Interesting.

I would have thought the opposite. I would, for example, look at the rather meager innovations and breakthroughs produced in the Muslim world, compare them to our own, and think that perhaps Liberty of Mind produces some good effects.

But no, says the amateur webzine Slate.

The World DoesnÂ’t Love the First Amendment

The vile anti-Muslim video shows that the U.S. overvalues free speech.

[A]mericans need to learn that the rest of the world—and not just Muslims—see no sense in the First Amendment. Even other Western nations take a more circumspect position on freedom of expression than we do, realizing that often free speech must yield to other values and the need for order. Our own history suggests that they might have a point.

...

The First Amendment earned its sacred status only in the 1960s, and then only among liberals and the left, who cheered when the courts ruled that government could not suppress the speech of dissenters, critics, scandalous artistic types, and even pornographers...

He notes liberals cheerleaded the First Amendment then. But even as conservatives embraced it...

Meanwhile, some liberals began to have second thoughts. They supported enactment of hate-crime laws that raised criminal penalties for people who commit crimes against minorities because of racist or other invidious motives. They agreed that hate speech directed at women in the workplace could be the basis of sexual harassment claims against employers as well. However, the old First Amendment victories in the Supreme Court continued to play an important role in progressive mythology. For the left, the amendment today is like a dear old uncle who enacted heroic deeds in his youth but on occasion says embarrassing things about taboo subjects in his decline.

This proves that liberals are hypocritical on sacred rights and will abandon them in a moment to push the rest of the progressive agenda. So? We should reward them for their betrayal of liberty?

Apparently so. Actually, this article is a jumble of nothing -- it's hard to extract meaning from it-- but the writer wants us to know the First Amendment is just a compromise like any other, and can and should be changed as current mores the progressive agenda and Obama's reelection require.

While the headline is forward leaning-- link-bait, I guess -- he then seems to lose the courage to state we must scrap the First Amendment.

He passive-aggressively hints at that, though.

I think he's a confused individual defending the indefensible in an effort to draw attention to himself.

Posted by: Ace at 02:19 PM | Comments (256)
Post contains 453 words, total size 3 kb.

As the media makes Romney's airplane-window joke a serious attack on him -- and, by the way, it was a joke--

"Basically he was retelling the story and when he said ‘I don’t know why they don’t have roll down windows on airplanes,’ he looked at the audience and everyone laughed,” Everitt told TheBlaze. “It was a clearly delivered joke … There were 1,000 people there that will tell you the same thing.”

...let us cast our minds back to 2008, when Obama learned that sometimes movies fake things that are impossible to film.

He did express curiosity about the filming of a chase scene in “North by Northwest,” Alfred Hitchcock’s 1959 classic starring Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint that included a death-defying scramble over Rushmore’s presidential faces.

“How did they get up there in the first place?” he asked ranger Wesley Jensen.

“They didn’t. It was a movie set,” Jensen told him.

“Pretty spiffy, isn’t it,” said the Illinois senator, summing up his overall impressions.

Didn't seem to be a joke.

Posted by: Ace at 01:40 PM | Comments (215)
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.

Links at Instapundit.

Remember, a central promise Obama made was that his "reforms" would "bend the cost curve downward" and reduce rates.

As rates go up, he's fast to tell people "Yes, but your health care is now more comprehensive, thanks to me, thanks to ObamaCare insisting that all policies pay for these extras."

But bear in mind one of the reasons he claims insurance is so expensive is over-utilization. People getting unnecessary tests. Limb-hunting doctors performing unnecessary amputations.

Over-utilization is something that happens when a good or service is free, as the usual discipline that cost imposes is removed.

He's removed the discipline of cost from a large number of transactions. For example, once upon a time in America, women (and men) used to go to Wal*Mart and pay $6 for their month's supply of contraception.

Not any longer. Now it's all free.

And that same principle applies to all of the mandates he's imposed on insurance.

How is making everything free supposed to reduce over-utilization?

No one knows.

No one in the media asks.

Oh, there is of course one "bend the curve" reform in ObamaCare: rationing by bureaucrats, who will decide if you have enough Useful Years left on your ticker to justify necessary operations.

But he doesn't want to talk about that one. And neither does the Palace Guard Media.

Posted by: Ace at 12:51 PM | Comments (246)
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

I know this is another meaningless Hollywood story, but I despise Matt Lauer, and and this gladdens my heart.

NBC's $25million man may be forced to take a dramatic cut in pay if the Today show viewership continues to fall.

Plagued by plummeting ratings and a declining personal favorability, Matt Lauer may be asked to sacrifice his huge NBC paycheck if the Today show's situation doesn't improve.

The morning show is taking a major hit in viewership following the tearful departure of former co-host Ann Curry in June.

The network is now reportedly examining whether Lauer is worth what he's being paid.

A source close to the situation told Radar Online: 'Matt Lauer will be asked to take a significant cut in his $25million salary if TODAY doesn't win the key November sweeps.'

I don't know who Ann Curry is but I figure I would despise her, too, if I did. But apparently viewers think that Matt Lauer was behind her firing. Reportedly, Ann Curry thinks that. At least she's reported to think he "threw her under the bus."

Matt Lauer is meanwhile behaving like a dick. Allegedly.

Preliminary ratings reveal that “GMA” is primed to win a third consecutive week against once-dominant “Today,” and such numbers, sources say, are driving Matt mad.

“He has gone so crazy about ratings that staff on ‘Today’ are not even allowed to mention ‘GMA’ to him,” a source says. “In the past, they’d discuss great segments other shows do. Matt’s berating the staff, telling them to work harder.”

Another insider says, “Matt’s telling the staff they don’t work hard enough, which is hard to take from a guy working four days a week, making millions.”

How bad is it? It's so bad that they're adding an idiot from Morning Joe, Willie Geist, into the cohost rotation to "spice things up."

more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:22 PM | Comments (199)
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.

Video below. Obviously, content warning for F-bombs, Madonna.

She offers a strange and dark message about unknown persons killing "all of our prophets" -- Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr. -- "as they do." Is she equating voting against Obama with assassinating him?

Having said this, she says "We have a Black Muslim in the White House."

Then she makes this promise-slash-threat:

Later in the show, Madonna took off her shirt and pulled down her pants to show she had “OBAMA” written in all capital letters across her lower back.

“When Obama is in the White House for a second term I'll take it all off,” she said to cheers and whistles from the audience.

She then began singing a slow, seductive version of “Like a Virgin” while rolling around on a piano top.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:52 AM | Comments (341)
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.

!!!

Isn't the corollary to that, "The future must belong to those who respect Islam"?

Perhaps even belong to Islam itself?

How far are we going to take this, exactly?

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shia pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies. That’s the vision we will support.

Interesting that he sees an equivalence between "slandering" Mohammad and actual violence and mayhem.

The Islamist radicals agree. Obama is adding his voice to that bloody choir -- that "slandering" the prophet is precisely equal to murder and mayhem. Rather than challenging that mindset -- that free speech about a man who's been dead for 800 years is the equivalent of violence and bloody riot -- he endorses it.

So it's just a case of "We started it," isn't it?

By the way, after his eulogy to Chris Stevens, he then went right to the YouTube video, suggesting, once again, that it's all about the video.

Posted by: Ace at 10:59 AM | Comments (443)
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.

When I first heard this, I thought bullshit. And the reason was simple: The Obama Administration was lying left and right to cover up the fact that they had dropped the ball in Benghazi and this had resulted in the murders of four men.

Given the furious spinning, I found it very suspicious that yet another avenue of spin suddenly emerged -- Blame Bush.

Turns out, it was bullshit. From start to finish. But they got that meme out there, didn't they?

Don't expect the retraction to be reported.

At Foreign Policy’s The Cable, Josh Rogin provides an update on reports connecting a former Guantanamo detainee named Sufyan Ben Qumu to the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Rep. Adam Smith, the Democrats’ ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee, said today that there is “no evidence” that Qumu was “directly involved.” After a classified briefing on September 21, Smith labeled Qumu a “person of interest” in the consulate attack.

“All I meant was that the person I mentioned has known al Qaeda affiliations and was in Libya. And really, that's it,” Smith said during a conference call with the “left-leaning National Security Network,” according to Rogin. “Whether or not he was directly involved with the people engaged in the attack, there's no evidence of that.”

It's still possible that Qumu was somehow involved in the attack -- he is in Libya, he is a bad actor, and he does lead one of the several groups called "Ansar al Sharia," one of which might be responsible for the attack.

Nevertheless: Without any evidence except for a Democratic Representative telling a left-leaning group on a conference call that This Guy Lives In Libya, we got several days' worth of "Blame Bush" from the press.

Blame the video, blame Bush. Anything it takes to provide a Narrative different from the obvious one, to wit: Why did a consulate in an Al Qaeda town have absolutely no security whatsoever?

Posted by: Ace at 09:55 AM | Comments (202)
Post contains 379 words, total size 2 kb.

Above the Post Update: Football fans don't like incompetence, except when it comes to something trivial like the presidency.

"And you know what, it reminds me of President Obama and the economy," he contended. "If you can’t get it right, it is time to get out. I half think these refs work part-time for the Obama administration in the Budget Office. They see the national debt clock staring them in the face. They see a debt crisis, and they just ignore and pretend it didn’t even happen. They are trying to pick the winners and losers, and they don’t even do that very well.”

...

Beyond the rules, which I'll discuss in a second, there's something else going on.

The replacement refs have been causing fans consternation since the season began. But this weekend, the situation became something like a national furor.

Events are conspiring to make the replacement refs look bad. For example, this game-ending "field goal" -- or was it? It sort of doesn't look like a field goal to me, but then I'm not sure what the rule is for kicking over the post.

But that's a close call-- I think it's a wrong call. But events have conspired to give the replacement refs a tough call in a game-determining situation.

Then came last night's call. Another hard call. Another hard call I think they got wrong -- but note again how these replacement refs are sort of having the whole range of difficult, game-ending calls thrown at them.

So suddenly the regular refs -- previously despised -- are super-popular. But are we really certain the regular refs would have gotten these two calls right?

Anyway, the NFL now knows it cannot continue with the replacement refs. Their bargaining technique -- locking out the regular refs, replacing them, in order to force a labor settlement they preferred -- is doomed. Within a week or two they'll make that official.

The Regular Refs now know they have the whip-hand. They know that popular outrcy is going to wind up giving them almost everything they want. Who knows, they might even make fresh demands (or more forcibly demand older ones they'd soft-pedaled).

The NFL knows this, too. So this is brave-face stuff for the negotiations. The NFL is pretending they're perfectly happy with the replacement refs and would like to see them continue officiating. So suck on that, Old Refs.

But it's not true. It's getting embarrassing and they know their situation is untenable. They cannot risk fan interest in the league over a small-beans dispute with the refs.

So they're going to bluster about how the refs are getting it all right, but this is just a bluff for the final negotiations.

Meanwhile, having checked the rules and the NFL's statement, I'm not sure the interception-ruled-a-touchdown was a clear-cut a call as I first thought. The rules say that a catch by a jumping player is not completed until he touches down to the ground; that being the case, that means the offensive player has that time open to him to establish a simultaneous catch.

Still seems wrong to me, but it's a little more defensible. I guess.

Less defensible are all the horrific errors we're not talking about -- leaving a K-ball on the field for the offense to use (they're slippery as hell, and not supposed to be used, except for kicking), counting off penalties from the wrong yard line, giving coaches extra time-outs and challenges just because they ask for them, etc.

If the NFL Really Wants to Hold Out... They must pass an emergency rule granting coaches more challenges, and actually give these dumbass Replacement Refs the power to call their own video replay reviews on a lot more calls, including calls not typically reviewable (all these ludicrous pass interferences, both not called (but which clearly happened) and called (but which clearly did not happen).

And then they have to hire retired pro refs to man the replay booths.

They have to suspend the old rule that the games will be officiated primarily from the field. No, given these problems, they're going to have to shift to much more replay.

The games will last four and a half hours, but at least they won't be random follies.

Posted by: Ace at 09:20 AM | Comments (315)
Post contains 751 words, total size 5 kb.

Jim Geraghty digests the article so that you don't have to read it. Overall:

It never quite comes out and explicitly says the presidentÂ’s approach has failed, but the overall picture is withering and bleak.

Among his failings is his inability to even pretend some kind of personal relationship with foreign leaders, which apparently is a Big Thing in the Arab world. And:

Perhaps most significantly, “Months later, administration officials said, Mr. Obama expressed regret about his muted stance on Iran.”

Let’s set the wayback machine to June 16, 2009: “President Obama said Tuesday that it would be counterproductive for the United States “to be seen as meddling” in the disputed Iranian presidential election, dismissing criticism from several leading Republicans that he has failed to speak out forcefully enough on behalf of the Iranian opposition.”

So the Republican critics were right, and President Obama was wrong. Now he sees it.

Obama 2012: Because he now realizes where he botched his Iran policy early on!

If Romney doesn't hit Obama on this admission in the foreign policy debate, I'll hang myself.

Posted by: Ace at 08:18 AM | Comments (310)
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

Apparently we've solved all serious problems. We can now turn our focus to the lesser problems, like fat kids.

And, because we don't want to make fat kids feel fat, we'll put everyone on a restricted-calorie diet.

Our Professional Deciders have decided that the dietary requirements of an athlete or morning farm-worker are exactly the same as a sedentary overweight kid who needs fewer calories.

Some Kansas students and at least one political leader say new school lunch guidelines aimed at limiting calories and encouraging good nutrition are having an unintended consequence:

Hungry kids.

But that's not an unintended consequence. It's an intended one. A fair percentage of kids are overweight and need to diet (though restricted-calorie diets aren't the way to go). But the government, being of a One Size Fits All mindset, mandates the restricted-calorie diet for people who plainly do not need to diet (active students, athletes) and wonders why so many are complaining.

Even as far as addressing the overweight kids -- the intended consequence is hunger. Why do they imagine restricted-calorie diets are so unpopular?

It's the hunger, stupid.

...

The new guidelines — the first major overhaul of school meals in 15 years — also require cafeterias to serve less fat and sodium and more fruits, vegetables and whole grains.

...

The lunch included one cheese-stuffed bread stick, a small dollop of marinara sauce, three apple slices and some raw spinach. Kirkham supplemented the lunch with items from a salad bar, including cubes of ham, bacon bits and dressing, which were available only to teachers.

“I asked why the sauce had no meat and I was informed that due to the breadsticks containing cheese, the meat would put us over the guidelines for protein,” Kirkham wrote.

“Now think of a high school boy who works out at least three hours a day, not including farm work. … I’m furious. The ‘cheese’ inside the breadstick is approximately three bites. This is ridiculous.”

This being McClatchy, though, they go on to talk up how many people like being hungry. If I could offer my own spin -- it gives students a sense of focus (on survival functions).

The USDA now recommends packing "healthy snacks" for kids. So what is the point here? They enact a restricted-calorie diet for all students, 75% of whom don't need it, and then suggest that parents send along more calories if they think their kids need it?

Then what is the point of denying hungry kids an extra portion? The system is set up for full compliance (no exceptions!) in order to make sure the fat kids aren't cheating. But this One Size Fits All approach doesn't work for everyone, so they tell people "Eat more if you need to."

So, if there's an element of students (and their parents) making individually-tailored diet decisions here, why impose the blanket calorie-restricted diet on everyone?

There's an easy way out of this, of course. They could just permit extra portions to any athletes or anyone whose parents sign a form stating they work in the morning and need extra calories.

This is obvious, of course. But they don't do it because One Size Fits All. It's a religious mantra. Can't treat different students differently, you know. Even when the students have different circumstances and different caloric needs.

If they're confessing their restricted-calorie state-imposed universal menu isn't universal -- if they're confessing that there is a strong element of personal/parental responsibility for diet decisions here -- then... why are they doing this?

A viral video, apparently written by a teacher and performed by a 16 year old football athlete, is parodying the program:
more...

Posted by: Ace at 07:42 AM | Comments (406)
Post contains 657 words, total size 4 kb.