A school security person called it a "burglary tool." It was a screwdriver, but I don't know what makes it a burglary tool -- maybe it was modified, or maybe it's a size often used to punch locks or something.

Anyway, this is also part of the factual record here.

TrayvonÂ’s backpack contained 12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver, according to the report, which described the screwdriver as a burglary tool.

Trayvon was asked if the jewelry, which was mostly womenÂ’s rings and earrings, belonged to his family or a girlfriend.

“Martin replied it’s not mine. A friend gave it to me,” according to the report. Trayvon declined to name the friend.

"Unnamed friends" are the nation's number one source of contraband.

Look, if someone says something's "not mine," I believe him.

Know what I mean?

via @comradearthur.

This article on how the media built the narrative is worth reading.

Posted by: Ace at 03:33 PM | Comments (713)
Post contains 212 words, total size 1 kb.

Incidentally, "centrist" is defined in an odd way by Matthews right in the quote.

Right in the quote itself, he says Obama's catching it from both sides on the Keystone pipeline, because he tried to split the question down the middle (by blocking the pipe entirely, but taking credit for the useless half-pipe he couldn't block).

So there's Chris and Obama, two centrists trying to make their way in a partisan world.

And if that's not humorous enough, Joan Walsh then pipes up to say that she, too, knows how tough it is to be a centrist.

So, for those of you keeping score at home, the centrists revealed in this clip are:

1, Barack Obama

2, Chris Matthews

3, Joan (WHO??!) Walsh

"Centrists"

You know who tried to split the difference? Leon Trotsky. And those darned partisans wouldn't let him get away with his centrism.

Posted by: Ace at 02:19 PM | Comments (202)
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

The media is in lynch mob mode, and has a lot of opinions and precious few facts.

Supposedly what makes them different than bloggers is that they are fact-based, not theory- or opinion-based.

And yet they have ginned up a national racial controversy without asking some simple-to-determine, important questions.

There's about a one-minute gap in the cell-phone calls to 911, between Zimmerman's last call and calls from the witnesses (in at least one of these calls, you hear the gunshot).

Thus we know the exact time the incident took place.

Now, Zimmerman's claim is that he was walking towards his SUV when Trayvon Martin confronted him.

This seems likely to evidenced via recourse to a simple map. From the 911 calls, we should be able to learn Zimmerman's last known location (prior to the shooting). We should also know where his SUV was parked.

Seems like an elemental fact, no? If it appears that Zimmerman was in fact heading closer to his SUV when the confrontation took place, it supports (though does not entirely prove) his account of the incident.

If Zimmerman was still moving further from the SUV, then it casts doubt on his claim he was heading towards the SUV. And then that suggests that he was possibly still tracking Trayvon, and that in turn suggests (without proving it to be so) that he initiated the confronation.

Now, the evidence might wind up being murky. He might not have moved far enough to establish if he was moving towards his SUV or away from it. It's also possible, though it seems unlikely, that he could have been moving, coincidentally, towards the SUV, while actually tracking Trayvon Martin, because Martin might have been coincidentally heading that way himself.

So there are situations where this simple technique will bear little fruit, or at least be disputable.

On the other hand, there are situations where this technique will provide fairly good evidence as to whether Zimmerman's story is likely true, or likely false.

If the media is so concerned about facts, and not simply partisan, hot-button, traffic-bating yelling -- why have they as of yet not undertaken this very simple step of determining where Zimmerman was in his final call, where his SUV was parked, and where Zimmerman was in relation to points A and B when the shooting occurred?

This isn't rocket science.

It does, however, take a small amount of intelligence, a limited investment in actual work, and a desire to actually have the facts at hand before fomenting a lynch mob.

None of which the media possesses in ample supply.

Oh, and meanwhile, our media, which routinely spikes stories in in the interest of not inflaming Murderous White (Hispanic) People Against Minorities, seems oblivious to its own handiwork in this area.

An Incomplete Map: This shows some things (the shooting location, the pickup location), but not important other things, like the "clubhouse" Zimmerman saw Trayvon moving towards, or the address he said he was at on the cell phone calls.

thanks to @thenewsjunkie for that.

Posted by: Ace at 01:01 PM | Comments (433)
Post contains 551 words, total size 4 kb.

It's clear as a bell. Now, this is "cleaned up," and I suppose someone could say "That's just a nice word for altered," but that's what CNN did when it tried to push the meme that Zimmerman had said "coons."

He didn't. It's plainly "punks."

Punks. (Wav file provided by one of our audio expert commenters, Chris Reynolds.)

I got swindled by this. I have noted before that a new trick in the internet age is to take some hard-to-understand audio and then suggest -- I mean that in the hypnotist sense of "suggest" -- an interpretation of those unintelligible words. We saw that in 2008 with the Mickey Kantor video, in which it was alleged he called Pennsylvania Indiana voters "white n***ers."

But he said nothing like that.

It's pretty insidious. If you are fed the interpretation "worthless white ni**er," you do hear that. When it's suggested to you that's what he said, that's what it does sound like.

If you're expecting to hear it, you hear it.

But it's not what he said. What he actually says is something like "How would you like to be winning in Texas?"

And they've done this trick several times since. I forgot about the trick, though. Even though I actually always am pointing the trick out.

The thing is, if I try to hear "coons," I can hear coons. But the moment I switch my brain to hear "punks," I hear punks. Plain as day.

Now, CNN ginned this up. Not only did they insist he said "coons," they played the clip dozens of times in a single segment.

I point out the difference in rules when it comes to racially inflaming people -- CNN embargoes stories that might inflame whites against blacks (or Muslims), but here, they're happy arsonists tossing matches into a can of racial gasoline.

Seriously, watch how many times they play "f***in' coons" (supposedly) here. What is their intent? The guy actually says, "Let's play that like ten times."

And will they now acknowledge that it sounds more like "f***iin' punks"? more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:16 AM | Comments (631)
Post contains 357 words, total size 3 kb.

Two truths, one lie.

First of all, the ratings are so low I didn't even know (or remember) that Rosie had a show on Oprah's network. Or that Oprah even had a network. This should be free content for Allah Pundit, but apparently he forgot too, so these geniuses weren't making many waves in the public ocean.

So, Rosie's failed again.

The Rosie O’Donnell show was supposed to be the magnet that would draw big numbers of viewers to Oprah Winfrey’s OWN cable network — before it ended up a big fat flop.

I added the word "fat" there.

Camp Rosie is, of course, blaming Oprah. That's smart.

Insiders blame the failure of the show on a lack of support from the network, and a lack of experience on the part of WinfreyÂ’s Harpo-based team doing anything other than a show built around Winfrey.

“Initially, we had a lot of support,” says one show insider, who can’t be named because of a confidentiality agreement. “The first week we heard everything went well. But after the premiere week we started to hear less and less from OWN.”

What did you need to hear? "Get higher ratings?" "Put out a good product?" What kind of input were you lacking from the network which then caused your failure?

Did Rosie not know you were supposed to be interesting on television?
Some finger-pointing back.

...

“It was a top-heavy show, and Rosie didn’t really respect all the people from Harpo,” said another show staffer. “Sure, she was difficult, but what talent isn’t? There was a lack of effective management. Oprah was really in the background, letting it all happen.”

Top-heavy. I didn't put that one in there.

But it's not just a failure for Rosie. Oprah's failing too.

Yesterday, the media queen announced a “restructuring” of network operations that eliminates 30 positions, or about 20% of the staff.

What's really sad here is that Oprah was already failing, and bet big on Rosie O'Donnell to save her.

Think about that. Your Last Great Hope is Rosie O'Donnell.

But, at least they're all behaving like professionals.

You know what professionals do? They don't talk to each other in order to show they're displeased about business decisions.

It's becoming the battle of the talk show queens, as Rosie O'Donnell and Oprah Winfrey aren't talking to each other after Ms. O's decision to cancel Ro's talk show on her embattled cable television network, RadarOnline.com is exclusively reporting.

You know what else professionals do? They blame their underlings for their own failures.

As for Rosie ... we're told her opinion of the staff was clear -- The writers couldn't write, the producers couldn't produce, the stage manager couldn't manage, and the director couldn't direct.

...

We're told Rosie's tantrums were predictable and regular. The one word several high level staffers used to describe R.O. is "bully."

The staff seems to think it was Rosie's fault, and they say (collectively) it was the worst experience in TV they've ever had.

This article notes plausible missteps by Oprah. She wouldn't put Rosie on during the daytime, as OWN had no original programs during the day, and I kind of think people just "watch" Rosie while folding clothes. And, to save costs (using shared staff), she had Rosie move from New York to Chicago. Which is a problem, because A-list celebrities don't jump on a plane for Chicago just to go on a low-ratings cable show.

But, of course, the main reason for her failure is that Rosie is a fat loser who fails at everything, as Donald Trump would like you to know.

“Frankly, that was just going to happen,” Trump said Monday morning via phone on "Fox & Friends, after blasting O'Donnell first on Twitter. “I knew it immediately when they announced it. Rosie fails at everything. She had a variety show, it failed. I mean, she — I don’t understand now, somebody else, some moron will come and hire her again to do something else and that will fail.

"At some point, let her rest. Let her go away. SheÂ’ll never make it and IÂ’ve said it for years. SheÂ’ll never make it! She must have a very good agent."

He tweeted:

"Rosie O'Donnell has failed again. Her ratings were abysmal and Oprah cancelled her on Friday night. When will media executives learn that Rosie just hasn't got it."

Never, apparently.

Adam Carolla goofed on her a little bit, here, starting at 1:17:20. Fred Dryer wonders why you'd put someone whose audience doesn't have cable on cable. Carolla also does a bit of Trump impression.

I just couldn't be happier.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:46 AM | Comments (176)
Post contains 834 words, total size 6 kb.

An "obscure nineteenth century" statute, the Anti-Injunction Act, states that a tax-levying bill cannot be challenged until it actually begins levying taxes. As one lawyer puts it, it's a "pay now, litigate later" law. At least as far as taxes.

So there has been worry that the Supreme Court would seize upon this bill in order to punt a decision on ObamaCare until 2014.

But via FoxBusiness, the justices seemed skeptical of its relevance:

The US Supreme Court ended the first of three days of oral arguments on President Barack Obama's health care law Monday, with most justices signaling an obscure nineteenth century law will not stop them from
ruling on its constitutionality later this summer.

I don't put a lot of stock in "signalling" like that, because justices sometimes beat up on the side who they are inclined to agree with -- testing the position they lean towards, seeing if it can stand up to scrutiny. Plus, it might look a lot different in the written briefs.

NPR has a transcript of the discussion, but it's very technical and not what most people think of when they think of Major Theme Constitutional Law. (This is code for "I have no idea about the doctrines they're referencing.")

Here's a snippet where Breyer, who actually sides with the argument on the first hurdle (jurisdiction), nevertheless wonders if the law's provisions about "taxes" apply to ObamaCare, since ObamaCare won't call them "taxes," but instead terms them "penalties."

Just a preview of what we'll be seeing much more of, with a Clown Nose On Clown Nose Off argument as to whether this is a "tax" or nor. It's a "tax" when Obama needs it to be a not a tax when he needs it not to be.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:03 AM | Comments (164)
Post contains 800 words, total size 5 kb.

I know this is a much-promoted idea on the right. Mark Oxner is taking it up -- and running a Spanish-language ad in the heavily (44%, I think) Hispanic new district, noting "progressive" Margaret Sanger's support for abortions to prevent the birth of "wrong" people.

Margaret Sanger was the founder of the American Birth Control League (later renamed Planned Parenthood). She was a progressive and a eugenicist.

According to dictionary.com, eugenics is defined as "the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."

...

Once America saw that the consequences of unbridled eugenics was the Holocaust in the aftermath of World War II, it became unfashionable to support eugenics. Sanger attempted to distance herself from eugenics, but even in this rather sanitized interview with Mike Wallace from 1957, she reveals her dark motivations.

"I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world — that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin — that people can — can commit."

Biting ad. I doubt very much that Grayson anticipated an attack along these lines.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:34 AM | Comments (121)
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.

Who's this son-of-a-bitch working for?

The exchange was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for remarks by the two leaders.

The exchange:

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but itÂ’s important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for youÂ…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

Posted by: Ace at 08:48 AM | Comments (278)
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.

Racial politics sucks. As David Horowitz says:

"Is anybody else out there as sick and tired as I am of lynch mob racists like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (vide: Tawana Brawley, the Duke Lacrosse kids) who don the mantel of the “civil rights” movement to indict non-blacks in advance of the facts, and incite racial rage against them?"

I'm just sick of this kind of story in general. We're dealing with The Narrative here, and it's frustrating and unproductive. There are people who stand to benefit from racial division, and they're all there on this one. Even Obama thinks there is an up-side for him, whether it's diverting the nation's attention from his record, from some other news item, or whether he thinks division and discord somehow help his reelection prospects. Think about it; he's been pushing division at every opportunity, mostly on class lines. What a nasty brand of politics. And it's important to note that the White House has since clarified Obama's comments on this case. Apparently, things aren't working out exactly the way they wanted.

Anyway, CNN did a wonderful job of cleaning up the audio on the Zimmerman 911 call. It is relevant whether Zimmerman uttered a racial slur for a couple of reasons: A slur might open him up to federal jurisdiction on a civil rights rap, and it possibly sheds some light on his Zimmerman's state of mind--on whether he was defending himself or attacking. But. The only problem is, CNN can't seem to hear what is being said, "f***ing punks." Not "f***ing coons." They don't even consider it. Undoubtedly, a lot of people with an axe to grind will perform the same little mental trick.

It's a case of "I choose to hear this and not that." And before you accuse me of doing the same, note that I know a little about audio myself. He puffs the plosive "p" sound distinctly, and the "attack" on that phoneme/sound (the very first part of the sound wave) is very sharp and loud, since it involves pressuring up on the lips and making a popping sound. The "attack" on a "c" sound is softer and not as loud, since it originates further back in the mouth. In addition, the word "punks" has a volume dip in the middle with a distinctly louder "ks" sound at the end--like the sound of a cymbal. "Coons" has a sustained sound; it doesn't drop off. Below this video, I'm adding another video made by an audio guy. It's a little sloppy, but his reasoning is sound, though incomplete, and you can see what I'm talking about in graphic form.

We have some great audio guys who hang out at the blog. Maybe one or more of them will weigh-in and verify what I'm saying and what the guy says in the second video.

Please note that both of these videos involve explicit language. more...

Posted by: rdbrewer at 07:11 AM | Comments (414)
Post contains 631 words, total size 5 kb.

Happy Monday.

It'll be a busy day at the Supreme Court. There will be orders this morning, as well as decisions in at least one case. After that, the high court will have its first day's argument (of three) on Obamacare. Today's 90-minute argument will focus on the question of whether the individual mandate penalty is a tax or not. If it's a tax, the Obamacare lawsuits are untimely and will have to be dismissed until after the penalty has actually been enforced against an individual.

President Obama, speaking with Russian President Medvedev, was caught on an open mic asking for "space" on the issue of missile defense. Obama says he'll have more "flexibility" after the election. Flexibility to stab our allies and the defense industry in the back? Flexibility to stop pretending to be interested in national defense?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:53 AM | Comments (328)
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.