Saturday, October 30, 2010
Insane: New York Times Sells False Meme of 'Reasonable' Stewart-Colbert Rally
The unwavering message is that the Stewart "Rally for Sanity" was uniquely reasonable, " a political event like no other." I wasn't there. But I've live-blogged this event all day, and I've gotten lots of information from folks who were on the ground, and obviously NYT has airbrushed the rowdier elements out of their "Rally for Sanity" coverage.
Especially interesting is the Times' total disregard for the Cat Stevens controversy. And the Los Angeles Times is no better: "Thousands descend on National Mall for Stewart's and Colbert's 'Sanity' rally." I've noted this a couple of times already, but some big guns are picking up the story, and it's clear the Jon Stewart badly miscalculated by inviting Yusuf Islam to the event. See Ed Morrissey, for example, "Fatwa-endorsing singer featured at “Restoring Sanity” rally?"
It's all over the place. But it's a pre-election weekend, and we'll hear more chatter about the wonderful Stewart-Colbert "moderation" on the Sunday talk shows. Not discussed will be the super well-represented profanity, misogyny, vulgarity, and leftists wishing death to conservatives.
No, that wouldn't fit the narrative too well.
Charles Johnson's 'Peace Train' to Islamofascism — UPDATED!!
**********
A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, Charles Johnson wrote what may have been the authoritative anti-jihad post on Cat Stevens, a.k.a. Yusuf Islam: "Are You Ready for Islamopop?" (safe link).
And now?
Well, the dude live-streamed Stewart/Colbert's lefty-lovefest, "Live Video: Rally to Restore Sanity And/or Fear" (safe link).
Yep. King Charles himself now leads the Islamofascist fifth column.
RELATED: Ed Driscoll, "Video: Riding the Peace Train." And at Toby Harden, "Yusuf Islam (aka Cat Stevens), accused of backing Salman Rushdie fatwah, appears at DC 'Rally to Restore Sanity'."
And Doug Mataconis adds:
Some, such as Talking Points Memo, have already dismissed this criticism of Islam’s appearance at the rally as a “right wing” concern, but there does seem to be somewhat of a disconnect between a rally calling for rationality in political discourse and a singer who once endorsed the idea of murdering someone for writing a book. Inviting a man like this to a rally to “restore sanity” was a mistake, and Stewart is likely to take some well-deserved criticism for it over the coming days.
Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear — UPDATED!!
The crowd is huge:
Looks like it's all about fun and games:
Great coverage from Brittany Cohan, who posted some pics earlier:
Tania Gail should have photos posted a bit later, and I'll update. Meanwhile, expect a lot of leftist chatter about how the crowd for Stewart's rally beats Beck's rally, blah, blah ... Just know that photos won't be comparable, since Restore Sanity has gathered in front of the Capitol building rather than the Lincoln Memorial. Media Matters is going freak out anyway. Check back for updates.
RELATED: At New York Times, "Live Blog: ‘Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear’" (via Memeorandum).
**********
UPDATE: Screencap of Ozzy Osbourne and Yusuf Islam:
And Meredith Jessup tweets:
Speaking of Wikipedia ... there's an entry for "Restore Sanity."
More on Yusuf Islam: "Cat Stevens Appearance at Sanity Rally Rankles Right Winger."
ADDED: From Aaron Worthing, "WTF?! Islamofascist at the Rally to Restore Sanity?! (Update: A trip Down Memory Lane with Stewart and South Park; Salman Rushdie on Yusuf Islam; Video: Yusuf Islam on Wishing He Could Burn Rushdie Alive)."
More pictures, via Jenn Q. Public:
Death to right-wingers, but in a nice way. Kinda like "humane" executions: Here's Colbert's entry: Okay, this is the moment I've been waiting for: My most excellent blog-buddy Skye at Midnight Blue is uploading her photos, via Twitter: Okay, MFM reports coming in, e.g., at WaPo, "Rally to Restore Sanity: 'If We Amplify Everything, We Hear Nothing'."
More pics, from Mollie Hemingway:
The Rally for Sanity folks have their history backwards:
And you don't see stuff like this at the tea parties:
And here's a bit on crowd size, at WSJ, "Counting the Crowd: Hard to Do for Jon Stewart’s Rally." I tweeted along these lines this morning. And Gateway Pundit has the overhead crowd comparison, and it's clearly no contest:
Okay, now more photos coming in from Skye at Midnight Blue, on Flickr:
More at Midnight Blue and Flickr.
Catholic Vote 2010
A New Way Forward: Weekly Republican Address: Leader John Boehner (R-OH), 10/30/10
Bill Whittle's Firewall: 'What We Believe, Part 4: Natural Law'
Previously:
* "Bill Whittle's Firewall: 'What We Believe, Part 1: Small Government and Free Enterprise'."
* "Bill Whittle's Firewall: 'What We Believe, Part 2: The Problem with Elitism'."
* "Bill Whittle's Firewall: 'What We Believe, Part 3: Wealth Creation'."
Friday, October 29, 2010
Explosive Marisa Miller Rule 5 Roundup!
TV Still Favored Medium for Political Ad Spending
At LAT:
The Internet revolutionized political fundraising, but when it comes to spending those dollars, media strategists are voting old school.More at the link.
Candidates and supporters are caught up in a frenetic advertising blitz, on pace to drop a record $3 billion, according to analysts who monitor spending. Most of the money is going to an old-media workhorse: local TV stations.
Two years ago, then-candidate Barack Obama successfully tapped the Internet to raise money and mobilize millions of voters. Politicians around the country, including California gubernatorial hopefuls Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown, have jumped on the social media bandwagon, including Facebook and Twitter. But as the campaign season heated up, analysts said, candidates scaled back on Internet ad buys in favor of the tried and true.
How tried and true? Even the 235-year-old U.S. Postal Service is a conduit for more paid advertising — by 13 to 1 — than its digital descendant.
For California TV stations, particularly those in Los Angeles, the midterm election has led to a gold-rush mentality. One campaign organizer said the cost of a 30-second TV spot has been soaring in the final days before Tuesday's election. A spot that went for $2,000 two years ago is going for $5,000 today.
Analysts who track political spending predict that TV stations nationwide will rake in two-thirds of the campaign dollars this year — about $2 billion. Commercial radio, another old-media staple, is expected to collect $250 million. At least $650 million will be spent on direct mail campaigns, those glossy fliers now filling mailboxes.
Internet sites should fetch about $50 million, less than 2% of the total.
Advertising veterans say the stakes are too high to experiment with a medium that, despite its ability to monitor the browsing habits of consumers, might not be effective.
"Television delivers a mass audience in a short amount of time and you don't have that same assurance with the Internet," said Wayne Johnson, president of Wayne Johnson Agency in Sacramento, which advises Republican candidates. "We have been waiting for that to change, but there are legitimate reasons why people are sticking with TV ads."
And that's the NRCC's TV spot hammering Ben Chandler of Kentucky's 6th Congressional District. He's in a tough reelection campaign.
More of those at the link. I love political advertising.
Standing Tall: The Rise & Resilience of Conservative Women
My military friends have a favorite saying: “If you’re not catching flak, you’re not over the target.” This campaign season, conservative women in politics have caught more flak than WWII Lancaster bombers over Berlin. Despite daily assaults from the Democratic machine, liberal media and Hollyweird — not to mention the stray fraggings from Beltway GOP elites – the ladies of the right have maintained their dignity, grace and wit. Voters will remember in November.Great essay. Great women. More at the link.
When “comedian” and “The View” co-host Joy Behar lambasted GOP Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle this week as a “bitch” who would be “going to hell” for using images of illegal alien gang members in a campaign ad, Angle responded by sending a lovely bouquet of flowers and a good-humored note: “Joy, Raised $150,000 online yesterday. Thanks for your help. Sincerely, Sharron Angle.”
Outgunned in the comedy department, Behar sputtered nonsensically and with bitter, clingy vulgarity: “I would like to point out that those flowers were picked by illegal immigrants and they’re not voting for you, bitch.” Illegal aliens are not supposed to vote at all, Miss B. But why let such pesky details get in the way of a foul-mouthed daytime TV diatribe?
Just a week earlier, Behar delivered a hysterical rant against GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, accusing the mother of five and foster mother of 23 of being “against children” for opposing the expansion of federal health care entitlements for middle-class families and children (the SCHIP program) and for opposing the costly Obama takeover of health care. Behar merely parrots the demagoguery of Democratic leaders in Washington, who have ducked behind kiddie human shields to avoid substantive debate about the dire consequences of their policies.
As a result of the Obamacare mandates, of course, insurers have canceled child-only plans across the country. And there are plenty of compassionate reasons for opposing SCHIP expansion beyond its original mandate to serve the truly working poor. Behar called me a “selfish bitch” three years ago over the same issue. Why is it “against children” and “selfish” to challenge the wisdom of redistributing money away from taxpayers of lesser means who are responsible enough to buy insurance before a catastrophic event — and then using their tax dollars to subsidize more well-off families who didn’t have the foresight or priorities to purchase insurance with their own money?
But never mind those pesky details. Behar persisted in smearing Bachmann as “anti-children, anti-children.” Facts be damned.
David Horowitz Interviewed at PJTV
'Radical in the White House'
Gee. I can remember a time not too long ago where saying such things was unhelpful, its utterers “extremists” and “purists” who were hurting the GOP’s cause by alienating “moderates” and “independents”. Comity — that’s what was needed. A willingness to recognize the basic goodness and decency of Good Men like Barack Obama, whose disagreements with us weren’t at all personal, but were instead merely a matter of policy differences as filtered and distilled through his own moderate pragmatism. Protesting forcefully against such an historic, symbolic president — who would lower the oceans and such — would turn the grand old party into a regional curio; conservative “idealists” were wrecking the electoral chances for Republicans, what with their unwillingness to do what the American people clearly want: compromise, move leftward, join in the expansion of government and the furtherance of an ever-increasing deficit spending, over-regulated nanny state. They were instead paranoid, suffering from an imagined “persecution complex”.Funny how times have changed.
Katherine Lopez interviews Stanley Kurtz on his new book, Radical-in-Chief; as does Hugh Hewitt — who not too long ago would hang up on all the unserious rightwing “nutters” who intimated that Obama was a Marxist or socialist, in between shilling for whatever candidate the GOP establishment put forward.
Turns out that the evidence, largely circumstantial, but compelling nonetheless, suggests that Obama is a candidate trained in stealth socialism, both a product of — and culmination to — the New Left’s long march through the institutions. Of course, today the “New Left” self-identifies as “liberal” or “progressive,” to hide their socialist/Marxist roots. Their governing style is “pragmatic,” “forward thinking,” and “transformative”; and their message is one of economic populism, class warfare, and identity politics — all couched in the Orwellian inversions of protected groups, set-asides, government-approved speech, and the nannystate tentacles of a growing liberal fascism, into the (ironic) buzzwords “fairness” and “tolerance” and “security.”
And it turns out that those who refused to recognize all this early on — and who openly went to war against conservatives / classical liberals over such (rather obvious) observations, diminishing them as extremists or “purists” who were looking to “purge” the party of solid intellectual Republicans — however late to the party they are, are nonetheless now joining in the wave.
More at the link.
I think Jeff overstates the case a little (or at least the Obama-enablers on the right have been losing steam for some time now, the Frum Forum dweebs and the McCainiacs especially). Great piece either way. And if you haven't yet, be sure to get yourself a copy of Kurtz's book. Scholarly and authoritative, Radical-in-Chief will be the go to volume over the next couple of years, as Americans reject the Obama-Dem socialist regime in increasingly large numbers.
RELATED: Kathryn Jean Lopez interview here and Hugh Hewitt interview here.
Walid Phares on Political Jihad and the Terror Threat
And at Newsmax, "Phares: Obama Too Lax in Era of Terror."
Even if Friday’s activities were, indeed, a dry run, Phares says they accomplished a terrorist’s dream goal of mobilizing our resources, elevating al-Qaida in the public eye and bleeding the U.S. economy, even if only for a day.
Regarding the apparent targets of Friday’s events, including synagogues in Chicago as well as locations in Britain and United Arab Emirates, Phares says the terrorists probably have several goals. They are appealing to their base, portraying themselves as “anti-Zionist or anti-Jewish,” while showing their ability to penetrate the defenses of the United States and Europe even without bombs, revealing weaknesses in our defenses.
Phares believes the events, just days before midterm elections in the United States, indicate that the terrorists are trying to make a statement and affect U.S. policy amid the Obama administration’s declared goals of withdrawing from Iraq and negotiating with the Taliban for an eventual pullout from Afghanistan.
A likely goal is to increase the pressure on the United States to move forward on these withdrawals, as well as to frustrate our policies in Yemen and Somalia.
Postelection, Phares says the next Congress should engage in dialogue with President Barack Obama and change the direction of anti-terror efforts for the remainder of his administration.
Phares suggests that al-Qaida forces are evolving because of the United States’ lack of absolute control over policy on combating radical ideology. Without allies in the Arab and Muslim worlds on board to combat radicalization, the United States will continue to face an uphill struggle on this front. Phares points out that most of those terrorists recently captured or arrested have been relatively new recruits to al-Qaida, indicating that recruitment is still successful and the organization thrives.
To combat this threat, Phares suggests we need “a major change of policy in Washington.” Phares contends that the United States has done the “opposite” of what it should during the past two years by focusing on the criminal aspects of terrorism and neglecting to tackle the ideology behind it.
The Obama administration has been disengaging from the confrontation with radical Islamic ideology as well as from supporting anti-jihadist elements such as the democratic uprising in Iran, while moving toward negotiations with the fundamentalist Taliban, Phares said.
Cargo Plane Bomb Plot: Dry Run for Terror Campaign Against U.S. — UPDATED!!
At the video, Liz Cheney indicates that the administration's weak terror policies have endangered our security and hung our allies out to dry:
And there's excellent coverage at London's Telegraph, "Terror Alert: Suspicious Devices 'Dry Run' for Terror Campaign Against US Synagogues," and "Cargo Plane Plot: Yemen Focus."
RELATED: At New York Times, "Sweep of U.S. Cargo Planes After Overseas Bomb Scare."
**********
UPDATE: The New York Times is putting more emphasis on developments. See, "Obama Says Explosives Were U.S.-Bound," and CNN has a report, "Source: Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula Behind Cargo Terror Plot."
And the president's speech this afternoon, with comments from Lonely Conservative:
Is it just me, or does President Obama seem far more outraged and animated over political battles than he does about the threat of terrorist attacks here at home? Here he is, almost casually informing the American public that two packages containing explosives were bound for the US. He seems detached and uninterested. Weird.More at Memeorandum.
Van Tran Interviewed at PJTV
And check Instapundit and Pajamas Media for lots more election coverage.
Boxer Leads Fiorina 49-41 in New Field Poll
RELATED: At Politico, "Fiorina Fades, Boxer Rises."
Christine O'Donnell Responds to Left's Vicious Attacks on Conservative Women
And on Facebook, "O'Donnell Campaign Statement on the Universal Condemnation of the Gawker Story" (via Memeorandum).
Also interesting is the left's response, which is coverered at Jim Treacher, "Gawker humiliates Christine O’Donnell for one-night stand that wasn’t; fellow leftist creeps finally find line they won’t cross." Or did they? See, "NOW refuses comment on Gawker’s Christine O’Donnell sex smear UPDATE: Cheers O’Donnell’s loss, slams smear," and especially, William Jacobson, "Not Buying The Crocodile Tears From Gawker's Enablers."
The Left Ramps Up Vote Stealing Machine
At Michelle's, "The Left's Voter Fraud Whitewash."
Also, at Washington Rebel, "Vote Fraud is Murder, Not a Minor Glitch."
Repeal ObamaCare
Yuval Levin made the essential argument, at Weekly Standard, "REPEAL: Why and How Obamacare Must Be Undone."
So You Want to Get a Ph.D.
And Betsy Newmark adds this:
Now I'm waiting for the "So you want to be an engineer" cartoon for high school students who got an A in Calculus and figure that doing well in math up through high schools means they will make wonderful engineers and be guaranteed jobs for the rest of their lives.
Or the cartoon for "So you want to be a political science major" for the kids who enjoy following current events but have no idea what type of job they'd get with such a major.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Why Prop 19 Would Make Bad Matters Worse
Next Tuesday, Californians will vote on Proposition 19, which would legalize the use of marijuana. Until recently, this legislation was leading in most polls—a fact that boggled my mind. Why increase the availability of a drug that has already destroyed the lives of countless teens and their families?According to the latest LA Times poll, Prop 19 is now “trailing badly,” and it appears that many people have seen the light. Still, 39% of voters are in favor of legalization, a not insignificant figure. And this just doesn’t make sense.
Those of us at Phoenix House who have been working with kids for more than 40 years are troubled by this measure. Not only have we have served more young people than any other treatment provider in California, but the experience of our regions throughout the country have established us as a national authority. And we’ve seen firsthand the devastation marijuana can cause. This drug is a problem for almost all of the kids we treat; about 76% of our teen admissions nationally list marijuana as their primary drug of choice. We serve some of the most vulnerable teens in the state of California and across the country—kids whose drug use is more likely to lead to addiction. These young people are with us because marijuana has seriously impacted their lives—making it impossible for them to succeed in school, ruining their relationships with their families, and often, leading them to try even more harmful drugs when they seek an even greater high.
Our experience at Phoenix House mirrors national trends. According to SAMHSA’s Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS), almost 80% of adolescent treatment admissions, aged 12 to 17, had marijuana as their primary or secondary drug of choice. Studies have shown that young people are particularly susceptible to marijuana’s side effects—which include social anxiety and cognitive impairment. Research has linked early onset marijuana use to lower GPA, early school dropout, and lower income at age 29. The drug’s street potency has also increased substantially over the past two decades, and a single joint contains four times as much cancer-causing tar as a filtered cigarette.
When we legalize a drug—thereby increasing access and removing the stigma—it follows that more people will use it. The idea that we won’t see a rise in teen marijuana use as a result is absurd. And more usage will mean more adolescents addicted, more drugged driving, and other negative consequences.
“But I smoked pot when I was young and I turned out fine,” many legalization advocates tell me. “Even our President used it.”
It’s true that not every kid who tries marijuana will become addicted. Research tells us that about 10 percent of those who try it will get hooked. However, this doesn’t change the fact that the drug puts young people at risk. And as responsible adults, our job is to reduce the likelihood that our children will engage in risky behavior—not to increase it.
Yes, if Prop 19 were to pass, we’d try to keep the drug out of kids’ hands. But with rampant underage drinking and cigarette smoking, I highly doubt we could do a better job with marijuana. The last thing our young people need is another legal intoxicant.
These are challenging times for California and Prop 19 supporters argue that legalization of marijuana would improve the state’s plight. But the bottom line is that the harm this legislation could cause outweighs its potential benefits. To support Prop 19 without considering what it would mean for the younger generation is both irresponsible and dangerous.
Howard Meitiner
President and CEO, Phoenix House