Well.

From Reuters:

The Bama attack showed [Boko Haram's] substantial firepower, including machine guns, large numbers of rocket propelled grenades (RPGs) and pick-up trucks mounted with anti-aircraft guns, a sign the weapons flood from the Libyan war that helped rebels seize parts of Mali last year has reached Nigeria, officials say.

From @rdbrewer4 in the sidebar, this piece on Bill Clinton's claim that only poverty, and not Islamism, animated Boko Haram's savagery.

Mr. Clinton not only stated that poverty was the cause, but that specifically, Islam and religion could not be blamed in any way.

“You have to somehow bring economic opportunity to the people who don’t have it,” Clinton stated. He added, “You have all these political problems — and now violence problems — that appear to be rooted in religious differences and all the rhetoric of the Boko Harams and others. But the truth is the poverty rate in the north is three times of what it is in Lagos."

This psychopathy, like many psychopathy, has several causes. The government of Nigeria has long been accused of being, by turns, corrupt, incompetent, and oppressive. And poverty is a sadly enduring incubator of social pathologies.*

But it is beyond absurd to claim that ideas and ideology have nothing to do with it.

The Left forever claims this when it comes to global jihad -- that it is not the Islamist ideology to blame, but rather "root causes" such as poverty or Western Aggression.

That's a strange thing for anyone on the American Left to claim -- because they vigorously attempt to marginalize, delegitimize, and silence any ideas conflicting with their own.

Why? Well, obviously they fear that ideas have power, and that if people believe ideas contrary to the left's ideas, then the nation will change from what it otherwise would have been. It will turn from the America that could be, as Hillary Clinton would say.

For example, if even one alleged Racist is permitted to own a basketball team, why, that would Normalize racism, mainstream it, suggest that racism is permissible and proper.

Thus, we must ruthlessly stamp out of Racism at the ideological roots or else it will surely bloom into flowers of racist action.

And yet when it comes to Islamism, the American Left engages in endless apologism and bizarre claims that the vicious dehumanization of women and non-Islamists as preached by Islamist priests and inculcated into the youngest of children has nothing at all to do with the horrors that ultimately flow from such ideas.

Nothing. Nothing at all.

If it's true, as the left claims in the case of violent global jihadist Islamism, that ideology is not a powerful motivator of human behavior, why does the Left spend its every moment preaching its political ideology in America, and demonizing those who depart from it?

We have to stand united to kick Donald Sterling out of the NBA for a couple of lines he spoke in private to his mistress, but a thousand clerics preaching hate and murder have no impact on behavior whatsoever?

'Tis very strange, the ideologies the Left deems terrifyingly dangerous and those it deals harmless, blameless, and even quaint.

* Of course, in this case, it could well be that the Muslim-held north is poor precisely because its intense xenophobia causes it to reject the wealth-producing culture of the Western boko it so despises.

Posted by: Ace at 02:56 PM | Comments (187)
Post contains 582 words, total size 4 kb.

I haven't written about this because honestly I continue not to understand it. I read almost the entire order shutting down the investigation (providing injunctive relief telling the progressive prosecutors from five counties to Shut It Down) and I looked up other writers discussing it but I still don't really understand what the prosecutors were doing.

John Ekdahl brought it up on the podcast a few times, and I didn't understand it then, either.

Well, I understand only the vaguest outline of it:

Prosecutors from five, get this, progressive-leaning counties were conducting a never-ending investigation into groups that just happened to support the union-limiting reforms in Wisconsin, based on a flawed reading (or deliberate misreading?) of campaign finance laws, and furthermore demanded that each target of the probe (and there were many) remain absolutely silent about it.

A judge has shut this anti-democratic, thuggish abuse of conservatives down.

The four-year effort by Democratic prosecutors to criminalize political speech in Wisconsin has hit the wall of the U.S. Constitution. In a ruling that could have consequences nationwide, federal judge Rudolph Randa issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday ending the secret John Doe probe of allies of Governor Scott Walker.

We've been telling you for months about the secret Wisconsin John Doe, which operates like a grand jury and forces targets to remain silent. The targets are right-of-center groups disliked by Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, his special prosecutor Francis Schmitz, and the left-leaning state Government Accountability Board that regulates campaign finance...

Prosecutors had justified their dawn raids and harassment in the name of exposing illegal coordination between the Walker campaign and conservative groups. But Judge Randa ruled that the investigation was based on a mistaken reading of campaign-finance law that violated Mr. O'Keefe's First Amendment's rights.

One of the judge's key findings was that the law, supposedly put in place to prevent corruption and the rigging of political contests, cannot be permitted to be used as a club for corruption and the rigging of the political contests.

There's a minor epilogue as Judge Randa's order was technically defective but now he's reissued a correct order.

Update: This 2013 Legal Insurrection post seems to explain some of it.

As I understand it, the main complaint was that prosecutorial resources were being warped for partisan purposes.

As Wisconsin Reporter first revealed, the investigation, launched in early 2012 by the Democrat-led Milwaukee County District AttorneyÂ’s office, aims to prove conservatives illegally coordinated activities in the historic recalls of Gov. Scott Walker and Republican state senators, multiple sources say.

One source with knowledge of the investigation has told Wisconsin Reporter the ultimate goal is to bring down Walker, the bane of Wisconsin liberals.

Conservative targets and others close to Wisconsin’s latest politically charged John Doe contend the probe is nothing more than a “taxpayer-funded, opposition-research campaign.”

“This is not a question of what conservatives did wrong. It’s a question of one party in this state using prosecutorial powers to conduct a one-sided investigation into conservatives,” said one source who spoke on condition of anonymity due to his proximity to the probe.

What is striking is that no liberal organizations appear to be targeted in the John Doe, particularly interesting in light of the tens of millions of dollars pumped into WisconsinÂ’s unprecedented spate of recalls in 2011 and 2012 by union and left-leaning groups.

And it should be noted that these prosecutors were searching for evidence in their probe. One can then wonder why they didn't also think of searching for evidence of illegal coordination among Walker's opponents.

Posted by: Ace at 01:32 PM | Comments (277)
Post contains 621 words, total size 5 kb.

Stunning, if true.

I don't know if it is true. It seems so hard to believe that anyone would be that brazen.

Despite assurances to the contrary, the IRS didn’t destroy all of the donor lists scooped up in its tea party targeting — and a check of those lists reveals that the tax agency audited 10 percent of those donors, much higher than the audit rate for average Americans, House Republicans revealed Wednesday.

...

“The committee uncovered new information indicating that after groups provided the information to the IRS, nearly one in 10 donors were subject to audit,” Rep. Charles W. Boustany Jr., Louisiana Republican and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee’s oversight panel, told IRS Commissioner John Koskinen at a hearing Wednesday.

“The abuse of discretion and audit selection must be identified and stopped,” he said.

Mr. Koskinen didnÂ’t specifically address the accusations during the hearing, and the IRS didnÂ’t respond to a request for comment late Wednesday evening.

Not even a smidgen of corruption.

Posted by: Ace at 12:37 PM | Comments (290)
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.

He begins his question by noting Beck was interested in buying Al Gore's failed network, Current. Al Gore preferred a different suitor -- the Al Jazeera network -- but only if Comcast would agree to keep the network in its channel line-up.

Comcast agreed to swap Current for Al Jazeera, and Al Gore was able to get a huge payday (consisting of oil money) for his massive failure.

Beck didn't get that channel, obviously.

Now Beck is attempting to buy another failed network. He would like, as Al Gore and Al Jazeera wanted, for Comcast to keep this network on its channel line-up, just as they agreed to let Al Jazeera move into the old Current swap without any complications.

Representative Gohmert reads an email to Comcast's lawyer, who is on the Hill, I imagine, to argue in favor of Comcast's intended mega-merger with Time Warner, for which they need government blessing.

The email -- apparently written to Beck's people from the network he seeks to inquire -- states that he (representing the network) wants to sell to Beck, but that Comcast will refuse to allow a channel swap because they want to keep Beck off the air and do not want Beck influencing voter opinions.

The ailing network apparently owes Comcast $20 million (I'm guessing for unpaid subscriber fees or whatever, but I don't know). Beck has agreed to pay those fees to Comcast, so Comcast would get the $20 million owed from the deal.

But for some reason Comcast refuses to do the deal. The lawyer claims that the network is not designated by Comcast to be a "news and commentary" network and ergo Comcast is within its rights to refuse to allow the swap.

There are several layers of bullshit here. The first one is that a company controls its own alleged internal policies -- they make their policies, and they routinely approve deviations from stated policy.

The Comcast lawyer is attempting to claim that Comcast's hands are tied here-- we've got this policy, you see.

But that's bullshit -- unless Comcast can show that it has never deviated from some alleged policy of refusing such variances in the past.

I'd like to see this lawyer grilled on this point: Obviously the Current-for-Al-Jazeera swap was not automatic, and required some kind of variance/permission from Comcast, as the sale was predicated on presecuring Comcast's blessing before the actual sale went through.

So if they permitted a variance there, why not here? A company cannot simply claim "This is our policy" when they often vary their own policy. They cannot claim policy binds them when it does no such thing.

They need to explain why they permitted the Current-for-Al-Jazeera swap, but are now claiming "It's our policyyyyy" when Glenn Beck proposes an unnamed-network-for-Blaze swap.

The "it's our policyyyyyy" dodge is generally dishonest, offered just as a Shut Up answer to someone. If Comcast has ever altered its policies to accommodate any other sale-and-swap in the past, it cannot simply claim "it's our policyyyy" now, as if that binds them absolutely.

They need to explain why in one case they enforce the policy and in another case apparently find there's some wiggle room in it.

Comcast, by the way, owns MSNBC and MSNBC's child corporation, the little-watched alleged entertainment venture NBC.

Incidentally: For those who say this is a "business decision" which cannot be further scrutinized: Well, just about everything about a cable company is a government creation, starting with the local government's awarding of cable rights to the company.

When you're essentially a creature of government, which government grants you what is either a true local monopoly (in many cases) or a oligopoly, you're not entirely free to let your political freak flag fly. As a creature of government, you cannot engage in viewpoint-discrimination that the government itself (which creates you) cannot engage in.

Furthermore, of course, Comcast is now on the Hill asking for government latitude in a merger with anti-trust implications.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:21 AM | Comments (302)
Post contains 720 words, total size 5 kb.

Good question.

When they were slaughtering other children -- boys -- our press and political establishment (but I repeat myself) seemed rather not to care.

This focus on Boko Haram from both the media and the government is an unqualified good. The press arguably increased the pressure on global governments to do something about this backwards group of terrorists. But Boko Haram is not a new phenomenon. It was not long ago that some – including this author – were asking why this group’s atrocities were not generating any attention in the press.

On February 25, between 40 and 59 children were killed by the fundamentalist militant group. Early that morning, Boko Haram terrorists attacked a boarding school and shot many of children, aged 11 to 18, while they slept. Some of the students were gunned down as they attempted to flee. Others had their throats slit. In some buildings, Boko Haram militants locked the doors and set the building alight. The occupants were burned alive.

All of the victims were boys. Reports indicated that the young girls the militants encountered were spared. According to the BBC, the militants told the girls to flee, get married, and shun the western education to which they were privy.

Beyond wire reports and a handful of segments on globally-focused outlets like NPR, this atrocity went unremarked upon in the popular news media.

February 25 was not Boko HaramÂ’s first atrocity. By March, more than 1,000 people had been killed in the countryÂ’s northeast since the first of the year. Prior to Boko HaramÂ’s shift in tactics, from wholesale slaughter of young men to the kidnapping of young women, the group traveled from village to village where they killed children and razed buildings with near impunity.

I would imagine the answer is fairly simple: The boys and other victims were not in The Victim Class. They were usually Christian -- which is officially an Oppressor Class and not a Victim Class at all. Thus the media and political establishment blesses Boko Haram through silence, as you can't victimize an Oppressor.

To even discuss such a thing upsets the principle paradigm through which all global events are viewed: Victim Class righteous, besieged, and to be defended at every step; Oppressor Class evil, privileged, and to be attacked at every turn.

To confess that someone in the Victim Class might actually commit oppressive barbarism, or that someone in the Oppressor Class might be himself victimized, is to undermine the hideously-stupid Narrative the political elites and the press (but I repeat myself) have constructed to control the masses.

The one wrinkle is that it is girls now who are being victimized, and girls are part of the official Victim Class, and ergo, the Narrative is not offended by noticing the actual facts of the world.

Posted by: Ace at 10:33 AM | Comments (262)
Post contains 512 words, total size 3 kb.

And now she fires out furious Tweets about how awful they are.

Reset.

At the time, the sentiment that was expressed by the administration was this was a local grievance and therefore not a threat to the United States or its interests,” he said. “They were saying al Qaeda was on the run and our argument was contrary to that. It has metastasized and it is actually in many ways a growing threat and this is a stark example of that.”

Obama had a plan for dealing with Boko Haram. And that plan was, get this, "social justice" and plenty of it.

The Obama administration has been critical of the military approach of the Jonathan government [Goodluck Jonathan, a Christian of the south, is President of Nigeria-- ace]... in dealing with the insurrection in the predominantly Muslim north.

Washington has advocated a wider economic and social-justice agenda to counter the dogmatic Islamists and increase national loyalty among disaffected northern Nigerians. Jonathan has mostly ignored the advice, [Johnnie Carson, who was assistant secretary of state for Africa until last year] and others said.

But that's okay. They'll hit Boko Haram where it really hurts: On social media directed primarily at giving Obama's bored do-nothing followers a new daytime soap opera to follow.

Every retweet is like a gleaming sword for social justice.

So retweet, Obama Soldiers. Retweet like the wind.

Posted by: Ace at 09:12 AM | Comments (562)
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

Round 1 of the NFL Draft is on ESPN. Start time is 8 pm Eastern.

Predictions of the draft order abound. Here's one at CBS.

Jadeveon Clowney, South Carolina's Defensive End, seems to be the consensus first pick, despite his off-field (and ON-field) antics.

Wildest draft rumor that I heard this morning on Mike & Mike is that Jerruh Jonez is thinking of drafting Manziel. (I gather this rumor may have started with Mike Mayock.)

Seems like as good a reason as any to post this:

more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 03:45 PM | Comments (799)
Post contains 160 words, total size 2 kb.

Owing to the vagaries of a thing we call Life in a place we call Meat Space, today's gardening thread has two topics: "Ain't Got Time" and "Companion Plants." See if you can tell which is which. (I'm not sure I can!)

This thread brought to you by the avocado:

more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 09:03 AM | Comments (122)
Post contains 1407 words, total size 11 kb.

Oh, I forgot to solicit mailbag questions for this week's podcast. Make 'em good.

Open thread.

Edited to add: Er, if you want to send a question for the mailbag, use the link for mailbag questions.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:33 AM | Comments (477)
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

• Hillary Clinton's State Department Refused To Brand Boko Haram As Terrorists
  
• Be Sure To Read CAC's Post From Yesterday If You Haven't Already
  
• How Obama Created A Federal Hunting License For The Far Left
  
• Rubber Boat Goes In The Water, Sharks In The Water..
  
• What Drives Putin
  
• Krystal Not Clear On Orwell
  
• Anti-Common Core Candidates Did Well In Indiana
  
• More Businesses Shutting Down Than Opening Up
  
• D.C. Lobbying Firm To Pay Chevron 15 Million Dollars
  
• Finding The Truth At Benghazi
  
• Obama Laments Money In Politics While Attending A Swank Hollywood Fundraising
  
• Dems Soiling Themselves Over Coming Obama Climate Rags
  
• HGTV Cancels Show Because Of Hosts' View On Homosexuality
  
• Poll Finds One In Five People Would Have Sex With A Robot
  
• Gay New Yorkers Say 'O.K.' To A Chick-Fil-A
  

Follow me on twitter.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 04:50 AM | Comments (230)
Post contains 140 words, total size 3 kb.