Mr. Bojangles

I used to love this song as a child, by the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band. The song made the top-ten in 1971. I would have been ten years old. That's 39 years ago. Today's my birthday.

Independents Poised to Bounce Party in Power

And this year that'd be the Democrats.

At Pew Research:

For the third national election in a row, independent voters may be poised to vote out the party in power. The Republican Party holds a significant edge in preferences for the upcoming congressional election among likely voters, in large part because political independents now favor Republican candidates by about as large a margin as they backed Barack Obama in 2008 and congressional Democratic candidates four years ago.

The survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press was conducted Aug. 25-Sept. 6 among 2,816 registered voters, including 2,053 voters considered the most likely to vote on Nov. 2. The survey finds that 50% of likely voters say they will vote for the Republican in their district, while 43% favor the Democratic candidate.

Republican and Democratic voters overwhelmingly support their party’s candidates. The GOP’s advantage comes as a result of their 49% to 36% lead among independent and other non-partisan voters who are likely to vote in November.

The Republican Party’s overall lead is only evident when the sample is narrowed to likely voters. Among all registered voters, preferences are evenly divided. The race also is even among all independents and other non-partisans, but the GOP’s advantage swells to 13 points among independent likely voters.

This is mostly anti-incumbency. What's striking though is how big indies are going for Republicans in the most likely voter category. And checking the link there's a huge "enthusiasm gap" that's going to damage Democratic chances. Yet, the fluidity of earlier declared allegiances among independent over the past five years reflects what political scientists call "dealigning" tendencies within the electorate. And while dissatisfaction with President Obama is driving voter discontent --- and the Dems will control the executive in the run-up to 2012 --- the fickle allegiances of independents means that Republicans will have their work cut out for them if they pick up one or both chambers of Congress. Too much gridlock and intransigence will drive folks further away from both parties in future elections. Frankly, these trends are mostly temporary. Much depends on how things work out over the next few years. I think this is a bit premature, for example: "Disillusioned by Obama's Policies, Independents Make U-Turn Toward GOP."

Protesting Ahmadinejad: International Community Walks Out on Iran President's Speech at U.N.

At Reuters:

Addressing the General Assembly, he said it was mostly U.S. government officials and statesmen who believed al Qaeda Islamist militants carried out the suicide hijacking attacks that brought down New York's World Trade Center and hit the Pentagon.

Another theory, he said, was "that some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy, and its grips on the Middle East, in order to save the Zionist regime." Ahmadinejad usually refers to Israel as the "Zionist regime."

"The majority of the American people as well as most nations and politicians around the world agree with this view," Ahmadinejad told the 192-nation assembly, calling on the United Nations to establish "an independent fact-finding group" to look into the events of September 11.

As in past years, the U.S. delegation walked out during Ahmadinejad's speech. It was joined by all 27 European Union delegations and several others, one Western diplomat said.

Mark Kornblau, spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations, reacted before Ahmadinejad finished speaking.

"Rather than representing the aspirations and goodwill of the Iranian people, Mr. Ahmadinejad has yet again chosen to spout vile conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic slurs that are as abhorrent and delusional as they are predictable," he said.

See also, The Hill, "U.S. delegates walk out of Ahmadinejad's U.N. speech" (via Memeorandum).

Ambassador John Bolton joined the protests, but Russia Today chooses to focus on a few activists denouncing Ahmadinejad as worse than Hitler. I never go in for that kind of rhetoric, although certainly the dissident community's outrage is understandable:

John Schwarzman: 'I'm an American'

John Schwarzman sent me this fabulous clip. More information at Freedom Works:

The United Nations Human Rights Council is a Joke

At the Telegraph UK, "Israel used 'incredible violence' against Gaza aid flotilla, says UN Human Rights Council":

The sharply critical report found there was "clear evidence to support prosecutions" against Israel for "wilful killing" and torture committed in the raid on the flotilla on May 31. Nine activists on a Turkish ship were killed as they attempted to breach the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza.

However, Israel brushed aside the findings of the UN Human Rights Council, which it has consistently denounced as biased against the Jewish state.

A spokesman for the Israeli foreign ministry accused the body of having a "politicised and extremist approach," adding: "The Human Rights Council blamed Israel prior to the investigation and it is no surprise that they condemn after."

The investigation mounted by the Council has largely been superseded by a separate inquiry launched by Ban Ki-Moon, the UN secretary general, which has won the backing of the United States, Britain and much of the international community.

This investigation, which is being headed by Geoffrey Palmer, the former prime minister of New Zealand, has yet to report its findings.

In an unprecedented move, Israel agreed to co-operate with Mr Palmer's inquiry in August, largely in an attempt to diminish the credibility of the Human Rights Council investigation.

Israel maintains that its soldiers acted in self-defence after coming under attack from activists wielding clubs, axes and metal rods.

However the report found that Israeli commandos' response to the flotilla was disproportionate and "betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality".

"The conduct of the Israeli military and other personnel towards the flotilla passengers was not only disproportionate to the occasion but demonstrated levels of totally unnecessary and incredible violence," the report said.

"The circumstances of the killing of at least six of the passengers were in a manner consistent with an extralegal, arbitrary and summary execution," it added.

The 56-page report also said that the Israeli blockade was itself unlawful, because of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, meaning Israel's claim that it was entitled to use force to defend the blockade should be dismissed.

The Human Rights Council, a subsidiary body of the UN General Assembly, has courted controversy for its excessive focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

While it has passed over a dozen resolutions condemning Israel since it was created in 2006, the council has been more reluctant to censure states such as Sudan, which has been accused of serious human rights violations in Darfur.

The United States withdrew from the council in 2008 but rejoined when President Barack Obama became president last year.

Israel, which has also launched its own domestic inquiry into the raid on the aid flotilla, refused to co-operate with the council's probe.

Katy Perry Too Hot for 'Sesame Street'

Parents complained, apparently: "DUDE MY SON SAW THIS AND GOT A BONER WTTTTTTTTTF."

Images From an Afghan War Zone

A compelling photo-essay at The Atlantic, "Roadside Bombs in Kandahar":

An Afghan police officer sits stunned while comforting two boys. The children were blinded by land mines set by Taliban insurgents targeting Afghan and American soldiers.

Campus Anti-Semitism

At UCI especially, and the failure of the U.S. Civil Rights regime to protect Jewish students for genocidal discrimination:

During the first years of the 21st century, the virus of anti-Semitism was unleashed with a vengeance in Irvine, California. There, on the campus of the University of California at Irvine, Jewish students were physically and verbally harassed, threatened, shoved, stalked, and targeted by rock-throwing groups and individuals. Jewish property was defaced with swastikas, and a Holocaust memorial was vandalized. Signs were posted on campus showing a Star of David dripping with blood. Jews were chastised for arrogance by public speakers whose appearance at the institution was subsidized by the university. They were called “dirty Jew” and “fucking Jew,” told to “go back to Russia” and “burn in hell,” and heard other students and visitors to the campus urge one another to “slaughter the Jews.” One Jewish student who wore a pin bearing the flags of the United States and Israel was told to “take off that pin or we’ll beat your ass.” Another was told, “Jewish students are the plague of mankind” and “Jews should be finished off in the ovens.”

When complaints were lodged over these incidents, which took place in 2003 and 2004, the university responded either with relative indifference or with little urgency. But when the federal government was asked in 2004 to intervene to deal with incidents that its own investigators had determined to be clear-cut violations of the civil rights of Irvine’s Jewish students, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights failed to prosecute a single case. Indeed, it has finally become clear that the current policy of the office charged with enforcing civil rights at American universities involves treating anti-Jewish bias as being unworthy of attention—a state of affairs in stark contrast to the agency’s quite justified alacrity in responding to virtually every other possible case of discrimination. While one cannot identify the motive for this astonishing double standard with complete certainty, the justification for it involves an unwillingness to treat Jews as a distinct group beyond considerations of religious adherence.

Faced with the demand to address anti-Semitic actions verified by its own investigators, the federal government passed on prosecution because it was unable to define the group that was the victim of the assault. Washington found itself unable to answer the question “Who is a Jew?”

The lack of a coherent legal conception of Jewish identity has rendered the Office for Civil Rights (henceforth, OCR) unable to cope with a resurgence of anti--Semitic incidents on American college campuses, of which the Irvine situation is enragingly emblematic. The problem stems from the fact that federal agents have jurisdiction under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act over race and national-origin discrimination—but not over religion. And because they have been unable to determine whether Jewish Americans constitute a race or a national-origin group, they found themselves unable to address the anti-Semitism at UC-Irvine. This confusion has led to enforcement paralysis as well as explosive confrontations and recriminations within the agency.

My Head Really Hurts

It does hurt, although I'm not going crazy so much as simply frustrated at the other world of anti-rationalism you deal with when battling the nihilist left.

I hear the same old talk talk talk
The same old lines
Don't do me that today, yeah
If you know what's good for you you'll get out of my way 'cause
I'm crazy and I'm hurt
Head on my shoulders
Going ... berserk

I won't apologize
For acting outta line
You see the way I am
You leave any time you can 'cause
I'm crazy and I'm hurt
Head on my shoulders
Going ... berserk

Crazy! crazy! crazy! crazy! ...

Read up on Black Flag at Wikipedia. The YouTube features the entire Nervous Breakdown EP (1978).

'A Plan to Keep Our Nation Secure at Home & Abroad'

From the GOP "Pledge to America":

We are a nation at war. We must confront the worldwide threat of terrorism and to deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. We will do all that is needed to protect our homeland, support our troops and the veterans who have so honorably served us, and ensure our government has a coherent strategy to confront and defeat the terrorist threat. And we will never apologize for advancing the cause of freedom and democracy around the world, nor will we abandon our historic role in lifting up those who struggle to receive the blessings of liberty.

Over the last year, we have seen clear and immediate evidence that terrorists continue to plot devastating attacks against our homeland, including a plot to bomb the New York City subway system, and continuing with the attacks at Fort Hood, Times Square, and on board Northwest Flight 253. Each of these attacks represented new strands of terrorism, new signs of an enemy ready and willing to adapt.

Plus, there's a new report out, "ASSESSING THE TERRORIST THREAT."

'I Just Wanna Give You the CREEPS!!'

Leftist hate-blogger TBogg commented here earlier, which of course gives me the creeps:

I'll be vigilant, I'll be silent Yes, know one will know.
You want something for nothing,
A toast on your grave!!

"I just wanna give you the CREEPS!!"

Run and hide when I'm on the streets,
Your fears and your tears
I'll taunt you in your sleep!!

"I just wanna give you the CREEPS!!"

'A Pledge to America'

The video's from House GOP Conference Vice-Chair Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA). It's a good one. Yet the Republicans' new "contract" with the American people is more far reaching, "Boehner’s governing platform centers on repealing Obamacare, rolling back of tax increases and regulation."

House Minority Leader John Boehner and the House Republican leadership are set to unveil Thursday their agenda for governing, with an emphasis on repealing President Obama’s health care overhaul and reining in tax increases and regulation.

The plan came under immediate criticism from congressional Democrats but also was brutally savaged by some leading conservatives. The full document can be read here.

Erick Erickson, founder of RedState.com, called the proposal “dreck.”

“The entirety of this Promise is laughable. Why? It is an illusion that fixates on stuff the GOP already should be doing while not daring to touch on stuff that will have any meaningful longterm effects on the size and scope of the federal government,” Erickson wrote.

“This document proves the GOP is more focused on the acquisition of power than the advocacy of long term sound public policy,” he said.

But National Review, one of the two leading conservative magazines in Washington, had praise for the document, deeming it “bolder” than the 1994 “Contract with America.”

“The pledge is explicitly a beginning to the lengthy task of providing conservative governance, and a very good one,” the magazine’s editors wrote. “It is also a shrewd political document.”

I'm reading the document now (in PDF). I don't pay too much attention to these things anyway. Parties make pledges all the time. And they often keep their pledges. But they sometimes abandon them as well. What matters to me is focusing on a few key issues, especially those that relate to holding firm on government expansion. Controlling spending and stimulating job growth with tax cuts would be a good place to start. The contract will not abandon social issues, which is good. But Republicans would be wise to avoid the Obama administration's pitfalls. Focus like a laser beam on job creation and spending reductions. With a congressional majority Republicans will be able to stand firm against the social destruction of the Democratic-left. The real business on social issues will be when the GOP again controls the White House (and thus judicial appointments).

Republicans have the choicest electoral --- and hence policy --- environment in decades. I think John Boehner's a smart cookie, so we'll see. I'm going skim over this document a bit more. Perhaps there's a plank on avoiding hubris?

'We Can Absorb a Terrorist Attack'

That's not going over too well. See, "Republicans seize on comments by Obama in new Woodward book" (at Memeorandum):

Republicans on Wednesday blasted President Obama for statements journalist Bob Woodward attributed to him in his new book.

Republicans were particularly incensed about Obama's belief that the U.S. could “absorb” another terrorist attack on American soil, something Obama said he is doing everything he can to prevent that happening.

Liz Cheney, former Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter and the chairwoman of Keep American Safe, said the remark “suggests an alarming fatalism on the part of President Obama and his administration.”

“Once again the president seems either unwilling or unable to do what it takes to keep this nation safe,” said Cheney, a frequent critic of Obama’s national security policies. “The president owes the American people an explanation.”

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani also criticized Obama’s comment on another terrorist attack.

“Well, I don't know that I would have said that. The country has to be prepared for any terrorist attack,” Giuliani said on a conference call with reporters. “I would prefer that the president put his effort in preventing another Sept 11.

Woodward's “Obama's Wars” will not be released until Monday, but details in the book appeared in The New York Times and The Washington Post on Wednesday. Reaction overall was muted, though White House officials portrayed Woodward’s book in a positive light, telling The Hill Wednesday morning that the accounts show a “decisive” president focused on getting the policy in Afghanistan right.

“We are focused on supporting our strategy in Afghanistan and succeeding in our effort to break the Taliban’s momentum and build Afghanistan’s capacity,” one senior administration official said. “The book underscores the importance of our efforts in Afghanistan and against al Qaeda worldwide.”

Liz Cheney's full comment is here: "Liz Cheney Responds To President’s “We Can Absorb A Terrorist Attack” Comment."

I'm not surprised by these comments. Obama hates handling foreign policy and he cares little about even projecting an image that he's working to protect Americans from attack. He does impart an image of protecting his personal brand from attack, and that's not helping him, obviously. And besides, I just don't read Bob Woodward. Check out the book here, in any case: Obama's Wars.

RELATED: At Doug Ross, "Woodward Shock Expose: Unqualified Community Organizer With Teleprompter Dependency Makes Surprisingly Lousy Commander-in-Chief."

Van Tran is 'Very Anti-Immigrant and Very Anti-Latino'

That's a pretty harsh castigation. Via Breitbart TV and Memeorandum. And this is local to me as well. I drive through this Garden Grove congressional district on my way to work. The Vietnamese are hardly "anti-immigrant." And of course the O.C.'s historically been home to the biggest Vietnamese community in the nation, initially composed of refugees from the fall of Saigon in 1975. They are among the most patriotic and anti-communist Americans anywhere. That's obviously bad news to the reconquista Dems like Loretta Sanchez and her sister Linda. B2 Bob Dornan, a Republican, held this seat in the old days (pre-1996). That'd be something else if Republicans picked this one up in the upcoming sweep on November 2nd:

Added: Dan Riehl reports that the race is a toss-up. No wonder Sanchez is going extreme.

President Obama's Speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus

This is a controversial speech. Some have already taken issue with the president's omission of "God" from his quotation of passages of the Declaration of Independence. But at 21:35 Obama declares:

Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. The British and French, the Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared the same land ...

Mexico gained its independence in 1821. Perhaps Obama means that the indigenous people who later incorporated into Mexico were here first. But he doesn't say that. His statement is like music to the ears of the folks of the CHC in any case. Wrong history that feeds wrong-headed anti-Americanism --- and Obama has the gall to then cite the Declaration (flubbing it) to claim we're all one people. Words matter. And they especially matter when attempting to exploit America's founding documents for political purposes. Yes, we are one people. Yes, we are strong in unity. But this race-pandering divides, and it's been this administration's approach all along: Blame the GOP for obstructionism, not the failed and politically unpopular policies the Dems are foisting on the people. I can't wait until election night. This is going to be the most massive midterm repudiation on record. I can feel it. The Dems are scared. A reckoning is coming.

It's Come to This: Progressives Reduced to Racist Slurs Against American Power

My good friend Matt Cassens suggested I ignore these people. But sometimes you have to stand up to the hatred. It was a bit much, all the nasty and genuinely evil attacks launched at Sadly No! Progressives put up over 1000 comments over there, each seemingly more vile and potentially violent. Readers have seen my responses, so folks know I don't buckle to these empty shells imitating humanity. I noted previously that the Sasquatch blogging initiated at JBW's, and was picked up by BJ Keefe. Even LGM and TBogg joined in. A badge of honor in some respects. Over the target, and all that.

Still, while I'm normally pretty inured to this stuff, it's amazing that after actually attempting to engage Brendan at BJ Keefe in an exchange of ideas, I come back to find this comment left later at that entry:

My last name is Douglas. My first is Donald. Both Scottish and Gaelic. As my family name, the origins are found on my father's side. But since my father was black, it's likely that Douglas derived from my father's family's slave background. He was born in Missouri and his immediate genealogy going back a few generations included slave ancestors. My father was a proud man. But my father, born in 1913, battled much bigotry in his life. He didn't speak of it often. But at times stories did come out, not unlike stories folks ofter hear of life under Jim Crow. I think it made him bitter, and up until the day he died he never did fully let go of some of it. I'm proud of my background. But my own struggles with racial identity aren't something that I talk about often. There were bouts of bigotry and racism at times (interracial dating is a difficult thing sometimes, for example), but one doesn't achieve the kind of opportunities in life that I've enjoyed except in a place like the United States. I can't imagine my father's bitterness. That pain is absent in me. That said, you do have to deal with the slights and the slurs occasionally. In this case, with The Pale Scot, I'm actually getting a kick out of it --- it's just too exquisite an example of the oh so common racism that resides just under the top layer of most leftists, and is of course out and proud among the Israel-bashing communists and so forth. "The Pale Scot" apparently worships a white supremacist Scottish lineage, and doesn't see a black man as deserving of the title: "howda a swarthy looking fellow like you end with a fine Scottish name Like Douglas? And a Donald to boot!?" And since this is a pseudonym entered at the comment, it could have been any one of Brendan's regular readers who authored it --- or Brendan himself, since he commented two more times at the post without responding to the slur, nor deleting it. Perhaps exDLB or JBW left the comment. They are both haters, and JBW has enjoyed placing me in subordinate monkey photoshops in the past, so who knows? And I don't really care. All of this matters only to the extent of another revelation of progressive evil. I know where I stand on the issues. I know the moral clarity that is my trademark. Such hatred only strengthens me for the fight ahead. Conservatives are turning the tide against the left, showing that ideology for its bankrupt destruction. So stay with me friends and readers. The journey is long, but always rewarding. Fight for the good and God will be trailing at the rear of your battalions. And that's always good to know, my source of supreme righteousness and confidence.

Keep the Dream Alive – Vote Life, Vote Recovery – Vote 2010

Via St. Blogustine:

Taliban Ambush on U.S. Infantry Company

"Reporter Shares Firsthand Look at Taliban Ambush" (via Theo Spark):

JAMES FOLEY: Alpha Company has fought back with withering firepower, reportedly killing scores of enemy, while avoiding any civilian casualties. But the attacks keep coming. In late August, 2nd Platoon soldiers were preparing to patrol in the town of Asadabad to survey polling sites for the upcoming provincial elections.

They were passing a well-known ambush site when they were hit by a coordinated attack from the surrounding cliffs.

Initially, Private Justin Greer, age 19, manned the turret-mounted grenade launcher while the convoy took fire in the bottom of the steep valley.

(GUNFIRE)

SOLDIER: Give me an ammo (INAUDIBLE).

SOLDIER: Here you go.

JAMES FOLEY: Several minutes into the firefight, Greer was shot in the helmet and knocked from the turret.

SOLDIER: Ah! (EXPLETIVE DELETED)

SOLDIER: In the head.

SOLDIER: Oh.

(SHOUTING)

SOLDIER: (EXPLETIVE DELETED) man.

SOLDIER: Sit up.

SOLDIER: Your helmet saved you, man.

SOLDIER: Hey, is he all right?

SOLDIER: Hang on.

SOLDIER: He's bleeding a little bit, but he's going to be all right.

(GUNFIRE)

SOLDIER: Hang on. Hang on .

SOLDIER: Holy (EXPLETIVE DELETED).

'Mistress Jade'

This is totally OMFG territory.

At the Tax Prof, "Tenured Professor by Day, Phone-Sex Dominatrix by Night":

Chronicle of Higher Education, In Professor-Dominatrix Scandal, U. of New Mexico Feels the Pain:

In some ways, working as a phone-sex dominatrix is a lot simpler than being on a college faculty. Your relationship with others is clearly defined, no one formally complains about anything you say to them, and you stand little risk of getting caught up in messy struggles over power.

It gets complicated, however, if you try to do both jobs.

Life has become extremely complex in the University of New Mexico's English department in the three years since Lisa D. Chávez, a tenured associate professor, was discovered moonlighting as the phone-sex dominatrix "Mistress Jade," and posing in promotional pictures sexually dominating one of her own graduate students.

Although she quickly quit the phone-sex job, admitted to a serious lapse of judgment, and was not found by the university's administration to have violated any law or policy, Ms. Chávez remains at the center of a bitter controversy that has raised questions about faculty governance, the obligations of professors to protect students, and the exact definition of a hostile workplace in an environment of shifting sexual mores.

Several members of the English department accuse Ms. Chávez of abusing her power over students, and allege that the administration retaliated against professors who complained about her extracurricular activities. They also say that the university administration violated a basic principle of shared governance by not entrusting the investigation of Ms. Chávez to a faculty ethics committee.

For her part, Ms. Chávez has accused her accusers, in complaints to the university and the state, of discriminating against her because she is bisexual and Hispanic.

Additional links at the post.

Ahmedinejad Threatens War 'Without Boundaries'

It's a fascinating thing in politics and culture when the sexist remarks of the Democratic Senate Majority Leader get bigger buzz-play than Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threats of an epic holocaust against the United States. But that's the nature of partisanship these days, especially on the left, where so many socialist lackeys see the U.S. and Israel as the greatest threats to world peace. No surprise, I guess. And this shouldn't be either: "President Ahmedinejad Threatens U.S. With War 'Without Boundaries'" (via Memeorandum):

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad warned the Obama administration today that if Iran's nuclear facilities are attacked, the U.S. will face a war that "would know no boundaries."

The Iranian president, who is in New York for the annual meetings of the United Nations General Assembly, spoke at a breakfast meeting with reporters and editors at Manhattan's Warwick Hotel.

He said that Iran is on the brink of becoming a nuclear power, and warned Israel and the U.S. against attacking its nuclear facilities.

Asked about the possibility of a U.S.-supported Israeli air strike against Iran, the fiery Iranian leader said an attack would be considered an act of war, and suggested the U.S. is unprepared for the consequences. Such a war "would know no boundaries," Ahmedinejad said. "War is not just bombs."

Also, at JPost, "Ahmadinejad: Iran will never recognize 'Zionist regime'." And more at Fox News, "Ahmadinejad Warns of Capitalism's Defeat in Tepid U.N. Speech."

Pamela has photos from the protest: "Hitler in New York."