Rule 5 Rachel Maddow!

I'm kidding, of course. (Although we'll see what Linkmaster Smith has to say about it — and remember, it's Friday night and I've yet to post any hotties!)

Although I've never been one to jump on the "Rachel Maddow is ugly" bandwagon, she's not quite as nice looking nowadays as she was in high school. And it's not an age thing, obviously. Mostly stylistic, you might say. I do have a thing for blondes, in any case — like my wife, LOL!

Via Left Coast Rebel, "(PHOTO) The Left Sees the World Through Group Identity, Collectivist Lenses: Rachel Maddow's High School Yearbook Photo":

Also, "Rachel Maddow Was Really Hot in High School."

It's hard to think of a woman who has systematically worked harder to make herself less attractive, and not in an insignificant way, at least as far as the recent photo of Maddow in Kandahar indicates. As one commenter wrote at my earlier post:

Hopefully, she will meet a "nice" man, have an arranged hitching, and will spend the rest of her days covered in a burka, being a breeder and milking goats in some dusty hellhole in the outback along the Paki border. Her anti-American screed should go over big there...

Arizona Border Cluelessness

I guess you have to just shake your head. Dana Milbank's piece can have only been hatched from the Beltway journalism cocoon, "Headless bodies and other immigration tall tales in Arizona:"

Jan Brewer has lost her head.

The Arizona governor, seemingly determined to repel every last tourist dollar from her pariah state, has sounded a new alarm about border violence. "Our law enforcement agencies have found bodies in the desert either buried or just lying out there that have been beheaded," she announced on local television.

Ay, caramba! Those dark-skinned foreigners are now severing the heads of fair-haired Americans? Maybe they're also scalping them or shrinking them or putting them on a spike.

But those in fear of losing parts north of the neckline can relax. There's not a follicle of evidence to support Brewer's claim.

The Arizona Guardian Web site checked with medical examiners in Arizona's border counties and the coroners said they had never seen an immigration-related beheading. I called and e-mailed Brewer's press office requesting documentation of decapitation; no reply.

Brewer's mindlessness about headlessness is just one of the immigration falsehoods being spread by Arizona politicians. Border violence on the rise? Phoenix becoming the world's No. 2 kidnapping capital? Illegal immigrants responsible for most police killings? The majority of those crossing the border are drug mules? All wrong.

This matters, because it means the entire premise of the Arizona immigration law is a fallacy. Arizona officials say they've had to step in because federal officials aren't doing enough to stem increasing border violence. The scary claims of violence, in turn, explain why the American public supports the Arizona crackdown.

More at the link.Actually, I've never checked the statistics, which according to Milbank show beyond a shadow of a doubt that Arizonans are getting fearmongered by the state's leadership. (And if I did check 'em, I'd be sure to rely on a bit more than the folks at the Arizona Republic.) The problem is that while Brewer may be misspoken, even the administration has warned tourists to stay out of the national parks in Arizona, since federal authorities couldn't guarantee their safety. No word about that from Milbank. And of course, if crime's really been "flat" for the last decade, then maybe it's become more concentrated at the border without changing the data? Something also not considered by Milbank.

Of course, I've spoken to folks who actually live on the border, and they'll tell you folks in the elite Beltway cocoon haven't clue. And watch this clip with Grif Jenkins. The report dates to just about the time I met Jenkins in Tempe at the end of May:

See also, "Ranchers Alarmed by Killing Near Border."

And speaking of evidence, see the Sierra Vista Herald, "Brewer says misinformation plays role on every level with immigration law."

My World Crumbles When You Are Not Near...

Running out to the bookstore for a bit. Enjoy some Macy Gray while I'm gone, "I Try":

Plus, check Political Byline for some hot political blogging!

Plus, a few updates on the Oakland riots in case you missed 'em: "Obama Administration to Review Involuntary Manslaughter Conviction in Oscar Grant Shooting Trial"; "Violence is Not Justice!"; and "Communization."

Communization

I'm intrigued by the hard-left militancy at the Oakland Oscar Grant riots. Recall that the "Occupy California" forces were among the rioters and looters on the ground. They celebrated the looting as "liberating the shoes" from the capitalist immiseraters. I just found one of the movement's mobilization pamphlets from earlier this year, "After the Fall: Communiqués from Occupied California." These folks are fairly sophisticated in the ideological outlook. The introductory essay discusses the state's crisis of educational funding and advocates direct action toward revolutionary "communization." Looking at Wikipedia, I see this description:

Communization is the process of the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production, which, in societies dominated by the capitalist mode of production, are "owned" by individual capitalists, states, or other collective bodies. In some versions of communist theory, communization is understood as the transfer of ownership from private capitalist hands to the collective hands of producers, whether in the form of co-operative enterprises or communes, or through the mediation of a state or federation of workers' councils on a local, national, or global scale. In these accounts, communization means that the multitude or humanity as a whole, directly or indirectly, takes over the tasks of planning the production of goods for use (not for exchange) and according to socially-determined needs. People would then have free access to those goods rather than exchanging labor for money and then exchanging labor for goods as in less advanced phases of socialism.

Violence is Not Justice!

From Youth UpRising in Oakland. My problem is that, yeah, while there may well have been a miscarriage of justice in the Oscar Grant trial, it seems that the "social justice" types are all too ready to resort to violence to achieve their aims, and thank God it's the police and not them who's maintaining the monopoly on the use of force.

Photoblogging

From my good friend on Facebook:

New Threats to Freedom

Via Theo Spark, this is Adam Bellow, the editor of New Threats to Freedom:

Obama Administration to Review Involuntary Manslaughter Conviction in Oscar Grant Shooting Trial

At ABC7 San Francisco, "US Justice Department to review BART shooting," and at Weasel Zippers, "After Riots Break Out in Oakland Over White Transit Cop Who Shot Black Man Being Convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter, AG Holder Says He’s Considering Bringing Federal Charges Against Officer." (Via Memorandum). Kimberly Guilfoyle, on Megyn Kelly's right now, sees a travesty of justice (with the BART officer deserving of a second degree murder conviction). More on the that at Outside the Beltway and Oakland Local. But see San Franciso Chronicle, "The right verdict in Mehserle case."

Plus, more on the rioting. The message from Grand Lake Theater:

And more video from the scene:

See also San Francisco Chronicle, "83 arrests in Oakland follow Mehserle verdict."

PREVIOUSLY: "Riots in Oakland After Oscar Grant Verdict: 'Many Bent on Destruction No Matter What'."

Riots in Oakland After Oscar Grant Verdict: 'Many Bent on Destruction No Matter What'

The guilty verdict is here: "Mehserle convicted of involuntary manslaughter."

And the late update, "After dark, mobs form, smash windows, loot":

The trouble Thursday boiled down to a racially diverse mob of about 200 people, many bent on destruction no matter what, confronting police after the day's predominantly peaceful demonstrations ended.

Sporadic conflicts were quelled quickly early in the evening, but by late night at least 50 people - and maybe as many as 100 - had been arrested as small groups smashed windows, looted businesses and set trash bins on fire.

Plus, a massive slideshow at Oakland Tribune, "Mehserle guilty of involuntary manslaughter." Clicking through to photo #9, protester Raquel Sharp is pictured with a "Made in Aztlán" t-shirt, and at slide #18, an unidentified protester is arrested sporting a keffiyeh. Gives you an idea of what "social justice" is about ...

And here's this on Twitter:

Many of the most aggressive demonstrators smashing the windows of banks and shops were white.

See also, "'MY SON WAS MURDERED' -- GRANT'S MOM," and "No Justice: Oscar Grant Verdict Overshadowed By LeBron James."

Lots of video. Notice especially this first clip of the looting, with the thug walking out casually --- with products packed neatly in a bag --- as if it's shopping at the mall:

And here's how Occupy California describes it:

As the rally ended and the sound system removed, only a handful of people left the area. For nearly an hour, the crowd remained confused and unsure what the next step was. People milled about, discussing what had happened, reacquainting themselves with friends, and figuring out what to do. Much of the sentiment in the crowd seemed to wish a march or a collective escape from the intersections. Instead we stood around, as police forces continued to encircle the crowd. Eventually the crowd felt a sense of rush, away from 12th st and back to 14th and broadway. There we stood again, dense as sardines in a can without a collective escape from the looming police. As the anticipation rose, waves of excitement and fear hit us. Those of us in the middle and back of the crowd near 14th st felt bodies rush past us and then forward again north on broadway. Finally something snapped, people began spraying graffiti on walls and smashing windows. The footlocker on broadway was smashed, but the metal security fence behind the glass held no one back; the crowd pushed through and the merchandise in the store was looted. The bounty was shared by all as looters liberated shoes and clothing and jettisoned much of it into the crowd.

Hmm ... "looters liberated shoes"?

There's no such thing as private property to the anarcho-communist thugs.

RELATED: Zombie has a pre-riot background report: "Leftist groups plan a riot as Oakland boards up downtown."

Scientists Cleared of Rigging Climate Research? Hardly

The leftist extremists are up in arms today over CNN's firing of Octavia Nasr, the network's Middle East/Hezbollah bureau chief. And some of the crazies (i.e., Andrew Sullivan) have turned this into some kind of broader statement on the "policing" of impolitic views at news organizations. Rick Moran smacks all this down extremely effectively. But I wanted to rebut the specific point (made by Gleen Greenwald) that Nasr's firing was a consequence of the "liberal media's" fawning capitulation to the "neocon Right." (The evil "neocon" cabal seems back in the news this week, by the way. See Weasel Zippers, "Lefties Blames “Neo-Cons” For Getting CNN Editor Fired After She Praised Hezbollah’s Spiritual Mentor…")

As Rick points out, folks got in trouble for writing unacceptable things, so it mostly faux outrage. But what's really killing me is the audacity of this assumption the the leftist press toes the line for some ethereal right-wing neocon power machine. Please. I mean, I saw this front-page report at New York Times, "Scientists Cleared of Rigging Climate Research." The article notes that is was the University of East Anglia that commissioned a paid investigation to uncover corruption and (un)scientific malfeasance at --- wait for it! --- the University of East Anglia's own Climate Research Unit! (The CRU was widely discredited by the hacked e-mails of "Climategate.") It's a laugher all around. It turns out that just yesterday Phil Jones, CRU's lead scientist, was reinstated in "a job resembling his old one" after (temporarily) resigning in disgrace when the scandal broke wide open last year. The Times tries to put an objective gloss on the story, but it's badly misrepresenting the severity of what happened at the time; and the paper buries the findings of a report out this week from a Netherlands panel reporting another set of flawed finding at the major U.N.-endorsed IPCC report.

The Wall Street Journal had that report on Tuesday, "Review Finds Issues at Climate Panel: Dutch Agency Backs U.N. on Warming, Spots Error, Calls for Broader Summary." Note first how amazing more objective that headline reads. And then we find at the story:

A new review of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change supports the IPCC's warning that global warming presents a significant danger, but it says some of the summary conclusions of a seminal IPCC report don't adequately discuss some "uncertainties" and "positive impacts" of climate change.

In the report released Monday, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, an institute that advises the Dutch government, found the summary conclusions of the portion of the IPCC's 2007 report dealing with how climate change might affect various regions of the world to be "well founded."

But the Dutch report said the summary conclusions it reviewed "tend to single out the most important negative impacts of climate change."

It also uncovered what it called "another significant error" in one of the underlying chapters in the IPCC report—a projected 50% to 60% drop in the productivity of anchovy fisheries on Africa's west coast which the Dutch report says was based on "an erroneous interpretation of the literature references."

The literature in fact suggests a 50% to 60% decrease in "extreme wind and seawater turbulence, with some effects on the anchovy population that were not quantified," the Dutch report said.

The review is the latest in a string of investigations focusing on the IPCC's 2007 report, which concluded climate change is "unequivocal" and is "very likely" caused by human activity, and which helped win the IPCC a Nobel Peace Prize.

The investigations were prompted by disclosures starting late last year of a handful of errors in the roughly 3,000-page IPCC report, and of attempts by some climate scientists influential in the IPCC process to squelch the opinions of researchers who challenged the premise of man-made global warming.

None of these details are mentioned by the New York Times, which is expected, since the Dutch panel in fact finds more evidence that IPCC engaged in practices to "hide the decline."

And in a related travesty of scientific inquiry, Professor Michael Mann at Penn State claims to be "fully vindicated" by the East Anglia investigation.

But he's not. See Watts Up With That, "Mann's Grinning Cheshire Cat Commentary." And Jeff Id notes that the "Muir Russell Report" (East Anglia's commissioned whitewash) minimized the evidence that CRU conspired to hide the decline, and he includes this e-mail from Phil Jones himself:

From: Phil Jones

To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

It's hardly clear that CRU and folks like Michael Mann have been vindicated by yet another questionable report issued to whitewash what's been considered the most important scandal in the history of the natural sciences.

In closing, let me refer readers back to Steven Hayward's breathtaking essay at Weekly Standard last December, "Scientists Behaving Badly." As Hayward notes:

The CRU scandal is only the tip of an unmelted iceberg of politicized science, though the "hard" sciences until recently have been generally thought immune (or at least resistant) to the leftist bias and political correctness of the universities."

Reading 'STFU, Sexists'

Remember our friend Olga at STFU, Sexists?

I wonder if she likes hardcore British punk.? Well, probably not this song so much:

I've had too many pints of poison,
now I wanna try your pants on.
I don't care if you're really crude,
I wanna see you in the nude.

Suppose you think it's fun to. tease.
Spread around social disease
Don't care how many you have had.
Just lie down I want it bad.

(And to be completely clear, while Ms. Olga apparently likes posing for hot mini-skirt photo-shoots, I haven't a clue about her sexual propensities and have no idea if she's in fact slutty.)

In any case, lots of other interesting stuff over there, for example, "It's Time to Offer the Pill Over-the-Counter Women's Rights Change.org →":

I would be in favor of this simply because it is not a substance that is virtually never denied to anyone who asks for it, and is not inherently more dangerous than Tylenol or Aspirin.

Plus, "Legal and free abortion is a human right!"

********

Well, that reminds me of The Anchoress, "The Radical Religion of Abortion."

'Burn the Flag Day'

It's true.

With Iraq Veterans Against the War. (Related: "Is it About Independence, Or Explosions?")

See also, This Ain't Hell..., "IVAW Flag-Burning Still an Issue."

Hat Tip: Weasel Zippers, "SF Leftists Burn American Flag on July 4; They “Glory in Their Shame” – Video."

The Definitive Glenn Greenwald Takedown

It's not as comprehensive as Christopher Badeaux's definitive takedown of Andrew Sullivan last year, but Benjamin Kerstein's epic deconstruction of the Gleen Greenwald monstrosity is classic. (Or as Mike at Cold Fury notes, "it’s as good a takedown of this malignant swine I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen quite a few.") At New Ledger, "The Paper Greenwald" (via Instapundit):

Needless to say, RTWT. Kerstein opens his essay with a sense of astonishment:

The fallout from the Gaza flotilla incident has occasioned some of the most reprehensible writing that the anti-Israel establishment – which specializes in such things – has ever produced. Beyond question, however, one of the most egregious examples of this is the work Salon.com columnist Glenn Greenwald, whose comically overwrought pseudo-jeremiads on the subject constitute a case study in the kind of intellectual corruption that now appears to be the inevitable result of the bigoted hatred of Israel typical of today’s American progressivism.

This passage is pretty good too, almost at the conclusion:

His lies, slanders, and apologetics for political evil are not excusable, but it is impossible not to feel some measure of pity for Glenn Greenwald. He seems to be a man torn between those aspects of himself that are acceptable to the progressive faith, i.e., his politics and his homosexuality, and those that are anathema, i.e. that he is a Jew and an American. Loyal to progressivism because of the former, he must constantly prove himself worthy of belonging to it because of the latter. As a result, he is always on trial, both before his comrades and before himself. And he required to regularly debase himself on certain subjects by going above and beyond his fellows in both the violence of his denunciations and the intensity of his hysteria, even when the results are humiliating and reveal him as a moral and intellectual bankrupt. Saddest of all, the trial never ends, and the verdict is always known beforehand.

Ultimately, however, sympathy can only go so far. Whatever his secret motivations and terrors may be, Greenwald has long since made his deal with the devil, and what it has brought him to is a testament to just how morally and intellectually corrupted progressives are capable of becoming when they follow the tenets of their creed to the very bitter end ...

Yes, bitter alright. A definitely evil.

Again, be sure to click through to the essay. Especially good is the construction of Greenwald's placement in Satan's gallery of historical accomplices, but be sure understand the nature and implications of this "paper Greenwald."

RELATED: There's a pretty good reaction to Kerstein's essay around the 'spher. See, Cold Fury, Jamie Kirchick, The Jawa Report, John Noonan, Josh Trevino, Martin Kramer, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, and Wake up America.

And Greenwald has responded as well, in an update to a post on CNN's Middle Eastern Affairs/Hezbollah editor, Octavia Nasr. Greenwald lashes out at Kerstein as "a standard-issue, Israel-devoted neocon smear artist," and thus confirms the former's argument perfectly. And here's a added dose of Greenwald's self-superior infallibility:

I view the increasingly unhinged attacks by the worst neocon elements to be a vindication of what I'm doing. I see them as pernicious and destructive, and genuinely welcome their contempt.

Fail.

Gov. Jan Brewer Cancels Border Governors Conference

The main story's at Politico, "Jan Brewer Cancels 28th Annual U.S.-Mexico Border Governors Conference."

Arizona GOP Gov. Jan Brewer has canceled a planned conference with Mexican governors in Phoenix after they threatened to boycott it to protest the state's controversial immigration law.

The 28th annual U.S.-Mexico Border Governors Conference was scheduled to take place this September in Phoenix and would have brought together six governors from northern Mexico and the four border governors in the United States.

“The people of Arizona and the people of America support what Arizona has done. ... For them to basically not attend here because of that, I think is unfair." Brewer said in announcing her decision.

But New Mexico Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson and California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger have yet to join Brewer in wanting to cancel the conference and spokesmen for the two governors told The Associated Press that they will try to hold the conference without Brewer.

Brewer said she would consider attending the conference if it were held outside of Arizona, though she said it would depend on where it was.

RELATED: From Michelle, "Open-borders DOJ vs. America."

And see Rasmussen, "56% Oppose Justice Department Challenge of Arizona Law; 61% Favor Similar Law In Their State" (via Memeorandum).

The Constitution Trumps Arizona?

Not really. It depends on who's interpreting it.

And thus check the New York Times' editorial (arguing for federal supremacy), especially the last paragraph:

Most important, the president can follow through on his recent promise to end the chaos of the immigration system with a comprehensive reform bill. Stamping out unjust laws like Arizona’s is a good place to start.

That pretty much sums it up, more than the editors probably thought. Apparently, one's view of federalism is determined by an easily-identified position on the immigration issue, with what's essentially a non-enforcement stand being the prevalent viewpoint of elites. And notice two words there especially: "comprehensive" and "unjust." The notion of "comprehensive" is of course shorthand for amnesty, and the adjective "unjust" is the signifier that immigration enforcement is inherently "racist."

One problem (putting aside arguments over states rights) is that the Times --- and the Obama administration --- is applying the federal supremacy standard unequally, and hence hypocritically. Arizona's been on the forefront of forcing the federal government to meet its mandated requirements of border security, but it's especially interesting to find out that Rhode Island has already been doing what AZ SB 1070 requires, without so much as a peep from any of the radical left's open-borders constituencies. William Jacobson reported on this, for example, "Hey, Rhode Island Already Checks Immigration Status At Traffic Stops":

Despite the failure of the Rhode Island legislature to pass an Arizona-like immigration bill, Rhode Island already has implemented the critical piece of the Arizona law, checking the immigration status of people stopped for traffic violations where there is a reasonable suspicion, and reporting all illegals to federal authorities for deportation.

William cites the Boston Globe, "R.I. troopers embrace firm immigration role." (And see Ed Morrissey as well, "Arizona – the new Rhode Island?")

Picking up from there is Andrew McCarthy's piece, "United States v. Arizona — How 'Bout United States v. Rhode Island?" Notice the citations of earlier case law, which servs to emphasize leftist hypocrisy ever more:

If, as President Obama and Attorney General Holder claim, there is a federal preemption issue, why hasn’t the administration sued Rhode Island already? After all, Rhode Island is actually enforcing these procedures, while the Arizona law hasn’t even gone into effect yet.

Could it be because — as we’ve discussed here before — the Supreme Court in Muehler v. Mena has already held that police do not need any reason (not probable cause, not reasonable suspicion) to ask a person about his immigration status?

Could it be that just this past February, in Estrada v. Rhode Island, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the Rhode Island procedures, reasoning that, in Muehler v. Mena, the Supreme Court “held that a police officer does not need independent reasonable suspicion to question an individual about her immigration status…”?

So, we have a Justice Department that drops a case it already won against New Black Panthers who are on tape intimidating voters in blatant violation of federal law, but that sues a sovereign state for enacting a statute in support of immigration enforcement practices that have already been upheld by two of the nation’s highest courts. Perfect

RELATED: Rather than quoting it, I'll just send readers to read this unhinged post at Feathered Bastard. (States rights must be crushed? Whoo. That's strong. )

You Strip Away the Ugliness That Surrounds Me...

I don't care so much if Sarah McLachlan's radical activist. Whatever. I've enjoyed Sweet Surrender, for example, and she's got a new album and concert tour (although 10 performance dates have been cancelled, a casualty of the weak touring market for the music industry).

In any case, enjoy the sounds. I need to read the civil rights chapter from my new textbook in preparation for tomorrow. But check back soon ...

Obama Job Approval Continues Violent Slide to Debacle

At Gallup, "Obama Job Approval Rating Down to 38% Among Independents" (via Memeorandum):

Thirty-eight percent of independents approve of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, the first time independent approval of Obama has dropped below 40% in a Gallup Daily tracking weekly aggregate. Meanwhile, Obama maintains the support of 81% of Democrats, and his job approval among Republicans remains low, at 12% ....

Overall, 46% of Americans approve of the job Obama is doing as president in the June 28-July 4 aggregate, one point above his lowest weekly average. Obama's average weekly job approval rating has not been above 50% since Feb. 8-14, though it reached the 50% mark as recently as May 3-9.

Obama's lower ratings come amid a still-struggling economy, the ongoing difficulties presented by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the recent change of command in the war in Afghanistan. Underscoring the challenge at hand, Obama's 44% approval rating in July 2-5 polling (Gallup did not interview July 4) ties his lowest three-day average to date.

Also, "Democrats, Republicans Still Tied on 2010 Generic Ballot." And Amy Walter, at National Journal, "For Congressional Dems, Time Is Almost Up."

IMAGE CREDIT: Serr8d's Cutting Edge.

Jimmy Kimmel Production Crew Harasses Peaceful Pro-Life Activists on Hollywood Boulevard

Unreal.

At Jill Stanek, "Pro-life Activists vs. Jimmy Kimmel Thugs."

And at Christian News Wire, "Kimmel Crew Uses Spotlights as Weapons Against Peaceful Demonstrators":

A light crew affiliated with the Jimmy Kimmel Live show utilized two spot lights to burn "Survivor" Ryan Bueler on June 25.

Bueler was holding one of Survivors' many graphic signs in a demonstration on the busy street near Kimmel's studio.

He was in an area where a light crew had stationed themselves to spot a stunt scheduled to happen later that afternoon by the Jimmy Kimmel Live show, but upon Bueler's legal, peaceful demonstration, utilizing his First Amendment rights, the camera crew assaulted Bueler by turning two spotlights on him from only a few feet away.

The situation occurred in broad daylight, negating any need for the lights to be turned on. In addition, the camera crew turned the lights toward Bueler-the opposite direction of where they needed to be turned in order to film the stunt on the other side of the street.

Bueler, who estimates that he was under the lights for around 15 minutes, did not sustain threatening or serious injuries; however, his skin was noticeably darker on the areas where the lights hit. The heat from the lights was hot enough to partially melt Bueler's bracelet and the sign he was holding.

Despite being on scene and shown video footage of the occurrence, LAPD did not arrest any members of the light crew.

"It is outrageous and a disgrace that anyone would purposely burn teenagers with high intensity commercial spotlights just because of their belief that abortion is the killing of innocent children," said Timmerie Millington, spokesperson for Survivors.

Bueler was just glad to see that the pro-life message was being spread to the crowd.

And of course, Huffington Post questions whether the pro-lifers were attacked:

The group claims that Kimmel's crew "turned high intensity spotlights onto a young teenager peacefully practicing his first amendment rights", though it is difficult to make out from the video. What do you think?

What do you think? Are you kidding me?

Maybe the video at the link is ambiguous, but this Bueler's stand for free speech and protection of the unborn is Christ-like.

Lindsay Lohan's Secret 'F**k U' Message Casts Doubt on Expressions of Remorse

Look, despite Geragos' argument to the contrary, 90 days wasn't even enough, not to mention the fact that she's unlikely to serve the full sentence. And now there's this?

At ABC NEWs, "Lindsay Lohan's Secret 'F**k U' in Courtroom: During Tear-Filled Plea About Respect and Responsibility, Lohan Conveys Explicit Message in Fingernails." I'm not exactly sure why LiLo's as big a star as she is. And no doubt her career's FUBAR by now. But redemption's pretty common in Hollywood, so you'd think a turn in jail might literally sober her up a bit. But she wants to go out with both barrels blazing, so perhaps there's some old-fashioned tragedy attached.

Obama Administration Dropped Charges Against New Black Panther Who Wants to Kill White Babies

White "cracker" babies, that is.

From Ed Driscoll, "‘You Want Freedom? You’re Gonna Have to Kill Some Crackers’."

Also, at Rush Limbaugh's, "Meet the New Black Panther Eric Holder Dropped Charges Against."