You're Not Entitled to Your Own Facts

I wrote previously: "I think the folks at American Nihilist owe me an apology."

And I'm renewing the call.

And to be clear, I've been subject to enough racial slurs in my life to let a couple go. Indignities are part of living in a diverse society with real differences in race, class, and ideological persuasion. But when leftist go around calling people out as RAAAAACIST, I'd at least expect some consistency, honesty, and intellectual integrity. In the case of James Casper --- a.k.a. "Repsac3" --- that's obviously asking way too much. Some folks will remember that Repsac3 unveiled his bigoted race-centric view of the world during The Pale Scot controversy: "It's Come to This: Progressives Reduced to Racist Slurs Against American Power." The comments left at BJ Keefe's blog were so bad that BJ Keefe himself disowned them, while nevertheless hypocritically citing a First Amendment principle to allow such hatred to remain in his comment thread.

In any case, I shouldn't be returning to this subject, but as Repsac3 is a stalking asshat and a liar who maintains a stalking website, and who has been the ringleader in a campaign of harassment, including the publication of my workplace information, I don't mind taking the time every now and then to point out what a pure bigot and demonologist prick he is.

The other day I posted on Dennis Prager, "The Liberal Leftist Mind Rejects Sad Facts." Harasser and hate-sponsor Reppy responded. With regard to President Obama's endorsement of racist hip-hop mysogyny, RepRacist3 dismissed socal commentator Thomas Chatterton Williams as a "clown." (Chatterton is the author of Losing My Cool: How a Father's Love and 15,000 Books Beat Hip-Hop Culture.)

That's tyical of Repsac3, a progressive bigot who takes to attacking dignified, accomplished black men as "clowns." Clearly derogatory and offensive, this is what leftists love to do: infantilize and demean blacks, whipping them with epithets, keeping them down on the progressive plantation. Reppy's racist ally in that regard is TBogg:

And as for the facts, this is what Chatterton wrote --- in full context --- with regard to President Obama:

What's on President Obama's iPod? A wide range, he told Rolling Stone magazine last week, from the jazz of John Coltrane to the ballads of Maria Callas. And more: "My rap palate has greatly improved," Mr. Obama noted. "Jay-Z used to be sort of what predominated, but now I've got a little Nas and a little Lil Wayne and some other stuff, but I would not claim to be an expert."

Expert or not, that's the wrong message for the president to be sending black America.

Does Mr. Obama like Lil Wayne's "Lil Duffle Bag Boy"? In that song, the rapper implores young black men to "go and get their money" through round-the-clock drug hustling. And with Lil Wayne, it's not just an act: The rapper is currently serving a one-year term on Rikers Island after being caught in New York with drugs and guns stashed in his Louis Vuitton overnighter.

Lil Wayne is emblematic of a hip-hop culture that is ignorant, misogynistic, casually criminal and often violent. A self-described gangster, he is a modern-day minstrel who embodies the most virulent racist stereotypes that generations of blacks have fought to overcome. His music is a vigorous endorsement of the pathologies that still haunt and cripple far too many in the black underclass.

The president once spoke out for a strong black family. Indeed, Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention represented the finest traditions of black conservatism going back to Booker T. Washington. Now he's down with the minstrel-misogyny that continues to keep black youth in their place. And that racism of low expectations is enabled by leftists like James "Repsac3" Casper. These Kos-Kleagles apologize for the bigotry of their own ranks while constantly playing the race card to excoriate ideological enemies as bigots and "clowns."

These are bad people, progressive KKK henchmen. Repsac3's Twitter background provides an idea of the circle of secular demonologists this evil man follows --- and the hatred both he and they endorse:

George W. Bush at Reagan Library

AT KABC-TV Los Angeles, "Bush Appears at Reagan Library Promoting Book."

But I have inside intel from my student, Barbara Efraim:

It was so good! I wrote down two quotes that I really liked: "The only alternative to radical terrorists is the spread of democracy." "Democracies lay the foundation for freedom, and freedom is necessary for peace." He spent a lot of time answering questions on Iraq and Afghanistan, but he also addressed other things. Someone asked him advise on raising teenagers when the parent is so busy. He also joked around a lot, saying that when Laura asked him to wash the dishes after leaving the White House, she said that this was his new domestic agenda...

Melanie Phillips on Michael Coren

Via Blazing Cat Fur:

The Pope Lifts Church's Ban On Condoms to Fight Aids — UPDATED!!

At Telegraph UK: "The Pope has signalled a historic shift in the position of the Roman Catholic Church by saying condoms can be morally justified."

I thought I saw something on this earlier, at Twitter.

UPDATE: Kate O'Hare disagrees in the comments, and points to "The Pope Said WHAT about Condoms???"

But check LAT, "Pope Says Condom Use OK in Few Cases," and "Pope's Guarded Comments On Condoms Offer Hope for Believers in Middle of AIDS-Stricken Nations":

Roman Catholic believers and leaders in parts of the world most stricken by AIDS drew hope from Pope Benedict XVI's recent comments on condoms, even if the Vatican took pains to explain that nothing has changed about its policy on contraception.

For those focused on battling the scourge of AIDS, the Pope's message that condoms could be used in some limited cases came as a welcome surprise. Father Peter Makome, a Catholic priest in Zimbabwe, said he would spread the news.

"I've got brothers and sisters and friends who are suffering from HIV because they were not practicing safe sex," said Makome, who works in the capital Harare's Southerton Parish. "Now the message has come out that they can go ahead and do safe sex; it's much better for everyone."

Speaking to a German journalist whose book was excerpted in a Vatican newspaper Saturday, the pontiff reiterated that condoms are not a moral solution for stopping AIDS. But in some cases, such as for male prostitutes, he said their use could represent a first step in assuming moral responsibility "in the intention of reducing the risk of infection."

What If Bristol Wins 'Dancing With the Stars'?

I for one will be pissed. This baby is Jennifer Grey's all the way.

More from Courtney Friel:

See also PopEater, "Insiders: If Bristol Palin Wins, 'Dancing' Is Ruined" (via Memeorandum). And at Death and Taxes, "White Powder, Threat Sent to Bristol Helps Palin Family." But see Cubach's response.

RELATED: "Controversy Over Bristol Palin on 'Dancing With the Stars'."

The National Post Embraces Twitter

I retweeted an article from The National Post the other day, and I got a thank you tweet back. I thought, hmm, that's pretty cool, if not unusual. So I'm not surprised to see this interview with Chris Boutet, the Senior Producer of Digital Media at the paper. From Mediabistro, "The National Post: How One Newspaper is Embracing Twitter [Interview]" (via Mediagazer). And here's this from the piece:

What are some of the goals the National Post has for its Twitter accounts?

We want people to engage with our content, first and foremost. We want people to share our stories, retweet our Tweets, and get involved with our reporting.

For example, we have a campaign where we send out @mentions thanking people for sharing our content or for mentioning us in their tweets. We want our readers to know that we appreciate their engagement, and we are actively using our Twitter account.

We also use Twitter as a way to build the personality of our brand. We are an irreverent newspaper, with a dry wit. We don’t take ourselves very seriously, and we encourage our readers to take everything with a grain of salt. Underneath this is a vaguely disguised optimism. All of this comes through on Twitter.

And clicking over to the homepage right now, here's the screencap:

I've posted a couple of times on Christie Blatchford, via Blazing Catfur and Kathy Shaidle.

And from Rex Murphy, "University of Waterloo Ignoramuses Accomplish Their Doltish Goal":

The University of Waterloo is inadequately and belatedly trying to make up for the shabby treatment afforded Christie Blatchford at the renowned institution. It has apologized for the hijacking of her talk by self-ordained (they always are) “anti-racism” activists — five ignoramuses who took the stage before her, chanted “racist, racist, racist” at her, denied her right to speak and denied the audience who came to hear her their right to hear her.

The apology at least recognizes the insult done to Blatchford, and to the people who came to hear her. A knot of intellectually vacant hooligans, whether united neck to neck with bike locks or not, should never be alloted the power to say who speaks and who does not speak at a university. (Or anywhere else for that matter.) Waterloo has also promised to reschedule the event. However, the apology only became necessary because the university — she was there at the invitation of its bookstore — didn’t toss the smug nuisances from the stage in the first place. Nor does the apology — which wears the whiff of “damage control” — quite measure up to a real acknowledgment of the ugliness Blatchford endured that evening. As the Post editorialized Thursday, the shutting down or abridgement of free speech at universities — especially by “progressive’ protesters” — is growing so commonplace that we fail to notice how aggressive and mean the actions and words of the protests leading to the shutdowns actually are.

The Waterloo clowns smeared Christie Blatchford horrendously: She is, by their description, a “hack” and a “bigot” who preaches “racism” and “hate.” She’s a “fascist”; she has “no right to speak”; she “dishonours” Waterloo by being invited to speak there. If you listen to or read the words of Don Kellar, the putative leader of the vile and petty coup, Christie Blatchford is all of these things — but wait ...

More at the link.

And the Blatchford excerpts are here.

Obama Evokes Reagan in Push for New Start Treaty

It's no surprise that President Obama pumped up the new START in his Saturday address:

Did you listen? It's interesting, since the president's main argument is that the new START is essential to verify the Russian arsenal. The president evokes Reagan's famous dictum, "trust, but verify." But if anyone's breaking Reagan's rule, it's Obama himself. The Russians don't follow the same strategic norms as we do, something I discussed earlier, "Trust Russia on START?" In fact, according to Keith Payne and Tom Scheber:

... compared to those of its predecessor, the 1991 START, New START’s verification measures are extremely weak. Among many problems, it abandons the mobile-missile verification regime of START I, including the provision for continuous monitoring at final-assembly plants for Russian mobile missiles. It virtually guarantees that we will not get useful performance data from Russian ballistic-missile flight tests, leaving us with limited insight into the performance characteristics of new Russian weapons — including such basic items as range and warhead payload. It shifts much of the burden of verification to aged National Technical Means satellites and other sensors, and allows Russia’s deployed mobile missiles to be concealed. Several Republican members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee rightly concluded that “verification in this treaty is very weak.” Sen. Kit Bond (R., Mo.) observed, “This is one that turns President Reagan’s theory of trust but verify on its head. We will trust them even though we can’t verify it.”

And that's not all. Obama is attempting to build an arms control legacy on the scale of Reagan's, and of course he's been playing politics with existing treaties in an effort to hammer through his own vision. As Heritage reported this week:

It is ironic that the Administration is citing the need for verification as justification for treaty ratification—after all, the present verification problem was created by the Administration. The White House did not take the advantage of a five-year extension possible under START I and instead insisted on negotiating a separate agreement. At that time, the Administration justified its approach by saying that it was more important to get the treaty right rather than get the treaty soon. The Senate considered the original START for nearly a year. The Moscow Treaty, which was far less complex than New START, was before the Senate for nearly nine months. The Obama Administration took more than 12 months to negotiate New START but has sought approval from the Senate in less than five. The rush to ratification undermines the important role of “advice and consent” that the Senate must exercise on any treaty of this magnitude.

The Administration’s claim for the urgent need to pass New START and initiate its verification provisions blatantly contradicts the Administration’s own public statements about the absence of any Russian military threat to the United States or U.S. allies. New START would increase U.S. reductions relative to Russia, and “concessions to Russian demands make it difficult to support Senate approval of the new treaty,” according to Ambassador James Woolsey.

Treaties such as New START, a major nuclear arms agreement, require more scrutiny than others. The Senate needs access to the negotiating record that includes all draft versions of New START, memoranda, notes, and communications between U.S. and Russian negotiators. This record is critical to clear up questions on key provisions in the treaty and specifically, how the Russians interpret them. The Senate is constitutionally mandated to give due diligence in its consideration of New START. This responsibility is not consistent with the rushed process the White House is seeking.

And, so, what the rush? Obama claims that it's been 11 months, 18 congressional hearings, and the administration's responded to over 1000 questions. Yeah. So what? Rushing the new START is Obama's method to ram home a flawed pact. And apparently he's calling out some age-old arms control veterans -- realists, such as Henry A. Kissinger, James A. Baker III and Brent Scowcroft --- to lend gravitas to a White House as inept as it is insipient.

Kristi Noem on Hannity

Discussing the GOP agenda:

Noem beat Blue Dog Democrat Stephanie Herseth Sandlin in a race I covered before the election: "Death to Blue Dogs Coming From Both Sides." Also, from Bob Belvedere, "Spotlight On Kristi Noem.

Why Sarah Palin Shouldn't Run — Or Why She Should

Mona Charen spoke at the Jewish Policy Forum panel in Los Angeles, along with David Horowitz. Michael Medved began the talk with a discussion of electoral politics, and at some point the panelists got to talkin' about their favorites for the 2012 presidential race. Ms. Charen endorsed Mitchell Daniels (not my favorite, for reasons some might recall). And that's interesting, since we find that Ms. Charen's not hip to a Sarah Palin presidential bid. See, "Why Sarah Palin Shouldn't Run" (at Memeorandum). And this passage is worth consideration:

She is wildly popular with a swath of the Republican electorate, it's true. And, as a conservative woman politician told me, the consultants (who get paid the big bucks win or lose) will doubtless descend upon her with game plans showing how she can win in Iowa and then cruise to the nomination. Maybe. But the general election would be a problem, since 53 percent of independent voters view Palin unfavorably, according to a recent Gallup poll, along with 81 percent of Democrats.

RTWT.

Fair enough. But my sense, beyond this, is that Ms. Charen is looking at presidential politics a bit clinically. Extreme emotionalism devolved to a form of secular worship in 2008 and the election of "The One." Ms Charen's right to note the dangers of it forming on the right heading into 2012. But skimming over this a bit more, Ms. Charen yearns for a conservative politics almost entirely divorced from popular culture. I doubt we're ever going back to a time of Reagan, much less Goldwater. But check the comments at the post (Townhall has a well organized comments section). If the sentiment there gives any indication, the GOP nomination is Palin's for the taking. And why not? Sarah Palin is a force of nature. She embodies all the best of the American spirit, and her family emobodies all the best of the American citizen. We don't know if she'll be a good president. Leftists had no clue if Barack Obama would be a good president. Democrats picked Obama on faith. There's danger there, sure. My sense is that Palin's attuned to popular sensibilities in a way the Barack Obama has never been. She's anti-elitist. She stands against the elite-arugula entitlement that is the essence of the Democrat-Socialist hegemonic power agenda. And Sarah Palin learns. She's open to ideas and feedback. If President Obama had even an ounce of those qualities he'd have a much better chance of avoiding early retirement in 2012 --- quite possible at the hands of Sarah Palin herself.

RELATED: "Sarah Palin Rallies GOP at 'Victory 2010' in Anaheim."

The World in China's Orbit?

From Niall Ferguson, at Wall Street Journal, "In China's Orbit":

Today per capita GDP in China is 19% that of the U.S., compared with 4% when economic reform began just over 30 years ago. Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore were already there as early as 1950; Taiwan got there in 1970, and South Korea got there in 1975. According to the Conference Board, Singapore's per capita GDP is now 21% higher than that of the U.S., Hong Kong's is about the same, Japan's and Taiwan's are about 25% lower, and South Korea's 36% lower. Only a foolhardy man would bet against China's following the same trajectory in the decades ahead.

China's has been the biggest and fastest of all the industrialization revolutions. In the space of 26 years, China's GDP grew by a factor of 10. It took the U.K. 70 years after 1830 to grow by a factor of four. According to the International Monetary Fund, China's share of global GDP (measured in current prices) will pass the 10% mark in 2013. Goldman Sachs continues to forecast that China will overtake the U.S. in terms of GDP in 2027, just as it recently overtook Japan.

But in some ways the Asian century has already arrived. China is on the brink of surpassing the American share of global manufacturing, having overtaken Germany and Japan in the past 10 years. China's biggest city, Shanghai, already sits atop the ranks of the world's megacities, with Mumbai right behind; no American city comes close.

Nothing is more certain to accelerate the shift of global economic power from West to East than the looming U.S. fiscal crisis. With a debt-to-revenue ratio of 312%, Greece is in dire straits already. But the debt-to-revenue ratio of the U.S. is 358%, according to Morgan Stanley. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that interest payments on the federal debt will rise from 9% of federal tax revenues to 20% in 2020, 36% in 2030 and 58% in 2040. Only America's "exorbitant privilege" of being able to print the world's premier reserve currency gives it breathing space. Yet this very privilege is under mounting attack from the Chinese government.

For many commentators, the resumption of quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve has appeared to spark a currency war between the U.S. and China. If the "Chinese don't take actions" to end the manipulation of their currency, President Obama declared in New York in September, "we have other means of protecting U.S. interests." The Chinese premier Wen Jiabao was quick to respond: "Do not work to pressure us on the renminbi rate…. Many of our exporting companies would have to close down, migrant workers would have to return to their villages. If China saw social and economic turbulence, then it would be a disaster for the world."

Read the whole thing at the link.

Ferguson's a phenomenal scholar. I really enjoyed his piece on U.S. decline earlier this year, at Foreign Affairs, "Complexity and Collapse: Empires on the Edge of Chaos." And up until recently I'd been mostly bullish on the duration of American preponderance, but with the long recession in the U.S., and the political intransigence that makes the tough decisions (massive reducdtions in federal spending) nearly impossible, I'm growing more skeptical on sustaining U.S. hegemony for much more than a generation. It's not like we can't turn things around at home, especially on fiscal policy (see, "How to Cut $343 Billion from the Federal Budget"), but that we've got a massive collective action problem, particularly on entitlement reform, which hinders progress.

One point not discussed is cyclical economic trends, domestically and internationally. I've consistently maintained that the U.S. will not only come roaring back, but that we're soon likely to experience another decade like the 1990s (which stifled talk of American decline after our last period of self-doubt). And who's to say that China will ineluctably continue its path to the tops of international power? Perhaps the secular trend toward parity is largely inevitable, but the U.S. has assets that other former hegemonic powers lacked (continued population dynamism at home, for one thing, set to increase the U.S. population to about 400 million by 2050, something even Joseph Nye neglected to mention in his recent piece, "The Future of American Power: Dominance and Decline in Perspective").

More on all of this going forward.

Dems to Follow GOP Playbook?

At WaPo, "Democrats Strategists Ready to Take Page From GOP Playbook in 2012."

Folks can check the link.

There was a similar story at LAT yesterday, "Party's Survival Instinct Kicks In":

Frustrated by what they see as President Obama's weakness in battling Republicans, leading Democratic donors and tacticians have begun independently plotting their political recovery — including building a network of outside fundraising and campaign organizations to compete with those formed this year by Republicans.

This week, more than 100 wealthy Democrats gathered in a posh Washington hotel for a closed meeting in which participants repeatedly called for Obama be more aggressive in his agenda and tactical combat with the Republican right.

"I am used to fighting losing battles, but I don't like losing without a fight," said financier George Soros, a longtime donor to causes on the left, in a comment confirmed by his staff as part of a call to arms in private conversations at the postelection meeting of the Democracy Alliance, an organization of wealthy Democrats that provides funding to liberal groups.

In another sign of Democratic unrest, a dozen prominent Democrats — including longtime Bill Clinton advisor Harold Ickes, labor leader Andy Stern and representatives of influential interest groups — will meet Monday to discuss whether to form a new operation to combat the array of outside groups launched this year by Karl Rove and other Republican strategists, according to multiple participants.

Such a move by Democrats comes despite Obama's longstanding opposition to political spending by outside groups — particularly those that refuse to disclose their donors — and underscores the deep dissatisfaction with the White House's strategy on several fronts.

The White House declined to comment.

And it's no mystery why. The party's movers and shakers are unhappy, and with good reason. Obama and his inept political team completely squandered what was about as close to a political mandate as we've seen in decades. In two years the pendulum has swung back with a vengeance, and 2012 looks iffy for folks on the left.

Can Mary Katharine Ham Touch Your Junk?

Not kidding.

Dan Collins wants to know:

Catalan Socialist Party Does R-Rated Nora Ephron Send-Up

This reminded me of When Harry Met Sally...

The story's at BBC and Memeorandum:

But seriously, these cats went further, much further:

Apparently desperate to pique the interest of young voters ahead of local elections in Catalonia scheduled for later this month, political parties in the Spanish region are engaged in what is starting to seem like a race to see which of them can get their entire campaign banned for excessive use of sex, violence or porn film soundtracks.

The first blow was struck by the new Catalan Solidarity for Independence Party, which recruited a porn star named María Lapiedra to appear at its campaign rallies.

Not to be outdone, the conservative Popular Party posted a video game on its Web site this week starring an animated version of its local leader, Alicia Sánchez-Camacho, flying through the air on a white seagull, bombing illegal immigrants and Catalan nationalists.

As the Spanish newspaper El País reported, on Tuesday afternoon, after the game was posted online, the Popular Party’s Web site crashed under the traffic of thousands of eager players. Hours later, the game was withdrawn and the party claimed that the game’s developer had deviated from instructions to have the candidate’s avatar attack not immigrants but the people-traffickers who smuggle them into Spain.

The same day, another candidate, Montse Nebrera, who leads her own party, appeared on camera wearing just a towel at the end of a highly suggestive ad that interspersed statistics about corruption and government waste with what looked and sounded like outtakes from a porn film.

By week’s end, though, politicians across the political spectrum were weighing in on another steamy ad that topped them all, in which a young actress was shown simulating an orgasm as she cast her vote for Spain’s Socialist Party. The ad, which was produced by the Young Socialists of Catalonia — to illustrate their slogan, “Voting is a pleasure” — would certainly earn an R-rating in the United States and makes a similar scene in the movie “When Harry Met Sally” look quite tame by comparison. So far it has been viewed on YouTube more than 70,000 times, which, for a local election video, comes close to qualifying as a viral hit.

Still more at the link, and also Memeorandum.

House Republican Leadership

Press Conference from the House Republican Leadership team for the 112th Congress.

Saturday Cartoon Pat-Downapalooza

I love the Mike Lester cartoon at top ...

NewsBusted — Islamic Group to Women in Hijabs: Refuse TSA Screenings

Via Theo Spark:

Air Security and Political Correctness

From C. Edmund Wright, at American Thinker, "Why Air Security is the Issue":

It is always shocking to me how many folks are OK with being treated like cattle. Any thinking person instinctively understands that these ridiculous security measures are not going to make us any safer, because any thinking person knows damned well that it is young Muslim males, not four ounces of grandma's shampoo, that destroy airplanes and people and buildings.

It would be bad enough if any of this loss of freedom were actually making us safer. It is not, and there are much easier and less expensive ways to do so. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that those in charge are either really foolish or doing this on purpose, or a combination of both. And interviews with travelers indicate that there is a fairly high "naïf factor" among us. You know, the "I don't like it, but if this is what it takes to keep us safer..." crowd. Puh-leeze.

RTWT.

I'm still not quite there yet, although I'm fascinated at how quickly airport screening has moved to the very front of the national political agenda. But see Dr. Sanity, in any case, "A COLLECTIVE POLITICAL PSYCHOSIS":

We continue to witness a strange mishmash of conflicting memes and confusing behaviors--not on the part of the terrorists, but on the part of Obama and friends. The terrorists are remarkably consistent and rather persistant in their desire to kill us.

The Democratics have adopted the Alfred E. Neuman "What, Me Worry?" approach to national security; and their denial about the threat of Islamic terrorism continues to evolve into complex rationalizations and nuanced idiocies that refuse to confront the true nature of the threat...

Video c/o Melanie Morgan.

RELATED: From HotMES, "Flying on November 24? Then celebrate National Opt-Out Day!!!"

Stevie Ray Vaughan

A follow-up from last night. I had a beer with Steve Ray Vaughan in 1983, after a sound check at the Cathay de Grande:

Tumblr: Blog Platform of Choice for Feminists, Homosexuals, and Druggies?

In the news, "Tumblr dives into a boatload of money" (via Memeorandum).

But as my exchanges with Miss Olga at STFU Sexists indicates, Tumblr's the hip blogging platform for the radical countercultural masses: "Someone Needs to Smoke Another Bowl With Me."

Heidi Montag Regrets Plastic Surgeries

I'm not surprised. Recall I blogged this like a mofo at the time.

See, "Heidi Montag: ‘My Dead Doctor Ruined Me’." And "Heidi Montag Regrets Plastic Surgeries, Blames Dead Doctor."

Leftist Group Demagogues START Debate With New 'Daisy Girl' Ad

It's from the American Values Network, a hard-left progressive faith group:

Burns Strider, the group's founder, was a former aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and was a faith advisor to the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. In other words, this is a Democratic ad blitz using the most outlandish fearmongering imaginable. The original "Daisy Girl" ran at the height of the Cold War. It came in response to Barry Goldwater's bellicose comments on the use of nuclear weapons against the Soviets. There's little of that kind of rhetoric in today's GOP --- and we're not on brink of a nuclear holocaust --- and the ad's claims on inspections under the new START are entirely dependent on Moscow's compliance and transparency. When Obama signed the treaty in April, our Czech allies dissed it as "appeasing Russia." See my previous entry: "Trust Russia on START?"

RELATED: "George Voinovich Hammers Obama's 'Political Expediency' on New START Treaty."

Ireland Bailout Threatens European Monetary Union

This is the big story from Europe, at WSJ, "Irish Grasp at EU, IMF Lifeline":

The Irish government all but buckled to pressure to accept a historic international bailout Thursday, capitulating after a week of intense lobbying from officials across Europe and spurring questions about which other European economies will need a helping hand. Ireland's central-bank governor and finance minister acknowledged for the first time Thursday that the country needs help rescuing its banking industry, which has been crippled by losses on sour loans.

The Irish government is in talks with the International Monetary Fund and European officials about a loan package that is likely to amount to "tens of billions" of euros, the central-bank governor, Patrick Honohan, said. "It will be a large loan because the purpose...is to show Ireland has sufficient firepower to deal with any concerns of the market."

Ireland's grudging decision to accept foreign aid, after insisting it didn't need help, is a bitter moment for a country that won its independence from Britain decades ago. Already, some lawmakers and editorial writers are bemoaning what they see as the inevitable loss of sovereignty that will accompany a foreign bailout.

And this is key, in my opinion:

It is an equally pivotal point for the 16 nations that use Europe's common currency. After rescuing Greece in the spring, European leaders are now betting that if they extinguish the financial crisis engulfing Ireland, it won't spread to other euro-zone weak spots. But with bond markets continuing to punish those countries, new bailouts may be needed soon—a prospect that some believe will call into question the durability of the euro as a common currency.

I reported some time back that Germany's economic resurgence was lapping many other EU nations, and the prospect of renew demands for German autonomy outside the political union was said to threaten European integration. (And at NYT, "German Identity, Long Dormant, Reasserts Itself.")

RELATED: At The Other McCain earlier this week, "EUROPE IN CRISIS: Sudden Financial Emergency Strikes EU Zone UPDATE: Götterdämmerung?"

The Ghailani Verdict and the Anti-Anti-Terrorist Left

I was looking forward to this, from Andrew McCarthy, "A Compromise Verdict, and No Winners" (via RCP):

The Ghailani verdict was irrational, but no more so than the decision to try him as a civilian in the first place.

*****

A federal jury in Manhattan has returned what is transparently a compromise verdict in the terrorism trial of Ahmed Ghailani.

The case centered on al-Qaeda’s bombing of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998. There were 285 counts, including separate murder charges for each of the 224 people killed. Ghailani was acquitted on 284 of them and convicted on a single charge of conspiracy to destroy government buildings.

That sounds like a great victory for Ghailani, but it is nothing of the kind. On the one count of conviction, Ghailani faces a sentence of up to life imprisonment, and there is a mandatory minimum term of 20 years in jail. In that sense, it is a victory for the government: The object of a terrorism trial is to neutralize the terrorist, and one count will do the trick.

But beyond that, the Justice Department walks away from the case as a big loser. That’s because the Obama administration made this much more than a terrorism trial. It cherry-picked the case to be a demonstration that the civilian criminal-justice system is up to the task of trying terrorists. This was to be the “turn the clock back” moment — specifically, back to the Clinton years, when Eric Holder was deputy attorney general and when prosecution in civilian courts was the U.S. government’s principal response to the jihadist onslaught that began with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

This was the model that Barack Obama campaigned on and that the anti-anti-terrorist Left takes as an article of faith. No more Bush-era counterterrorism: no enemy combatants, no military commissions, no indefinite detention, and certainly no aggressive interrogation. The president and his attorney general are adamant that “the rule of law” must be restored.

Never mind that the laws of war — which support all the Bush-administration measures — are the rule of law during wartime. Never mind that at no point in our history have the nation’s wartime enemies been given access to the civilian justice system and endowed with all the protections and presumptions that American citizens receive. To the Obama Left, the law-enforcement approach is effective national security, a way to win the hearts and minds of Muslims and consequently make ourselves safer. It makes no difference that the country was demonstrably unsafe — and repeatedly attacked — during the Clinton years. Nor does it matter that people in Islamic countries have no idea of the legal differences between American civilian and military proceedings — they care only that we are imprisoning Muslims, not about the abstruse details of our basis for doing so.

The Obama Justice Department saw the Ghailani case as the perfect opportunity for the civilian system to prove itself. After all, the case had already been tried successfully: In 2001, before the 9/11 attacks, four terrorists were convicted and sentenced to life terms. Moreover, while critics of the law-enforcement counterterrorism model emphasize that civilian due process requires the government to hand over too much sensitive intelligence, thereby educating the enemy while we are trying to defeat the enemy, that argument was significantly diminished in Ghailani’s case. Because the case had already been tried in the civilian system, most of the relevant intelligence had already been disclosed. You could contend that this was not a good thing, but for better or worse it had already been done.

But instead of a shining moment for proponents of civilian prosecution, the Ghailani case is a body blow.

More at the link.

RELATED: From Steven Givler, "What Nobody Else Will Tell You About the Ghailani Trial."

Renee Ellmers Wins North Carolina's 2nd District Seat

Sister Toldjah has the story at Right Wing News, "Congrats to Congresswoman-Elect Renee Ellmers!"

Although don't miss Robert Stacy McCain's roundup, featuring Ellmers' GZM ad, "BREAKING: Renee Ellmers Wins Recount; Bob Etheridge to Concede; UPDATE: In Concession Speech, Dem Says He Was Victim of ‘Dirty Politics’":

RELATED: At The Monkey Cage, "Combating Rumors about the Ground Zero Mosque." And the link there, "LEARNING THE TRUTH NOT EFFECTIVE IN BATTLING RUMORS ABOUT NYC MOSQUE, STUDY FINDS," from Erik Nisbet and Kelly Garrett. I've e-mailed the authors, and sent them links: "Questions for Imam Rauf From an American Muslim," by Zuhdi Jasser, and "Imam Feisal Rauf and the Genocidal Hamas Covenant."

Megyn Kelly in GQ

Fox News women are the hottest?

Duh.

Via JammieWearingFool, "Need Another Reason to Love Megyn Kelly?"

Also around the 'sphere:

* The Blaze, "Fox’s Megyn Kelly Makes Revealing GQ Appearance."

* MediaBistro, "Fox News’ Megyn Kelly in GQ: ‘You may have heard that we’re number one’."

Yep, conservative women are the hottest!

And amazingly, I've scooped Robert Stacy McCain on this one!

Bristol Palin Is Not Dancing With the Tea Party

At LAT:

In between hearty laughs, Dawn Wildman, co-coordinator of the California Tea Party Patriots, dismissed the idea of an organized coalition to get the dancing competition's mirror ball trophy in Palin's young hands.

"We are all still reeling from the elections and the business at hand with the lame duck session," said Wildman, of San Diego. "And I wish we had the opportunity to spend time to just sort of mull the situation for 'Dancing With the Stars.' But that’s just not happening. It is interesting that the left would think that there is somehow a concerted effort or a conspiracy of the 'tea party' movement to propel this young woman into — what? Winning the giant disco ball award? What would we actually achieve by her doing that? How will it help the nation if Bristol Palin wins 'Dancing With the Stars'? I don’t think any of us have enough time on our hands to consider our options for that one."

More at the link.

Trust Russia on START?

START II never entered into force. Yet, the U.S. went ahead and decommissioned the LGM-118A Peacekeeper, citing underperformance with missile range objectives:

Time exposure shot of testing of the Peacekeeper re-entry vehicles at the Kwajalein Atoll, all eight fired from one missile. With live warheads, each would have the explosive power of twenty Hiroshima-sized (Little Boy) nuclear weapons.

*****

The Russians, on the other hand, also covered in START II, continued to deploy the SS-18 Satan, historically one of the most devastating ICBMs in the Russian nuclear arsenal. And again, while START II was not ratified and nor entered into force, the norms that motivated the treaty apparently had little affect on Russian strategic behavior. The SS-18 Satan is a MIRV'd reentry missile. It remains the backbone of the Russian strategic arsenal. Previously, the SS-18 was thought to have destabilized the U.S.-Soviet deterrence structure, since the enormous size of the missile, along with the multiple warheads, threatened a successful first strike against U.S. land-based missile silos. And this history matters, as symbolism and memory are powerful elements of the Russian identity. To make matter worse, the Obama-negotiated New START doesn't actually call for a large quantitative reductions in deployed missiles (and that's just for START-ers). The U.S., frankly, would be placed at the mercy of Russian compliance with a renewed inspection regime. We are, then, to trust Moscow, not only with numerical ceilings, but with access for the inspection regime? It's asking a lot.

How Far on TSA Opposition?

Two essays for your consideration: At POWIP, "Disagreeing with Ace on Body Scanners, Pat Downs," and AoSHQ, "Is America Freaking Out Too Much Over Naked Body Scans?"

I'd much rather not have the dweebs at TSA touchin' my junk. On the other hand, I keep thinkin' that one of these days an Abdulmutallab wannabe's gonna actually pull it off. I've listened to my students discuss this all week as well. A couple of them recently had full body scans while traveling. They're mostly okay with it, and they hope to remind folks that it's been almost 10 years since September 11th --- and we sometimes forget how dangerous things can be. That said, I have a hard time lining up with Ron Paul on just about anything. Seriously, that's practically a clincher:

RELATED: At O.C. Register, "Letters: Profiling Makes Sense in TSA Screening."

Senator Jay Rockefeller Wishes FCC Would Shut Down Fox News

At Fox News, where else? ...

A powerful Democratic senator, pointing the finger at cable news for a politically toxic climate in Washington, unleashed a stunning tirade in which he expressed his desire to see the Federal Communications Commission shut down Fox News and MSNBC.

"I'm tired of the right and the left," West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller said Wednesday during a Senate hearing on retransmission consent. "There's a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to Fox and to MSNBC, 'Out. Off. End. Goodbye.' "

"It would be a big favor to political discourse; to our ability to do our work here in Congress; and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and, more importantly, in their future," said the chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Rockefeller didn't seem to realize that the FCC only regulates broadcast airwaves, not cable.

Rockefeller's office did not respond to a request for an interview. The FCC declined to comment.

More at Left Coast Rebel.

Album Sides Thursday

That's my favorite DJ, Larry Morgan.

I heard three album sides today: The Police during morning drive time, Outlandos d'Amour (Side 1), Stevie Ray Vaughan at lunch, Texas Flood (Side 1), and AC/DC during afternoon drive time, Back in Black (Side 2), featuring "You Shook Me All Night Long."

Four Loko'd

Big boy James B. Webb announced he was back on November 1st. Since then Brain Rage has witness a grand total of two entries. I guess that brother be busy, out scopin' some beverage: "Partyers Rush to Stock Up On Four Loko Before It Gets Pulled From Shelves After FDA Says It's Unsafe."

'Blood On Your Hands' — LSU Astronomy Professor Warns Conservative Students On Greenhouse Gases

I found this at Inside Higher Ed, which links to CampusReform.org:

And at Fox News, "Global Warming Debate Ignites LSU Classroom."

Ahmed Ghailani Verdict is Shame of Terror-Appeasing Left

Leftist John Cole is brief and to the point, "The System Worked." Give diabolical killers the same rights as U.S. citizens, and forget about achieving justice for those murdered by heinous acts of terrorism. Yeah, that oughta work. See LAT, "U.S. Civilian Court Acquits Ex-Guantanamo Detainee of All Major Terrorism charges," and at NYT, "Terror Verdict Tests Obama’s Strategy on Trials."

So while leftists are cheering how well the "system worked," more sober analysts have decried the verdict. For example, at Weekly Standard, "Ghailani Verdict a Miscarriage of Justice," at Pajamas Media, "Holder Strikes Out in First Gitmo Civilian Trial, " and at Commentary, "The Ghailani Debacle":

Once again, the Obama team has revealed itself to be entirely incompetent and has proved, maybe even to themselves, the obvious: the Bush administration had it right. And in fact, maybe we should do away with both civilian trials and military tribunals and just hold these killers until hostilities end. You know, like they do in wars.

Eminently true, but clueless leftists continue to push back, to say nothing of the White House: "Senior Administration Official Defends Ghailani Trial, Verdict."

'Guilt-Free Fur' Reveals Total Hypocrisy of Animal Rights Movement

At New York Times (where else?), "The Nutria, a Rodent Promoted as 'Guilt-Free Fur'."

Okay, sure, this is not a particularly attractive animal. And apparently these varmints are wreaking havoc on the Lousiana environment. But it's not like minks are all that much more cuddly (minks are cousins to weasels, for that matter). But now the former is becoming a politically acceptable alternative to the latter, which just goes to show that there's absolutely no intellectual integrity to the extremist animal rights movement. People either reject fur apparel, and hence eliminate demand for furry animals, or they stop yapping about how people who like luxurious coats are animal murderers. It's pretty simple, and wholly pathetic:

TREATING nutria as a kind of “guilt free” fur is tough when you’re cutting the pelt and fur gets caught in your eyes. That’s what Micha Michelle Melancon, a fashion designer in New Orleans, found out when she was making a cloak from what is commonly known as a swamp rat.

“This is an animal,” Ms. Melancon said, after her work space became filled with fluffy piles of excess fur. “A soft, furry, once-living-and-breathing being.”

But unlike other soft and furry animals, nutria is being rebranded as a socially acceptable and environmentally friendly alternative way to wear fur. The effort culminates this Sunday, when Ms. Melancon and about 20 designers take part in a “righteous fur” fashion show at the House of Yes, an art space in Williamsburg, Brooklyn.

Fluffy hats, muffs, leg warmers and even a wedding dress will be paraded down the runway, in a show expected to draw about 150 people. Don’t look for any celebrities in the front row. A reporter from National Geographic and someone who works at Marc Jacobs are among the expected V.I.P.’s.

But Nutria-palooza, as the show is being called, is not just about fashion. The main sponsor is the Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary Foundation, a nonprofit conservation group in Thibodaux, La., that works to preserve the 4.2-million-acre swamp in southern Louisiana that is being threatened by the furry critter.

As any resident of Louisiana knows, nutria is a herbivorous rodent, about half the size of a beaver, that is native to South America. The animals were shipped to fur farmers in the United States as early as the 19th century, and some eventually escaped into the Louisiana swamps. At first, the population was kept in check by fur trappers and a marketplace that prized the exotic fur. Hollywood starlets like Greta Garbo were fans of nutria coats.

But when the fur market started to founder in the 1980s, the nutria population soared and started to endanger the fragile ecosystem. The invasive rodent eats away the bottom of the plants that hold the coastal wetlands together.

In 2002, Louisiana started paying trappers and hunters $5 for every nutria killed. The effort to control the nutria population had some success, with bounty hunters killing about 400,000 animals last year. But the carcasses were simply discarded or left to rot in the swamp.

That’s when Cree McCree, an environmentalist and designer from New Orleans, came up with her fashion idea. Instead of wasting all that fur, she wanted to market nutria as a “guilt-free fur that belongs on the runway instead of at the bottom of the bayou,” she said.

“If they’re being killed anyway,” she added, “then why not make something beautiful out of them?”

Lame justification.

The animals don't "need" to be killed in the first place. The "fur market started to founder" because of the left's attacks on the fur industry. And now that things are out of whack in the bayou, Voilà! Kill 'em all and let the "EVIL" marketplace sort 'em out? If these environmentalists were really worth their salt they'd find a way to balance the ecosystem naturally, without having to kill the poor rodents. What a joke.

GOP Elevates Some New Faces

At WSJ, "Freshman House Republicans Pick an African-American and a Woman for Roles in Leadership":

House Republican freshmen chose Reps.-elect Tim Scott and Kristi Noem for new leadership positions Wednesday, as the party looked to capitalize on its midterm-election victories by boosting its appeal to women, minorities and young voters.

Rep. John Boehner (R., Ohio) was chosen, as expected, to lead House Republicans overall, making him the likely speaker in January. In all, House Republicans' top six leaders will be white men.

Not so for the newly elected GOP freshmen class, which will have at least 85 members and constitute more than a third of House Republicans. Mr. Scott, of South Carolina, will be one of two African-American Republicans in Congress, and Ms. Noem, of South Dakota, will be one of two female GOP leaders.

"The freshman class is a big class," said Rep.-elect Steve Womack (R., Ark.). "It's going to wield a lot of clout here for a couple years. And I think the veteran members and the other side are going to pay a lot of attention to what we have to say."

Mr. Boehner announced shortly after the Nov. 2election that he was creating a new seat for a freshman at the leadership table. On Tuesday, he said he would add another. Those two positions will be filled by Mr. Scott, 45 years old, and Ms. Noem, 38. The two are newcomers to Washington, but not to politics.

Mr. Scott, who grew up poor with a single mother, was elected in 1995 to the Charleston County Council and later to the South Carolina legislature, becoming the first black Republican to serve in each body since Reconstruction. He is fiercely anti-tax, wants to make English the official language of government and says he would insist new immigrants learn English.

While serving in the legislature and working as an insurance agent and a partner in a real estate group, Mr. Scott won the Republican nomination for Congress last June in his heavily conservative district. He defeated Paul Thurmond, son of former Sen. Strom Thurmond, who was a segregationist for much of his career.

Ms. Noem is a rancher and mother of three whose family raises cattle and shows horses. When her father died, she left college to help run the ranch full-time. She is also a state legislator, though Republican leaders often play down that aspect of her career.

Ms. Noem wants to end the estate tax, believes guns should not be subject to federal regulation, and promised to maintain a 100% anti-abortion record in Congress.

Mr. Scott and Ms. Noem are among a handful of incoming Republicans whom the GOP leadership is promoting as faces of the new party ...

More at the link, and you gotta love the diversity of the GOP freshman class.

PJTV: Don't Touch My Junk

Via Glenn Reynolds:

And at Grandpa John's, "The Gadsden Airport Flag."

RELATED: "Leader of TSA offers pat-downs to senators" (at Memeorandum).

The Liberal Leftist Mind Rejects Sad Facts

I love Dennis Prager, but these folks aren't "liberal."

At National Review, "Reality may cause sadness and pain, but it is reality nonetheless":

I recently devoted my biweekly column in the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles to analyzing why most Jews believe that people are basically good despite the fact that this belief is neither rational nor Jewish. In a lifetime of teaching and writing on Judaism, I have never encountered a single normative statement in 3,000 years of Jewish writing that asserted that man is basically good.

As I expected, the reaction — apparently all from Jewish liberals — was entirely negative. Almost an entire page of the journal was devoted to letters attacking me. One of the seven letters — from a prominent Hollywood screenwriter — bordered on hysteria.

The question is, why?

Why would liberals in general, and Jewish liberals in particular — given the Jews’ singularly horrific history at the hands of other human beings — react so strongly against someone who wrote that people are not basically good?

In my original article, I offered one explanation: Since the Enlightenment, the secular world has had to believe in man (or “humanity”), because if you don’t believe in God and you don’t believe in humanity, you will despair.

But one critic opened my eyes to an even deeper reason most liberals do not acknowledge that people are not basically good.

This is what he wrote:

“What a sad world it would be if we all believed as Dennis Prager that mankind is inherently evil.”

And this is what I responded: “I did not write that man is inherently evil. I wrote that he is not basically good. And, yes, that does make the world sad. So do disease, earthquakes, death and all the unjust suffering in the world. But sad facts remain facts.”

“A distinguishing characteristic of liberals and leftists,” I concluded, “is their aversion to acknowledging sad facts.”

This reminds me of the hatemonger and racist Repsac3, who when confronted with the fact of President Obama's bigoted racial stereotyping, refused to acknowledge it, and instead called critics of the president racist. Again, these people are not "liberal." They're radical leftists, and they're insane. More at the link, in any case.

Bill Whittle's Firewall: 'What We Believe, Part 6: Immigration'

More good stuff:

Previously:

* "Bill Whittle's Firewall: 'What We Believe, Part 1: Small Government and Free Enterprise'."

* "Bill Whittle's Firewall: 'What We Believe, Part 2: The Problem with Elitism'."

* "Bill Whittle's Firewall: 'What We Believe, Part 3: Wealth Creation'."

* "Bill Whittle's Firewall: 'What We Believe, Part 4: Natural Law'."

* "Bill Whittle's Firewall: 'What We Believe, Part 5: Gun Rights'."