June 03, 2009
— DrewM Michele Malkin takes a look at how the media and the President reacted in both cases. As you can imagine, it doesn't speak well for them or the country.
In the headlines, Krakatoa has a story about Abdulhakim Muhammed plans beyond Little Rock.
The man charged with the Arkansas military recruiter shooting might have considered other targets, according to law enforcement officials.A joint FBI-Homeland Security intelligence assessment obtained by The Associated Press said officers found maps to Jewish organizations, a child care center, a Baptist church, a post office and military recruiting centers in the southeastern U.S. and New York and Philadelphia.
"Out of an abundance of caution, and in light of newly discovered information, the FBI cannot rule out additional subjects, targets, or the potential for inspired copy cats who might act out in support of the original act," the intelligence assessment said.
If only there had been an abortion clinic on the list, then maybe the press and Obama would be interested.
Posted by: DrewM at
06:31 AM
| Comments (3)
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.
— DrewM No, no, a thousand times NO.
Now, the flip side is I think that the United States and the West generally, we have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam. And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. And so there's got to be a better dialogue and a better understanding between the two peoples.
As Michael Goldfarb points out at the link, Obama is wrong on the math.
Obama is also wrong if he thinks there's any significant similarities between the Muslim world and the United States. The cultural, legal and political values this country was founded on have nothing to do with Islam,. To say or even intimate otherwise is quite simply a lie or reveals a lack of historical understanding.
America's proud traditions of religious tolerance and freedom allows Muslims to worship in this country as they please. Alas, that is not always a courtesy that is always or even often reciprocated.
Perhaps that's something Mr. Obama should be focusing on in his talk in Cairo tomorrow. That kind of honesty between the US and Muslim nations might be helpful. Each side should be forthright about what it values most. Cheap attempts to curry favor based on nothing but convenient untruths and personal narratives won't serve either side well in the long run.
In related news...
bin Laden (or the an actor playing bin Laden) welcomes Obama to the Mideast.
Obama insists that members of the Egyptian Parliament representing the Muslim Brotherhood be at his speech.
The Brotherhood has direct links with Sunni groups like Hamas in the Palestinian territories. Its standing in Egypt has suffered as of late because of a crackdown by the Egyptian government and a growing frustration that it is too conservative (anti-women's rights, the whole gamut) for a modern Middle East. Still, it's the largest Sunni opposition party in the world, and it's clear that the Obama administration wants to engage the Sunnis -- even the less moderate Sunnis -- in his "Mutual Respect" tour.
And the Israeli Foreign Minister says they aren't going to attack Iran.
The comments marked a softening of signals from Netanyahu's hardline government - particularly coming from Lieberman, one its leading hawks."We do not intend to bomb Iran, and nobody will solve their problems with our hands," Lieberman told reporters. "We don't need that. Israel is a strong country, we can protect ourselves.
"But the world should understand that the Iran's entrance into the nuclear club would prompt a whole arms race, a crazy race of unconventional weaponry across the Mideast that is a threat to the entire world order, a challenge to the whole international community," he said, in Russian. "So we do not want a global problem to be solved with our hands."
I really hope that's a bit of misinformation designed to pressure the US and the rest of the world to do something and not something Israel actually means. The world, including the US has made it pretty clear they have accepted the idea of Iran becoming a nuclear power. If Israel doesn't do something, no one is going to.
Posted by: DrewM at
06:01 AM
| Add Comment
Post contains 570 words, total size 4 kb.
— Gabriel Malor Okay, who're the jokers who voted for Huckabee? I'm revoking your membership.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
04:14 AM
| Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.
June 02, 2009
— DrewM Hey, it's only one of the most important and sacred parts of citizenship. Why should you have to prove who you are to vote?
The Justice Department has rejected Georgia's system of using Social Security numbers and driver's license data to check whether prospective voters are citizens, a process that was a subject of a federal lawsuit in the weeks leading up to November's election.In a letter released on Monday, the Justice Department said the state's voter verification program is frequently inaccurate and has a "discriminatory effect" on minority voters. The decision means Georgia must halt the citizenship checks, although the state can still ask the Justice Department to reconsider, according to the letter and to the Georgia secretary of state's office.
"This flawed system frequently subjects a disproportionate number of African-American, Asian and/or Hispanic voters to additional, and more importantly, erroneous burdens on the right to register to vote," Loretta King, acting assistant attorney general of the Justice Department's civil rights division, said. King's letter was sent to Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker on Friday.
The Supreme Court upheld Indiana's voter ID law last year but Georgia is one of the state's covered by the pre-clearance requirements of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Fortunately, that section is currently under attack in a recently argued case at the Supreme Court (here's hoping Anthony Kennedy's coin lands on the right side!).
So to sum up the current administrations stand on voting rights...New Black Panthers wielding weapons at polling stations, no harm, no foul. Requiring voters to show ID (something you have to do to get into most state and federal buildings to name just two mundane activities)...not allowed.
Good to know.
Added [Gabe]: AP cut this out of its piece, but I think it's just a little important:
Matt Carrothers, a spokesman for Handel, said he could not respond to KingÂ’s contention that minorities were more likely to be flagged because the department would not reveal its methodology.
Uh huh. We're just supposed to take the DOJ's word for it? Most. Transparent. Administration. Evar.
Posted by: DrewM at
07:58 PM
| Comments (6)
Post contains 358 words, total size 3 kb.
— Open Blog According to an article last week in the New York Times Magazine, the latest hot trend in parenting is to leave the kids alone and let them actually be, you knowÂ…kids. This is of course a novel concept for those who read the NYT Magazine (and who knew any of their readers actually had kids anyway?) But ok; weÂ’ll play along
”Perhaps you know it by its other names: helicoptering, smothering mothering, alpha parenting, child-centered parenting. Or maybe there’s a description you’ve coined on your own but kept to yourself: Overly enmeshed parenting? Get-them-into-Harvard -or-bust parenting? My-own-mother-never-breast-fed-me-so-I-am-never-going-to-let-my-kid-out-of-my-sight parenting?”
Then follows lots of yadda-yadda full of self-analysis and over-intellectualizing, as is typical of pretty much any “lifestyle” section article you might find in the NYT or its cohorts. Finally, we get to the nub of things: the backlash, and a return to “roots-parenting” (Or “roots-rock.” All “lifestyle” section articles are pretty much the same…just cut and replace the general topic along with the newest fad regarding same and voila! You’re now a writer for the NYT! Or were. Now please box up everything at your desk within the next 10 minutes and security will see you out.) Oops…got off track again.
”After a decade of earnest immersion in parenting, though, the times are ripe for a change. The first sign was the wave of confessionals — from anonymous Web sites like truumomconfessions.com (where mothers admit to transgressions like feigning stomach cramps to steal quiet time hiding in the bathroom)…”“But in the past few months, a second wave has taken hold — writers are moving past merely venting and are trying to gather the like-minded into a new movement. Carl Honoré is one. He calls it “slow parenting” — no more rushing around physically and metaphorically, no more racing kids from soccer to Suzuki. Lenore Skenazy is another. She calls it “free-range parenting,” a return to the days when childhood was not ruled by the fear (overblown, she says, with statistics to prove it) that children would be maimed, kidnapped or killed if they did something as simple as riding their bikes alone to the park.”
Good Lord! And people need self-help books to tell them this? ThereÂ’s some more obligatory navel-gazing at the end about whether itÂ’s all a good idea, but you sortaÂ’ get the gist of it.
After all those heavy-duty mind-thoughts, what you need now are some nice relaxing photos by Chinese artist Li Wei via Environmental Graffitti, who really really wants you to know that these arenÂ’t Photoshopped.
more...
Posted by: Open Blog at
07:55 PM
| Add Comment
Post contains 462 words, total size 3 kb.
— Ace That's what Drudge's slug says-- but the servers seem overwhelmed and I can't pull up the page.
Here are his slugs:
Bomb threat AIR FRANCE in S America -- Days Before Flight Dissapeared over Atlantic...May 27, 2009: 'The airport safety delayed an AIR FRANCE flight this evening before departring for Paris immediately after the company received a bomb threat over the phone at the airport of Ezeiza [Buenos Aires]'
So, five days ago a plane was threatened, searched, and cleared for flight.
The threat may have been a warning of a future bomb, not a currently-placed one.
Correction: I read the Drudge headlines as meaning the same plane was threatened, but re-reading, that doesn't seem to be the case. Just that Air France was threatened.
Posted by: Ace at
05:58 PM
| Comments (1)
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.
Update: Favorability of Republican Leaders Improves, But LAT Reporter Too Annoyed By Findings to Offer Details
— Gabriel Malor I'm swiping this from Allah because stuff like this worries me. In CNN's monthly poll to see who Republicans are supporting for 2012, Governor Palin, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney are tied at the front of the pack.
The survey suggests that 22 percent of Republicans would most likely support former Arkansas governor and former GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee for their party's presidential nomination in 2012. Twenty-one percent say they would most likely back Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, with an equal number supporting former Massachusetts governor and former White House hopeful Mitt Romney.Taking into account the poll's 4.5 percent sampling error, Huckabee, Palin and Romney seem to be locked in a hypothetical dead heat.
The poll indicates that 13 percent of Republicans would back former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in 2012, with 6 percent supporting former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. Ten percent of those questioned say they would most likely back someone else.
They obviously didn't poll the Powerline Blog guys or Tim Pawlenty would be named. You guys didn't get the poll either or I'm sure Dick Cheney would be named. The fact that the economically illiterate populist Certain Fuckin' Doomabee is neck and neck with Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin just shows that some folks don't give a damn about getting us out of the Great Recession or keeping the government's hands out of our pockets.
I'm betting that the HQ trends strongly in favor of Governor Palin. Of course, we really are too far out to even know. At about this time in 1996, Bush 43 wasn't even on the national stage yet.
Oh, what the hell, tell me what you really think: Below the fold, I've added a poll of what I think are the top contenders at the moment. No, Dick Cheney isn't on it because I know you folks will vote for no one else. Unless Liz is on it, so I didn't add her either.
More Findings [ace]: This poll also finds that unfavorability ratings of well-known Republicans (such as Cheney and Limbaugh) have dropped, and their favorability ratings have risen. "Some significantly," the article says, but offers no further details.
Americans now are thinking more favorably of Bush, Cheney, McCain, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and someone named Rush Limbaugh. Their favorable numbers are all up, some significantly.Their unfavorable ratings have all dropped, some significantly.
Boy, I sure would like those numbers mentioned. But the writer seems too annoyed by these findings to offer details. He mostly snarks off.
The one detail he offers is that Sarah Palin's numbers haven't improved.
The only Republican polled who did not advance in popularity was Alaska's Gov. Sarah Palin. Her unfavorables stayed constant at 43%. But her favorable rating slipped slightly from 49% right after the Nov. 4 election to 46% today.
Odd that he gave details on the one Republican big losing (slight) ground.
And skipped the details on the unexpected news of increasing Republican favorability.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
05:04 PM
| Add Comment
Post contains 582 words, total size 4 kb.
— Ace Smear!
You're not allowed to say this. Or, rather, you weren't allowed to say this before the election.
During a conference call in preparation for President Obama’s trip to Cairo, Egypt, where he will address the Muslim world, deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Denis McDonough said “the President himself experienced Islam on three continents before he was able to — or before he’s been able to visit, really, the heart of the Islamic world — you know, growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim father — obviously Muslim Americans (are) a key part of Illinois and Chicago.”…Since the election, however, with the threat of the rumors at least somewhat abated, the White House has been increasingly forthcoming about the president’s roots. Especially when reaching out to the Muslim world.
In his April 6 address to the Turkish Parliament, President Obama referenced how many “Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim majority country. I know, because I am one of them.”
Jake Tapper's report includes a brief history of the Obama campaign's determination to brand anyone suggesting Obama might have Muslim roots a hate-filled liar.
Turns out, it just depends on how you say it. If you say it in a good way, it's true.
Posted by: Ace at
03:16 PM
| Comments (32)
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.
— Ace Really? Another radical Christian, perhaps, like the much-discussed murderer of George Tiller?
Nope. Try again.
"A Conspiracy of Euphemism"The eight a.m. NPR news update today included word of the fatal shooting of one soldier and the wounding of another outside an army recruiting station in Arkansas. The news reader, Nora Raum, outlined the incident and stated that the shooting appeared to have "religious motivations." She did not name the suspect, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, or tell NPR listeners what those religious motivations might be. In other words, it could have been a radical Unitarian who gunned down the soldiers, or possibly a violent Presbyterian.
Why the shyness? Why not tell people what is actually happening in the world?
Because the news media is in the business of telling people what is happening in the world in much the same way that MTV is still in the business of playing music videos.
Although it was pointed out earlier, compare Sarah Palin's and Barack Obama's statements on the terrorist murder of William Long.
I suppose Sarah Palin is to be faulted for her long-windedness. Barack Obama so concisely expresses his feelings on the matter. A rara avis, this one.
Posted by: Ace at
03:05 PM
| Comments (14)
Post contains 215 words, total size 2 kb.
— Ace ABCNews was on this story before the election, but predictably chose to spike it.
Richard Wolffe has new book, "Renegade: The Making of a President" and talked to Inside Edition saying:*“until recently, there were more downs than ups.”
*“He [the President] has been open about this. That he [the President] says there was little romance [in the marriage]. There was lots of tension.”
*Michelle felt that Obama was "being selfish" during the 2000 campaign, Obama thought she was "being cold."
*People were worried about their marriage, Wolffe says, but now things appear to be “much better.”
It looks like Wolffe is talking around the big scandalous rumor rather than directly addressing it.
Thanks to MayBee.
Posted by: Ace at
01:53 PM
| Comments (7)
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.
44 queries taking 0.3482 seconds, 151 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
