Ed Morrissey Explains the New 'Hot Air'!

At the video, Robert Stacy McCain has a brief interview with Ed Morrissey, and at Hot Air, "Welcome to the New Hot Air!":

What I can tell you is that Salem bought Hot Air because, if you’ll pardon a Sally Field moment here, they like us — they really, really like us. After all, they aren’t going to spend a boatload of cash (and no, I don’t have any idea what kind of boatload that might be) just to turn Hot Air into something completely different. If they wanted something completely different, they could have started something fresh with a lot less cost and competed against us instead.

When we negotiated our new relationships with Salem, both of us stressed the need to have the same editorial control and direction for Hot Air. Not surprisingly, Salem readily agreed. Now, they still own the business and can intervene when they see fit — just as Michelle could, but rarely if ever did — but they know us and our editorial choices. We clarified the process and the direction to our satisfaction. If we weren’t satisfied that we remained in position to maintain the current direction of Hot Air, neither of us would have stuck around. We did, and we’ll be around for a while, too.

That doesn’t mean there won’t be changes, of course, but most of those will be to broaden our impact and reach. Salem has a tremendous presence with its radio hosts, for instance, and it wouldn’t surprise me to see some synergy applied in that direction. Townhall, now our sister site, will remain separate from Hot Air, but we’ll probably have some opportunities to participate more often in the magazine in the future. I’m very excited about the potential for growth at Hot Air by being a part of the Salem family.

But that being said, I’m sad to leave Michelle Malkin’s family after two wonderful years at Hot Air. I don’t think I’m revealing any secrets by telling readers what a caring, sweet, and big-hearted person Michelle is. Working with her and her husband Jesse (who carried the weight of technical and human-resource management like a champ) has been the best professional situation of my life. We both told the Salem execs when we first met with them that they had very large shoes to fill, but as great as they’ve been, it will never be quite the same. Now we get to focus on being friends with the Malkins, and thanks to their many kindnesses over the past two years, we hope that lasts much longer.

RTWT at the link.

Feministing: 'Fetuses Are Not People'

From NewsReal, "Spotlight on Leftist Feminist Thinking: Don’t Acknowledge Fetuses!":

Apparently, the mere acknowledgment of a fetus is a big no-no to some militant Feminists. Enough of a no-no, that one had to post about it in the community forum of Feministing.com, a hot bed of predictable Feminist shrieking and cognitive dissonance.

A Yahoo sportswriter committed the horrid politically incorrect faux-pas of writing the following about a pregnant member of the Canadian Women’s Curling team:

As with all curling teams, Team Canada features five members. Well, six, if you really want to get technical with it.

Alternate Kristie Moore, 30, is 5½ months pregnant, making her just the third athlete known to be with child during Olympic competition.

Huh. There doesn’t seem to be anything rage-worthy in those sentences, does there? Not if you are, you know, sane. However, as Jill Stanek noticed, if you are a militant feminist, it’s a different story. A member of Feministing.com’s community posted about it (I picture her taking a break from scrawling madly in her manifesto to post it, all furious and furrowed brow-y) and said the following:

Thank you, Chris Chase at Yahoo! Sports for perpetuating the myth that fetuses are people and that they are capable of Olympic curling.

Sigh. Sure, this was posted only in their community section, but it is imperative that we remember this is how some pro-abortion (as opposed to pro-choice) zealots actually think. Everything, I mean everything, is agenda driven. It’s not about women or children; it’s about radical ideology at the expense of everything and everyone else. Even life.

I find enough contempt for these people, but that's the radical left for you.

Photo Credit: Hand of Hope:

During a procedure to correct spina bifida while still in the womb, Samuel Alexander Armas, a fetus at twenty-one weeks, reached out. As Dr. Joseph P. Bruner reached and gently lifted the hand, Samuel reacted and squeezed tightly.

Twenty-one weeks is almost exactly 5½ months. Full story is here.

Always. Protect. Life.

Added Links: Blazing Cat Fur, "Random Furballs... For a Thursday Evening,"WyBlog, "It's Time for Another Round of the FMJRA Linkfest of Champions."

Tea Party Movement Dominates CPAC

Midnight Blue is now in D.C. for the convention, "CPAC 2010 – T-1 Day."

But check out Politico, "At CPAC, A New Conservative Order"(via Memeorandum):

Since Richard Nixon was president, the Conservative Political Action Conference has provided the American Right with an annual occasion for self-evaluation. On Thursday, when some 10,000 activists gather in Washington for this year’s conference, they will find themselves part of a conservative movement significantly different than it was during the Bush administration, or even in 2009.

A jolt of anti-Obama populist energy has upended the movement’s traditional hierarchy, lifting some new or previously low profile groups to unprecedented heights while leaving traditional powers struggling to adapt.

Ascendant are groups that focus on fiscal issues such as reducing government spending and taxation, which last year drove tens of thousands of new conservative activists to the streets and town halls in protest of big spending initiatives backed by President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats. Groups that concentrate on social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage have been relegated to a lower profile, as, to some extent, have those focusing on national security.

Grass-roots organizations have seen their membership rolls, coffers and standing boosted by the new activists, many — but not all — of whom identify with the cacophonous tea party movement.

These activists generally have been leery of the Republican Party, as well as established big-name conservative groups and leaders who made their reputations in the Washington game, particularly those seen as tainted by a pay-to-play Beltway culture or linked to a George W. Bush-era GOP establishment viewed as having abandoned its principles.

The conference will see an influx of new participants whipped up by countless grass-roots tea party groups around the country that function well outside the CPAC orbit. And true to the decentralized and disorganized nature of the tea party movement, much of its presence will be felt in ways that aren’t reflected on the official agenda of the conference, which is largely dominated by the usual conservative suspects.

“There needs to be a purging of the movement, and I think we’re already starting to see a different of hierarchy of groups,” said Erick Erickson, the Macon, Ga.-based founder of RedState.com, who predicts that “you’re going to see a much more diffuse conservative movement that is being led in large part from outside of Washington and is much more in line from the grass roots.”

Erickson, a favorite of the new activists, said, “Some of these legacy groups have become so entrenched in the Republican establishment in Washington that a lot of these new activists don’t think they can trust them.”

As examples, Erickson singled out CPAC’s primary sponsor, the American Conservative Union, as well as CPAC stalwarts including the Heritage Foundation think tank and the groups headed by Grover Norquist and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Those groups and other organizations that once formed the vanguard of the conservative movement — such as the National Rifle Association, the Family Research Council and Young America's Foundation — haven’t made major inroads in the tea party movement.

More at the link.

But compare to James Joyner, who's not impressed, "CPAC 2010: Conservative Movement Reboot?"

More on the Mount Vernon Statement

I suggested earlier that I had some problems with the Mount Vernon Statement. I noted then Glenn Reynolds argued that the manifesto was heavy on limited government principles. I responded by suggesting that Mount Vernon's pledge to protect "family, neighborhood, community, and faith" essentially creates a mandate for governmental activism in the furtherance of protecting life. (Perhaps that means returning to federalist principles allowing states to regulate reproductive health and preserve the lives of the not yet born.) There have been a number of responses to the Mount Vernon Statement, and perhaps none more perverted than Daniel Larison's. It's quite odd for people to situate themselves as genuine conservatives while at the same time rejecting a forward foreign policy outlook (and the rejection of American national security leadership in the world). I'll be coming back to some of those themes later. For now, though, Michelle Malkin weighs in on another problematic area. See, "An Inconvenient Question About the Mount Vernon Statement":

Today is the opening of the Conservative Political Action conference (CPAC) — the storied annual gathering of the Right. As I noted the other day, it’s also the season for a bumper crop of conservative manifestos, action plans, and ideological contracts.

The Mount Vernon Statement, which lays out broad principles for “constitutional conservatism,” has garnered the most buzz. An elegant tribute to limited government and the Founding Fathers, the document carries the signatures of movement leaders, Beltway heavyweights, and veteran activists. Two of the most prominent backers: the American Conservative Union’s David Keene and Americans for Tax Reform’s Grover Norquist. Keene and Norquist are also CPAC chairman and CPAC board member, respectively, and partners in the Constitution Project.

I have an inconvenient, but necessary, question for those who sign their names:

Do you agree with Keene and Norquist’s views on national security and immigration enforcement?

Because in the name of “constitutional conservatism,” Keene and Norquist support the Obama/Democrat majority approach of civilian trials for terrorists. And in the name of “constitutional conservatism,” Norquist supports de facto open borders and dangerous pandering to Muslim grievance-mongers.

Here’s a bracing reminder of Keene and Norquist’s statement chastising Republicans for opposing the KSM/Gitmo civilian trials in NYC, Illinois, and elsewhere on American soil:

The scaremongering about these issues should stop.

Using a state of the art but little used prison facility like the one at Thomson, Illinois – with any appropriate security upgrades our law enforcement professionals deem necessary – makes good sense for the tax payers who invested $145 million in the facility and who are seeing millions wasted every month at the costly, inefficient Guantanamo facility. It makes sense for the community which will benefit from the related employment and has absolutely no reason to fear that prisoners will escape or be released into their communities.

But most of all it makes sense for America because it is a critical link in the process of closing Guantanamo and getting this country back to using its tried and true, constitutionally sound institutions. (emphasis added)

GOP MA Sen. Scott Brown opposes civilian trials for jihadists and made it a key campaign item. The Republican leadership on Capitol Hill opposes civilian trials for jihadists. A majority of Americans oppose civilian trials for jihadists. And it’s a sure bet that the vast majority of grass-roots activists at CPAC oppose civilian trials for jihadists.

Which makes them all “scaremongers” who oppose “constitutional conservatism,” I guess.

More later ...

RELATED: From Politico, "Marco Rubio: Belle of the CPAC Ball" (via Memeorandum).

Karen Allow and Baby LuLu

I suggested yesterday that folks should be following Karen Alloy. I think she's extremely talented, and beautiful as well. She's kinda crazy too, for example, in posting photos of her derriere to Twitpics. I did not notice, however, that she'd also posted a picture of her baby breastfeeding. A commenter posted a heads up at my post. And that was followed by a response from my good friend Opus #6, who says, "Get your minds out of the gutter!"

Actually, don't know where the gutter thing comes from, but apparently Karen Allow, who is unmarried, has gotten a lot of flak from people about single parenthood:

I have found myself in a very profound life-changing situation this year.

As a divorced mother of two, facing single parenthood with a newborn baby has never frightened me. If anything, it encouraged me to hold my head up high and work harder.

There still seems to be this icky stigma about single parents that I’m getting from my online world. And it’s manifested into a burning curiosity to know more about her father to the point of demanding and pushing the issue on every video I post.

I owe no explanation. My Soul is and will continue to remain intact. The only person I owe anything to is LuLu and that time will come soon enough… Trust me.

I think Karen's a good mom. And I don't know if she has plans to marry or will stay single to raise her family. I think marriage is best for a family, and I know Karen's on the market. So it's going to be alright. And while I doubt that I'd have posted pictures like that to Twitpic (of my booty or my baby nursing), I think she's right to tell her idiot critics to STFU.

Anyway, note to readers: It's a brave new world online. I'm going to be writing about it, with all the fleshy and messy contradictions and outrage. It's what I do. Read my blog if you want, but the same folks who say "get your mind out of the gutter" are probably not so thrilled that Karen Alloy's a single mom. (And note that Opus is "a single mother of 6 kids ages 21 years to 2 years," which is both awesome and interesting, given the context). I love all of my women visitors, like MacGinn and Opus #6. But guys and dolls blog differently. Sometimes it's best to go with the flow.

And with that, folks should head over to Theo Spark's!

Robert Plant on Link Wray

Well it's good to see other conservatives blogging about rock and roll. From AOSHQ, "Review: It Might Get Loud."

Here is my absolute favorite moment of the movie.

All those guitar gods whose solos you play air-guitar to? You know what they do in their downtime?

They play air-guitar to their guitar gods.

This movie really made me want to listen to Zeppelin again. And Link Wray. And The Jam (The Edge cites The Jam's appearance on TOTP as opening his eyes to music).

And also... U2. Because I never liked U2, because I didn't like Bono. But The Edge, on the other hand, is such a... cool, understated guy, I think he completely balances out Bono's annoying messianism and makes it okay for me to like the band. The Edge here really was the star, because everything he said was interesting and just... pure information. Just very much fact, fact, interesting anecdote, fact, insight, small amusing joke, fact, fact, fact.

Page was cool too, but he didn't talk as much. I didn't get the sense of him I got about The Edge ....

I haven't seen "It Might Get Loud." In fact, I'm just now hearing about it! But I'm initially fascinated because my station, 100.3 The Sound, plays Zeppelin all the time. I've been wanting to writing about them. But secondly, recall that I blogged recently on Link Wray. And I could not believe me ears when I first heard his jams!

So look at Jimmy Page's excitement above! Same kind of emotion! That is so cool. And playing vinyl 45s!

Added bonus: Here's the movie's trailer. I'll definitely keep my eye's out for this, and will report back once I see it:

Pakistan's Nuclear Posture

Well, it's not all babe-blogging and punk flashbacks around here! [Here, actualy.] I do actually find time to read some professional literature -- although that won't matter to those attacking me as a shitty political scientist! (I'll respond to that later ... idiots!)

Anyway, here's a great piece from the latest International Security, Vipin Narang's, "Posturing for Peace? Pakistan's Nuclear Postures and South Asian Stability." From the introduction:

On November 26, 2008, terrorists from Lashkar-e-Taiba—a group historically supported by the Pakistani state—launched a daring sea assault from Karachi, Pakistan, and laid siege to India’s economic hub, Mumbai, crippling the city for three days and taking at least 163 lives. The world sat on edge as yet another crisis between South Asia’s two nuclear-armed states erupted with the looming risk of armed conflict. But India’s response was restrained; it did not mobilize its military forces to retaliate against either Pakistan or Lashkar camps operating there. A former Indian chief of Army Staff, Gen. Shankar Roychowdhury, bluntly stated that Pakistan’s threat of nuclear use deterred India from seriously considering conventional military strikes. Yet, India’s nuclear weapons capability failed to deter subconventional attacks in Mumbai and Delhi, as well as Pakistan’s conventional aggression in the 1999 Kargil War. Why are these two neighbors able to achieve such different levels of deterrence with their nuclear weapons capabilities? Do differences in how these states operationalize their nuclear capabilities—their nuclear postures—have differential effects on dispute dynamics? ....

To many scholars and practitioners, the world’s grimmest security concerns converge in Pakistan. Pakistan has supported the Taliban, against which the Pakistan Army is fighting a de facto civil war; it supports cross-border terrorism in India, provoking periodic crises in South Asia; and, of course, it has a growing nuclear arsenal. In addition to the risk of inadvertent nuclear use by the Pakistan Army, the arsenal could be vulnerable to malicious elements within the state, whose acquisition of nuclear material or weapons could be catastrophic for regional and international security. Pakistan’s designation as one of the United States’ “major non-NATO” allies cannot obscure concerns in Washington that Pakistan may be the world’s worst security nightmare. Given this nexus of instability, a sober analysis of the pressures and compulsions of the Pakistani nuclear weapons program is of critical importance to South Asian and international security.

It's available in PDF, and while long, it's worth a look.

Narang lays out the evolution of Pakistan's strategic doctrine, which deviates dramatically from the expected predictions of traditional deterrence theory. Especially fascinating is the concept of "catalytic" deterrence, a posture Pakistan adopted to "catalyze" U.S. intervention during a South Asian crisis. The regime in Islamabad would move toward nuclear use amid military confrontations to "signal" to the United States a potentially catastrophic security breakdown. Nuclear mobilization wasn't designed to deter India, but to bring about U.S. intervention: "Pakistan exploited U.S. interests in the region’s stability to impel the United States to intervene on its behalf when its interference in India triggered periodic crises."

There's a summary table on page 45 of the essay. Noteworthy is the theory of why Pakistan's proxy fighting groups (peripheral terrorist organizations like Lashkar) are able to wreak devastating carnage on the Indian state without provoking retaliation against Islamabad. Focusing on "asymmetric escalation," Narang argues that Pakistan relies on a policy of nuclear first use, so that India, while sustaining devastating losses in sub-conventional warfare, hesitates to respond militarily for fear of catatrophic nuclear escalation:

India’s frustration with Pakistan-backed aggression reached deafening heights after roughly a dozen Lashkar-e-Taiba militants executed a precision commando attack on Mumbai on November 26, 2008.98 From the outset, India’s Congress government, and even General Malik (ret.), conceded that its military options to retaliate against Pakistan were again limited, because any meaningful strikes risked uncontrollable escalation, possibly quickly up to the nuclear level.99 India was therefore once more largely restrained by Pakistan’s low nuclear threshold from executing retaliatory airstrikes against suspected Lashkar camps in Pakistan. Former Army Chief of Staff Roychowdhury conceded that “Pakistan’s nuclear weapons deterred India from attacking that country after the Mumbai strikes . . . [and] it was due to Pakistan’s possession of nuclear weapons that India stopped short of a military retaliation following the attack on Parliament in 2001.”

A great piece of research.

More at the link.

Cross-posted from American Power.

The Damned - 'Dozen Girls'

I'll have a longer piece on The Damned later, but enjoy "Dozen Girls," from the band's 1982 LP, "Strawberries." The studio version is at bottom. It's really polished, with feedback-style guitar, but pay attention to Captain Sensible's grinding chords toward the end, at 4:00 minutes. Back in the day, I'd always turn it up even more - these guys rock!

And from this morning, "The Buzzcocks, The Damned to Play the O.C.'s 'MusInk' Festival."

CAIR Takes Aim at CPAC!

Midnight Blue's attending, and there's some generic background at The Guardian, "CPAC 2010: Fired Up and Feisty."

But this is totally predictable, from Fox News, "CPAC Session on Jihad, Free Speech Attracts Complaints":

A panel discussion on the threat posed by "Islamic supremacism," Shariah and political correctness has been scheduled for this week's Conservative Political Action Conference, stirring complaints from some American Muslims that the exercise amounts to Muslim-bashing.

The two-hour session, titled "Jihad: The Political Third Rail," is set for Friday morning, right in the middle of the three-day annual summit of conservative icons and activists in Washington, D.C.

Scheduled to speak are Steve Coughlin, a former Pentagon specialist on Islamic law who was fired two years ago, allegedly under pressure from pro-Muslim officials, and Wafa Sultan, an author and prominent critic of Islam. The discussion is billed as a window into Islam's "war on free speech," the "encroachment" of Shariah -- or Islamic law -- in the West and efforts by the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate American society.

Overall, CPAC is attuned more to political strategy and domestic issues, but organizers of the "Jihad" session have been trying to stir the pot with what they call a blunt and objective discussion of Muslims' attempts to harm the West while silencing criticism.

Mission accomplished. The pot has been stirred.

"It's unfortunate that a conservative conference would be in any way associated with Muslim bashers and Islamophobes," said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "It's a free country. They're free to be anti-Muslim bigots if they like, but it's really up to the organizers of CPAC to determine if they're going to allow their conference to be associated with the hate-filled views of those who will be speaking."

The session appears to be attracting attention on both sides of the issue. While CAIR and a few blogs have blasted CPAC for putting on the event, co-host Pamela Geller said she's already gotten hundreds of RSVPs.

"It really will be enormously informative," she said. "Conservatives want to know."

And just as I write this, Pamela posts on the same piece, "FOX News: Hate Sponsors CAIR Smear, Want CPAC to Cancel our FDI Event Jihad, The Political Third Rail":

Here is more proof of why this conference is so very necessary. All you have to do is utter jihad and the smear merchants and their handmaidens come out shooting.

Image Credit: Midnight Blue, "CPAC 2010 – There is an iPhone App For That!"

RELATED: At FrontPage Magazine, "CAIR’s Hamas Co-Conspirator Associates."

Karen Alloy on Twitter!

Man, this woman is crazy - and you should be following her!

'Hot Air' Sold to Salem Communications! - UPDATED!!

I guess Allah won't be calling Michelle "The Boss" over at Hot Air much longer. See Mediaite, "Exclusive: Hot Air Acquired By Salem Communications":

CPAC hasn’t even officially started and already its making news. Mediaite has learned that leading center-right web site Hot Air has been acquired by Salem Communications for an undisclosed sum. Sources close to the deal claim that Michelle Malkin, the conservative pundit and sole owner of Hot Air, has been in talks with Salem for some time, but the announcement was timed to coincide with the Conservative Political Action Conference, which opens tomorrow in Washington D.C.

Hot Air is one of the biggest, most influential conservative sites on the Web and was launched on April 24, 2006, with Michelle Malkin as founder/CEO (though she remains editorially focused on her own blog MichelleMalkin.com and her own writing and television appearances.) Hot Air is managed on a day-to-day basis by editors Ed Morrissey and the mysterious AllahPundit, who are reported to be part of the deal in the sale of to Salem, and absolutely essential to the core value of Hot Air. We are told that, from a user’s perspective, Hot Air will remain the same despite the change in ownership.

This is official. See Hot Air, "Open Thread: Hot Air Acquisition."

I guess a big announcement's forthcoming tomorrow. I wonder how much Salem paid?

And at Glenn Reynolds', "Is InstaPundit for sale, you ask? A better question: Who would buy it?" I haven't read the additional posts at Memeorandum, but I'll try to update later with relevant information.

**********

UPDATE: There's more on this at Atlantic Wire, "Sale of 'Hot Air' Shakes Up Conservative Blogosphere:

Hot Air was an odd property for Malkin, a fierce blogger whose opinions typically fall several degrees to the right of those expressed by Morrissey and Allahpundit. Allahpundit has drawn occasional conservative attacks for his criticism of two Republican untouchables: Sarah Palin and Christianity. The deal is shaking up the conservative blogosphere, with many wondering how the sale will affect Hot Air and its place in the field of Web commentary.

My first reaction was that Michelle's motive for off-loading Hot Air was financial, hence my interest in "how much Salem paid." And certainly, if she's been unhappy with the direction of the commentary over there, she probably would've just hired new bloggers. We'll see, in any case. Robert Stacy McCain takes issue with the Atlantic's piece. But here's this from the comments at Gateway Pundit:

I know it’s somewhat of a cop-out, but I’m taking a wait-and-see attitude on this one. At first blush I have to ask myself why such a seemingly successful outlet would be for sale to begin with. I know that everything’s for sale for a price, but there’s more here than meets the eye, in my opinion.

Ed Morrissey is an outstanding investigator and writer – a virtual blog posting machine. To me, Ed “is” Hot Air, and I’ll continue to follow his posts whether I’m allowed to comment or not (and currently I am). The “mysterious AllahPundit”, not so much.

If there are changes – and I expect there will be several, despite the initial utterances to the contrary – I would expect that Doctor Zero would replace AP as the #2 writer and AP would become a blogosphere “free agent” ...

I've noted recently the Doctor Zero has become one my favorite bloggers, so that'd be a positive change IMHO.

How Conservative is 'The Mount Vernon Statement'?

Check out the Mount Vernon Statement, "Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century." (Via Memeorandum.) Here's the summary:

A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.

» It applies the principle of limited government based on the
rule of law to every proposal.
» It honors the central place of individual liberty in American
politics and life.
» It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
» It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.
» It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.

If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.

We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.

How conservative is this manifesto? Is the Constitution of 1787 actually more so a libertarian document?

Here's Glenn Reynolds: "Notice that it’s heavy on small-government stuff, and light on social-issue meddling. I think this supports the notion of a libertarian shift on the right — which I, of course, am happy to see."

I would focus on how we interpret the last clause at the summary, "conservatism's firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith." Will a libertarian interpretation of constitutional originalism provide a necessary and sufficient foundation for the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or, can we justify any room for "social meddling"?

If it were me, I'd go with Richard Land's manifesto, "Stay Faithful to Core Values."

Last Images of John F. Kennedy

At Fox News:

Also, at the BBC, Rare Footage of JFK's Arrival in Dallas," and CNN, "Film Released of JFK Arrival in Dallas."Plus, from the New York Times, "Texas: Now Showing, Film of John Kennedy’s Last Day."

'I Am Dr. Amy Bishop!'

Hmm ... this might still work if you replaced the wording with, "I Am Dr. Scotty Lemieux!" (see here and scroll down):

From, "Amy Bishop Was Charged With Assault in 2002 IHOP Dispute:

In March, 2002, Bishop walked into an International House of Pancakes in Peabody with her family, asked for a booster seat for one of her children, and learned the last seat had gone to another mother.

Bishop, according to a police report, strode over to the other woman, demanded the seat and launched into a profanity-laced rant.

When the woman would not give the seat up, Bishop punched her in the head, all the while yelling "I am Dr. Amy Bishop."

Bishop received probation and prosecutors recommended that she be sent to anger management classes, though it is unclear from court documents whether a judge ever sent her there.

Hat Tip: AOSHQ, "Amy Bishop Charged in 2002 IHOP Pancake Rage Incident."

The Buzzcocks, The Damned to Play the O.C.'s 'MusInk' Festival

Okay, I mentioned the Buzzcocks were playing the O.C. this weekend. It turns out that both The Buzzcocks and The Damned are the featured acts Saturday night at the MusInk Festival. Lots of skatepunks will be there:

I saw Pete Shelley in the early 1980s. See, "Pete Shelley - Homosapien." And I didn't know this about "Homosapien," from Wikipedia, "It was banned by the BBC for explicit reference to gay sex, e.g. the words "homo superior / in my interior." Banned songs? Not so good. Besides, I just liked the beat, LOL!

James B. Webb's no doubt hip to it. He's got the knowledge. NTTAWWT!!

I saw The Damned in concert too many times to recall. I'll post something on that group later.

Gemma Atkinson!

No words needed, except to say there's a reason I check Theo Spark's daily!

Source: Guyism, "Oh, How We Have Missed Gemma Atkinson in Lingerie." Also, at Wikipedia, "Gemma Atkinson."

Ever Fallen in Love With Someone...

Watching "The Bachelor" of late, I've been really thinking about the process of actually falling in love. Last night's episode was pretty intense, by the way: I said to my wife, "This show's more about crushing heartbreak than love sometimes ..."

Anyway, I'll see if I can get more to that effect posted in some thoughts later. In the meantime, here's Pete Shelley and the Buzzcocks, "Ever Fallen In Love With Someone (You Shouldn't've Fallen In Love With)?":

You spurn my natural emotions
You make me feel like dirt
And I'm hurt
And if I start a commotion
I run the risk of losing you
And that's worse ...

More on the Buzzcocks later. They're playing the O.C. this weekend.

As always, see my good friend Anton for more wonderful sounds, "Sunday Music – The Crystal Ship." Also, from Reaganite Republican, "Saturday Night Rock-n-Roll Oldies ... Roxy Music- 1972."

Plus, don't miss Theo's "OMFG!!!", and the Washington Rebel, "Whimsy Kitty."

Sarah Palin, No Lipstick

It's amazing, via Glenn Reynolds and Ann Althouse, "Sarah Palin with and without her trademark hairstyle, makeup, glasses and accessories."

Click the link and scroll over the pictures for before and after. Freaky almost.

The Real Reason for Evan Bayh's Retirement

From WSJ, "Another Liberal Crackup: The Real Reason Evan Bayh Wants Out of Washington":

The political retirement of Evan Bayh, at age 54, is being portrayed by various sages as a result of too much partisanship, or the Senate's dysfunction, or even the systemic breakdown of American governance. Most of this is rationalization. The real story, of which Mr. Bayh's frustration is merely the latest sign, is the failure once again of liberal governance.

For the fourth time since the 1960s, American voters in 2008 gave Democrats overwhelming control of both Congress and the White House. Republicans haven't had such large majorities since the 1920s. Yet once again, Democratic leaders have tried to govern the country from the left, only to find that their policies have hit a wall of practical and popular resistance.

Democrats failed in the latter half of the 1960s, as the twin burdens of the Great Society and Vietnam ended the Kennedy boom and split their party. They failed again after Watergate, as Congress dragged Jimmy Carter to the left and liberals had no answer for stagflation. They failed a third time in the first two Bill Clinton years, as tax increases and HillaryCare led to the Gingrich Congress before Mr. Clinton salvaged his Presidency by tacking to the center.

A fourth crackup is already well underway and is even more remarkable considering how Democrats were set up for success. Inheriting a recession amid GOP failures, Democrats had the chance to restore economic confidence and fix the financial system with modest reforms that would let them take credit for the inevitable recovery. Yet only 13 months later, Democrats are down in the polls, their agenda is stymied by Democratic opposition, and their House and Senate majorities are in peril as moderates like Mr. Bayh flee the scene of this political accident.

RTWT at the link.

RELATED: Doug Ross, "Top Democrat Strategists Formulate Awesomely Cool Plan to Recover From Bayh Defection: Obama Should Use Bully Pulpit More Often."

Plus, Chris Cillizza, "Winners and Losers From Evan Bayh's Retirement" (via Memeorandum).

Keith Olbermann's Plantation: 'Ask Yourself - Where Are the Black Faces?'

I'm really glad I happened to catch this video, c/o Bruce Miller at The Blue Voice and Blue Texan at Firedoglake. With every passing day I'm more and more convinced that President Barack Obama has worsened race relations in this country. It's something I've written about quite a bit, while rebutting the airheaded nihilists of the radical left. But Keith Olbermann, never failing to astound, really outdoes himself. A man with great power at MSNBC -- and thus the television media -- he hasn't the faintest inclination to responsibility. Anyway, it's a lengthy segment at the video, but worth a look. It illustrates the racist patronism of today's Democratic-left. After attacking citizen patriots as "teabagging racists," Olbermann implores tea partiers to ask themselves, "Where are the black faces" among you?

It's hard to be more racially offensive than this, for Olbermann's whole schtick essentially discounts America's achievement of the civil rights dream, one that culminated in the election of the nation's first black president in 2008. But it's more than that: After decades of Democratic Party policies that have systematically supressed black Americans (keeping them "in their place" through welfare policies of dependency, inner-city housing policies of ethnic warehousing, and voting rights policies of racial recrimination and ghettoization), Olbermann has the temerity to suggest that blacks just can't think for themselves. That's not to discount how the Democratic-left attempts to inculcate the young with the false consciousness of racial grievance and victimology. It's that on top of that Olby is asserting that black patriots need the "massa in de big house" to show them how to live.

The frightening truth for the left is that blacks and other minorities are extremely well represented in the tea party movement (and in fact, MSNBC has a history of trying to hide this). And of course it's leftist condescension in the extreme to suggest opposition to Obama is automatically racist AND that there aren't enough black faces in the crowd.

Olby should get a f**king clue, the bigoted pimp!

In any case, I wrote previously about Mason Weaver, the great SoCal patriot and congressional candidate who just happens to be black. And recall patriot Kenny Gladney,seen here selling Gadsden flags at an event last summer, who was later beaten by SEIU thugs. Keith Olbermann certainly knows of Kenneth Gladney. He slurred him previously as at "teabagger" while spewing lies about the attack by the union goons:

You want black tea partiers, Olby? You got it:

I am the mob (not "black mob," mind you ... just the mob). And there are lots who stand with me, white or black, Hispanic or Asian, or whatever "self-identifying" constituency the left is exploiting for their disgusting race-bait politics of Democratic segregation.

Here's another great non-white tea partier, my friend Michelle Malkin:

So, message to Keith Olbermann: All you've got is fear of racial emancipation. You'll die trying to keep blacks on the plantation. Can't have a free people, color-blind, criticizing the administration in Washington. That'd be, well, unpatriotic.

Anyway, Blue Texan sucks down Olbermann's effluent without a chaser, although Bruce Miller, who attempts a serious criticism of Olby's allegedly flawed case for "racist teabaggers," suffers from another form of hubris. Miller, with no actual citation, makes seemingly knowledgable comments like "patterns of discrimination by race have been copiously documented for decades in hiring, promotion, income, housing, health, education and on and on," only to turn around to credit the utter clown Dave Neiwert as some sort of scholarly authority:

Olbermann could also have pointed to research by people like Dave Neiwert, who actually knows something about far-right groups and their methods and rhetoric and has been chronicling their role in the Tea Party groups.

Actually, no difference: Neither Olbermann nor Neiwert knows shit about the tea parties. Fact is they've got nothing but fiction and lies. Meanwhile, tea party patriots are on the verge of taking back power and restoring the republic.

More on that later ...

UPDATE: Instalanche!!