Thursday, January 10, 2013

Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies

An interesting piece from Micah Zenko, at Foreign Policy, "Target Window."

Zenko's an expert on these systems, apparently, but he still falls into the trap of fingering the Bush administration as the bad guy in the evolving regime of drone warfare. He corrects himself, implicitly, with this passage correctly putting the onus on the Obama administration for a public reconciliation of drone policy in line with both U.S. interests and values:
If the United States hopes to have normative influence on how others use drones -- and administration officials repeatedly claim that they do -- then U.S. leadership must provide a legal framework, a coherent and plausible explanation of the scope of legitimate targets, and a rationale for how targeted killings are coordinated with broader foreign policy objectives. The problem is that the administration's public articulation of its drone strike policies -- used only against specific senior al Qaeda officials who pose an imminent threat to the U.S. homeland -- are fundamentally at odds with how they are actually employed, such as the use of signature strikes against suspected militants predominantly engaged in domestic insurgencies.

To address these issues, the Obama administration should bring its drone strike practices in line with its stated policies by: exclusively limiting its targeted killings to the leadership of al Qaeda or those with a direct operational role in past or ongoing terrorist plots; immediately ending the practice of signature strikes, or publically explaining how they plausibly meet the principles of distinction and proportionality; and reviewing the current policy whereby the executive authority for drone strikes is split between the CIA and Joint Special Operations Command, which have different legal authorities, degrees of permissible transparency, and oversight.
RTWT.

The Homosexual Star Chamber Exacts Its Latest Penalty

I'm sure if they could they'd have had this guy executed for heresy.

At the New York Times, "Louie Giglio, Inaugural Pastor, Criticized for Antigay Sermon":
WASHINGTON — The pastor whom President Obama has chosen to deliver the benediction at his inauguration this month delivered a sermon in the 1990s in which he called on fellow Christians to fight the “aggressive agenda” of the gay rights movement and advocated “the healing power of Jesus” as “the only way out of a homosexual lifestyle.”

Think Progress, a liberal blog affiliated with the Center for American Progress Action Fund, reported Wednesday afternoon on the sermon delivered by the Rev. Louie Giglio, an Atlanta minister and founder of the Passion Conferences, a group dedicated to uniting college students in worship and prayer.

The speech, “In Search of a Standard — Christian Response to Homosexuality,” can be heard on Discipleship Library, a Christian training Web site.

In it, Mr. Giglio cites Scripture in saying that homosexuality “is sin in the eyes of God, and it is sin in the word of God.” He warned against gay rights. “That movement is not a benevolent movement,” he said. “It is a movement to seize by any means necessary the feeling and the mood of the day, to the point where the homosexual lifestyle becomes accepted as a norm in our society.”

Inaugural officials did not respond to a request for comment, and a spokeswoman for Mr. Giglio was not available.

Wayne Besen, founder of Truth Wins Out, which fights antigay sentiment, said: “It is imperative that Giglio clarify his remarks and explain whether he has evolved on gay rights, like so many other faith and political leaders. It would be a shame to select a preacher with backward views on L.G.B.T. people at a moment when the nation is rapidly moving forward on our issues.”
"Backward views." Get that? If you're not down with the extremist, morally bankrupt progressive homosexual agenda, you're "backward."

I dare say this country is going backward straight to hell. And not a single conservative is blogging this story at Memeorandum. You'd think that folks on the right had seen a ghost, and it's the phantom of their own social-conservative past.

My god this country is doomed.

Obama Administration Takes Action on Guns

An executive order. WTF?

That is exactly in the freakin' Obama administration's style.

At WSJ, "Biden Says White House May Bypass Congress Over Guns":

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama is considering taking executive action to stem gun violence, Vice President Joe Biden said Wednesday, suggesting that some federal gun regulations will change even if support doesn't materialize in Congress.

"The president is going to act," Mr. Biden said, as he opened multiple days of meetings with interest groups as part of his assignment from Mr. Obama to draw up proposals for responding to the elementary-school shootings in Newtown, Conn. White House officials said no decisions had been made about what steps the administration would take.

Mr. Biden met Wednesday with gun-safety advocacy groups, as well as victims and survivors of shootings. He also made calls to governors, mayors and other local officials.

The vice president said in the private meeting he hoped to deliver recommendations to the president as soon as next week, a participant said. The meeting yielded consensus on calls for improved background checks and on bans on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, according to the participant.

Mr. Biden is likely to face resistance to most of those ideas on Thursday, when he is due to meet with the National Rifle Association, the nation's most powerful gun lobby, and other gun-rights groups. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., WMT -0.03% the country's largest seller of guns, initially said it couldn't meet Thursday with the vice president but on Wednesday said it would send a representative.

There is little sign lawmakers and advocacy groups on either side of the debate are willing to alter their stances, though room for agreement may exist in some areas, such as requiring states to increase their submission of mental-health records to the background-check system used to screen people buying guns from federally licensed dealers.

Mike Hammond, legislative counsel for Gun Owners of America, which wasn't invited to meet with Mr. Biden, said he didn't expect Thursday's meeting with gun-rights groups to be constructive. "They are being summoned" and will be "lectured," he said.

The NRA declined to comment on what it expects will happen at the meeting. The organization, which last month called for a national campaign to place armed security in the nation's schools, sent a letter to members of Congress last week saying it planned to be a constructive voice in the debate while emphasizing that "gun bans do not work."

One person who has taken part in several of Mr. Biden's meetings said one issue has been what role the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives should have. A law-enforcement official involved in the talks said the administration has questioned whether the ATF should be given a new mission or moved into another agency.

Some states are trying to advance their own measures. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo proposed broad changes to the state's gun laws Wednesday, putting New York on track to be the first to revamp its gun laws following the Newtown shootings.

New York already has some of the nation's strictest gun laws, including an assault-weapons ban, but Mr. Cuomo directed his calls for change at so-called loopholes in the laws.

More at that top link. And also lots more at Memeorandum.

Plus, at Instapundit here and here, for starters.

And at The Blaze, "FOX’S ‘THE FIVE’ RETALIATES AGAINST GAWKER’S NYC GUN OWNER LIST BY AIRING FOUNDER’S PHONE NUMBER."

More at RealClearPolitics, "'Krauthammer: Gun Confiscation "Unconstitutional And Would Cause Insurrection In The Country'."

BONUS: At the Right Scoop, "Pat Caddell: ‘This country is on the verge of an explosion’."

I'll have more later...

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Why Is GOP Defending Neoconservatism?

The headline at top is cribbed from RealClearPolitics' link to Paul Mulshine, at The New Jersey Star Ledger, "On Hagel, the Republicans protest a return to realism." And from the piece:
Did you hear what that liberal, left-wing commie Barack Obama is up to? Why, that pinko’s gone and picked a former Republican senator who’s a war hero as secretary of defense! Can you imagine anything more un-American than that?

Sorry if I sounded like a Fox News commentator for a second there. But that’s the tone the Fox News crowd has adopted in light of the nomination of Chuck Hagel for defense secretary. An online poll showed that Fox fans were spewing this nonsense back at the talking heads by a 10-1 margin.

If this sort of thing were confined to the cartoon show that is Fox News, that would be okay. But the leaders of the Republican Party are mouthing the same sort of stuff. All the usual suspects are denouncing Hagel for being insufficiently enthusiastic about continuing the mindless meddling in the Mideast that began with George W. Bush and continued through Obama’s first term.

With his nomination of Hagel, Obama seems determined to make a long-overdue break with that past and return to realism in foreign policy. Republicans used to boast of being realists. But the term became a dirty word in the years when Bush was employing the U.S. military as a sort of armed wing of the League of Women Voters in his haste to spread democracy.

Bush’s father saw things differently, as did Republican presidents before him. Richard Nixon embraced the realism of Henry Kissinger. Gerald Ford and Bush 41 both appointed as national security adviser a Kissinger disciple by the name of Brent Scowcroft.

In the run-up to the Iraq War in 2002, Scowcroft penned a piece for the Wall Street Journal headlined "Don’t attack Saddam." In it, he noted that an invasion "would have to be followed by a large-scale, long-term military occupation." For good measure, he added that an invasion "could well destabilize Arab regimes in the region" and "could even swell the ranks of the terrorists."

Hagel was saying the same sort of thing around the same time while a senator. "I think it would be unwise and dangerous if the United States would move unilaterally against Iraq," he said. "My fundamental question is, ‘What happens next? So if you take Saddam Hussein out, who governs? Do you let Iraq be fractured into many components?’ "

All of those dreadful results occurred right on schedule. Yet the realists get no respect from their fellow Republicans to this day. Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina called the Hagel pick "an in-your-face nomination" by Obama. And on a Sunday talk show, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell wondered aloud whether Hagel would stand up to questioning concerning "the importance of having a robust military."

McConnell said that right after he blasted "the president and the Democratic majority in the Senate’s unwillingness to cut spending." But it’s the Republicans who oppose cutting the biggest discretionary outlay. That’s military spending, and reducing it would not be difficult once we returned to realism.
There's still more at the link, especially the part where Mulshine labels Hagel a "paleo-conservative" (a meaningless term with regard to Israel, as the so-called "paleos" by default just make common cause with the Israel-hating left).

Okay. Where to begin? For one thing, Mulshine might have mentioned the fact that Hagel voted for the Iraq deployment before he turned against it. I can't speak for other despised "neoconservatives," but more than anything else I hate rank opportunists like the craven former Senator Hagel. That (renounced) vote alone makes him no different from the avoid-force-at-all-costs Democrats who first voted for war then pushed to cut-and-run from Iraq from 2003 onward. This is the left's "great betrayal," a stab-in-the-back to America's troops that's unforgivable.

Second, today's realists aren't of the cold, calculating Nixon-Kissinger mold of the 1970s, or of the advisers to President Bush 41. In 1973 the Nixon administration went to DefCon III on the news of possible Soviet intervention on the side of the Arab states against Israel in the Yom Kippur War. That's the last thing that today's Democrat realists would do. Indeed, it's not the "GOP defending neoconservatism." It's the GOP defending Israel as an independent state after this administration has demonstrated its readiness to cast Jerusalem to the wolves.

I've written about today's "realists" many times, most tellingly Harvard political scientist Stephen Walt. Here's his post yesterday on the Hagel nomination, with all his classic odiousness regarding U.S. support for Israel, "What the Hagel fight does and doesn't mean":
...the real question with the fight over Hagel is whether it is the beginning of a thaw in foreign policy discourse inside the American establishment. Until the Hagel case, ambitious foreign policy wannabes understood that one either had to be completely silent about the "special relationship" with Israel or one had to be an open and vocal supporter. The merest hint that you had independent thoughts on this matter would make you slightly suspect at best or provoke overt accusations that you were an anti-semite, effectively derailing any political ambitions you might have had. The result was an absurdly truncated debate in Washington, where one couldn't even talk about the role of the Israel lobby without getting smeared. Indeed, one couldn't even ask if unconditional U.S. support for Israel was in Israel's best interest, let alone America's, despite the growing evidence that its settlement policy was threatening its long-term future.

By making such ludicrous charges about Hagel, however, neoconservatives and other extremists made it clear just how nasty, factually ignorant, and narrow-minded they are, and how much they believed that the commitment to Israel ought to trump other foreign policy priorities. And it wasn't just the absurd claim that Hagel was anti-semitic; it was the bizarre suggestion that a key job requirement for the U.S. Secretary of Defense was a deep and passionate attachment to a foreign country. The attacks on Hagel triggered a long-overdue reaction from a remarkably wide circle -- including many staunch defenders of Israel -- who were clearly disgusted by the smear tactics and aren't willing to quail before them anymore.

Furthemore, as Peter Beinart noted yesterday, Hagel's appointment might also dilute the perceived need for policy wonks to seem hawkish and bellicose even when skepticism about the use of force is called for. While no dove, Hagel has been intelligently critical of sending young men and women into harm's way without a clear strategy and compelling national interest. His appointment might open up foreign policy debate to a much wider range of views, instead of the narrow-minded bellicosity that has prevailed since 9/11 (if not before).

It's too soon to tell how far-reaching this shift might be. No doubt Hagel's opponents will try to make him express his undying fidelity to Israel during his hearings, in an effort to restore the previous political orthodoxy. But it's a losing cause, especially when Israel itself is about to elect the most right-wing government in its history and when Americans of many political stripes are beginning to understand that the "special relationship" may in fact have become a form of assisted suicide. For the record, I hope that's not the case. Avoiding it will require the United States to be able to speak more honestly on this entire subject, and I hope the Hagel affair opens the door to a far more open, fact-based, and smear-free debate on the entire subject of U.S. foreign and defense policy, including our perenially hamstrung approach to the greater Middle East.
If the Nixon-Kissinger foreign policy apparatus internally disliked Jews and, as some have claimed, were indifferent to Soviet human rights abuses against the Jews back in the day, they were nevertheless fierce defenders of the Jewish state, and put American foreign policy on the line to protect Israel's national security interests as the key to stability in the region. That's no longer the case among the so-called "realists" of today, as anyone who knows Professor Walt's repulsive anti-Israel bigotry will recall (see Eliot Cohen for a refresher, just in case, "Yes, It's Anti-Semitic").

The Hagel nomination is the epic battle ground for the competing visions of U.S. foreign and national security policy for the next four years and beyond. These are bad people, Hagel and his co-nominees at State and the CIA. Not just incompetent, but bad actors all around. See: "'They are all stupid people. Some friends said I shouldn't write this because it is a subjective judgment and sounds mean-spirited. But honest, it's true...'."

Enjoying Ben Shapiro's 'Bullies'

Picked up a copy yesterday and I'm into Chapter 3 so far. It's good. And I'm getting retweeted by the man Ben Shapiro himself. Cool.

Get yours here: Bullies: How the Left's Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans.

Bullies

Angelica Huston's Double Chin

I'm thinking, "And that's not a Photoshop?"

At London's Daily Mail, "Worried that you're turning into the double-chinned likes of Anjelica Huston? Here's how to lose that flabby face in just EIGHT weeks."

Angelica Huston
And no double chin at my 2010 #Bama Rose Bowl photo, but I better be careful. I might start slacking like somebody we know around here, LOL!

The Progressive Plan to Remake America

I doubt there's anything new here, except the revelation that a bunch of left-wing groups got together after the election to consolidate the already on-the-books program of fundamentally transforming America. We're smack dab in the middle of it.

But Maggie's Notebook has this, "NEA, SWA, NAACP, GreenPeace Meet to End Voter ID, End Filibuster – and GET BIG MONEY OUT OF POLITICS."

And communist Steve Hynd has more, at The Agonist, "The Democracy Initiative – smart organizing at last?" (Via Memeorandum.) Note that Hynd is a.k.a "Cernig" from the old Newshoggers blog --- the folks who cheered al Qaeda in Iraq using down syndrome women as suicide bombers. Hynd writes at The Agonist:
Such a pity it is being done for a President and party that are de facto the 1980s center-right, wouldn’t it be great if these people were also trying to build an actual party of the left too? Ah well, maybe – just a maybe - the Democracy Initiative will exert some of their undoubted clout to hauling both Obama and the Dems back leftwards a bit.
We're already tracking pretty far leftward, but that's not enough, obviously, for out-and-out communists.

Nicole Neal Rule 5

She just tweeted this out right now.

And she's on the cover of the FHM October 2012 issue.

Simple, Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire

More at That Dog's Blog, "Nicole Neal topless in photos from Nuts."

BONUS: Pirate's Cove, "If All You See…is the flag of one of the world’s most evil carbon polluters, you might just be a Warmist."

'And You Can Wear Your Jolly Roger...'

I've watched this about three times now, it's so funny. At 4:40 at the clip Alex Jones says to Piers Morgan, "You think you're a tough guy? Have me back on with a boxing ring here and I'll have on my red, white and blue and you can wear your Jolly Roger..." Boy that's some hilarious bluster. And as wrong as Morgan is on the gun issue, I give him credit for his enormous patience with this blowhard. I don't listen to Jones' show and I don't seek out InfoWars on YouTube. 9/11 trutherism ain't my style, although I can understand the guy's mass appeal. Be ready with a boatload of statistics and never let your interlocutor get a word in edgewise.

Robert Stacy McCain has more, "If ‘Crazy’ Were a Political Philosophy, Its Spokesman Would Be Alex Jones."


PREVIOUSLY: "Petition to Deport Piers Morgan."

MORE: At Memeorandum.

'They are all stupid people. Some friends said I shouldn't write this because it is a subjective judgment and sounds mean-spirited. But honest, it's true...'

From Barry Rubin's brutally devastating comments on Obama's foreign policy nominations, "The Four Horsemen of the American Foreign Policy Apocalypse":
I did a lot of soul-searching before writing my latest article, “After the Fall: What Do You Do When You Conclude America is (Temporarily or Permanently) Kaput?” Of course, I believed every word of it and have done so for a while. But would it depress readers too much? Would it just be too grim?

Maybe U.S. policy will just muddle through the next four years and beyond without any disasters. Perhaps the world will be spared big crises. Possibly the fact that there isn't some single big superpower enemy seeking world domination will keep things contained.

Perhaps that is true. Yet within hours after its publication I concluded that I hadn't been too pessimistic. The cause of that reaction is the breaking story that not only will Senator John Kerry be the new secretary of state; that not only will the equally reprehensible former Senator Chuck Hagel be secretary of defense, but that John Brennan, the president’s counterterrorism advisor, will become CIA chief.

About two years ago I joked that if Kerry would become secretary of state it was time to think about heading for that fallout shelter in New Zealand. This trio in power—which along with Obama himself could be called the four horseman of the Apocalypse for U.S. foreign policy—might require an inter-stellar journey....

-- They are all stupid people. Some friends said I shouldn’t write this because it is a subjective judgment and sounds mean-spirited. But honest, it’s true. Nobody would ever say that their predecessors—Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, and David Petraeus—were not intelligent and accomplished. But these guys are simply not in that category. Smart people can make bad judgments; regular people with common sense often make bad judgments less often. But stupid, arrogant people with terrible ideas are a disaster.

How to Waste a Decade in Afghanistan

From Frederick and Kimberly Kagan, at the Wall Street Journal. According to the authors the White House is looking to keep as few as 3,000 to 4,000 troops in Afghanistan after the 2014 withdrawal:
Has the president decided to cut his losses or does he actually think that the U.S. will have succeeded in Afghanistan at the end of his second term? Does it even matter?

Success in Afghanistan has always meant driving al Qaeda out and preventing it from returning. The U.S. cleared al Qaeda from the country in 2001-02 quickly, and with few forces. American efforts have since aimed at creating conditions in which Afghanistan will be able to keep al Qaeda out with limited international assistance. This part of the task has always been the most difficult. Yet it remains as vital today as it was in 2001. Failing at it means letting al Qaeda regain its footing in the land from which it launched the most devastating terror attack against the U.S. in history.

It might be comforting to imagine that killing Osama bin Laden and other key leaders has neutralized al Qaeda, or that the terror group is no longer seeking to return to Afghanistan when other theaters of jihad are available. But Ayman al Zawahiri has solidly replaced bin Laden at the helm, and other lieutenants have filled vacancies in the organization. Despite the dramatic expansion of al Qaeda franchises in Yemen, Somalia, North Africa and Syria since President Obama took office, the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region remains the headquarters of the global al Qaeda movement. It is also home to the largest concentration of regional and global Islamist terrorist organizations in the world.

The reasons are simple. Pakistan does not effectively govern, police or control a large area on its side of the border—and Afghan and international forces have been fighting hard to gain control of a larger area on the Afghan side that is also historically difficult for Kabul to control. The very concentration of terrorist groups in this area is itself a reason for them to remain there, where they can communicate and support one another easily and directly. They share logistics facilities, training areas, weapons factories and many other critical pieces of terrorist infrastructure that would be hard and costly to replicate elsewhere.

The U.S. has long recognized that some ungoverned space will remain in Afghanistan—and in Pakistan. One aim of America's efforts in Afghanistan has been to reduce the size of this terrorist-friendly area while making it difficult for terrorists to operate in what remains. The U.S. has pursued that aim by building an Afghan National Security Force tied both to a minimally functional Afghan government and to international forces over the long term.

The strategy was not to build an ANSF that could function without any international assistance. Creating a fully independent ANSF, if possible at all, would take decades. Even our European allies—France and Britain included—require significant American logistical and air support to conduct major operations. No one has ever imagined that the Afghan army would do better than the French.

For all of these reasons the Obama administration will no doubt promise that the U.S. will continue to provide assistance to the Afghan military in addition to continuing counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan. But the military reality is that we cannot conduct either mission at the force level the president is considering....

If a much-reduced U.S. force level is announced, Afghans will say that the Americans have abandoned their country. They will be right. With a drastically reduced U.S. presence, the Afghan government and army will fracture, warlords will begin fighting each other and the insurgents and terrorists in ungoverned spaces. The conditions will be ideal for al Qaeda's return.

That's failure. And it will matter.
Well, it won't matter to Obama.

He lied about his commitment to Afghanistan for crass political reasons. See: "Abandoning Afghanistan."

And flashback at AoSHQ, "Liberal Blogger Admits: We Claimed to Support 'The Good War' in Afghanistan as Political Strategy to Prove Our "Macho" Credentials; We Never Meant It."

Exactly. It was never a good war. These people are f-king depraved liars and hypocrites.

New Fears on Syria's Chemical Weapons

At Independent UK, "Britain and US fear Syrian chemical weapons could fall into the hands of extreme Islamist groups":

Syria Chemical Weapons
The prospect of Syria’s chemical arsenal falling into the hands of extremist Islamists among the rebels fighting the country’s bloody civil war is a matter of mounting concern for the West.

General Sir David Richards, the head of the British military, has raised his worries in Whitehall in recent weeks and there has been a series of meetings over the issue between European and American officials and governments in the region.

The possibility that President Bashar al-Assad may unleash such weapons was one of the key reasons given for the deployment this week of Nato Patriot missiles to the Turkish border.

At the end of last year Barack Obama warned that the use of chemical weapons would mean the Assad regime had crossed a ‘red line’ and must bear the consequences. The regime appeared to have stopped on its tracks in preparing such attacks and defence secretary Leon Panetta stated subsequently that the threat has been reduced.

Although the US and UK governments still hold that a beleaguered regime on its last legs may use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) there is also the clear danger of jihadist fighter getting possession of stockpiles. The Obama administration has prescribed the Al-Nusra Brigade, one of the strongest of the rebel groups and one which declares itself affiliated to al-Qa’ida, as a terrorist organisation.

An SAS team is believed to have attended as observers an exercise carried out by US and Jordanian special forces in preparation for any operation which may have to be undertaken to secure the stockpiles. Defence sources in London stated there are no plans at present to deploy British personnel for such a mission. ( please keep in this paragraph).

There is bound to be public scepticism about claims of the Syrian regime and WMDs after the exposure of similar false reports about Saddam Hussein’s arsenal used by the Bush and Blair administrations to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Western officials insist, however, that there is ample evidence that the Damascus regime has the means to carry out chemical warfare and also evidence, of a more limited nature , that it has a biological warfare programme. One cause of apprehension is that the regime’s command and control for WMDs have been severely damaged by casualties and defections.
More at that top link.

And see "'Chemical weapons were used on Homs': Syria's military police defector tells of nerve gas attack."


Banks Now Favor Short Sales Over Foreclosures

Well, my wife and I did a short sale. We needed new financing if we were going to be able to stay in our home but the value had depreciated so much no bank was going to finance us. We were approached by a young realtor who was specializing in short sales and we signed up. It took about three months but it went through. The main bummer has been losing our mortgage interest deductions, and some other related tax issues, which drove up our tax bill last year when we filed. But overall it worked out well.

In any case, see the Los Angeles Times, "Short sales in California surpass sales of foreclosed homes."

French 'Tolerance' Groups Take Twitter to Court Over 'Hate Speech'

Man, this one's over-the-top Orwellian.

At the Times of Israel, "Twitter heads to Paris court after flood of ‘Nazi’ posts":
Major tolerance groups join Jewish student organization in claiming social media giant is violating French laws banning hate speech.

Jewish students in France went to court Tuesday to demand that Twitter release the names of French users employing the social media network to spread anti-Semitism.

The hearing, scheduled in November, gained new urgency over the weekend following a flood of posts featuring the hashtag #SiJetaisNazi (#IfIWereANazi). The label ranked in the country’s top five trending topics Saturday.

“Because it does not take the necessary measures to identify where the tweets come from, Twitter is offering a platform to racism and anti-Semitism,“ said Jonathan Hayoun, the president of the Union of French Jewish Students (UEJF), in a statement Monday.

The legal battle has entered the national spotlight, with four influential anti-racism groups joining the Jewish student organization in claiming that the hashtags violate French laws against hate speech.

Along with UEJF,  I Accuse! International Action for Justice; SOS Racism; the International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism; and the Movement Against Racism and for Friendship Between People are calling on Twitter to identify users and set up a framework to warn customers of illegal content.

Twitter says it cannot divulge details about users without approval from a court in the US, where the company is based.

Differences between French and American laws on speech have produced “a huge void, a question mark,“ Twitter attorney Alexandra Neri told Agence France-Presse. The company is arguing that French judge Anne-Marie Sauteraud, who will issue a decision Jan. 24, does not have standing to rule on the matter.

Opponents disagree, with Hayoun urging government action in an op-ed published Sunday in the Liberation newspaper. “It is incumbent on the French justice system to act in accordance with the Republican principles that bind us together,“ he wrote, “and to restore the trust that we place in our justice system.“
Notice how all those "tolerance" groups are far-left, communist-backed organizations. Are these real Nazis on Twitter? Who knows? It doesn't matter to the leftists, since anything critical of the progressive agenda will be demonized as hate speech. That's the new totalitarianism. It'll be interesting to see how well Twitter holds firm against these bullies.

NY Daily News Slams Freedom Defense Initiative: 'Group's Ads Link Islam to Terrorism'

And Pamela responds: "We didn't link Islam to terrorism. The Quran does."

Brent Musburger Under Fire For Comments About Katherine Webb

Astute Bloggers reports, "PROOF THAT SOON IT WILL BE ILLEGAL FOR A STRAIGHT MAN TO COMPLIMENT THE APPEARANCE OF AN ATTRACTIVE WOMAN."

Following the links takes us to the Old Gray Lady, where else?, "Musburger Criticized for Remarks About Star’s Girlfriend During Title Game."

And from Reliapundit's post:
UNDER FIRE FOR THIS!?!?!

IS THERE NOTHING A HETERONORMATIVE MALE CAN SAY TO OR ABOUT A WOMAN ANYMORE THAT WON'T BE ATTACKED BY LIBS'N LEFTIES!? ...

IT'S FASCISM, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
And ICYMI, at EBL, "Katherine Webb Rule 5."

PREVIOUSLY: "AJ McCarron's Girlfriend Katherine Webb."

Simon Wiesenthal Center Pegs Der Spiegel Columnist Jakob Augstein as Anti-Semitic

Since I don't read Augstein's columns I can't comment on the controversy, other than to say this is pretty interesting. See Der Spiegel's write up, "Top Ten Anti-Semites Controversy: Wiesenthal Center Refuses Debate with Accused Author":
The Simon Wiesenthal Center has triggered a major debate by listing a prominent German publisher and SPIEGEL ONLINE columnist among the world's top 10 anti-Semites. The evidence is debatable, but now the center refuses to speak to the publisher unless he apologizes first.

It seemed like a completely unexpected stab in the back -- a startling assault from someone who is generally considered to be harmless.

On December 27, the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center published its current "Top 10" list (PDF) of the world's worst anti-Semites, a list the center has published near the end of each year since 2010. The Jewish organization has a good reputation, certainly due in part to the fact that it was named after the legendary Nazi hunter when it was founded in 1977.

The usual suspects can be found in the top spots of the 2012 list of "anti-Semitic/anti-Israel slurs": Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is in first place, followed by the Iranian regime, which aims to destroy the state of Israel. Not the kind of list one wants to be a part of.

But prominent German journalist Jakob Augstein, publisher of the weekly newspaper Der Freitag and author of a regular column on SPIEGEL ONLINE (which is occasionally translated into English for publication), appears in 9th place on the list.

It's a scandal. SPIEGEL immediately sought to find out what had happened and why Augstein had appeared on the list -- but failed. It is a failure that speaks volumes about the methods and position of the Wiesenthal Center. At issue are absurd demands and emails that seem to stem from a different world.

After the list was published, a passionate debate erupted in German newspapers over what constitutes justifiable criticism of Israeli policies and what exactly defines anti-Semitism. Most journalists felt that the accusation against Augstein was absurd, with the exception of Henryk Broder, a former SPIEGEL writer and well-known polemicist. Broder, in an effort to illustrate Augstein's lack of self reflection, even went so far as to liken him to a pedophile who views himself as a friend of children.

Salomon Korn, vice president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, seemed to put an end to the debate when he said that he had never had the impression that Augstein's writings were anti-Semitic, and suggested that the Americans hadn't done their homework. Korn said on the radio station Deutschlandradio Kultur, that the Americans were "pretty far removed, in a manner of speaking, from German reality."
Continue reading.

Also, "What Makes an Anti-Semite? Wiesenthal List Induces Hand-Wringing in Germany." If this Augstein dude holds Israel to a separate standard than the Arab regimes, that'd be anti-Semitic. Here's the key column. Fawningly quoting Günter Grass would be anti-Semitic, no doubt, but again, I'm holding off judgment until I get up to speed.

Here's the Wiesenthal Center's list of "2012 Top Ten Anti-Israel/Anti-Semitic Slurs." And Deutsche Welle has more, "German journalist condemned as anti-Semite."

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

BCS Playoff Can't Get Here Fast Enough

From Mark Schlabach, at ESPN, "Irish-Tide why we need a playoff":


MIAMI -- Write your U.S. congressman.

Call your conference commissioner, university president and athletic director. Heck, email Dr. Lou, Mark May, Kirk Herbstreit, Chris Fowler and David Pollack. I'd even give you their email addresses if it wouldn't get me fired.

College football's forthcoming four-team playoff, which goes into effect during the 2014 season, can't get here soon enough.

Can't we please have a playoff this coming season? Do we really have to wait another year?

Once again, the Bowl Championship Series robbed college football fans of a fitting end to a season on Monday night. No. 2 Alabama blasted No. 1 Notre Dame 42-14 in the Discover BCS National Championship at Sun Life Stadium, and the score wasn't even that close. If the Crimson Tide and Fighting Irish played every day between now and St. Patrick's Day, the Fighting Irish would never win.

You thought last year's BCS title game was boring? At least No. 1 LSU put up a fight in the first couple of quarters before falling to No. 2 Alabama 21-0 in New Orleans, in what was a rematch of a regular-season slugfest between the SEC West rivals.

This game was over after Alabama took the opening kickoff and marched 82 yards in five plays for a touchdown. It was like Mike Tyson knocking out Michael Spinks in 91 seconds, with the Crimson Tide delivering their knockout punch on tailback Eddie Lacy's 20-yard touchdown run less than three minutes into the game.
More at the link.

And Bill Plaschke's eating crow after that big prediction about how Notre Dame was going to pull one out for the Gipper. See: "'This one's going to hurt for awhile' for Notre Dame."

Fabulous Emma Stone Photos From 'Gangster Squad' Premiere at Grauman's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood

She looks wonderful.

At London's Daily Mail, "His two leading ladies! Emma Stone looks ravishing in red at Gangster Squad premiere as Ryan Gosling takes mother as his date."

Chuck Hagel's Political Courage (Not)

A devastating commentary, from Bret Stephens, at the Wall Street Journal, "Chuck Hagel's Courage":
In 2006, when the war in Iraq had become overwhelmingly unpopular, Mr. Hagel was on the right side of conventional wisdom. "The United States must begin planning for a phased troop withdrawal from Iraq," he wrote in the Washington Post that November. Still swimming with the tide the following year, he called the surge "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam."

The surge turned out to be George W. Bush's finest hour—a genuine instance of political courage as opposed to Mr. Hagel's phony ones. It rescued the U.S. from humiliating defeat. It gave Iraq a decent opportunity to stand on its feet. It allowed the U.S. to conduct an orderly withdrawal of its forces. And it might have led to a long-term security relationship with Baghdad had the Obama administration not fumbled the endgame. Again there is no public record of Mr. Hagel acknowledging any of this.
Hagel's craven Iraq waffling is disqualifying enough, but Stephens is right: the guy's always sought the safe side of conventional wisdom.

RTWT. (Via Memeorandum.)

Hitler's Decaying Bunkers

At London's Daily Mail, "The ghosts of Hitler's European fortress: Photographer captures images of decaying World War Two bunkers in Holland, France and Belgium."

David Bowie Releases New Single, 'Where Are We Now?'

At Telegraph UK, "David Bowie releases first single in decade."


Bowie's press handlers deny the singer's had health problems. Bowie's not played live since 2006. I saw Bowie most recently, with Moby, Busta Rhymes and Blue Man Group, (way) back in 2002, at the Irvine Meadows Amphitheater. Seems so long ago now.

Gabby Giffords' Gun-Grabbing Gambit

She's supposed to be a blue dog, but this is right out of the radical left's rad flag playbook. At Twitchy, "Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly launch gun-grabbing campaign to counter ‘ideological fringe’."


Also at USA Today, "Giffords and Kelly: Fighting gun violence" (via Memeorandum).

Cult of Hugo Chávez Comes Crashing Down, Ignominiously

Cuba's state media tightly controls information on the health of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, but time is running out, for both his life and his cult of personality.

IBD has a must-read report on the foolish political choice Chavez made to seek cancer treatment in Cuba rather than Brazil, which boasts world-class medicine in oncology. See: "Hugo Chavez Hit By Cuba's Surgical Strike."

And on the personality cult, see the New York Times, "With Chávez Ill and State in Flux, Videos Offer an Image of Stability":
CARACAS, Venezuela — They run around the clock on state television, highly polished videos of President Hugo Chávez hugging children, kissing grandmothers, playing baseball and reciting poetry. As supporters around the world hold up hand-lettered signs that say, “I Am Chávez,” the president’s voice is heard in one of them shouting, “I demand absolute loyalty because I am not me, I am not an individual, I am a people!”

In reality, officials say, Mr. Chávez lies in a Cuban hospital bed, struggling through complications from cancer surgery while his country heads toward a constitutional showdown over his absence.

Mr. Chávez’s fragile health has thrown Venezuela into political uncertainty. After being re-elected in October, he is supposed to be sworn in for the start of his new term on Thursday, but the charismatic leader who has dominated every aspect of government here for 14 years may be too ill to return in time, much less continue in office for the next six years. Top government officials insist that the swearing-in is just a formality. The opposition, meanwhile, says the Constitution requires that Mr. Chávez be present or, in his absence, that a process begin that could lead to new elections.

The government’s television barrage seems intent on reassuring loyalists — and anyone who might raise questions — that Mr. Chávez is still very much the head of the nation. By keeping his image front and center, analysts say, the government can bolster its position as the caretaker of his legacy, mobilize its supporters for the battle over interpreting the Constitution and build momentum for itself in elections should Mr. Chávez die or prove too sick to govern.

“They have combined the mechanisms of left-wing struggle with the best marketing team there is,” said J. J. Rendón, a political consultant who opposes the government.

He compared the saga over Mr. Chávez’s illness to a telenovela, one of the popular Latin American soap operas, with its unexpected plot twists that keep viewers on edge. “They are always prepared for different scenarios,” he said of the government.
RTWT.

Ontario Gun Show Packs 'Em In

At the Los Angeles Times, "Customers pack Ontario gun show, fearing possible new laws."

Petition to Deport Piers Morgan

Videos from CNN last night: "CNN's Piers Morgan debates man who wants him deported"; "Piers Morgan debates Alex Jones"; and "Piers Morgan debates Alex Jones."

And a cartoon from A.F. Branco, at Legal Insurrection, "Don’t Let the Door Hit You…"

A.F. Branco

Lucy Pinder's Floating Breasts

Glenn Reynolds with some Rule 5: "NSFW: Asking The Important Questions: Do Lucy Pinder’s Boobs Float?"

AJ McCarron's Girlfriend Katherine Webb

She's on Twitter.

Monday, January 7, 2013

Alabama Hammers Notre Dame, 42-14, to Win #BCS Title Game

The New York Times live blog is here. I'll add the full report when it's up in a few minutes.

Also at the Los Angeles Times, "Tide crushes Irish in BCS title game."

And The Other McCain, "Alabama Wins Second Consecutive BCS Title, Humiliates Notre Dame 42-14."

Roll Tide!

Added: Photo credit from three years ago: "Freelance Blogging the BCS Freeway-Flyer's Extravaganza!"

My New International Relations Journals Are Here!

In the old days, back in graduate school and before all the academic and policy journals were available online, today would be a heavenly day. The mailman delivered to my door both the new Foreign Affairs and new International Security --- my two favorite journals in political science. So, thinking back to about, say, 1995, I'd be hanging out watching football and reading the latest articles, with no doubt some of them important to my comprehensive exams or dissertation research. On a Monday, I'd also probably get The Economist and Newsweek in the mail as well, so I'd be running around more excited that Steve Martin in "The Jerk." I'm such a geek. (It's interesting though the speed with which these journals are disseminated with the current web technology --- I debunked Fareed Zakaria's cover story a couple of weeks back.)

New Journals

'Liberal Democrats' Least Likely to Support Israel Over Palestinians

Ari Fleischer, on CNN a few minutes ago, cited this Pew report from December discussing the Chuck Hagel nomination for DefSec: "Public Says U.S. Does Not Have Responsibility to Act in Syria: Israel Support Unchanged in Wake of Gaza Conflict."

Israel Support

Conservative Republicans are more than twice as likely to sympathize with Israel over the Palestinians.

I touched on this the other day in my essay debunking "sweeping generalizations." More at the Washington Free Beacon, "Poll Shows Dem Support for Israel Fading."

Ben Shapiro's New Book 'Bullies' Out Tuesday

This looks great: Bullies: How the Left's Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans.


Leftists deserve a punch in the mouth. Hit back twice as hard.

Bill Plaschke: Notre Dame to 'Win One for the Gipper' in BCS Title Game

Robert Stacy McCain's gotta see this. He's naturally going all out for an Alabama win in tonight's BCS title match and he's even got a special hashtag which needs no explanation: "RMFT."

But Bill Plaschke at the Los Angeles Times is having none of the "roll tide" fanaticism:


And here's the column, from today's sports page, "The oddsmakers favor Alabama in Monday's BCS title game, but many signs point to a Notre Dame victory, and they go all the way back to Rockne and the Gipper."

Check back for updates. This ought to be fun.

Glenn Greenwald on John Brennan's 'Extremism'

Again, Greenwald's not my favorite, but he's one of the very few who's speaking truth to power on this administration's massive hypocrisy.

See, "John Brennan's extremism and dishonesty rewarded with CIA Director nomination":
Prior to President Obama's first inauguration in 2009, a controversy erupted over reports that he intended to appoint John Brennan as CIA director. That controversy, in which I participated, centered around the fact that Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush's programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping program. As a result, Brennan withdrew his name from consideration, issuing a bitter letter blaming "strong criticism in some quarters prompted by [his] previous service with the" CIA.

This "victory" of forcing Brennan's withdrawal proved somewhat Pyrrhic, as Obama then appointed him as his top counter-terrorism adviser, where he exerted at least as much influence as he would have had as CIA Director, if not more. In that position, Brennan last year got caught outright lying when he claimed Obama's drone program caused no civilian deaths in Pakistan over the prior year. He also spouted complete though highly influential falsehoods to the world in the immediate aftermath of the Osama bin Laden killing, including claiming that bin Laden "engaged in a firefight" with Navy SEALS and had "used his wife as a human shield". Brennan has also been in charge of many of Obama's most controversial and radical policies, including "signature strikes" in Yemen - targeting people without even knowing who they are - and generally seizing the power to determine who will be marked for execution without any due process, oversight or transparency.
Continue reading (via Memeorandum).

Guns and the American Political Culture

As the Democrats get set to launch a "broad gun control agenda" in the new Congress, it bears remembering that President Obama's election continues the left's "fundamental transformation" of America. The new push for gun control legislation isn't just about "gun safety." It's about one more pillar of the American political culture that the left wants destroyed. Yesterday's lead letter to the editor at the Los Angeles Times really drove the point home, and hopefully the country's culture of individualism and self-sufficiency will outlast this latest push by the radical forces to bring fundamental, destructive change.

See, "Letters: Guns, America and the NRA":
Re "The NRA's hidden power," Opinion, Jan. 3

I commend Jennifer Carlson for her insight on the National Rifle Assn.'s grass-roots power and would add another comment on the philosophical side. This country was founded by individuals who were forced to take care of themselves. This self-reliance underpinned our nation's independence and westward expansion. Today we look to the government to supplement our living and protect us from lawless individuals. Those who choose to carry guns are expressing that historical philosophy of taking care of themselves in areas where the government is unable to fully meet the challenge.

While gun-control advocates frequently make comparisons to other nations, we should not forget that since the Civil War this country has not had foreign troops invade our soil. It is not the guns that protect us; it is the attitude that we are responsible for our personal destinies that has made America strong.

Bill Schoettler
Los Angeles
Continue reading.

And see, "The NRA's hidden power."

Master's of Business Administration No Longer Guarantees Financial Success

At the Wall Street Journal, "For Newly Minted M.B.A.s, a Smaller Paycheck Awaits":
Like many students, Steve Vonderweidt hoped that a master's degree in business administration would open doors to a new job with a higher paycheck.

But now, about eight months after receiving his M.B.A. from the University of Louisville, Mr. Vonderweidt, 36 years old, hasn't been able to find a job in the private sector, and continues to work as an administrator at a social-service agency that helps Louisville residents obtain food stamps, health care and other assistance. He is saddled with about $75,000 in student-loan debt—much of it from graduate school.

"It was a really great program," says Mr. Vonderweidt. "But the job part has been atrocious."

Soaring tuition costs, a weak labor market and a glut of recent graduates such as Mr. Vonderweidt are upending the notion that professional degrees like M.B.A.s are a sure ticket to financial success.

The M.B.A.'s lot is partly reflected in starting pay. While available figures vary by schools and employers, recruiters' expected median salary for newly hired M.B.A.s was essentially flat between 2008 and 2011, not adjusting for inflation, according to a survey by the Graduate Management Admission Council.

For graduates with minimal experience—three years or less—median pay was $53,900 in 2012, down 4.6% from 2007-08, according to an analysis conducted for The Wall Street Journal by PayScale.com. Pay fell at 62% of the 186 schools examined.

Even for more seasoned grads the trend is similar, says Katie Bardaro, lead economist for PayScale.com. "In general, it seems that M.B.A. pay is either stagnant or falling," she says.

The pressures are greatest for those attending less prestigious schools, says Stanford Business School professor Paul Oyer, who studies personnel trends. But even at top programs, some graduates are likely to struggle in today's environment, he says.

Another burdensome issue: a high debt load. Nearly 60% of graduating M.B.A.s said they expected to repay some loans after graduation, according to a 2012 GMAC survey. Among households headed by people with student debt who attended graduate school and are under 35, average student loan debt climbed to $81,758 in 2010 according a Wall Street Journal analysis of Federal Reserve data. That figure is up from $55,594 in 2007.

It is all a far cry from the late 1980s and early 1990s heyday for M.B.A.s, when some companies would hire 100 or more M.B.A.s.
No. Not like the old days at all. I was considering an M.B.A if I didn't continue in political science. I took business classes in college. Finance was attractive to me, even a career on Wall Street.

Continue reading.

Republican Soul-Searching

Here's my post from the other day, on that National Journal piece, "What Does It Even Mean to Be a Republican These Days?"

It's a good question. There's a lot wrong with the current GOP, and it'll be interesting to see how the party makes its way out from the wilderness in national elections in the years ahead. The Republicans will come back with a vengeance at some point, but no doubt the soul searching will be painful. And it's quite likely that a new GOP will look little like the old Republican Party of, say, the 1980s and 1990s. If gay marriage becomes accepted under some kind of national consensus, there's still going to be huge fights over abortion rights, immigration, criminal justice issues, and, now more than ever, the right to bear arms. But most important of all will be economic issues. The Democrats are already overreaching on fiscal policy now, and we're looking at a possible period of years-long economic stagnation. At some point the class warfare shtick won't be enough even for liberal partisans. People need to have a chance for themselves and their families. But we'll see. We may well have already reached the point of no return and the Europeanization of America is upon us.

In any event, the New York Times reports, "G.O.P. Begins Soul-Searching After Tax Vote":
WASHINGTON — When Republican leaders in Congress agreed to raise taxes on the wealthy last week, it left the increasingly fractured and feuding party unified on perhaps only one point: that it is at a major crossroads.

From Mitt Romney’s loss on Election Day through the recent tax fight that shattered party discipline in the House of Representatives, Republicans have seen the foundations of their political strategy called into question, stirring a newly urgent debate about how to reshape and redefine their party.

At issue immediately is whether that can be achieved through a shift in tactics and tone, or will instead require a deeper rethinking of the party’s longtime positions on bedrock issues like guns and immigration. President Obama intends to test the willingness of Republicans to bend on those issues in the first months of his new term, when he plans to push for stricter gun control and a comprehensive immigration overhaul.

The coming legislative battles are certain to expose even more division in the party. And with establishment Republicans and Tea Party activists at times speaking as if they are from different parties altogether, concern is spreading throughout the ranks that things could get worse before they get better.

“The Republican Party can’t stay exactly where it is and stick its head in the sand and ignore the fact that the country is changing,” said Ralph Reed, the founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition and onetime leader of the Christian Coalition. “On the other hand, if the party were to retreat on core, pro-family stands and its positions on fiscal responsibility and taxes, it could very quickly find itself without a strong demographic support base.”

Having lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections, Republicans now face a country that is increasingly younger, multiethnic and skeptical of Republican positions on some social issues. The party’s deficit-cutting agenda relies heavily on reducing taxes for the wealthy, which irks middle-class voters, and cutting spending on government programs, like Social Security and Medicare, that are popular with many voters.

Generational change is also robbing the party of some of its most effective political positions. Same-sex marriage, which less than a decade ago was an issue that reliably drove conservative voters to the polls in favor of Republicans, appears to be losing its potency with an electorate increasingly comfortable with gay unions.

None other than Newt Gingrich, a former House speaker who promised to fight for a constitutional ban against same-sex marriage during the Republican presidential primaries, now says his party must come to terms with the country’s rapidly shifting views on the subject.

“Walking around and pretending it doesn’t exist just means you’re going to become irrelevant,” Mr. Gingrich said in an interview.
Continue reading.

Assad Says He Will Remain in Power

At the Los Angeles Times, "Syria President Bashar Assad makes clear he won't step down":

BEIRUT — Ignoring mounting casualties and dwindling support, Syrian President Bashar Assad made clear to the world Sunday in his first public address in half a year that he has no intention of relinquishing power and that he, not anyone else, would dictate the end for Syria's 21-month-old civil war.

Assad unveiled his own peace plan, with cosmetic similarities to a settlement proposal championed by internationally sponsored peace envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, but he declared he had no partner for negotiations in the Syrian opposition, whom he continued to brand as killers and terrorists.

Assad's dismissive attitude and strict terms for settlement offered little hope for a diplomatic breakthrough. It was a reminder of how intractable the conflict has become, with the U.N. estimating last week that more than 60,000 people had died.
Continue reading.

And AP has another video.

MSNBC's 'Cauldron of Bias

I missed this piece from David Zurawik in November, at the Baltimore Sun, "MSNBC really is more partisan than Fox, according to Pew study" (via Instapundit):

Media Bias
In writing about the Pew study released today, I was struck by the big story of how negative coverage on several levels of presidential politics had become.

I think this is big trouble for democracy, especially the hostile level of discourse in social media. And that it's something the media need to address collectively after the election.

But here's one of several fascinating smaller findings of the study that are kind of stunning -- even if they seem obvious and ho-hum to some of my more jaded, postmodern, aren't-we-cleverly-ironic colleagues:

ON MSNBC, the ratio of negative to positive stories on GOP candidate Mitt Romney was 71 to 3.

That's not a news channel. That's a propaganda machine, and owner Comcast should probably change Phil Griffin's title from president to high minister of information, or something equally befitting the work of a party propaganist hack in a totalitarian regime. You wonder how mainstream news organizations allow their reporters and correspondents to appear in such a cauldron of bias.
More at the link.

And here's the Pew report, "BOTH CANDIDATES RECEIVED MORE NEGATIVE THAN POSITIVE COVERAGE IN MAINSTREAM NEWS, BUT SOCIAL MEDIA WAS EVEN HARSHER."

Sunday, January 6, 2013

Sunday Cartoons

At Flopping Aces, "Sunday Funnies."

William Warren

Also at Reaganite Republican, "Reaganite's Sunday Funnies," and Theo Spark, "Cartoon Round Up..."

CARTOON CREDIT: William Warren.

New York Welfare Recipients Get Cash With EBT Cards at Strip Clubs, X-Rated Video Stores and Bars

Democrat family values.

At the New York Post, "Welfare recipients take out cash at strip clubs, liquor stores and X-rated shops." (Via Memeorandum.)

Sweet Charity

Also at Director Blue, "NICE JOB, BLOOMBERG: NYC welfare funds being spent in strip clubs, porn joints, liquor stores...", and Power Line, "$WEET CHARITY…"

Big-Spender Pelosi Wants More Taxes, Says Fiscal Deal Wasn't 'Enough On the Revenue Side...'

Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi appeared on "Face the Nation" this morning. The clip is here.

And see The Hill, "Pelosi: More tax revenues must be part of next deficit deal."

There will never be enough "revenue" for what these never-enough-spending Democrats want to do. Pelosi essentially ruled out taxes on the middle class, which is impossible because the rich can't pay a "fair" enough share to fund all the goodies and entitlements that these idiot socialists demand. But stay with that video all the way and watch Pelosi rip into the Republican Party as a bunch of extremists. It's socialist concern trollery at its finest. (Via Memeorandum.)

Also at Weasel Zippers, "Pelosi Demands Additional Tax Hikes As Part Of Debt Ceiling Deal…":
Tax and spend… tax and spend… tax and spend… Democrats are killing this country.
Bingo.

Democrat Sen. Heidi Heitkamp Slams Obama's Gun Control Push as 'Way in Extreme of What I Think Is Necessary...'

That's freshman Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, clearly way outside of the Beltway mentality. She's a pretty standard Democrat but obviously smart about the politics of gun control. She hammers the administration's --- and by extension Dianne Feinstein's --- gun-grab agenda. See: "Sen. Heidi Heitkamp: Reported Obama Gun Proposals ‘Way in Extreme’" (via Memeorandum).


Also at the clip is freshman GOP Rep. Tom Cotton, a war veteran and Harvard Law School graduate. And there's vapid Texas freshman Rep. Joaquín Castro, an affirmative action Democrat if there ever was one.

Los Angeles Times Editors Attack U.S. War on Terror Policies Without One Word on Obama's Unprecedented Drone War Kill-List Regime

Here's the piece, "Rights and the 'war on terror'."

In an unsurprising twist, the Times editors manage to make their critique a nearly exclusive attack on the previous administration, when they write, for example: "Guantanamo isn't the stain on America's reputation that it was during the George W. Bush administration..." No siree, nothing's as big a stain on America's reputation as the Bush administration's national security record! Tell me something I didn't already know!

Seriously. The editors make not a single mention of the administration drone war kill-list regime that's been in the news plenty of times since being revealed last year, for example, at the New York Times, "Secret 'Kill List' Tests Obama's Principles." And just this week the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that the administration was not required to release records of Obama's targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in Yemen in 2011: Anwar Al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, and Al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son. The Washington Post has that, "Judge backs Obama administration on secrecy of targeted killings of terrorism suspects." (The ACLU says it will appeal the court's ruling.)

For the record, since I wasn't clear in previous posts, there are some on the left who're critical of the administration and are pushing for an end to Obama's unconstitutional warfare. Katrina vanden Heuvel, who I personally detest, was right last year to call out Obama for his bankrupt hypocrisy, "Judge backs Obama administration on secrecy of targeted killings of terrorism suspects."

And personally I don't get all that worked up by drone warfare in any case. Frankly I couldn't care less that Anwar Awlaki's dead, although I'd like to know why the U.S. targeted his son in a completely separate drone strike. But that's beside the point. Radical leftists continue to attack Bush administration officials with demonizing language worthy of the Nazi regime. But we know that President Obama's policies not only match but surpass anything that the Bush administration is allegedly guilty of. There is no justice if the left applies a despicable double standard, and that's what I'll be hammering in my reporting on these so-called human rights abuses.

PREVIOUSLY: "Obama Advisor Harold Koh Personifies Left's Epic Hypocrisy on National Security and Human Rights."

Obama Advisor Harold Koh Personifies Left's Epic Hypocrisy on National Security and Human Rights

At the Los Angeles Times, "Obama advisor who had decried 'war on terror' now defends drones":

Harold Koh
WASHINGTON — As dean of Yale Law School, Harold Hongju Koh was among the fiercest critics of President George W. Bush's "war on terror," arguing that his administration had trampled the Constitution and tarnished America's international standing by claiming the power to capture "enemy combatants" abroad and hold them without charges at the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The next administration must "restore the rule of law in the national security arena," end "excessive government secrecy" and set aside the "claims of unfettered executive power," Koh told a House panel in 2008.

But as the State Department's legal advisor in that new administration, Koh helped set out a legal justification for policies that include a ramped-up use of unmanned drones to attack and kill suspected terrorists in Pakistan as well as in Yemen and Somalia, far from the combat zone in Afghanistan. Thousands have died, and the targets have included U.S. citizens who were seen as inspiring attacks against Americans.

Koh, who is preparing to return to Yale as President Obama's first term comes to an end, has become a symbol of national security policies that many feel are not significantly different than those of Obama's predecessor.

Koh has many defenders who say the administration's anti-terrorism policies would have been harsher if he were not there. But the surprising turn has left some liberal critics puzzled. Did Koh change, or is there some "deeper pathology" that causes "top administration lawyers to rubber stamp power grabs?" Bruce Ackerman, another Yale law professor, wrote in a news blog.

Obama's team unquestionably made progress on some fronts. The harsh treatment and even torture of prisoners was ended, and several dozen detainees were repatriated to other countries. But Congress blocked plans to close the Guantanamo prison and to prosecute its remaining detainees before civilian judges and juries.

The rhetoric was toned down as well. Officials no longer speak of a "global war on terror" or "enemy combatants." They talk instead of applying the "rule of law" to cope with new problems.

But Obama's drone policy has caused dismay among many human rights activists. When Koh stepped forward two years ago to offer a legal defense, it had a familiar ring. In wartime and in "response to the horrific 9/11 attacks," the president "may use force consistent with the [nation's] inherent right of self-defense," Koh told the American Society of International Law.

Right. An inherent national interest to self-defense, which includes developing a drone warfare kill-list regime unprecedented in its human rights violations. Gee, not even John Yoo thought of that. But then again, Yoo wrote sincerely to protect American security. The progressives just say and do whatever they can to win and keep power.

PHOTO CREDIT: Wikimedia Commons.

Abandoning Afghanistan

One of the best pieces on Afghanistan I've read in a long time, from Gary Schmitt, at the Weekly Standard:
When Senator Barack Obama was running for president back in 2008, he accused the Bush administration, his opponent Senator John McCain, and their supporters of taking their eyes off the ball by fighting a war in Iraq and ignoring the “necessary war”—the war in Afghanistan. Well, four short years later, by Obama’s lights, Afghanistan is no longer the necessary war but a war to be ignored, a war to be “ended” regardless of the strategic consequences of doing so precipitously.

It’s now clear that Barack Obama’s only abiding interest in Afghanistan was rhetorical, allowing him political space to pull American troops out of Iraq as soon as possible and, once done, to begin the same process in Afghanistan. Even the surge of 30,000 more American troops that began in 2010 was, in hindsight, intended to be less a strategic game-changer (as the earlier surge in Iraq had been) than a stopgap measure to stabilize a deteriorating situation. Smaller than what had been requested by the generals on the ground and put fully in place for only one fighting season, the surge allowed the president to appear serious while, in fact, providing him cover for pulling the plug on the war effort altogether.

Make no mistake, pulling the plug he is. Despite internal Pentagon reports that indicate the Afghans will not be ready to take over combat operations in 2014, news accounts have the White House pushing for cutting the remaining 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan this coming year by another 20,000 to 30,000, with the likely goal of leaving fewer than 10,000 noncombat troops in place by the end of 2014. This is not just a race to the exit but a full-out sprint. And once again it’s a decision made against the best advice of the commanders in the field, who would like nothing more than to hold the current force levels constant through at least the 2013 fighting season.

None of this should come as a surprise. Since early in his presidency, when deigning to speak at all about Afghanistan, President Obama has said little about why defeating the Taliban is important. When he does make reference to Afghanistan, it’s invariably to talk of timelines for bringing the troops home or, as he said at the U.N. in September, ending the war “on schedule in 2014.” ...
Continue reading.

Obama's national security policy has been politically-driven from day one. I find it especially fascinating as that fact plays out regarding the administration's kill list regime --- and the leftist hypocrisy surrounding the massive human rights violations under the Obama Democrats, violations objectively worse than those alleged against the hated Bush/Cheney cabal.

Winter Break

At Althouse, "How I spent the winter break between semesters at the University of Wisconsin Law School":

Althouse
I sat in my Freedom Chair or stood at my motorized desk in front of a wall of picture windows looking out over our snow-covered yard though which a dog occasionally bounded, and — once the blizzard came — went cross-country skiing nearly every day. I ate many delicious meals at home with my beloved husband, and watched some football games on TV. I blogged, read, graded some exams, worked on new syllabi, reorganized a couple closets, and — at long last — burned the rest of the CDs I still cared about into my iTunes.
Keep reading.

I my world, winter break doesn't start until the papers are graded and semester grades submitted. Then I can forget about it --- and this year I have until February 5th to chill, with the college's new 16 week calendar giving faculty members a really long and wonderful holiday.

PHOTO: "At the Winter Walk Café..." (on Flickr).

Wall Street Journal Weekend Interview: Lou Holtz, 'Why Notre Dame Is Back on Top'

Well, it seems like old times, that's for sure.

From the interview:
The first time I met Lou Holtz was three years ago at a Republican policy retreat—he's a friend of House Speaker John Boehner. At the time, Notre Dame was a mediocre football team following a string of disappointing seasons. Yet here was a former coach of the team—when it had last been a national power, from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s—predicting a return to the glory days from a newly hired coach.

Brian Kelly "will have Notre Dame back in the national championship game," Mr. Holtz said. "The man is a winner."

I laughed back then when he said it. After Mr. Holtz resigned in 1996, having spent a decade in the demanding job, he was followed by Bob Davie (1997-2001), Tyrone Willingham (2002-04) and Charlie Weis (2005-09), who all arrived amid high hopes and left with no titles and few bowl victories. Why would Brian Kelly be any different? Well, now Mr. Holtz is the one laughing. The Fighting Irish face another storied college team, Alabama's Crimson Tide, on Tuesday in a dream matchup for the NCAA, television executives and, not least, college football fans. The game could be the most avidly anticipated since . . . the last time these two teams met in the Sugar Bowl for the national championship, on New Year's Eve, 1973—a game won by Notre Dame...
Continue reading.

Baby Grabs Doctor's Hand During Caesarean Section

At Human Events, "A CHILD REACHES FROM THE WOMB TO TAKE HER DOCTOR’S HAND."


And at Life News, "Photo of Baby Reaching Out From Womb During C-Section Goes Viral."

What Does It Even Mean to Be a Republican These Days?

From Jill Lawrence, at National Journal:
First Republicans began to fracture over gay marriage. Then some of them started talking about revamping federal immigration laws. After the Newtown tragedy, a few even said that it might be time to consider changes in gun laws. Now scores of GOP lawmakers — 125, to be exact —have voted to raise tax rates on wealthy Americans.

The GOP has been fretting about changing demographics, bad messaging, lagging technology and an inferior ground game in the wake of Mitt Romney’s loss. But in reality, it’s time for a whole new level of soul-searching. What is the Republican Party if it does not embody never-surrender defiance on tax rates, illegal immigrants, gun rights, and traditional marriage?
Not my party, for one thing.

Continue reading.

The 10 Biggest Political Debacles of 2012

From John Hawkins, at Right Wing News.

Before I even scrolled down the post I was thinking that the electorate made the biggest debacle in re-electing Barack Hussein, and John and I are in sync on that.

But check out the rest of the picks.

Muslims Seething Over Charlie Hebdo

At Israel Matzav.

And Elder of Ziyon, "The Charlie Hebdo Caricature of Mohammed."

charlie Hebdo

American Power Makes the 'Top 100 Conservative Websites'

Coming in at #97, so there you go.

At Red Flag News, "The Official Top 100 Conservative Websites For 2013 by Alexa Rank (Q1).

And ICYMI, at Zilla's, "Welcome to the Second Annual Zilla Awards for Awesomeness in the Dextrosphere!"