Can Someone Set The Record Straight?

Saw this on Facebook last night:

Now, leaving aside that the hat and jacket are from a Navy ship (clearly visible on the hat), I'm confused. We just had eight years where the president had never served a day in the military, so I thought we'd finally put to rest the served/didn't serve question.

I mean:

In 1992, we had WWII war hero George H.W. Bush against draft-dodging Bill Clinton. Military service? We were told it didn't matter.

In 1996, it was Clinton against WWII war hero Bob Dole Clinton. Military service? Still didn't matter.

2000? George W. Bush (accused by the left of dodging the draft despite serving in the TX Air National Guard) against Al Gore Jr., who served honorably in Vietnam. Military service? Now means everything.

2004? The same George W. Bush against John Kerry, who also served honorably in Vietnam. Military service? Still means everything. Remember "Reporting for duty"?

2008? Barack Obama, never served, against John McCain. 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton? Yeah, he served honorably. Military service? Not only does it not matter, it wasn't even brought up.

So... Now military service matters again? Interesting that it's brought up after the election, given that Hillary Clinton not only didn't serve, but by being female, she didn't even have to worry about the draft.Or, is it possible that there are only certain times and circumstances that military service means anything? Like, say, depending on the political affiliation of the person in question.

I mean, not that our media would ever show bias or anything like that, of course...

That is all.

Um, How About No?

Found something worth dusting off the ol' keyboard for. And, guess what, it's more rampaging media hypocrisy and narrative pushing...

Rio 2016: US Muslim fencer 'doesn't feel safe' due to anti-Muslim sentiment in America

An American Muslim fencer, who is the country’s first Olympian to wear a hijab, says she does not feel safe in the US due to the country’s increased anti-Muslim rhetoric.

Ibtihaj Muhammad, 30, is currently in Rio de Janeiro preparing to represent the US in sabre fencing. She is ranked eighth in the world and is gearing up for her first Olympics after missing the 2012 London games because of a hand injury.

One of the events she cites for why she doesn't feel safe is "the shooting in North Carolina." Now, I assume she means this story, where a nutjob murdered three people in cold blood. Those three people happened to be muslim, yes, but the reason he killed them--aside from being bats**t crazy--is that they had repeatedly parked in his (assigned) parking spot.

Now, a couple asides. 1. No, parking on someone else's parking spot shouldn't get you killed. I refer to the "bats**t crazy" comment; 2. I hope this dude fries. Shouldn't have to say that, yes, killing someone over a gorram parking spot is crazy, wrong and deserves the fullest punishment allowed by law, but yeah, there it is...

With that said, though, there is absolutely nothing in this story - or any other - that points to the victims' religion as the reason. The guy was an unstable loon, period. It's sad, it's tragic, but to try and twist this into some sort of horrible case of muslims being targeted? That, it's not. He mentioned, once, about the women's headdress; apparently this is enough to convict him of a hate crime (forgetting, of course, that the Dallas shooter's admission that he wanted to kill white cops was "murky"...)

It's what I think we ought to call the "Columbinization" of a news story. Even today, you run into people that still think the two killers in Columbine were poor outcasts, picked on by the beautiful people in the school until they just couldn't take it any more and snapped. Except that never happened. That was a handy narrative and it made for a compelling story, and only suffered from one small problem: it was completely fictitious.

Fast-forward to the whole Michael Brown fiasco. There are still plenty of places, today, where they fully and honestly believe that "hands up, don't shoot" is absolute gospel truth, that poor, unarmed youth Brown was just walking down the street, minding his own business, when some evil racist cop walked up and shot him in the head for the sole crime of being black. Even Harvard Law School bought into it. Again, completely fictitious. Three separate investigations backed Officer Wilson's version of the day's events, where Brown attacked Wilson in an attempt to gain the officer's handgun.

In the immediate aftermath of one of these events, it is understandable that certain elements - often nearly all - will be incorrect. In the rush to be first to report, fact-checking and vetting of sources goes out the window. However, for events to be misreported a decade later (in the case of Columbine)? That's clinging to a false narrative. Just like they're trying to do now with this "muslims aren't safe in America" crap.

But then again, we're talking about her, aren't we?

That is all.

Never Ascribe to Malice...

...that which can be ascribed to stupidity. Yes, I know the trope. However, I don't think this is stupidity:

First off, someone else in comments on FB pointed out that the interest rate on a student loan is something like a third of a percent more than the going rate for a car or mortgage. So right off the bat Sanders is being disingenuous - while, technically, what he said was true, it's rather misleading. Second, comparing *anything* to car loans is specious at best - I got a 0% rate on my new car, so by Sanders' "logic" pretty much *anything* is worse than that.

And, lastly, as thousands have already so rightly pointed out, he's comparing a loan that has no collateral vs. a loan with hard and fast physical objects. Um, duh. Of *course* the college loan is going to be a higher risk - there's literally nothing backing it up should the loan recipient default. I take out a car loan and stop making payments, the bank at least has a car. Ditto a mortgage. But if I get my degree, then default on my loan, what can the bank do? Sure, it can ding my credit and all, but it wouldn't stop me from working for the New York Times...

I don't think this is stupidity, though, or even ignorance. No, this smacks of the ubiquitous class warfare rhetoric that the Democratic party has been famous for spewing for, well, decades, if not centuries. Sanders is clearly targeting Millennials, who are watching the piles of student loan debt they accumulated in search of their "Fourteenth Century Art Appreciation" degree, are just ripe for the "Wealthiest One Percent" garbage the left so loves to spew (even if they are absolutely part of that one percent).

Sanders would have to almost literally be a drooling idiot to not know why a student loan would be a higher risk (therefore incurring a higher interest rate). He's obviously not, having managed to eke out a fairly good living as a politician -- he's been in public "service" for 34 years out of the 51 years since leaving college. Even if Sanders honestly does believe that a student loan should have a lower rate than a car loan, shouldn't he have an adviser or advisers who would say, hey Bernie, this is economic illiteracy here?

No, this is plain ol' class warfare, the likes of which we've seen since the turn of the century. The *last* century. Sanders is counting on the media not calling him on this BS and the message of "Bernie's looking out for the poor college students" coming through. Of course, no one's asking questions like "Gee, Bernie, why *are* college tuitions so high?" because then we'd have to risk the wrath of the ivory tower denizens and point out that, gee, maybe "professors" like Elizabeth Warren making a third of a million dollars a year teaching a single class might be the reason for that exorbitant college cost?

It's just *SOOOO* much easier to insinuate that somewhere, somehow, in a smoke-filled room, a bunch of eeeeeevil bankers have gathered to discuss ways to screw poor Millennial barristers with 14th Century Art History degrees...

That is all.

You Can't Spell "Liberal Media Sycophants" Without Bias...

You know what jumped out at me in this piece?

Carly Fiorina aims to show up Clinton with press conference outside Clinton event

Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina and Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton will cross paths Wednesday in South Carolina. And the Republican -- the only woman among the vast GOP field -- will try to show up Clinton by holding a regular old press conference.

Clinton has been under fire of late for avoiding reporters' questions at her campaign events. She did take questions last week in Iowa and New Hampshire, but has often walked away from the shouting throng penned behind the ropes.

Right there. I even bolded it for you. Yes, Carly Fiorina, the "only woman among the vast GOP field". As opposed to the Democrats, who have, um, Hillary! Clinton and, um... Bernie Sanders. A whole one woman. Just like the GOP. You know who the GOP also has as declared candidates? Dr. Ben Carson and Bobby Jindal.

Who do the Democrats have?

Willie Carter, who is running (for his eighth consecutive time) because "he was 'commanded of the Lord to enter the race to become President of the United States of America'." Now, Mr. Carter is an Air Force vet (thank you sir) and Sunday School teacher, but he doesn't exactly have the background of being a governor or director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Medical Center.

Not bad for a nasty ol' racist and sexist GOP, eh?

It's not about who's running, though. It's not a scorecard of "we have [minority X] and they don't". It's about the media deciding to interject that Fiorina was the only female GOP declared candidate, rather than focus on why the Democratic frontrunner isn't talking to the press (answer: every time she does, her numbers go down...) I loved this bit, too:

...she has taken scores of questions from participants in her campaign events 

Notice the lack of anything resembling a definition of who a "participant" in a campaign event might be. Like, say, a paid operative. She's avoiding taking questions, and the media is happy to let her, even going so far as to make excuses for her. And the story then becomes how ZOMG TEH EVIL GOP ONLY HAS ONE WYMYN RUNNING!!!1111.

Masterful. Goebbels would be proud.

That is all.

So, Let Me Get This Straight...

David Gregory brings a 30-round magazine into DC, after being told not to by DC police, and there's no repercussions whatsoever.

Ken Buck keeps a AR-15, without bolt, under lock and key in his office, and DC police conduct a full investigation.

Buck, mind you, is allowed to keep firearms in his office because congresscritters are more equal than others (they are exempt from the DC ban). He also talked to Capitol Police, showed them where and how the firearm was stored, and showed that it was inoperable (the bolt and BCG is not in the rifle).

But DC police investigated.

David Gregory consulted with DC police, was specifically told not to bring the magazine into DC, then did it anyways. A definitive crime was committed and broadcast on live television. Gregory was not charged, nor even arrested. Buck committed no crime, but was investigated. Despite knowing that it was perfectly legal, the DC police insisted on an investigation.

Why? On what planet does it make sense to investigate a non-crime? Buck possessing the rifle in his office is 100% legal - that's what happens when you're one of the protected classes. Much like law enforcement in MA, NY and CO are exempt from magazine restrictions, congresscritters are allowed to possess firearms - even ZOMG ASSAULT RIFLES - in their offices. No crime. Period.

So, basically, DC police investigated Buck for, um, well, I can't figure out why. Unless, of course, the purpose had nothing to do with the firearm in question and everything to do with the headline "GOP Congressman investigated by DC police." Of course, the media will naturally do all due diligence and report on *this* example of police overreach and profiling, right?

Don't answer that - it's rhetorical.

That is all.

Not. Helping.

Heard this on the radio on the drive home yesterday. I still don't know what to make of it.

Berkeley protesters briefly block Oakland freeway

Hundreds of people marched from Berkeley to Oakland Sunday for the second night of demonstrations against a grand jury's decision not to indict a police officer in the chokehold death of Eric Garner.

There were reports of some demonstrators throwing explosives at officers and assaulting each other. A group of demonstrators blocked all eastbound lanes of Highway 24 near 52nd Street at 8:45 p.m. in Oakland.

If this had been all there was to the story, I wouldn't have thought twice about it, except perhaps to comment on the spectre of societal unrest, a volatile political climate for the current party in the White House, and historical precedent (although, for all his faults, Mitt Romney is no Richard Nixon...).

No. Then there was this:

Protesters tonight could be heard yelling, "Fist up, Fight back," and "Turn it up, don't turn it down. Shut it down for Michael Brown."

(Emphasis mine).

That brought me to a full stop. For the older readers, imagine the sound a record needle makes when pulled off the record. For the younger readers, ask your parents. Just think about that line for a second, will you? These people are protesting what they feel are instances where the police have overstepped their bounds. In both cases, we have people resisting officers with physical force and refusing to follow the officers' directions.

Raising your fists? Fighting back? Isn't that what got Mike Brown killed? Even if you believe 100% that Brown was shot in the back by a racist cop, is showing overt menace to someone that potentially might do you harm going to help things? If they honestly believe that cops are just looking for an excuse to kill black people, is inciting them to raise their fists going to help things?

This just struck me as the worst idea in the history of bad ideas. Let's whip this crowd into a frenzy, telling them to attack police officers. Then, when they do attack the police officers - the ones we believe are terrible racists, what exactly is going to happen? Cops are, despite what anyone might tell you, still human. They do have the right to defend themselves. When they do defend against attack - and they will - more people are going to get hurt and/or killed.

Great. You've just agitated for a vicious circle of violence. Wonderful. This can't possibly end poorly, can it?

There are so many thoughts slamming together in my brain over this whole scenario. I can't help but wonder, with a bitter laugh, what the position was of some of these agitators some 20 years ago, when they were staking out Randy Weaver's house on Ruby Ridge. Did they think Weaver was asking for it? Did they think Weaver should have surrendered to the authorities? Or did they buy the ATF's claim that David Koresh started the fire inside the Waco compound? Fast forward - did Erik Scott really have his hand on his gun, like Las Vegas cops claimed?

Not to mention, I have to ask, how many of the professionally offended have personally donated camera time at events where gun control played some part. How many of them might have hinted, intimated, or even outright stated that only the police should own guns? It's the same side of the ideological coin.

The pro-gun control people are watching this go down with bemusement - we're told, over and over, that police are better, smarter, better trained. Ordinary people have no business owning guns; that's for professionals like police officers. "I'm the only one professional enough" and all that. We point out that only police can own new machine guns; that police are allowed to carry guns in all 50 states; that police are exempted from the draconian laws the rest of the population labors under. New York cops don't have to only load 7 rounds; Massachusetts cops can own Glocks; Maryland cops are issued "assault weapons."

I'm certain that those agitating for greater oversight on police will remember all this the next time, right?

Right?

I hope the police remember this, too. I hope they remember which side was hanging them out to dry, using them as the boogeyman. The next time some anti-gun politician wants a "Fraternal Order of Police" seal of approval on their latest gun-grabbing scheme, I hope the cops present said politician with video of "Fists up, fight back" and "Shut it down for Michael Brown." I hope they're tired of being used as props by people that would happily throw them under the bus.

And the agitators. Do they really believe that now is the time for violence? Because things are going to get really ugly for a LOT of people if that's the case. As much as the media is studiously ignoring it, we're seeing racial violence in many of these places - against folks with melanin deficiencies. A Bosnian man was beaten to death after attempting to stop teenagers from destroying his car. A Bosnian woman was pulled from her car and beaten unconscious. Both times the races of the attackers and the attackees did not match.

It doesn't take a political science major nor a student of history to see what's going to happen if this keeps going. There's no good end to any of this. Just lots more dead and broken people. What scares the living hell out of me, though, is what kind of monsters we might reanimate with renewed racial tension.

Let's not lose sight that all civil rights can and will be under attack. More demonstrations turn into riots, things get ugly, people get hurt. People get hurt, people start demanding that Something Must Be Done. That "something" is almost never the right thing. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to hear some nimrod claim we need more gun control so that there won't be more Michael Browns. Oh, wait. Someone already did.

I hope cooler heads will prevail; sadly, I fear that it may be only a hope and not reality.

That is all.

He's Right...

It's not often that I agree with the Democrat mayor of Boston on anything...

Mayor Walsh, area police, offer mixed response to use of body cameras

Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh said Monday he is not ready to embrace the use of body cameras by Boston police, saying community outreach and improving job and educational opportunities are his primary focus to strengthen trust between police and the communities they serve.

“The body camera is a tool that can be used, [but] it goes a lot deeper than that,” Walsh said in an interview after attending a meeting of mayors, police chiefs, and civil rights activists with President Obama at the White House.

I agree with him on this regard, but for a completely different reason.

Cameras aren't going to make a lick of difference. Look at the Brown case. What is the one defining image, one that has made it to law school campuses and the US Congress? Yep, the "hands up" image. You know, the one that is a complete and utter media fabrication. Never happened. Oh, some claimed it did - but these are also people that claimed Brown was shot in the back, despite any evidence supporting that claim whatsoever.

Facts. Don't. Matter.

The media decided, for whatever reason, that this story was going to be big. They allowed untruths to fester and go viral and in no small part made the riots and unrest worse than it had any right to be. They elevated Brown to the status of martyr, crafting the narrative that this poor innocent unarmed teenager was brutally murdered by a racist police officer for no reason.

Honestly, what difference would a body camera have made? The plethora of cameras outside the Costco in Las Vegas where Erik Scott was gunned down by cops didn't bring about any outrage. Scott, by all objective accounts was not threatening officers in any way when they opened fire, yet because it was a concealed carry holder, the media was silent. Well, other than clucking their tongues about one of "those people" getting "what was coming to them"...

Here's the thing. We had a story in SC where a state cop opened fire on a motorist. The cop was white, the motorist was black. The cop told the motorist to provide ID, the motorist complied, but apparently he moved a little too quick, so the cop opened fire. It's all caught on camera - and not only was the cop fired, he's facing criminal charges. Why? Because it was an egregious mistake on his part that led to someone catching a bullet when they didn't deserve it.

There was no hay to be made of this case, no drum to beat, so the story went nowhere.

We can't - or won't - equip all police officers with cameras. There's no doubt that somewhere, somehow, there will be another situation like what happened in Ferguson that the media can exploit for huge ratings, consequences be damned. Even when presented with overwhelming proof that Officer Wilson was correct in his use of force; even when confronted with irrefutable evidence that Brown was NOT shot in the back with his hands up, the narrative just changed to "well, there's still racism".

And that's the thing. There *is* still racism, or, more semantically correct, racial prejudice. There are almost certainly cases in this country where black men are shot by police with little or no provocation. Why focus on these marginal cases, where there are so many conflicting accounts and the facts don't add up? Is it a rush to sensationalize? Quick, blow this story out of proportion before we learn the truth?

It sure seems like the media and the "professionals" did everything in their power to make sure that Ferguson burned.

That is all.

Another dispatch from...

(image courtesy of Robb Allen)

I'd Say They're In The Tank, But...

...that would be offensive to organizations actually in the tank. Read this piece by CNN and just TRY to claim the media is not ridiculously biased. TRY.

On immigration, a tale of two presidents

When George W. Bush couldn't get an immigration overhaul though the Senate, he gave up. When Barack Obama couldn't get a bill through the House, he changed the rules.

Rewriting the immigration system was at the core of Bush's "compassionate conservatism" political brand and was dear to his heart.

Yeah, that's it. Bush just "gave up" whereas brave Sir Robin Barack Obama pushed on. He's not acting lawlessly, he's a courageous knight of change, bravely tilting at windmills Congress who are refusing to act on this problem.

Right. Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

Congress isn't "refusing to act" - they're refusing to pass your ridiculous amnesty. They're doing it for a very specific reason - their constituency is telling them to do this. What proof do we have? Oh, I'd say a historic drubbing that returned the Senate to the GOP, heightened the GOP lead in the House, and turned a number of Governor's mansions - including MASSACHUSETTS, ILLINOIS, and MARYLAND - over to the GOP.

By any metric you'd care to use, the midterm elections of 2014 were a clear message: the party in charge - and make no mistake, with the White House and Senate, the Democrats were clearly in charge - wasn't getting things done to the satisfaction of the American people. So how does Barack Obama respond? He goes against all conventional wisdom and the express wishes of the party coming into power.

Yeah, that's a sign of a good leader, ignoring everything that doesn't fit into your narrow view. He's a visionary, at least according to CNN, who I'm surprised could take the kneepads off long enough to write this insane puff piece. Any wonder why people consider journalists to be slightly less trustworthy than used car salesmen or amoebas?

Apologies to amoebas; to my knowledge they have never intentionally shilled for an imperial doofus like Teleprompter Jesus.

That is all.

WHAT WHAT WHAT WHAT???

SCI-FI sent this to me yesterday. I'm still fuming.

More Than 600 Reported Chemical Exposure in Iraq, Pentagon Acknowledges

More than 600 American service members since 2003 have reported to military medical staff members that they believe they were exposed to chemical warfare agents in Iraq, but the Pentagon failed to recognize the scope of the reported cases or offer adequate tracking and treatment to those who may have been injured, defense officials say.

The Pentagon’s disclosure abruptly changed the scale and potential costs of the United States’ encounters with abandoned chemical weapons during the occupation of Iraq, episodes the military had for more than a decade kept from view.

Did we not hear, from 2003 until Barack Obama took office, how "BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED"? Were we not regaled, ad nauseum, with tales of how Bush lied?

Hold on. The internet is forever...

Did Bush Lie Us into War?

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq

Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war

The Two Most Essential, Abhorrent, Intolerable Lies Of George W. Bush's Memoir

That's just a handful of what I found after a three-second Google search, which was hampered by the above news showing up in the hits. We were treated to stories like these for five out of eight years of Bush's presidency, with story after story of how there were no WMD in Iraq, how Bush fabricated evidence, etc. We were treated to fanciful guesses as to why he "really" wanted to go to war in Iraq, between "they went after my daddy" to theorizing he wanted to finish the job his father was unable to all the way up to G-d alone only knows what these people were thinking.

And the New York Times, eleven years later, vindicates Bush in an attempt to smear the Pentagon. You see, the Pentagon has been maliciously ignoring stories of soldiers who suffered chemical attacks in Iraq. You know, like THE ENTIRE MEDIA ESTABLISHMENT DID from 2003 - 2009. We heard NOTHING of any of this WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING.

Why?

I think we all know the answer to that question, don't we? Publicizing that soldiers were coming back with symptoms of chemical attack would negate the "LIED" part of "BUSH LIED". The media would rather soldiers suffer than commit acts of journalism that might vindicate a Republican president. That is both pathetic and horrific, that they would shirk their sacred duty to expose something like this because it would upset the narrative they helped craft.

And it's even more insidious, with comments like this:

This previously untold chapter of the occupation became public after an investigation by The New York Times revealed last month that while troops did not find an active weapons of mass destruction program, they did encounter degraded chemical weapons from the 1980s that had been hidden in caches or used in makeshift bombs.

So, there WERE chemical weapons in Iraq, just like Bush said, and we knew there were. But because REASONS this just so happened to never come out. Ever. Oh, wait. I do distinctly remember folks mentioning, on more than one occasion, that we knew there were chemical weapons in Iraq because, well, Iraq used them against Iran. But, you know, those WMDs were totes gone, bro. Except that they weren't. And we knew it. And the media knew it.

Yet rather than publicize this news - which would have helped the soldiers affected by chemical weapon exposure - the media sat on it. Rather than commit actual acts of journalism, they ignored a major story so that their precious narrative could continue. In their zeal to smear and defame the president, they deliberately ignored honest-to-goodness stories of chemical weapons in Iraq that were hurting our soldiers. They waited until near the end of Obama's presidency to say, hey, you know, that evil military industrial complex is letting our soldiers suffer from these chemical weapons exposures to chemical weapons we swore for over a decade never existed.

Never trust these bastards any further than you can throw them, plain and simple.

That is all.

They All Look Alike, Anyways...

Libertyman sends in installment # 4,178 in the "Imagine if a Republican had said this" files.

Video: Warren mixes up Vermont and New Hampshire on The View

“Talk about American history,” Senator Elizabeth Warren says, but then fails at American geography — and presidential politics. Earlier today, Warren tried singing the praises of Jeanne Shaheen, currently in a fight to retain her seat in the Senate against former Senator Scott Brown — whom Warren beat in 2012 in Massachusetts. One might think that a Commonwealth official could tell the difference between Vermont and New Hampshire, especially one who might need support in the latter for a future presidential run, as the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake notes:

Yeah, you read that right. Elizabeth Warren, newly elected Senator in Massachusetts, which borders both states, doesn't even know who Jeanne Shaheen represents. Nice. I've been out of MA for a year and out of NH for nearly 20 years and I know who the senators and governors are. And I'm just a dumb gun writer, not a highly educated college professor.

No, seriously. Imagine if Chris Christie had come to New Hampshire to stump for Scott Brown and said something similar. Imagine if he had placed Brown in VT rather than NH. Remember, again, the same media that crucified Christie over "Bridgeghazi" - harping on it for months at a time - used the "-ghazi" from Benghazi, even though they completely and utterly failed to investigate the events of Benghazi itself.

From Clinton lying about the cause to the State Department allowing American citizens to die at the hands of muslim extremists rather than admit that terrorism was still real and a threat, there was more than enough meat in that story to interest an actual journalist. Sadly, none are left. Instead, they droned on and on about how horrible it was that Chris Christie's staff *might* have closed lanes on a bridge, resulting in bad traffic delays, as some sort of political payback for not getting political support.

Yes, in the eyes of the media, a Republican playing politics is more of a story than a Democrat allowing American citizens to die needlessly.

Just like in this case, Elizabeth Warren, the lightweight di tutti lightweights (and a strong contender for our next President if Hillary! opts not to run), can't even be bothered to check on the state Shaheen represents, even though it's a bordering state and she's been stumping for Shaheen. Had the political parties been reversed this would have been a front page story, with news talking heads shaking their heads over this idiot Republican. Saturday Night Live would have fallen over themselves writing 9,000 jokes about the gaffe. Jon Stewart would be sure to mock the pol mercilessly.

But if it's a Democrat, well, the crickets are just deafening...

That is all.

Best News I've Seen Today...

Brad_in_MA sent this in. He rightfully assumed I'd get a chuckle out of this news...

Poll: Charlie Baker leads Martha Coakley in Massachusetts

For the first time in the Boston Globe’s weekly tracking poll, Republican Charlie Baker holds a significant lead over Democrat Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts gubernatorial race, 45 percent to 36 percent.

The poll, first posted Thursday night, is the first showing the race as anything but a near tie in recent weeks. Last week’s Globe poll showed the candidates neck-and-neck, as did a separate tracking survey this week from WBUR-FM, conducted by the MassINC Polling Group.

Now, I don't believe that Baker's lead is anywhere near that high, but this really sealed the deal for me:

Charlie Baker for governor

The Boston FREAKIN' Globe just endorsed Charlie Baker - the Republican - over Martha Coakley for Governor. The Globe endorsed Coakley over Scott Brown in 2010. They used this subhead:

To move Mass. forward, state government must work better

Massachusetts is 90% controlled by the Democrats. The state reps and senators are overwhelmingly Democrat, MA's Senators and Congresscritters are all Democrats, most of the mayors are Democrats, etc. If the state isn't working properly, it's pretty clear which party is involved in the not working department. For the Globe to admit this is pretty shocking.

We'll see what happens next Tuesday, of course, but just getting the Globe's endorsement is amazing...

That is all.

Compare and Contrast...

This has been bugging the heck out of me all week.

On the one hand, run "Palin brawl" through Google: 231,000 results.

Contrast that to "Biden cocaine" through Google: 21,100 results.

The story of someone who ran for vice president eight years ago getting into a shouting match at a barbeque has more than an order of magnitude more results than the son of the current vice president getting kicked out of the Navy for illegal drug use.

Oh, but there's no media bias, nossirree. Well, there is, it's just that evil right wing Fox News, you see. MSNBCBSCNN are nothing but paragons of equality and fairness, right? But yeah, the non-story to end all non-stories, about the Palin family being involved in an altercation, has been front-page news for weeks (the brawl happened September 6th).

Yet the son of the Vice President of the United States is discharged from the Navy - after receiving special waivers to get in - for illegal drug use, and it's no big deal. Oh, and speaking of waivers, Hunter also received a second waiver to join the Navy, for a drug related charge he accrued in the late 1980s.

Repeated drug use, special favors, and the media can't be bothered. A dust up at a backyard barbecue and it is front page news for weeks. Nope. No bias here. The media is absolutely dead-on fair. The daughter of a woman who ran for vice president is involved in a shouting match at a party, and that warrants non-stop coverage for six weeks (and counting), whereas the son of the sitting vice president commits an actual crime and the crickets are deafening.

Here's another metric:

CNN's main page, search for Palin: 7 out of the top 10 are about the "brawl" that happened 6 weeks ago.

CNN's main page, search for Biden: 5 out of the top 10 are about Hunter's discharge.

So, the all-news network has more stories about the Palin family getting in an altercation up in Alaska than the son of the Vice President getting kicked out of the Navy for doing coke.

Right. No bias here.

That is all.

Can Somone 'Splain This To Me?

Because, um, WTF, over?

101st Airborne Soldiers Heading to Liberia

The commander of the Army's 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, says a handful of his soldiers are already in Liberia, and more head there next week to build treatment centers and begin training medical personnel.

Maj. Gen. Gary J. Volesky says his soldiers went through a two days of training with the Center for Disease Control professionals and others to learn about the Ebola threat. He says medical personnel from Fort Detrick, Maryland, will be in Kentucky this week to give soldiers a six-hour training session on protective measures, including how to wear special protection equipment.

Now, maybe I'm ignorant of the way the Army is divided, but wouldn't the Corps of Engineers be better at building treatment centers? Wouldn't a medical corps be better at training medical personnel? I mean, I was under the impression that the 101st Airborne Division was in charge of air assault. In what special manner of hell is assisting third world s**tholes with infectious diseases in their job description?

I mean, it's almost like Obama is DARING the GOP to say something, it really is. Between this story - where we have several thousand US troops on the ground, in an area just rife with corruption and disease - and the recent news where an Obama administration official hand-delivered a note of praise to the mosque where the man accused of beheading an OK woman prayed? It's like he's just DARING the GOP to say something, so they can be smeared as racists.

I mean, it's hard to see how *anyone* could be this tone deaf. Even someone with as much favorable (read: fawning) media as Obama. Then again, it's not like a company his veep used to work for won a bid on military equipment. Oh, boy, then we'd really hear about it, wouldn't we? Or, maybe if someone in his family had heated words with drunken partygoers. I'm sure that would be front page news for a few weeks.

And let's not get into the horrors of being seen at a photo op with troops and a plastic turkey. That was impeachment-worthy, remember? Highly offensive, yadda yadda yadda - certainly a million times worse than being too gorram lazy to take a coffee cup out of your hand, right? The disparity has never been more clear than in the last two administrations as to which way the media winds blow.

It will be amazing if there's anything left of America after the next eight years of media "coverage" of President Hillary!...

That is all.

Another dispatch from...

(image courtesy of Robb Allen)

Optics...

That's what President Obama called him taking off to go golfing immediately after his press conference in the wake of the first American journalist to be beheaded by ISIS. He "should have anticipated the optics" of going golfing after delivering such horrible news; meaning of course that he should have been mindful of appearances.

Not that it was generally a pretty callous thing to do, mind you. An American journalist was beheaded by terrorists over in Iraq and Syria, an area that we have had interest in for over 20 years, and you can't wait to hit the links. Somehow I don't think it's the "optics" that are the issue here.

Especially when recent news shows President Obama getting off Marine One and not even bothering to take the coffee cup out of his hand when he salutes the Marines in charge of his safety. That, Mr. President, is bad optics. You look like a pampered prince, giving a half-hearted salute to people you obviously consider below you.

People, mind you, that have more integrity in the stuff they scrape off their boots than you have in your entire body.

I wish I could say this surprised me, but really, it doesn't. That he could have taken a fraction of a second to transfer the cup into his empty left hand - but didn't - tells me everything I need to know. The military salute is considered the pinnacle of respect:

SALUTING

Military courtesy is the traditional form of politeness in the profession of arms.

The Military Salute

The salute is the most important of all military courtesies. Over the centuries, men-at-arms have rendered fraternal and respectful greetings to indicate friendliness. This gesture survives as today's hand salute, which is the traditional greeting among soldiers of all nations. Regulations require that all officers be saluted by their juniors, and that they return such salutes. The salute formally recognizes the officer as a military superior, and returning the salute expresses the officer’s thanks for the junior’s support.

Got that? That's might poor thanks you're showing our men in uniform, President Obama. It's especially ironic considering that you've recently made statements and issued orders to commit our troops to more fighting overseas - and you can't even offer a proper salute to the Marine detail charged with escorting you safely to and from your engagements.

Pathetic.

That is all.

The Media Is Delightfully Clueless

It's not just firearms about which the mainstream media is laughably uninformed...

Yes. "Hackers" sit in front of high tech computers in outfits suited for robbing convenience stores. Because apparently someone smart enough to break into a bank account or steal credit card information isn't smart enough to cover over their webcam in the unlikely event it were compromised. Really? A black hoodie, sunglasses, and a face mask? Is this guy a hacker or afraid of catching MRSA?

Oh, sure, it's not as bad as asking if foam ear plugs are rubber bullets, but still. To have such ridiculous notions about computers and online crime, especially when the concept of hacking is many decades old, is mind-boggling. I suppose it's partially out of political correctness - in real life, the hacker is most likely to be Chinese, Russian, or Taiwanese (if not American).


Let's help the media out, shall we? It's 2014. What other outdated stereotypes can we dispose of?

That is all.

There's Gotta Be More To This One...

#1 Blogdaughter sends this one in. I really, really hope there's more to this story, because if not, there is something seriously wrong...

Woman dies after police shooting in San Jose

A 19-year-old San Jose woman was shot and killed by police Thursday morning after it appeared she was advancing at officers with a weapon. The incident happened along busy Blossom Hill Road in San Jose.

Police tried to negotiate with the woman as she remained inside a duplex unit on the 700 block of Blossom Hill Road near Playa del Rey. The caller who contacted police said the woman had an Uzi and was threatening to kill family members.

Looking at the video, it's pretty obvious that she is not holding a firearm of any kind. However, I am also very cognizant that a) I am not a responding police officer who has been told by dispatch that this is potentially a mentally unstable person with an Uzi, and b) I have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight from behind the safety of my monitor. I've never had to make a split-second decision as to whether the person facing me has a weapon or not.

I do wish the media would stop making s**t up, though. "The object in the woman's hand landed in the road. It was later determined to be a cordless drill painted flat black." - sure sounds like they're trying to paint the picture that the woman painted the drill. Looking at pictures from the link, though, it looks like, well, pretty much any Black and Decker drill from the past, well, 30 or so years. If she altered the drill, state she altered the drill. If you don't know, shut the hell up.

I wonder how many of these crises have been at least in part the media's making?

That is all.

WAIT WAIT WAIT...

Taliban Leader Mullah Omar Calls Bowe Bergdahl Swap "Victory"

After five detainees from Guantanamo Bay were swapped for the only American soldier held captive in Afghanistan, the Taliban leader Mullah Omar delivered a rare statement Sunday calling the trade a “great victory.”

“We shall thank almighty for this great victory,” said the statement. “The sacrifice of our Mujahedin have resulted in the release of our senior leaders from the hand of the enemy.”

We TRADED five Taliban commanders for an American soldier? Now, I understand that we want all of our soldiers to come home safe, but I shudder to think of the precedent this sets. Especially considering the five Taliban released are, from the video in the link, among the worst of the worst.

And why does the name ring a bell?

Oh, yeah, there's a question of whether or not he deserted.

Regardless of the circumstances under which Bergdahl was taken by the Taliban, I seem to remember an American President in my lifetime who came under fire for negotiating the release of American hostages. Reagan was the subject of a 7-year, $50 million dollar investigation over the selling of US arms to Iran in exchange for the release of American hostages.

Obama does it - without notifying Congress within 30 days of action like he's supposed to - and everything is great...

That is all.

Memo To Ivory Tower Egghead...

Bernstein: Benghazi Not Watergate, But It Is a Story

Legendary Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein says the recently released Benghazi email doesn't rise to the level of Watergate as some on the right claim, but neither is it a non-story, as some on the left say.

"Watergate was a massive criminal conspiracy led by a criminal president of the United States for almost the whole of his administration," Bernstein said on CNN's "Reliable Sources" Sunday."We're talking total apples and oranges here."

Um, egghead? There's another important difference between Watergate and Benghazi:

No Americans died in Watergate.

It is positively unreal that one of the two men responsible for bringing down an American President--one that fully deserved it, mind you--can be so utterly blinded by ideology that he could make such an asinine statement.

While it's *possibly* true that the level of cover-up in Benghazi is not as deep as that of Watergate, it's equally true that the stakes are MUCH higher with Benghazi. With Watergate, it was a low-level burglary that was incompetently bungled and covered up by the administration.

With Benghazi, we have an American ambassador and three other Americans--two of whom came to the ambassador's defense--brutally murdered while the administration stood by and did nothing. Then, when it was over, the administration took an active role in lying to the American people about the cause of the murder, claiming laughable that this was some spontaneous demonstration about a tenth-tier YouTube video.

Four dead, no one held accountable, but this is what Carl Bernstein thinks "doesn't rise to the level" of a burglary?

It frightens me to think what Obama would have to do to be considered on the same level as Watergate in the American media.

That is all.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Our Next President, Folks...

Boy, I must really be out of it. I don't remember hearing a peep about this story when all the major networks broke it.

State Dept. misplaced $6B under Hillary Clinton: IG report

The State Department misplaced and lost some $6 billion due to the improper filing of contracts during the past six years, mainly during the tenure of former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, according to a newly released Inspector General report.

The $6 billion in unaccounted funds poses a “significant financial risk and demonstrates a lack of internal control over the Department’s contract actions,” according to the report.

Six BILLION dollars misplaced, folks. BILLION. With a "B." Just imagine if the Bush administration has "misplaced" six billion dollars. Think it would have slipped under the radar like this news has? This is the only reason I supported Mitt Romney, folks. Had Mitt Romney's State Department "lost" six BILLION dollars you'd better believe the media would have run with that story.

Instead, there's nothing but crickets. I did, however, like a commenter's timeline:

Not to worry, She will just pull out the old Democrat Play Book for scandals...

Week 1 - Refuse to answer any questions. Immediately queue up the lap dog media to run interference.

Week 2 - Refuse to answer any questions, change the subject. Turn the gain up on the lap dog media.

Week 3 - Announce that everything has been answered, its time to "move forward", and state that no further questions on the subject will be answered.

Week 4 - Call it a "phony scandal" and highlight the fact that it never really happened in the first place. It was merely a miscommunication problem.

Week 5 - Accuse Republicans of trying to resurrect a phony scandal, and ask what difference at this point does it make anyway? Place a friendly call to the IRS for "assistance"

Week 6 - Accuse anyone asking the same questions that have never been answered about the phony scandal that doesn't matter any way, of being a racist. Pick up the phone to the NSA for closing arguments.

Not to be outdone, another commenter posted, simply:

Week 7 - Blame Bush.

I'm certain when Hillary! takes over in 2017 she won't "misplace" any more money...

That is all.

So, Let Me Get This Straight...

Over in California, we have a State Senator who has been running around like he's an '80s action movie villain, pontificating against firearms, pushing bans on cosmetic features and magazines of certain sizes, all the while working behind the scenes to illegally import machine guns and rocket launchers with which to arm Chinese gangs in California. I mean, this dude is straight out of central casting, complete with a middle man with a funny nickname. All that's left is a sidekick with a funny hat and this guy's a Bond villain.

And yet, what's the media obsessing about? Oh, yeah, the governor of New Jersey may or may not have known about possible bridge lane closures in areas that didn't support him during the last election. There's a possibility that he might have known his lackeys were advocating that lanes be closed on a bridge with heavy volume as some kind of payback.

You know, what everyone else calls politics, right?

They are no longer even pretending to hide the bias any more. They're holding up Fox News as some sort of equalizer, as though one single cable channel compares to the three major networks plus another, larger cable channel. Oh, and every major newspaper in existence. And the "infotainment" channels. And all of Hollywood (at least the major players).

CNN claimed they never cover local politics. Funny, though, that Newsbusters.org and Breitbart.com both ran down a list of *other* state officials - some even, yes, you guessed it, state senators - that CNN has covered. Including one Wendy Davis, who is attempting to turn a lifetime of using people to get what she wants into the governor of Texas. But that's okay - she has a "D" after her name, right CNN?

At this point, I just wish they'd admit it. They're reminiscent of the old man at the beginning of Monty Python's "Holy Grail" - you're not foolin' anyone. Come right out and admit you're actually the propaganda arm for the Democratic Party and get it over with. When you're running recycled stories about a New Jersey politician possibly - GASP - playing politics rather than cover a CA politician acting like a Bond villain, you're actively working for one side.

Oh, and while I'm dreaming, I'd like to see the GOP put up a decent candidate in 2016 - but I'm not holding my breath for either...

That is all.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad