Glenn Beck: Van Jones is Tip of the Iceberg

The Hill is reporting that "White House Stands by 'Truther' Van Jones." But boy is that a questionable call. Here's this from JammieWearingFool, "Stunner! Obama Hack Van Jones Also a Mumia Supporter":

Most of the media is ignoring the story, naturally, but there comes a time when critical mass will be reached, and probably much sooner than later.

The pathetic aspect of this is the obvious non-vetting of Jones or the likelihood Jones was vetted and Obama found nothing offensive about this man. Apparently the tech-savvy wizards at the White House are too incompetent to run a simple search, as many are now in the process of doing.

Now we find Jones also has a thing for the cop-killing darling of the left, Mumia Abu Jamal. This is from 10 years ago, obviously pre-dating Jones' later hook-up with other radicals in the Truther movement.

Check the links at the post (including a devastating 1999 San Francisco Chronicle story on Van Jones' support for Mumia). Also blogging is Gateway Pundit and Hot Air. But we're fortunate that Glenn Beck has been hammering away at Jones for months, and Beck's pressure this last week has been relentless. Beck's show yesterday was titled, "Glenn Beck: Personnel Is Policy." His introduction, at the first video, is typically melodramatic; but he's right to say Van Jones is "just the tip of the iceberg." Michelle Malkin is interviewed in the third video down, and she rips into Jones' support for the cop killer and the hard-left America-hating network working to free him. This is just gold:

See also, Michelle Malkin, "Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett, Barack Obama & Dot-It-Yourself Vetting." More at Memeorandum.

Public Opinion: Rethinking Left's Pushback Against 'Center-Right Country'

From Gallup, "Labor Unions See Sharp Slide in U.S. Public Support":

Gallup finds organized labor taking a significant image hit in the past year. While 66% of Americans continue to believe unions are beneficial to their own members, a slight majority now say unions hurt the nation's economy. More broadly, fewer than half of Americans -- 48%, an all-time low -- approve of labor unions, down from 59% a year ago.

And note this part about how unions harm workers and the economy:

The percentage saying unions mostly hurt the companies where workers are organized has risen from 39% in 2006 to 46% in the latest poll. As a result, Americans are now evenly divided over whether unions mostly help or mostly hurt these companies, whereas in all previous measures the balance of opinion was positive.

There has been an even larger jump in the percentage saying labor unions mostly hurt the U.S. economy, from 36% in 2006 to 51% today. This is the first time since the question was established in 1997 that more Americans have said unions hurt rather than help the economy. Americans' general concerns about the current state of the economy could certainly be a factor in these more negative views of unions, in addition to specific perceptions about unions.

When I read findings like this I'm always struck by how little leftists are now crowing about how we're no longer a "center-right nation." Christopher Beam echoed the leftist triumphalism last December, attempting to smack down the "center-right" meme:

Since the election, conservatives have consoled themselves with the idea that Obama may have won, but America is still a "center-right nation." But the phrase is tossed around with little evidence—possibly because there is none. Even if there were evidence, the term is so muddled as to be meaningless.

There are some still clinging to the notion, however ... for example, the hard-left netroots types, at Daily Kos: "It is NOT a Center-Right Country!."

We may have a Center-Right Media.

We may have a Center-Right Punditry-ville.

But our Country, and the majority of the American People in our "Two America's" are NOW decidedly a deeper shade of Blue!

Now, if you check the post, the polling items seem to suggest a huge left wing orientation. But then again, when we look at Gallup's results above, the latest surveys on generic ballot preferences for the 2010 midterms (trending GOP), as well as President Obama's steep deterioration in public approval, leftists can't be too confident that America is no longer a "center-right nation."

Related: New York Post, "President Obam's Poll Numbers Continue to Tumble," and Patterico, "Obama’s Poll Numbers Keep Going Down." Even the communists are noticing! See, the International Committee of the Fourth International, "Obama’s Poll Numbers Plummet."

American Politics in 2009: Who's Really Lost It?

Steve Benen, at the Washington Monthly, positions himself as some august sage of the netroots - a voice of moderation, wisdom, and restraint. He often floats off common leftists talking points as received knowledge, and I'm particularly amused at how he views rank-and-file conservatives as some kind of exponential Bonus Army of the unwashed right-wing lumpenproletariat.

Here's Benen in a post yesterday:

... there's something very wrong with our political system, put under a serious strain by the "conservative lunatic brigade," stuck in a "perverse nonsense feedback loop."

Birthers, Deathers, Tenthers. Beck, Palin, Limbaugh. Bachmann, Inhofe, DeMint, King, and Broun. A scorched-earth campaign intended to tear the country apart, questioning the legitimacy of the president, the government, and the rule of law. It's all very scary.

Josh Marshall recently noted, "It's always important for us to remember what the last eight years have again taught us, which is that America has a very strong civic fabric, one that can withstand, absorb and conquer all manner of ugly behavior. It can take in stride a lot of angry rhetoric, townhall fisticuffs and more. But as this escalates we should continually be stepping back and thinking retrospectively from the vantage point of the future about where this all seems to be heading."

The crazies have a political party, a cable news network, and a loud, activist base. They're mad as hell and they're not going to take their medications anymore.

And then here's Benen today:

President Obama wants to deliver a message to students next week emphasizing hard work, encouraging young people to do their best in school. The temper tantrum the right is throwing in response only helps reinforce how far gone 21st-century conservatives really are.

This is no small, isolated fit, thrown by random nutjobs. The New York Times, Washington Post,LA Times, AP, and others all ran stories this morning about the coordinated national effort to either keep children at home so they can't hear their president's pro-education message, or demanding that local schools block the message altogether.

A Republican state lawmaker in Oklahoma said, "As far as I am concerned, this is not civics education -- it gives the appearance of creating a cult of personality. This is something you'd expect to see in North Korea or in Saddam Hussein's Iraq." Fox News personalities have adopted the same line, calling a stay-in-school message from the president "cultist" and reminiscent of "North Korea and the former Soviet Union"....

This is what American politics has come to in 2009 ....

Even Joe Scarborough asked, "Where are all the GOP leaders speaking out against this kind of hysteria?" They are, alas, nowhere to be found. As John Cole explained, "The entire party has been taken over by crazy people."

Well, if the "entire party" is now "crazy," then that's the new sane.

I mean really. Recall that Ian Gurvitz has called the conservative resistance to Barack Obama "Operation Monkeyshit."

We're getting all of this weird leftist pushback because there's a genuine revolt in Middle America against this administration - and leftists have no answer but to hunker down, smear, slur, and sensationalize. All Democrats can do is paint the great middle as a bunch of crazies, when in fact it's the Hope-and-Change freakshow that fostering the rebellion of concerned citizens.

If you check Charlie Cook's essay today, "Bleeding Independents," it's clear that "crazy" doesn't explain the kind of frustration and resentment that driving the exodus of voter support from this administration:

Independent voters -- fired up by the war in Iraq and Republican scandals -- gave Democrats control of both chambers of Congress in 2006. Two years later, independents upset with President Bush and eager to give his party another kick expanded the Democratic majorities on the Hill. Late in the campaign, the economic downturn, together with an influx of young people and minorities enthusiastic about Obama, created a wave that left the GOP in ruins.

That was then; this is now. For the seven weeks from mid-April through the first week of June, Obama's weekly Gallup Poll approval rating among independents ran in the 60-to-70 percent range. But in four of the past five weeks, it has been only in the mid-to-high 40s. Meanwhile, Democrats and liberals seem lethargic even though Republicans and conservatives are spitting nails and can't wait to vote.

What's going on? While political analysts were fixated on last fall's campaign and on Obama's victory, inauguration, and first 100 days in office, two other dynamics were developing. First, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression scared many voters, making them worry about their future and that of their children and grandchildren. And the federal government's failure to prevent that calamity fundamentally undermined the public's already low confidence in government's ability to solve problems. Washington's unprecedented levels of intervention -- at the end of Bush's presidency and the start of Obama's -- into the private sector further unnerved the skittish public. People didn't mind that the head of General Motors got fired. What frightened folks was that it was the federal government doing the firing.

Many conservatives predictably fear -- and some downright oppose -- any expansion of government. But late last year many moderates and independents who were already frightened about the economy began to fret that Washington was taking irreversible actions that would drive mountainous deficits higher. They worried that government was taking on far more than it could competently handle and far more than the country could afford. Against this backdrop, Obama's agenda fanned fears that government was expanding too far, too fast. Before long, his strategy of letting Congress take the lead in formulating legislative proposals and thus prodding lawmakers to take ownership in their outcome caused his poll numbers on "strength" and "leadership" to plummet.

The bottom line for Cook is that the Dems are almost certain to take a wallop in the 2010 midterms (and of course some are even suggesting that the GOP might take back majority control of Congress).

And why not? As Wednesday's Pew reporting indicated, "Congressional Favorability at 24-Year Low: Midterm Voting Intentions Evenly Divided."

When asked to look ahead to the 2010 races for Congress, voters divide almost evenly between the parties. The sizable advantage enjoyed by the Democratic Party in the past two election cycles is gone, at least for now. As in previous years, both parties command nearly unanimous support from their own ranks. But the Democratic edge among independent voters, critical to their large electoral gains in 2006 and 2008, has vanished. Republicans have gained 10 points since November 2006, on the eve of the midterms (from 33% to 43%).

Independents will be the key. And as they're joining the Republican "crazies," it's going to be the Democrats who'll be insanely scratching their heads in 2010, saying, "My God. What happened to the 'emerging Demcoratic majority'"?

Forget Tort Reform?

I haven't actually been all that interested in the tort reform angle to the ObamaCare debate. That's because, frankly, I haven't had enough information. Calling for "tort reform" has been a good one-liner for some conservatives, and I'm seeing "Tort Reform" signs at my anti-ObamaCare protests. But what do I know?

So, here comes Private Pigg with a great post on the topic, "Tort Reform: Bad Idea":

Well, some people still think tort reform is a good idea. And some people even think it is a good idea in order to fix our health care system (talk about a red herring). And some people even feel the need to shoot off their mouth about it without being willing to defend it, other than to link to other people who agree with them without bothering to produce any supporting data themselves.

That’s what happened over at Cao’s blog. In drafting a post with which I generally agree, Cao threw out the following with regard to health care reform: “My point was that tort reform should be included, that the free market should be allowed to work, and government should get out of the way.”

So I took umbrage with that sentence (specifically, the first thought), asked for some empirical data to support it, received a link to a website that “generally” agrees with tort reform (not necessarily specific to health care reform), demanded actual and specific data from the blogger and not just random, general links, received a link to a lawsuit filed against Best Buy, cried foul, and was subsequently informed that my comments would no longer be posted.

Okay, I just went over to Cao’s Blog to check the debate, and Private Pigg just eviscerates her - I mean, it's just merciless. Read the whole thing. You know you've won when the other side attacks you as a "liberal":

Here's a few key passages:

Private Pigg:

"Tort reform is a loser. That a liberal’s argument. If you are for the market, then tort reform is not necessary. Juries decide damages. They are not professionals. They are average citizens. I have yet to hear even a coherent argument in favor of tort reform and to what it supposedly will cure."

Cao:

From the American Tort Reform Association:

“Lawsuit abuse continues to have a negative impact on the nation’s economy, as well as many state economies,” explained ATRF president Tiger Joyce in a news release. “Every dollar spent defending against a speculative lawsuit is a dollar that won’t be spent on research and development, capital investment, worker training or job creation. Unfortunately for those living in Hellholes jurisdictions during this economic downturn, it can be that much harder to find or keep a job and get critical health care services as employers and doctors are driven away by the threat of costly litigation.”

LOL…that doesn’t sound like a liberal argument to me, and I doubt that it sounds like a liberal argument to capitalists who understand that new medicine and technologies cost money. Yeah, how dare those evil companies who seek profit a) pay their employees b) reinvest profit into R&D, new products and technologies and c) want to improve what they’re doing at all!

Of course, with all the lawyers in government who’ve never had a day job, government helps the Hellhole jurisdictions thrive.

Private Pigg:

Any empirical data to back that up? It is absurd to suggest that health care services have their costs increased because of lawsuits. Where are all the lawsuits? Remember, a lawyer who takes a frivolous case and gets blanked gets zero for his time and effort, too, so the idea that there are just this multitude of frivolous lawsuits out there is ridiculous ....

The market, and our ability to redress our grievances in court before a jury of our peers, demands the governments stay out of the peoples’ right to litigate.

Cao:

Ask the American Tort Reform Association which I not only quoted but linked to. Unless, that is, you’re not really interested in finding the information you claim you’re seeking and instead are in the business of kill the messenger/Alinsky tactics…as evidenced from your ignorant comment and your unwillingness to follow the link to what I already provided ....

Because you demanded that I provide you with empirical data and I don’t think thats my job - YOU FIGURE IT OUT, lefty! Not only do you want others to bear the burden of oppressive taxation, you want others to do the work and the thinking for you.

Private Pigg:

You clearly have no personal knowledge of the legal system. You just cite random websites for a proposition someone has told you is good. That’s why you cite a suit against Best Buy as some justification for tort reform to bring down health care costs. Brilliant.

And, yes, I will ask you to prove it, because you made the claim that tort reform was necessary. So cite me something that actually shows that health care costs across the country are up because of frivolous lawsuits. Good luck with that.

Cao:

As I said, go to the websites I referenced.

There are numerous white papers available; but you’re too dumb or lazy or both–to acknowledge it. The examples I cited were numerous, and again, you’re either too dumb or lazy or both-to acknowledge it.

But you know what? Your stupidity is neither my responsibility or my problem.

Idiot.

You have now officially broken two of my rules; no more comments from you will be published.

Now that's an entertaining debate!

Cao's logical fallacy is argumentum ad verecundiam. And she clearly doesn't know what she's talking about, so she just keeps referring back to her websites. When pressed by Private Pigg, Cao first calls him a "liberal." Then she calls him an "idiot" and tells him he doesn't know how to think. Then she imports the "rules" to the debate, and alleges that Private Pigg's "violated" them. That gets him banned from the comments.

As is obvious, the real reason he's banned is he makes Cao look like a mountebank.

Good stuff all around.

Check Private Pigg's blog for more good stuff!

Related: Denver Post, "Health Care Fact Check: Tort Reform."

CNN Reports on William Rice Finger-Biting Story: 'Health Care Debate Draws Blood'

Here's the CNN video:

The story is here, "Man Says He Lost Part of Finger in Fight at Health-Care Rally."

Karoli Kuns is interviewed there, and she's got a lot of activity at her Twitter page. Lots of witnesses to the altercation.

See my earlier report, "Search Continues for MoveOn Finger-Biter: William Rice Interview - Doctors Unable to Reattach Finger, 'I'm No Hero' (VIDEO)."

Readers should call the Ventura County Sheriff with information on the finger-biter: (805)494-8201.

See also, "FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog, "Bill Rice Loses Finger Tip To Unhinged Obamacare Supporter":

Bill is a former Ventura County firefighter and his family is very well known and respected in the Newbury Park and Thousand Oaks area.

Flap recalls fondly when there was a fire in my dental practice shopping center, it was Bill Rice who came to my office and made sure there were many fans to prevent smoke damage. He gave service above and beyond – as has his son who is now serving in the Marines.

DDB Brasil Submitted WWF's 9/11-Tsunami Video to Cannes

Via the Blog Prof, it turns out that the DDB executives who "didn't know" who created the WWF's tsunami ad went ahead and submitted the spot to the Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival:

Leading Brazilian trade publication Meio & Mensagem broke the news on its website today that both ads were entered at the Cannes festival by DDB Brasil. The entries in the press and film categories can be found online and included full credits for the work.

Previously DDB Brasil had said the print ad ran only once in Sao Paulo and was mistakenly entered in the One Show. An agency spokeswoman said neither the agency nor the client, the WWF in Brazil, authorized the video version, called "Planes," that surfaced on the internet this week showing multiple planes approaching Manhattan and the World Trade Center towers.

The episode is turning out to be an embarrassing one for DDB Brasil, one of the creative jewels of the Omnicom Group-owned DDB network. While the Sao Paulo-based agency has made several apologies, including one that takes over the agency's website, there hasn't been any public comment from Global CEO Chuck Brymer.

Meio & Mensagem published links to both entries on the Cannes Lions site that named a dozen people, including DDB Brasil creatives and account supervisors, who were apparently involved in the ad, according to the entry information submitted by the agency. A production company and a sound-design company were also credited.

The description of the ad submitted by the agency said "We see two airplanes blowing up the WTC's Twin Towers...lettering reminds us that the tsunami killed 100 times more people. The film asks us to respect a planet that is brutally powerful."

The two ads, entered in the press and film categories, were apparently little noticed at Cannes, but the print ad "Tsunami" earned a Merit award, which ranks below a Bronze prize, from the One Club.

"The reality is that the ad met our conditions of how people submit work," said Kevin Swanepoel, president of the One Club. DDB Brasil submitted the ad in accordance to One Show protocol; it paid the submission fee and provided a tear sheet to verify the ad ran in a Portuguese-language newspaper.

And here's the "evidence" that Repac3 was demanding on ... pulling the Merit Award:

Mr. Swanepoel said if One Show had rejected the ad, it would have raised censorship issues for the awards. "We can't be seen to throw out an ad that's been submitted to us because we don't like the content," he said. "It was legitimate, so we have to rely on our judges, who are an international panel of judges. We cannot police what agencies send in. We can't tell our jurors to not look at something, we have to stick by our rules."

The agency has since asked One Show to withdraw the ad, so it has been stripped of the Merit award and removed from the online awards gallery. "In our eyes it's no longer a winner," Mr. Swanepoel said.

See also, "WWF's 9/11-Tsunami Ad Approved From Get-Go."

*********

UPDATE: Correction appended above ...

Interestingly, though, it's not just my commenters ingloriously trying to gain the upper hand:

As a side note, after I reported on the ad yesterday, a commenter on this site told me to “do my homework” because Gawker reported that the WWF wasn’t involved. To that commenter I now say, “suck it” and “in your face.”

Well, ditto!

Search Continues for MoveOn Finger-Biter: William Rice Interview - Doctors Unable to Reattach Finger, 'I'm No Hero' (VIDEO)

This is the photo released by the Ventura County Police Department:

This image provided by the Ventura County Sheriff's Department shows the beginning of an altercation between William Rice, at right in the khaki shirt and olive shorts, and an unidentified man wearing black, who authorities say bit off Rice's little finger. The sheriff's department is seeking the public's help in identifying the man in black at far right, by calling the investigations bureau at (805)494-8201.

My previous report is here, "MoveOn Finger-Biter Remains At-Large: Leftists Blame 'Anti-Reform' Forces for Violence."

The angle of the picture above looks similar to the shots taken by Karoli Kuns, who reported on the event here. As Kuns states, "I've given this report to the police along with my photos." However, from the start MoveOn impeded the investation with its dissemination of disinformation, and Kuns' allies have not given up the identification of the attacker to the authorities. Also, Kuns tweets that her photographs are appearing on CNN (so folks might keep checking back to her Twitter page for possible information on the whereabouts of the MoveOn perpetrator).

It turns out that doctors were not able to reattach William Rice's finger, "Healthcare-Reform Opponent Says Bit-Off Finger Could Not Be Re-Attached" (via Memeorandum). Here's a report from Fox News:

Meanwhile, Ian Gurvitz at Huffington Post is slurring concerned citizens as "monkey-shitters." See, "The GOP Strategy: Operation Monkeyshit":

The GOP's goal from the second the president took office was to bring him down. Their strategy: Operation Monkeyshit. Just like a monkey in the zoo will wildly fling his shit at tourists, the GOP started flinging their shit with the sole intention of diminishing the president's popularity, tarnishing his image, and hurting his brand, all to lay the groundwork for the 2010 midterms and 2012 presidential elections. Tea parties. "Mortgaging our children's future." "The TARP didn't work." "Death panels." "Killing grandma." Birthers. "He's going to take your guns and house terrorists in your neighborhood." "He's weakening the country." "He's going to give Bin Laden the keys to your city where he will take your job and sleep with your daughter."

Now it's the professional tailgaters in town halls holding Hitler signs, screaming about Fascism and Socialism -- as if they could either define those ideas, or spell them. It's Rove 101. Take your opponent's biggest strength and turn it into a weakness. John Kerry the veteran fabricated his injuries. Obama is Hitler.

I swear, everyday I'm more convinced that the left is in league with the devil. Not only are ObamaThugs, SEIU goons, and MoveOn finger-biters resorting to violence to turn back the conservative tide, they add insult to injury by slurring everyday Americans as ignorant racists and "monkey shitters" who can't spell.

God help this country.

MoveOn Finger-Biter Remains At-Large: Leftists Blame 'Anti-Reform' Forces for Violence

I attended the counterprotest to MoveOn.org's "candlelight vigil" in Irvine last night. There were two instances when MoveOn's ObamaCare thugs crossed the street to mix it up with the smaller group of conservative activists on the northwest corner. Leftist agitators have become even more aggressive of late. This heightened belligerence comes just as MoveOn and HCAN have been have been prepping their activists for confrontations and shout-downs. There's little doubt that the same context of leftist agitation and intimidation helps explain Wednesday's MoveOn finger-biting controversy at the "candlelight vigil" in Thousand Oaks.

The initial reports were a bit unclear as to the origins of the altercation, but MoveOn is claming to "condemn the violence" while its activist cadres are busy pinning blame on the "anti-reform" forces. One MoveOn activist, "Karoli" (who is Karoli Kuns), has written an eyewitness report and sent tweets in real time:

What's interesting to me is that most mainstream reports indicate that the MoveOn protester began a "verbal confrontation" with members of the conservative anti-ObamaCare demonstrators. And now, as the Los Angeles Times reports, police are still looking for the MoveOn finger-biter:

Authorities are searching for a healthcare reform activist today who they said bit off the finger of a 65-year-old counter-demonstrator during a fight at a MoveOn.org rally in Thousand Oaks.

There's a couple of troubling implications here for the MoveOn activists: First is that if Karoli Kuns' first-hand report is accurate, there should be additional eyewitness accounts supporting allegations that conservatives were aggressive and instigated violence against MoveOn demonstrators. Kuns has published a report, but her account is sketchy and her conclusions tentative.

More troubling is that if Kuns' story is correct, why hasn't the MoveOn finger-biter turned himself into the police? People don't usually evade the authorities unless they've got something to hide (or are in fact guilty of lawbreaking). Moreover, these MoveOn "candlelight" protests are social networking events. Participating activists are well-connected through online media and telecommunications. So why haven't the MoveOn people reported the name of the finger-biter to the police? Indeed, the word is out the MoveOn specifically spread disinformation initially to confuse the press and the authorities as to what really happened.

So, while the exact details and criminal ramifications are still being investigated, the event does remind us of the fact, as Ed Morrissey notes, "that most of the violence in these protests have come not from Tea Party activists or gun-carrying protesters, but from the counterprotesters from unions and left-wing groups."

Here's the video report, from Freedom's Lighthouse:

Barack-trination! Critics Decry Obama's 'Indoctrination' Plan for Students

From Fox News, "Critics Decry Obama's 'Indoctrination' Plan for Students":

A suggested lesson plan that calls on school kids to write letters to themselves about what they can do to help President Obama is troubling some education experts, who say it establishes the president as a "superintendent in chief" and may indoctrinate children to support him politically.

But the White House says the speech is merely "designed to encourage kids to stay in school."

Obama will deliver a national address directly to students on Tuesday, which will be the first day of classes for many children across the country. The address, to be broadcast live on the White House's Web site, was announced in a letter to school principals last week by Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

Obama intends to "challenge students to work hard, set educational goals and take responsibility for their learning," Duncan wrote. Obama will also call for a "shared responsibility" among students, parents and educators to maximize learning potential.

"The goal of the speech and the lesson plans is to challenge students to work hard in school, to not drop out and to meet short-term goals like behaving in class, doing their homework and goals that parents and teachers alike can agree are noble," Tommy Vietor, a White House spokesman, told FOXNews.com. "This isn't a policy speech. This is a speech designed to encourage kids to stay in school."

For commentary, see Grizzly Mama, "President Obama's Speech to American Students." Plus, Dr. Sanity, "FAVORITE WEAPONS OF THE TYRANT" and "THE NEW EDUCATIONAL INDOCTRINATION - OBAMA STYLE."

Also, Atlas Shrugs, "Obama in the Classroom: Keep Your Kids Home from School September 8."

WWF's 9/11-Tsunami Ad Approved From Get-Go

I've been running around today and blogging's been spotty. My ace commenter Dave at Dave's Notepad has forwarded me the updates on the WWF's 9/11-Tsunami Ad. It turns out there's a video version of the spot [Added: From Ed Dricoll, "Video Saved From The Memory Hole: The Pulled DDB-B/WWF 9/11 YouTube Clip"]:

The original ad was approved by WWF in December 2008. And yet: After initially denying paternity for the spot, DDB Brasil and the WWF issued a statement chalking it up to "inexperience of some professionals on both sides, and not bad faith or disrespect toward American suffering." The team also denies the video version was authorized in house. But that make no sense, as Allahpundit notes:

So some wily amateur video producer out there happened to stumble across a print ad that only ran once in South America and was so taken with it that he churned out a slick animated version on his own dime? Humor me for a moment and assume that this is, in fact, the handiwork of DDB. If so, exactly how many “inexperienced professionals” contributed to — and approved — the spot?

This story is so convoluted it's ridiculous.

The denials of responsibility are just as bad as the creation of the ad in the first place. And lefties couldn't get out of the blocks fast enough to decry the spot as a "fake." See, Mediabistro, "That WWF Ad: Yeah, It's Fake."

And this blogger takes the cake:

Yeah yeah, it's all planned, scripted and fully authorized, no matter what they say, and the USA never made it to the moon, controlled detonations brought down the buildings on 9/11, and the train bombers in the UK were just hapless patsies for the real villains. Oh and I did I mention Obama is Adolf Hitler in disguise?

Okay, how about a serious and earnest dissection of the scandal ...

Well you know what? I believe the WWF. I accept their denial. I believe what they're saying. I don't believe they'd be that silly, as an organization looking to raise funding in the United States and other countries. Especially running an ad like that in Israel, as if it wouldn't find its way back to the USA licketty splits. But then I believe Obama isn't a reincarnation of Adolf Hitler, so what would I know.

If I'm wrong, and the WWF were in on the deal - send me your hard evidence now - I'll recant and apologize to anyone who will listen.

Oh look? Where? There. Out the window. There's reality flying past, along with several pigs. Pity you missed it, quite a sight.

Well, reality's a bitch sometimes.

I'm tracking back to this blogger, and I'll update with the "recant and apology" when the pigs fly.

**********

UPDATE: Dorothy Parker, at The Loon Pond, has updated with an apology:

Since the intertubes is full to overflowing with error, I've deleted the erroneous post from this site. No need to keep perpetuating a myth. For anyone offended or mislead, apologies. Clearly the WWF Brasil and DDB Brasil are dummies.

The St. Louis Whole Foods 'Buycott'

This is Gina Loudon at the first video. She's with the St. Louis Tea Party, talking about the "Whole Foods Buycott," which the local conservatives have mounted in response to the left's idiotic Whole Foods boycott. The second video below is from Dana Loesch, "Entire Whole Foods “Buycott” Footage ..."

Some background is here, "St. Louis Whole Foods Buycott One of Several Nationwide."

Radley Balko's doing some fascinating blogging on this. See, "Whole Foods, Ct’d…"

Plus, see the essay that started the "whole" thing from CEO John Mackey, "The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare."

I'm stopping at my local Whole Foods on the way home from the office in a few minutes!

I Pledge: To Resist the Barack-trination!

I vaguely remember this video first coming online around the time of the inauguration. I try to be civic-minded when listening to stuff like this (it's always good to try to be more volunteeristic), but some of the "pledges" are just plain loony, if not extremist. I don't pledge to drive slower to conserve energy, for example. Been there, done that ... in the 1970s!

Anyways, it turns out some parents aren't digging the Barack-trination: "Parents Upset Over 'Leftist Propaganda' Video: Principal Apologizes for Showing 'I Pledge' to Students":

A school principal has apologized for showing a video at an assembly that a politically conservative group leader is calling "radical, leftist propaganda."

Children at Eagle Bay Elementary School in Farmington were shown a short video called "I pledge" on Aug. 28. The video opens with an image of President Barack Obama and part of a speech in which he says, "Let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other." The video then features celebrities making pledges about how they will help the president and the world -- and that's where some say the problem lies.

Many pledges, such as supporting local food banks, smiling more, and caring for the elderly are noncontroversial. But other pledges, such as "to never give anyone the finger when I'm driving again," "to sell my obnoxious car and buy a hybrid" and to advance stem cell research cross the line, some say.

"Showing the video in a public school is completely inappropriate," said Jennifer Cieslewicz, whose daughter is a first-grader at the school. "I don't believe a video such as this that promotes certain values should be shown to elementary students, especially without parents being aware. "

Chris Williams, Davis School District spokesman, said school principal Ofelia Wade and school PTA leaders decided to show the video as part of an assembly about the school's theme for the year, service. He said the PTA board chose the video and Wade did not see it before it was shown in the assembly.

"It got to a point where she turned to her assistant and said, 'Oops, I wish I would have seen this before. I don't think I would have shown it,' " Williams said. He said Wade could see how some adults might find the video political.

"She acknowledges she was wrong and apologizes for it and says she's sorry," Williams said. Attempts to reach school PTA leaders Tuesday evening were unsuccessful.

Read the whole thing.

I just love the Red Hot Chili Peppers, and it bums me that Anthony Kiedis is at the video pushing the Obama-Kool Aid on this one - although I'm not suprised. (His line would be funny if it wasn't offered in the context of Obamania: "I pledge allegiance to the funk, to the united funk of funkadelica.")

Anyway, this isn't some fringe group trying to ram this crap down people's throats (what that freak Repsac3 would say). This is more hard-left ideological programming straight from the mainstream Democratic Party establishment - and it is not okay.

See also Michelle Malkin, "'I Pledge to Be of Service to Barack Obama'," and "Obama’s Classroom Campaign: No Junior Lobbyist Left Behind." (Via Memeorandum.)

Charles Gibson to Retire From 'World News Tonight'

My wife and I watch our local news on L.A.'s ABC-7 Eyewitness News. Normally I'm going to watch Sean Hannity at 6:00pm, but when my wife's hanging out in the living room, channel 7 will be on; and at 6:30 "World News Tonight" comes on, and we'll watch that. I've always admired Charles Gibson, and if he's a liberal, it's never really bothered me that much, even during times like this:

So, I'm not that happy to see him retire from the news business, which ABC News is reporting, "Charles Gibson to Retire from 'World News': Diane Sawyer Will Replace 'World News' Anchor in January":

Charles Gibson, who has served as anchor of "World News" since May of 2006, announced this morning that he will step down from the post at the end of this year and retire from full-time employment at ABC News.

"Good Morning America" anchor Diane Sawyer will serve as the next "World News" anchor, beginning in January.

"It has not been an easy decision to make," Gibson said in an e-mail to the "World News" staff. "This has been my professional home for almost 35 years. And I love this news department, and all who work in it, to the depths of my soul."

ABC News President David Westin said that he and Gibson have been talking about the decision for several weeks and that Gibson "has persuaded me that this is both what he wants and what is best for him."

More at the link. (Via Memeorandum.)

The One Club Deletes The One Show 'Merit Award' for WWF 9/11-Tsunami Ad

UPDATE: This post is corrected to removed reference to the BBC, which is in error. Thanks to Repsac3 for the correction ...

*******

I posted the link yesteday to the The One Club's "Merit Award - Public Service/Political Print - Newspaper or Magazine - Single."

But as Darleen Click reports, "The print award this ad won has disappeared from the link above with no explanation. Luckily, I found a screenshot":

So much for all of those denails yesterday from the WWF and its lefists allies.

I've got an anonymous commenter trolling around periodically, who left this:

Please don’t twist this story for your own extreme political agenda, and please check your facts:

This was a fake ad created by Bazillians, it was never authorized or approved by WWF, and has nothing to do with the ‘leftist movement’ or whatever you’re trying to imply.

Sure, it was awarded a merit at One Show (what were there thinking?!) but that is a non-profit organization – based in New York, it’s in no way connected to the BBC.

God, the denial is almost killing me!

The ad ran in Israel, of all places (check Adver-To-Log Advertizing Archive). And DDB, WWF's Brazilian affiliate, has long been known to produce outrageously nihilist ad products - like this viral Volkswagen "Polo" ad of a suicide bomber detonating a bomb inside the vehicle near a coffee shop (here). "Small but tough" is the tag-line, when the explosion is contained inside the car. Both DDB and Volkswagen denied responsibility, of course. Wait, a denial? Hey, maybe a pattern here!

Darleen added this at her post:

While the Left worldwide is knee-jerk anti-American, there is something else at work in this ad that is both a goal of the Left and a consequence of it. If you asked the people who conceived it, those that applaud it and those that went so far as to bestow awards on this ad if they see a difference in the deaths between the tsunami and 9/11, they’d merely blink in confusion. For them, dead is dead and the most important issue is number. 200,000 vs 3,000. And if you push them, they would admit that the 200,000 “more deserving” of attention because it was poor melanin-enriched people dying.

These are the priorities of the collectivist Left. Economics and class.

More at Memeorandum.

'The Road to World War II: Why Wasn't Hitler Stopped?'

The image is from Wiki Commons. The text is German, but the photo is dated September 16, 1938, and titled, "Obersalzberg." This shot places Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain at Hitler's retreat - the Eagle's Nest - near Berchtesgaden during his initial diplomatic visit to Germany to stave off war over the Sudetenland.

I'm moved to post this after reading Der Spiegel's essay today, "The Road to World War II: Why Wasn't Hitler Stopped?" Here's the introduction:

World War II began 70 years ago when Germany invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939. It would last six years and claim millions of lives. But the Allies missed several opportunities to stop Hitler in the run-up to the war.

And here's this from the text:

Like a massive earthquake, Hitler's war forever destroyed a world order with Europe at its center. After 1945, the United States became the world's principal driving force. The shift of Poland's borders to the West, the Soviet Union's dominance of Eastern Europe, which would last until 1989, and the partition of Germany -- none of this would have happened without World War II.

And at the root of it all was a man who -- if one is to believe his contemporaries -- was just 1.75 meters (5 foot 9 inches) tall and who weighed a mere 70 kilograms (154 pounds), a man whose guttural pronunciation betrayed his Austrian origins: Adolf Hitler, born in the town of Braunau am Inn.

But is it possible for one man, no matter how powerful a dictator, to set the entire world on fire? For some time, there have been growing doubts about the previously generally accepted view, and the consensus today is that the situation was far more complex than once believed. It remains indisputable that World War II would not have happened without Hitler. But it is also clear that a number of factors helped to turn the Nazi leader's war fantasies into reality.

One of those factors was the compliance of conservative elites in the military, the civil administration and the world of business. They did not share Hitler's crude concept of racial superiority, and many of them feared a war with the Western powers. Nevertheless, they dreamed of acquiring global power and had aspirations to create a Greater Germany that would, at the very least, dominate Eastern Europe. They included men like Franz Halder, the commander-in-chief of the army, who announced in the spring of 1939 that his men had to overrun Poland and would then, "filled with the spirit of having emerged victorious from enormous battles, be prepared to either oppose Bolshevism or be thrown to the West."

The rest is here.

The piece notes as well that public opinion in Germany on the eve of war was nationalist and hardly pacifist. It turns out, not surprisingly, that there was a 'rally 'round the Reichsadler" effect after the initial conquest of Poland.

Cited here as an authority is Ian Kershaw, whose recent two-volume psycho-biography of Hitler has been re-released in an abridged, single-volume edition, Hitler: A Biography. Still, I'm not sure how much more "complex" is the academic consensus today on the origins of World War Two in Europe. Historians and political scientists have been researching these issues for decades; and my take on Kershaw's work was more an exhaustively-researched and innovative interpretation of Hitler rather than a raw, wholesale paradigm shift on the outbreak of the conflict.

The war in Europe has long been considered overdetermined: We had the unfinished conflict with Imperial Germany, which left the defeated German state intact and at restless following the punitive peace settlement at Versailles. Changes in the international system and choices of the leading states of the realm contributed to the permissive circumstances for a new continential conflagration. The United States stayed out of the League of Nations. American power was withdrawn from the European balance. British and French policies chose appeasement on the late-1930s when a softer line in the 1920s might have helped the Weimar regime survive. These counterfactuals are discussed by Joseph Nye in his book, Understanding International Conflicts.

My own work has focused on pacifist (antiwar) opinion in contributing to the phenomenon of "underbalancing" in the 1930s. Democratic regimes are often difficult to rouse to action, but by 1938 Britain and the U.S. (and to a lesser degree France) had moved well on the way toward a material counterbalance to German power. It's a frustrating exercise, figuring out what delayed the Western response to Hitler's drive for hegemonic conquest. Thank goodness that the Western democracies prevailed in the end.

World Wildlife Fund 'Condemns' Award-Winning Ad Desecrating 9/11 Memory

Via Astute Bloggers, "World Wildlife Fund Runs Disgusting Ad Desecrating the Memory of 9/11." Check out this World Wildlife Fund advertisement created by affiliated ad agency DDB Brazil/Sao Paulo:

The New York Times reports, "Wildlife Group Condemns a 9/11-Tsunami Ad."

But The One Show lauded the ad with the "Merit Award - Public Service/Political Print - Newspaper or Magazine - Single."

The ad's sales pitch reads:

"The tsunami killed 100 times more people than 9/11. The planet is brutally powerful. Respect it. Preserve it."

Ed Morrissey responds:

Wow! Sounds like the Earth is the real terrorist ....

Whoever thought of trivializing and commercializing the murders of 3,000 people for an ad campaign about conservation needs to search deep within themselves to determine whether their soul exists.

But here's the thing: An ad like this is no big deal for the leftist establishment, and not just in Europe. This stuff is standard fare among the folks at Daily Kos, where they're known to celebrate "Happy Twin Towers Day." Moreover, in the non-shocker of the month, the Obama administration is busy with its push to eradicate the historical memory of September 11, which is alleged as a "Republican day and "an obstacle to winning over the hearts and minds of the American people."

So, forget this faux condemnation: The WWF ad is totally of a piece with both the ideological foundations of the global anti-American left AND the core agenda of the Obama administration's ideological program.

*******

UPDATE: Reference to the BBC has been corrected ... credit to Repsac3.

James Taranto: Dick Cheney for President in 2012

Sam Stein's not too pleased, "Cheney In 2012? Some Key GOPers Aren't Kidding." But James Taranto makes a lot of sense at the video:

Hat Tip: Freedom's Lighthouse.

See also, Johanna Neuman, "Cheney in 2012? Now There's a Real September Surprise," and Memeorandum.

Public Option's Just the Beginning: 'Why the Right Opposes ObamaCare'

I got this video clip from Jimmie at Sundries Shack. It's an awesome brief explanation of right-wing opposition to ObamaCare, from Duane at All American Blogger. It's great stuff. As Jimmy notes:

I really like how Duane actually produced this video, unlike a lot of bloggers who pretty much just talk into the camera for a few minutes.

More at All American Blogger.

Related: From Gateway Pundit, "CAUGHT ON TAPE: Obama HCAN Organizer Instructs Supporters How to Shout Down Opponents & Take Over Meetings." The town hall is Rep. Jan Schakowsky's (and she's cited at Duane's video above).

Neptunus Lex: The Two Dorks, Glenn Greenwald and Joe Klein

I dislike Glenn Greenwald so much that I deeply appreciate when folks hammer him for hate-filled America-basher that he is. That said, I don't like Joe Klein all that much either, so I wasn't sure how to approach his delicate balancing act between hammering Greenwald and maintaining his own position as a pretty-hard left-wing goon.

The problem is resolved by Neptunus Lex in his post on the blow-up, "When Two Dorks Collide"

Pretty much inside blogball, but Time’s Joe Klein and Salon’s Ellison Rick Ellensberg Thomas Ryan Ellers Wilson Glenn Greenwald are having a bit of a spat. Summat to do with leaked emails and national security concerns according to Klein. Stuff and nonsense insists M. Soque Poopette.

I believe Tom Maguire may have the best analysis of this particular “who’s libbing who” dust up:

Joe Klein wastes his pixels and our time lighting into Glenn Greenwald. Whatev – Klein will never be able to move far enough left to placate his audience, as much as he tries – the Atrios/Greenwald screamers have had good success in their goal of working the refs (OK, Bush helped…). However, I *may* be burying the lead – in the email leaked by Greenwald, Klein makes no attempt to conceal his partisan rooting interest in Democratic success, which *may* have led to some awkward moments with his editors. That is pure guesswork, BTW – I can think of plenty of commentators who make no attempt to hide their party preference; I just can’t recall how Klein is marketing and positioning himself.

None of this is particularly important in the grand scheme of things even if the blogger and the hack are relatively influential in their respective corners of the dorkosphere.

There's more at the link, but I've shamelessly reposted the good stuff here.

The whole (little) debate is a Memeorandum.

White House Freaked Out by Dems' Antiwar Base on Afghanistan

From the Politico, "White House Fears Liberal War Pressure":

White House officials are increasingly worried liberal, anti-war Democrats will demand a premature end to the Afghanistan war before President Barack Obama can show signs of progress in the eight-year conflict, according to senior administration sources.

These fears, which the officials have discussed on the condition of anonymity over the past few weeks, are rising fast after U.S. casualties hit record levels in July and August.

The aides also expressed concern that Afghan election returns, still being tallied, will result in a narrow reelection for President Hamid Karzai that could result in qualms about his legitimacy — “Tehran II,” as one official put it, in reference to the disputed Iranian election.

The result: some think Afghanistan - not health care - will be the issue that defines the early years of the Obama administration.

“There’s no question that the drumbeat is going to get louder and louder on the left, and you’ll see some fall-off on the right,” said Matt Bennett of the think tank Third Way, the moderate voice of the progressive movement. “His supporters on the Hill are fighting a really serious political battle to keep the criticism under control.”

The Afghanistan conflict, which has gotten relatively little attention in part because Obama talks far more often about domestic concerns, is roaring back to the top of the Obama agenda as Congress is about to return from weeks of meetings with often unhappy voters.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) last week called for a timetable to pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan — the same tactic he and other war opponents used to build congressional support for forcing an end to the Iraq war.

But Obama officials — including National Security Adviser James Jones and Defense Secretary Robert Gates — know the problem is much bigger than Feingold and timetables. They anticipate a growing number of anti-war liberals will call, with increasing force, for an end to the conflict when lawmakers return. Cost could become an issue, too. With deficits high, there will be heavy pressure on Obama to find savings somewhere in 2010 — and war critics see Afghanistan as a good place to start.

George F. Will opened a new fissure among conservatives with a column Tuesday calling for the U.S. to pull all ground troops out of Afghanistan, on the theory on the French general Charles de Gaulle that genius “sometimes consists of knowing when to stop.”

But it’s Democratic opposition that could force Obama to retreat on what he has called a "war of necessity."

Forget George Will for now.

With the exception of the hardline revolutionary socialists, mosts lefists were arguing that the Bush administration's Iraq war was a "distraction" from our "real" war in Afghanistan." That line was always politically expedient, and even more so now that the Obama administration's in power.

Spencer Ackerman is representative of the America-bashing left. On January 23, Ackerman sounded the tocsin, "Progressives Launch Attack on Afghanistan." And yesterday, Ackerman questioned Anthony Cordesman's call for more troops in the conflict, "Wait, We Need How Many More Troops For Afghanistan?"

It's not about national sucurity for these people. It's about hatred and power, as always.

Totally unserious.