries in line...declassify information about our weapons stockpiles that has been closely held for decades.

The Pentagon on Monday will release long-classified statistics about the total size of AmericaÂ’s nuclear arsenal, part of an effort to make the case that the country is honoring its treaty commitments to shrink its inventory of weapons significantly, senior administration officials said Sunday.

The American initiative will be cast by the White House as a small but significant step toward allowing the world to measure whether President Obama makes good on his promise of reducing American reliance on nuclear defenses. The commitment to make the figures public will be included in a speech that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will deliver at the opening of a United Nations conference reviewing progress on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Mrs. Clinton will also announce new funds for the International Atomic Energy Agency.

For years, American intelligence officials have objected to publishing quantitative descriptions of the American nuclear arsenal, concerned that the figures might help terrorist groups calculate the minimum nuclear fuel needed for a weapon. But administration officials said reputable Web sites that track such issues have long noted that American weapons designers need an average of around 4 kilograms of plutonium, or 8.8 pounds.

(via Gabe)

It's childish to think Iran has the slightest interest in our weapons program when it comes to the continuation of theirs. It's simply irrelevant to their calculations.

You know who cut a lot of nuclear weapons without any fanfare or self congratulations? George W(ar Monger) Bush. He did it because he thought it was in the national interest, not because of some moon-eyed romanticism over the effect it would have on Iran.

Once again, Obama is all show and no results.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:12 AM | Comments (103)
Post contains 836 words, total size 6 kb.

Mad skilz. Crazy mad skilz. This guy should do ads for AT&T. He knows how to reach out and touch people.

A CRACK shot saved his Brit commander from two Taliban gunmen by shooting them dead from a world record MILE and a HALF away...

...His marksmanship was all the more amazing because the enemy were firing on his trapped troop leader from 3,000ft BEYOND his rifle's effective range...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 07:28 AM | Comments (103)
Post contains 92 words, total size 1 kb.

Mexico, the country that attacks the US for having the temerity to enforce it's immigration laws is under attack from Amnesty International for....the systemic abuse of illegal immigrants.

Rupert Knox, Amnesty's Mexico researcher, said in the report that the failure by authorities to tackle abuses against migrants has made their trip through Mexico one of the most dangerous in the world.

"Migrants in Mexico are facing a major human rights crisis leaving them with virtually no access to justice, fearing reprisals and deportation if they complain of abuses," Knox said.

Central American migrants are frequently pulled off trains, kidnapped en masse, held at gang hideouts and forced to call relatives in the U.S. to pay off the kidnappers. Such kidnappings affect thousands of migrants each year in Mexico, the report says.

Many are beaten, raped or killed in the process.

One of the main issues, Amnesty says, is that migrants fear they will be deported if they complain to Mexican authorities about abuses.

At present, Article 67 of Mexico's Population Law says, "Authorities, whether federal, state or municipal ... are required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country, before attending to any issues."

Chutzpah...thy name is Mexico!

I'm sure illegal immigrants and American tourists alike, would much prefer to take in the sights at say, the Grand Canyon, than the hell hole that is Mexico.

The purpose of this series...

more...

Posted by: DrewM at 07:09 AM | Comments (72)
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:21 AM | Comments (123)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Every time a weekend ends, another weekend is born...

So whatever Happened To This Girl?

On that day South Vietnam forces were fighting with NVA troops who had occupied the village of Trang Bang. She and her family along with some South Vietnam soldiers were running towards South Vietnam lines when a pilot mistook them for NVA soldiers and dropped a napalm bomb on them. Several of her cousins were killed and she was burned over 65% of her body with all of her clothes burned off. Contrary to widespread belief it was a South Vietnamese pilot and plane that dropped the napalm and Americans had nothing to do with it.

When she reached ARVN lines Nick Ut took his famous photo and soldiers gave her water and tried to wash her wounds. She remembers yelling "Nóng quá, nóng quá" ("too hot, too hot") as she was running. You can watch video of the scene here [warning: it's graphic]. Soon after she was evacuated to Saigon where doctors gave her little chance of living. However after 14 months and 17 surgeries and nearly dying several times she was finally able to return to her village although heavily scarred and with permanent pain due to nerve damage.

From her experience with the many doctors who treated her, she resolved to become a doctor herself. However by this time South Vietnam had fallen and communist authorities decided to use her as a propaganda symbol instead and she was forced to quit school. In 1982 she converted to Christianity and in 1986 she was finally allowed to resume her studies in Cuba. While there she met another Vietnamese student, Bui Huy Toan, who would be her future husband. They were married and on their honeymoon in 1992 during a refueling stop in Gander, Newfoundland she and her husband fled the plane and asked for political asylum. It was granted and she became Canadian citizen in 1997. She and her husband and two children now live in Ontario. more...

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:00 PM | Comments (783)
Post contains 924 words, total size 8 kb.

Roundtable today with Jake Tapper on the 'now imperative to the narrative' oil disaster.

You can move it up to 3:40 to hear Maher's claim, that Brazil "got off oil" in the last 30 years.

I've worked in Brazil, through the 90s, actually up till 2006. They were kinda living on oil Bill. They still are. Just like the rest of the nations with growing economies (or trying to grow again).

Got. Off. Oil.

Will challenges this goofy assertion around 6:20 by asking "are you wearing blue jeans and also what the hell are you blathering about regarding Brazil and oil again?"

Maher: "I uh, believe they did, I believe they had a program in the 70s to use sugar cane to produce ethanol...blah blah I don't know what the hell I'm talking about"

He couldn't say "fuck". Kinda messes up his delivery in a room with adults and also Katrina vanden Heuvel and Al Sharpton.

This is what passes for a panel of informed media experts on ABC.

I saw this earlier today but wiped it from my mind until Rosetta reminded me about it.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 03:56 PM | Comments (143)
Post contains 200 words, total size 3 kb.

June 3, 1979. I had just been kicked out of my first college when the PEMEX platform imploded and bathed the beaches of Mexico and Texas with quite a mess.

That link is to an analysis for purchase, just wanted to show you on a map where the platform was.. way south.

I'm not an engineer, but I get it that there are issues of extreme pressure and counter-control/management involved in tapping oil and gas reserves. We all do really, we've seen the "it's a gusher" clips and all that.

This isn't an engineering analysis of the accident, or an environmental impact study (well, ok a little) so much as it is a personal anecdote about my observations of the last bad one in the Gulf.

more...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 01:48 PM | Comments (175)
Post contains 444 words, total size 3 kb.