The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Thugland, USA: Baseball Fan Brutally Attacked Outside Dodger Stadium

Posted on | April 5, 2011 | 3 Comments

A 42-year-old paramedic is hospitalized with critical head injuries after he was savagely stomped in the parking lot while leaving a Dodgers-Giants game last week. The injured man, a father of two young children, is a Giants fan and the Los Angeles Times depicts this atrocity as a sports-rivalry-gone-wrong. But Southern California blogger Donald Douglas headlines it differently:

Hispanics Suspected in Savage Beating
of Giants Fan at Dodgers’ Opening Day

That headline elicited raised eyebrows from Doug Mataconis, who asked on Twitter: “Why is it relevant what race they are?” While I suppose Dr. Douglas can explain this himself, let me suggest two possibilities:

  1. Perhaps Dr. Douglas has attended Dodgers games and had direct experience with such rowdies.
  2. There is a $50,000 reward for the suspects, who are still at large, and yet the media reports give no indication of the ethnicity of the suspects, although that information might be helpful in terms of identifying them.

So if political correctness forbids the L.A.-area media from mentioning that the suspects are Hispanic, could this be part of the problem? There were 72 arrests reported at Opening Day at Dodger Stadium and if it is the case (as Dr. Douglas seems to suggest) that Hispanics are disproportionately represented among the troublemakers, why the fearful need to tiptoe around that fact?

But ask yourself this: What if a black fan had been beaten half to death by two white men outside Dodger Stadium? Would a potential ethnic factor in such a crime be ignored or dismissed by the media?

Furthermore, given the fact that Los Angeles is about a three-hour drive from the Mexican border, and that Hispanic criminals in Southern California sometimes flee to Mexico, wouldn’t such a crime tend to highlight certain public-safety aspects of U.S. immigration policy?

All of this, you understand, is posited hypothetically, because it is impossible to know from the media accounts whether the suspects were Hispanic or not. However, Dr. Douglas says: “Don’t be surprised if we find out that the suspects are MS-13 operatives.” And we do have this description:

The attackers are believed to be between the ages of 18-25 and have shaved heads and thin mustaches.
One had a goatee, and the other had tattoos on his neck.

The “tattoos on his neck” description might indeed indicate gang affiliation, or these two might just be a couple of young baseball fans who got too drunk during the game. But if it weren’t for the MSM’s long, sad history of politcally correctness, perhaps Dr. Douglas would not need to be so suspicious. And if he is proven right, it will be the media coverage — and not his suspicions — which require an explanation.

Category: American Power, California, Crime, Racism, Sports

In Defense of Conor Friedersdorf

Posted on | April 5, 2011 | 3 Comments

by Smitty

Let the Tweet tell the tale of his rebuttal of Stacy McCain:

That Conor:

His nouns are bold,
his verbs uncanny.
Admit he’s the king of prose,
or he’ll whip your fanny! 

At least Conor is using TweetDeck. Stacy.
Now, since the lone novembered one (for you phonetic alphabet junkies) thinks that he’s the opposite of lite, he must be a Martin Mull fan, as in the old Michelob Dark beer campaign “Don’t be afraid of the dark,” none of which fine efforts have made it to YouTube, alas.
So, instead of a Martin Mull YouTube clip, we’ll settle for the bottom of the keg. It’s something we’ve over two years of experience with, after all:
And speaking of the POTUS and Twitter, you should avail yourself of the epic #Obama2012Slogans hash tag, where it seems the entire Twitter-enabled conserv-o-verse is workin’ hard, tryin’ to be helpy helper persons, and help OediPOTUS Wrecks to macerate matriculate another four inglorious years!

Also, The Lonely Conservative has a caption contest underway.  Mine is the sixth entry.  Heh.

Category: Barack Obama, Blogging, Dan Riehl

Isn’t It Cute When Progressives Pause From Raping The Poor Long Enough To Express Concern About Them?

Posted on | April 5, 2011 | 9 Comments

by Smitty

Alan Colmes triggers the laugh track as he suddenly remembers that when Republicans speak, it’s time to remember the little guy.

Ryan’s plan will also propose tax reforms that lower corporate and upper-income tax rates, while eliminating certain loopholes. The details of that part of his plan are unclear, but if they adhere to his Roadmap for America’s Future, the GOP budget will propose to overhaul the tax code in a way that reduces the burden on the wealthy and increases it on the poor and middle classes.

Come on, Colmes. American Glob has a chart of the national debt that is almost a cross-section of a hypodermic needle. Progressivism has been all about eating our seed corn for decades.
Now we’ve got somebody who is packing the gear to propose real ideas,
and all these feckless Progressives can do is bleat like the sheep they’ve been shearing for decades. Time to double down, ye patriots. Liberty and self-interest will be the incoming tide that lifts all boats. Don’t let these social safety net pretensions dissuade you from supporting leaders who do the Right Thing.
A great related post title at Protein Wisdom.

Update: Linked at That Mr. G. Guy.

Update II: Linked at POWIP.

Category: Budget, Paul Ryan

‘Etch-a-Sketch’ Estimate of Libya War Costs: $40 Million Per Month? More?

Posted on | April 5, 2011 | 6 Comments

Spencer Ackerman smashes the Obama administration’s Libya policy through a plate-glass window:

How much will the Libya war cost America, now that NATO jets are hitting Moammar Gadhafi’s forces? Good luck figuring out an answer.
Michael Donley, the secretary of the Air Force, leveled with reporters that the cost estimates for the war are coming “by the hour” now that U.S. “participation in strike operations has now gone away.”  . . .
Donley’s best estimate, given to reporters at a breakfast meeting on Tuesday, was that the war has cost the Air Force about $75 million so far, with expenses running to $4 million a day. . . .
By contrast, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Congress last week that without a U.S. combat role in the Libya war, he expects the bill to run to $40 million per month. That doesn’t exactly match the Air Force’s tally. By Donley’s figures, if the Air Force slashed its costs for the war in half, it would still exceed Gates’ totals — and that’s not counting the Navy’s contribution.
None of this confusion should come as a surprise. The Libya war was launched on the fly and its goals are uncertain. No wonder the war bill is written with an Etch-a-Sketch.

Keeping in mind the inherent difficulty of criticizing Obama’s Libya policy — exactly what is the policy, anyway? — I’m willing to credit Ackerman for at least being consistent in his anti-war stance. If the Benghazi Bungle has accomplished nothing else useful, it might be worth $4 million a day to slap some sense into Obama’s sycophants.

(BTW, if you didn’t get the “plate-glass window” reference: That was Ackerman’s colorful description for a strategy to defend Obama during the Reverend Wright uproar, as shared with his fellow liberals on JournoList.)

Smitty asks: does this famous estimate resemble a ‘Salvador Dali print of two blindfolded dental hygienists trying to make a circle’? Because that would make it at least kinda cool.

Category: Barack Obama, Libya

More On Lindsey Graham (Don’t Speak Those Four Words Too Quickly)

Posted on | April 5, 2011 | 31 Comments

by Smitty

Gateway Pundit stands at the brink of a pit and peers over at a US Senator ignoring the First Rule of Holes. It wouldn’t be so bad if Graham wasn’t in an elected office.
Like a flag burner or torcher of anyone’s scripture, Graham should be allowed to make a colossal ass of himself it it makes him happy. Unlike the first two flavors of fool, Graham is in a position to abet the scuttling of liberty via legislation.
In a Twitter conversation with Jimmie Bise a few hours back, it occurred to me that the argument about idiotic actions like flag burning and scripture torching has three dimensions:

  1. Theological–how you feel about your personal, subjective understanding of the Almighty.
  2. Political–how behavior is regulated amongst men through a State.
  3. Practical–how the subjective behavior of others plays into the discussion.

Feel free to accuse me over over-thinking the problem. Every problem has its intrinsic complexity. Oversimplification is as unhelpful as obfuscation. Let me grade Terry Jones in the three categories above.
Theologically, for Nicene Creed values of Christianity, I don’t think the guy has a leg to stand on. Show me, in the Gospels, where Jesus went further than verbal mention of Baal or Mammon. However, it’s not clear where Jone is on the traditional Christian creed.
Politically, you’re either for liberty, or not. Even when actions of that liberty are repugnant. Permitting the government to regulate stupid is, itself, un-bright. I will criticize Jones’ actions as moronic even while defending his right to undertake them.
Practically, the causal relationship argument that person B‘s moronic reaction to the actions of A can be turned into an indictment of A is an excellent litmus test. Maybe there is an exception, but I thought that in general A is responsible for A and B for B, at least among mentally competent adults. So to go connecting A to B, and saying the government should manage those connections, is about the dumbest pile of hooey imaginable. The government can’t balance its godforsaken books, and Senator Graham thinks it can handle some book burning?
Just retire, Senator Graham. You’ve identified yourself as a clueless. Your non-grasp of what the First Amendment is trying to do seems to permeate the policies you support. You seem to care about freedom of speech as much as you care about the integrity of the borders.
Terry Jones, your grasp of Christianity seems dodgy. We all need to repent more, sir. The Beatitudes states “Blessed are the peacemakers”, not pacemakers, though, by your actions, your prescription may require renewal.

Category: Gateway Pundit, Jimmie Bise Jr.

Ivy League Administration Reacts Quickly to Ivy League Sexual Harassment Charges

Posted on | April 5, 2011 | 13 Comments

“Because the budget is so last week,” Wombat snarked in sharing the headline this morning:

White House targets sexual assault on campus

Wombat and other readers can be forgiven for wondering why this issue suddenly popped to the top of the administration’s agenda. But then again, we can’t afford to send our kids to Yale University and don’t usually read the New York Times, which reported last week:

A group of 16 people who filed a Title IX complaint against Yale University last month said on Thursday that the federal Department of Education had launched an investigation to review Yale’s policies for dealing with sexual harassment and assault cases.
The group, which includes current and former students, noted an episode in October when they said members of the fraternity Delta Kappa Epsilon marched around chanting misogynistic and sexually derogatory slogans.
On Thursday, the group said the school’s “inadequate response” failed to eliminate a “hostile sexual environment on campus,” which violated the federal gender-equity law Title IX.

See? Our nation’s elite do not spend $49,800 a year to send their daughters to a world-class university with the expectation that their girls will hear crude chants from the Dekes. Read more

Category: Education, Scandal, Sex

Arguments To Spike The Heart Of The Entitlement Vampire

Posted on | April 5, 2011 | 8 Comments

by Smitty

The mighty Veronique de Rugy posts about some horrid DCCC work against Ryan, and ends with:

Now, how can we make people understand that entitlement programs are not an entitlement? How do we reach out to them? 

Here are a few thoughts of mine:

  • The Math: they are a ponzi scheme. The demographics fail. Too many women too cool for motherhood, too many men confused about their wedding tackle.
  • The Experiment: the American experiment allows for leaders like FDR to try things, but wise people do not deny The Math. It is time to do something different.
  • The Constitution: the entitlements were never a federal task, and we should disabuse ourselves of this 10th Amendment violation posthaste. The argument that states cannot fund entitlements is only admission of deeper problems.
  • The News: point out how detrimental entitlements are the world over.
  • The Pride: point out that entitlements are velvet handcuffs that revert adults into whimpering babes.
  • The Practical: as Insty has famously observed, “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people telling me it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis.” How do conservatives do that? I would say that some organization like Cato or Heritage or FreedomWorks (or a joint project of all of the above) set up a non-profit specifically targeting entitlements, where entitlement recipients can just contribute their monthly checks, or a portion, and younger folks can pledge to do so. The proceeds could then be used to advertise against federal entitlements, fund research into transition options off the entitlement crack, and maybe even push an anti-entitlement candidate or two.  The head ‘splosions on the Left when common people reject their Progressive State of America overlords promises to be delicious.  Alternately, the country may be too far gone and need to be scuttled, but I can’t get my mind around that possibility as more than theoretical.

I think this last argument is the strongest: it’s all so much talk until you pony up the frogskins.
No sane young people I know expect to rely even slightly on Social Security.
Overall, the struggle is going to be long and arduous and require a blend of arguments.

Linked by That Mr. G Guy.
Also, marfdrat, at the end of a post addressing Rep. Ryan’s excellent ideas.
A third: Subterranean Defender of Liberty.
A fourth: Political Junkie Mom.

Category: Progressivism

Eric Holder Blames Congress for Blocking Trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Posted on | April 5, 2011 | 8 Comments

Even when they do the right thing, the Obama administration refuses to take responsibility:

The Obama administration Monday abandoned its effort to put Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other alleged plotters of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on trial in civilian courts, saying the accused terrorists will instead face military trials at Guantanamo Bay, in the prison President Barack Obama had promised would be closed more than a year ago.
The move, announced by Attorney General Eric Holder on the same day that Mr. Obama formally launched his bid for re-election, marked a significant reversal . . .
Mr. Holder blamed politics for the continued delay in bringing the defendants to justice.
“We were prepared to bring a powerful case against the 9/11 defendants in federal court,” he said, visibly frustrated and striking a defiant tone. “Unfortunately, members of Congress have intervened and imposed restrictions blocking the administration from bringing any Guantanamo detainees to trial in the United States.”

Daily Kos accuses Obama of “caving to fearmongers.” (Let’s hear it for fearmongers!) In an editorial, the New York Times condemns the move: “That retreat was a victory for Congressional pandering and an embarrassment for the Obama administration, which failed to stand up to it.” (Let’s hear it for pandering!)

The ACLU slams Obama for having “abandoned one of his major promises from 2008.” (Liberals have recently begun noticing this about a lot of Obama’s campaign promises.)

In his official statement, Holder accused his critics of using the KSM case for “settling ideological arguments or scoring political points.” Which is, of course, what Holder’s official statement was all about.

 Michelle Malkin has more background.

Category: Eric Holder, Terrorism
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin