-By Warner Todd Huston

I'm sure by now we are all aware of the Netroots Nation conference that happened in Austin, Texas last weekend. Well, did you know that without Al Gore it wouldn't have happened? That's right, since Al Gore invented the Internet... I know, I know, that is the old Al Gore joke where he famously claimed that he invented the World Wide Web. Everyone knows that AL Gore had little to do with the Internet, of course. But at least one person, obviously one rather easy to bamboozle, still thinks Al Gore did invent the Internet. In fact she thinks he invented all the technology inherent in that Internet. And she is currently the Speaker of the House of Representatives, sadly enough.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi attended the Nutrooters gathering and, as reported in the Houston Chronicle, let loose with this gem while introducing Al Gore to those assembled: "Without him, there would be no Netroots Nation. There wouldn't be the technology."

Huh? Without Al Gore "there wouldn't be the technology" to have an Internet based gathering like Netroots Nation?

She has to be kidding, right?

Nancy, um, I'd like to help you out, babe. See, Al Gore didn't invent the Internet and he is NOT responsible for any of the technology that is connected with it. Not a single line of code did he write, not one piece of hardware was created by the former VP and current global warming snake oil salesman.

Now, of course we jest about Al Gore claiming to have invented the internet. After all, Gore never really said he invented the Internet. What he said, instead, was that it wouldn't have existed if it weren't for his deft hand at legislation.

His exact quote to Wolf Blitzer was:

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

Self serving, half truth that it is, he wasn't really saying he invented the Internet. But he was saying it exists because of his loving legislative care, and even with that he is still not exactly telling the truth. The Internet existed before Al Gore's legislative efforts, we all know.

But don't let the cat out of the bag for Speaker Pelosi. It might ruin her hero worship of the great pretender, Al Gore.

(H/T Doug Clifton)

(Photo credit: kingston.house.gov)

-By Warner Todd Huston

In 1999 a handsome, earnest young man named Ahmad Batebi defied Ayatollah Khamenei in Iran. His photo caused an instant sensation and became a symbol of the flower of Iran standing ready to oppose the oppression of the Iranian religious regime.

Batebi, 31, became an icon after he was photographed as a handsome young student waving the blood-stained shirt of a fallen demonstrator during mass protests against Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme leader, and clerical rule in 1999. With his long hair and bandana, he embodied the new spirit of defiance in Iran.

Naturally, he was apprehended by his oppressors and imprisoned under a 15-year prison sentence. While in prison he was beaten with metal cables, suspended by his arms from the ceiling for hours and was constantly with execution. It was demanded that he disclaim his treasonous actions on Iranian TV. Batebi refused.

The price of his defiance can be seen in the deep scars on his shoulders and arms — and other parts of his body hidden by clothing. In prison he was repeatedly blindfolded, beaten and deprived of sleep. Pulling up the sleeves of his T-shirt, he said: “I don’t know what they used to cut me, but they put salt in the wounds to stop me falling asleep.”

Fortunately, Ahmad Batebi found help among the Kurdish underground in Iran and he was able to make his escape to find refuge in America. It is reported that his pursuers chased him from Iran all the way into Iraq and issued the threat that they would eventually get him.

Ahmad Batebi was lucky to have escaped. Thousands of his compatriots have not been so lucky. They languish in prisons deep in Iran being tortured and murdered daily by order of the Ayatollahs.

These are the people Barack Obama imagines he can charm into becoming civilized humans.

Beyond a doubt Barack Obama can't wait to get into the White House so that he can put into action his kindler, gentler foreign policy ideas. As he said in the debates earlier this year, he'd talk to tin pot dictators, murderers and oppressors "without preconditions." He said this, of course, to the shock of anyone even a little familiar with foreign policy, not to mention human nature.

Apparently, Barack Obama imagines that the glint in his eye and the flash of his pearly whites is quite enough to send any terrorist leader to his nearest Mosque to supplicate himself in abject apology for ever defying the will of the Obamessiah.

Now there was once another fellow in history that felt this way -- though with Hitler and his Nazis instead of the Islamofascists we face today. His name was Neville Chamberlain and he became the most disgraced Prime Minister that Britain ever had... and that's really saying something. The only thing this foolish little man is remembered for is what he told the world after he got back from a visit with Hitler. At Heston Airport Chamberlain addressed the gathered throngs of Britains eager to see what he had found in Germany. He told them, "I believe it is peace in our time." That was in September of 1938. Hitler Invaded Poland only one year later in 1939 and WWII began.

Neville Chamberlain's "peace" cost the world around 72 million lives.

What will Barack Obama's arrogance and naiveté cost us?

(Photo credit: www.iranalmanac.com)

-By Warner Todd Huston

Someone peed in Lance Ulanoff's pocket protector and it must have been a Republican, because Ulanoff, one of PCMag.com's chief geeks, unloaded on the "tech illiterate" John McCain in a July 16th article, insisting that McCain isn't "tech savvy enough to run this country."

Ulanoff is filled with all sorts of assumptions and with faux indignation that John McCain dares run for president even though he has admitted that he doesn't know a whole lot about computers. Naturally, Ulanoff begins with the left's favorite talking point du jour, that McCain is too old.

John McCain, the oldest presidential candidate this nation has ever had, has now proven, by his own admission, that he's not tech savvy enough to run this country.

So, what is uber geek Ulanoff's reason that McCain isn't able to lead this country in a "tech" age? Why its because McCain says he can't use a computer that's why. Oh, and he's old... let's not forget that

McCain recently admitted to The New York Times that he currently has other people go online to get him the information he needs, adding that he's working on mastering the technology. According to the Times, McCain uses "his wife, and aides like Mark Salter, a senior adviser, and Brooke Buchanan, his press secretary, to get him online." McCain actually said that these people "go on for me."

Then the clincher from McCain: "I don't e-mail. I've never felt the particular need to e-mail."

Well, just before writing this, I looked the Constitution over to see where the e-mail requirement was. Funny thing is, I couldn't find it.

Ulanoff's main reason seems to be that a president that can't even operate a computer can't understand issues of Net neutraility and Internet policy and, therefore, won't have enough knowledge to make decisions in those areas. This, of course, assumes that a president knows all of human knowledge once he ascends to office and doesn't need aides and advisors to help him learn about and make decisions on important issues while in office.

Oh, and don't forget, McCain's too old.

But, let's face reality about computers and the president, any president. Thanks to the over use of the attack dogs called "special prosecutors," and the overweening interference of the Executive Branch by Congress, no president is even going to bother using e-mail and computers very much.

Last May, Bush even claimed that he looks forward to using e-mail to contact friends and family again after he leaves office. In a report on the president's remarks, a New York Times blog reported that "Mr. Bush stopped e-mailing when he entered the White House, citing security worries, and the Oval Office does not have a computer in it."

So, here we have in the presidency of the United States of America a job where using a computer is not only unnecessary, it is specifically eschewed because of the danger it represents.

So, if McCain won't even have to use a computer while in office (and that is because the left would use it to attack him), then why is it such a requirement that he be "tech savvy"?

If Ulanoff wants a president to use a computer, he might want to get Congress to stop looking for every excuse it can find to "get" the president so that a future president might find it safe enough while in office to use one in this "tech savvy" world in which we live.

So, let me say this to Ulanoff. You are too "politically illiterate" to assess if McCain is suitable enough to fill the oval office. Your opinion is uninformed and unimportant. But thanks for stopping by. McCain might be less than computer literate, but that skill is not in any way a requirement to be a qualified candidate for president of the US.

Oh, but McCain's old, too. Did Ulanoff mention that?

(Photo credit: www.gamesandmobile.com)

-By Warner Todd Huston Another indictment against the so-called "sanctuary city." A woman suffers her entire family murdered by an illegal alien and known convict because San Francisco shields illegals from Federal deportation. A husband and two sons are murdered over this illegal scumbag's "road rage."

-By Warner Todd Huston

Just as I finish a piece laughing at DailyKos for claiming that it is conservatives that feel they have to "create their own alternate reality" because of their "rigid ideology," I find a story out of The Austin American-Statesman where the DailyKos forced that paper to pull a story that had a mildly satirical take on last weekend's Netroots Nation conference in Texas. Apparently, the DailyKos folks didn't like The Austin American-Statesman's "reality" so the Kossacks flooded the paper with their insistence on creating a new one.

The original article by the Statesman's Patrick Beach knocked the nutrooters for the so-called "surprise" Gore visit, said it turned into a "faint-in," and that their general feeling was "terribly self-confirming," among other snippy comments... fun, but snippy. The general tone of the piece was that of amusement at how seriously the nutrooters took themselves. And, even more galling to said nutrooters, this story was the front page editorial of Sunday's edition. (Original, Google cached version of Beach's piece.)

This did not sit well with the nutrooters in question.

So, in the true spirit of "tolerance," respect for "freedom of speech," and an interest in a "free press," the denizens of the DailyKos whipped themselves up into a frenzy of complaints. The din was so loud that the compliant folks at the Austin American-Statesman acquiesced to the demands for retribution. The Statesman pulled the piece from their website and made abject, groveling apologies to the folks at the DailyKos.

Instead of Patrick Beach's mildly amusing editorial, we get this message:

Editor's note: Netroots Nation story

Readers expect front-page stories to speak directly and clearly about events and issues. Eliminating the possibility of misunderstanding from our work is a critical part of our daily newsroom routine. When we communicate in a way that could be misinterpreted, we fail to meet our standards.

Our front-page story Sunday about the Netroots Nation convention included doses of irony and exaggeration. It made assertions (that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi might find herself at home politically in Beijing, for example) and characterizations ("marauding liberals" was one) meant to amuse. For many readers, we failed.

In trying for a humorous take on the Netroots phenomenon without labeling it something other than a straightforward news story, we compromised our standards.

-- Fred Zipp, editor

Oopsie. Looks like the Statesman didn't want their customer base upset? But, kudos to the Statesman for realizing that only far left, extremists patronize their rag and for bowing to their customers' desires, just the same.

But, there is more to the story. Not only were the whirling Dervishes of the DailyKos responsible for quashing the free media, but another member of that media was the one that started the newspaper burning efforts.

Greg Mitchell of Editor & Publisher, billed as "America's oldest journal covering the newspaper industry," decided to launch a nutrooter attack on the Austin American-Statesman.

Well, I thought I would perform a public service and let some of the convention attendees know about all this -- few are fans of dead-tree media -- so I posted a summary on my diary at DailyKos (the popular blog that founded Netroots). The “Kossacks” as they are known could do what they wanted with it, if anything. Within a few minutes, so many people were reading and recommending my post that it shot to near the top of the DailyKos “diaries” for the day. It also got picked up at some other popular blogs.

Many commenters promised to write letters to the editor. Some of them were Austinites who claimed they knew people at the local paper and might actually work their magic on them.

Well, so much for professional courtesy! Anything goes when the hard-left ideological line has been crossed to the right, eh?

But, now, remember, folks. The left is far more "civilized," far more "tolerant," and much nicer than those mean ol' conservatives. Remember?

Here is Beach's full article for posterity because that cached page probably won't stay available forever.

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Name-dropping Al Gore and his call for a switch to clean, renewable energy within 10 years was enough to pull whoops of approval from the 2,000 or 3,000 marauding liberals gathered for Netroots Nation at the Austin Convention Center on Saturday morning.

So when the former vice president and Nobel Prize co-winner made a surprise -- and cleverly scripted -- appearance during U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's talk, it looked like the conference might turn into a faint-in.

Talk that Pelosi (who is arguably so left-leaning that her parenthetical should be D-Beijing) would have a Very Special Guest had been buzzing about the conference of liberal bloggers, pols and media types since it began Thursday (it concludes today). But it wasn't clear to attendees that something was afoot until a schedule change handed out Saturday morning indicated the speaker's talk would last 45 minutes longer than previously indicated.

Not that Gore's appearance was necessary to whip up the troops.

From the beginning, it was clear these people were convinced the electoral map would be repainted with a brush sopping with blue paint come November.

The believers will tell you it's morning, that they smell the napalm. And it smells like, oh, yes, victory.

It didn't seem to matter that the conservative and much smaller Defending the American Dream Summit -- featuring syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin and Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr -- was going on in Austin at the same time. That was miles from downtown, so there was little chance for a rumble.

With the current administration's low approval rating, a charismatic presumptive Democratic nominee and a Republican opponent some in the GOP have been reluctant to even air-kiss, the energy was palpable and, like the political blogosphere, terribly self-confirming.

They went to panels about how the presidential election would be won house by house, block by block. They staged mock media interviews and critiqued themselves, and showed films ("Crawford") and Internet videos ("Harry Potter and Dark Lord Waldemart"). They attended panels on the war, health care, online social networks, volunteer organizing and expanding the networking power of something called an "Internet."

There was even one panel Friday featuring Princeton economics professor and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman (wearing, as if to galvanize stereotype, what appeared to be Birkenstocks) that was essentially about how the media weren't liberal enough.

As they say, only in Austin.

Filmmaker Paul Stekler, who teaches film production and politics at the University of Texas, said:"As you have greater democratization (through the use of technology to distribute one's message), you also have a greater degree of what's called confirmation bias. We live in a very different and weird world in terms of dissemination of information right now."

Indeed, you couldn't find anybody who disagreed that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were "two ignoramuses," a label hurled by Parag Mehta, the Democratic National Committee's director of training.

Big names? Got 'em. There was Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, founder of the Daily Kos political blog, who hatched the idea a few years ago to get his like-minded pals together and who, in a Friday lunchtime keynote with Harold Ford Jr., chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, seemed amazed at what the notion had unleashed.

"We're going to keep growing; we're going to keep pushing for an unapologetic Democratic Party," Moulitsas said.

Then there was John Dean, the former Nixon White House counsel who has made a second career of railing against what he considers right-wing excesses the way recovering alcoholics preach against strong drink.

"I have deep fear of my former tribe, and what they might do particularly in the law," Dean said, before going on to refer to former Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani as "Richard Nixon on crystal meth."

It's plinking bass in a barrel to paint liberals as overly intellectual types incapable of having fun unless reading Noam Chomsky counts, and it sure does for them. And there were a handful of colorful characters, including some men from Cedar Creek who looked like bikers and represented the Warrior Wolf Society, which they described as "a group of pagan warriors with wolf totem spirit," and a guy in a Bush mask and clothing with prison stripes.

But for the most part, these were serious-minded people, and decorum prevailed.

When a few people had the temerity to shout at Pelosi and Gore, they got shushed as mercilessly as they would have at a Nanci Griffith concert.

The no fun thing? Maybe it's because, as Democrats, they're not used to having it.

The incredible imploding presidential campaigns of Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry were used as textbook examples of what not to do. As political ad man John Rowley put it, he's been in the business for 15 years and only the last two have been good in terms of the political tide. Still, he said, "We've got to get ready for the day when we're not swimming downstream."

In other words, what a pendulum does is swing. But technology is power, and the left has been quicker to adopt it. As Gore put it Saturday morning:

"You are at the cutting edge of a new era of history. You will look back many years from now and tell your grandchildren about coming here to Austin, Texas, and about the first two meetings of Netroots Nation, and you will tell them that this was the beginning of an effort that was the start to reclaim the integrity of American democracy."

That is exactly what Joe Trippi had in mind. It was the one-time Howard Dean campaign aide who saw, perhaps a little too early and a little too enthusiastically, the transformative power of the Web. As he walked from one place to another Friday afternoon, he got stopped every 20 feet or so by people who knew him or at least knew of his ideas. And this is what they had wrought; this is what he had predicted.

"It's amazing," Trippi said. "I knew it was going to happen, but I'm still blown away that it happened."

pbeach@statesman.com; 445-3603

**UPDATE**

The Austin American-Statesman has re-posted the Beach article on the Netroots Nation conference. It is now marked as "commentary," which it obviously always was.

( H/T kristinn from FreeRepublic.com)

-By Warner Todd Huston

Many of us have taken to calling the media establishment the "MSM," or "Mainstream Media." But is that a fair and properly descriptive monicker to bestow upon them? A New York Times Blogger pondered that very question on July 21 in a "The Caucus" blog entry -- one that was a barely disguised effort to highlight and advertise the opinion of one Markos Moulitsas of the DailyKos.

Still, regardless of the origin of the question, it is an interesting point to ponder. With the failing of newspapers country wide, with the ever falling audience that the big three TV networks are seeing for their news product, and with the corresponding rise of the Internet as a news source, is the old media still properly to be called "mainstream"? Does it still represent the most common way that America gets its news, thereby deserving of the term "mainstream"?

Katherine Q. Seelye of "The Caucus" Blog quotes Kos laughably to the effect of Kos taking the occasion to flatter himself and his nutrooter compatriots that they are they mainstream.

We, on the other hand, are firmly on the mainstream on just about every major issue facing our country, and our numbers are growing. We aren't outside the mainstream, we are representatives of the mainstream, and the country is embracing what we're selling.

Hardly. But he should get high points for his comedy stylings.

To prove his wild claim, Kos cites some stats that shows that people admitting to being Republican have fallen in numbers. But this is of recent origin and can hardly be assumed to be a permanent aspect of how Americans see themselves, at least not any more than conservatives can assume they've won the debate over ideology because many of today's issues are followed along, or leaning toward their principles in the rhetoric of the national debate (Abortion, 2nd Amendment, tax policy, etc.).

Still, Kos' delusional and grandiose assessment aside, the question remains: if the old press is no longer "mainstream," what are they?

Kos himself offers "traditional media" which I find unsatisfactory for the very reason he finds "MSM" unacceptable. Kos says that calling the old media "MSM" might assume in contrast that Internet news sources are "fringe" sources and that the old media is more mainstream. But his replacement term, that of "traditional media," does no better at defining terms. After all, if Kos thinks "Mainstream Media" is not a good term because it casts Internet news as outside the ordinary, how does "traditional" fit any better under the same logic? The opposite of traditional is untraditional, it should be pointed out. But, Kos does have a point. If the regular, old fashioned media is no longer the dominant form of news, then shouldn't we hang them with a name that better fits their lowered status?

There actually are some better terms we could be using. "Left-Wing Media," or LWM, is a good, derisory one. I've already called them "old media" in this piece and that one fits as well and I favor that one, as it happens. Conversely, I already call Internet news the "new media," so it is a natural fit to call TV and newspapers the "old media."

Whatever we call them, it should be something that befits their less than supreme status.

And now we can deal with Kos' last bit of foolishness proving what sort of blinkered guy he really is.

The right wing needs to co-opt or destroy the traditional media because, quite frankly, reality isn't a friend of conservative ideology. The last thing they need is anyone reporting "the truth". Instead, they need to create their own alternate reality to justify their beliefs. And any bit of reality that doesn't conform to their rigid conservative ideology is "liberal".

This from the website that attempted to destroy Joe Leiberman because he wasn't sufficiently "liberal" enough? This from the side of the political aisle that sponsors extremist groups like Media Matters? This from the party that created the Clinton attack machine in the 90s?

This silliness proves that Markos Moulitsas is not only insufferably unable to see past his own hate-filled ideology, he is a man of little ability to grow as a person. He will wallow in his hate unwilling, if not completely unable, to look inside himself, see his foibles and excesses, and make of himself a better person.

The ancients used to say that one must know oneself, that a life unexamined was one not worth living. We call it introspection. But whatever it is, Markos Moulitsas doesn't seem to possess it. And anyone who blindly marches forward in life never looking inward is a small man, indeed.

(Photo credit: http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com)

-By Warner Todd Huston

That's it. NPR has declared Ohio a disaster area. Things are so bad. NPR gravely warns, that folks in the Buckeye state can't even afford to buy meat for their dinner tables anymore. It's the end of civilization as we know it. Doom and gloom. Oh the humanity. It's the end of the world as we know it... at least for one Ohio family that NPR found to act as stand in for the rest of the state. To NPR all of Ohio is the Nunez family. And what is NPR' solution? Government aid, of course.

In a segment of All Things Considered (well, all things but common sense, anyway), NPR gives us Gloria Nunez whose family, we are told, was "built on cars." NPR gives us all sorts of sobbing, rending of clothes, wearing of sackcloth and gnashing of teeth for the Nunez', of course. But even NPR can't hide some of the glaring problems that Gloria and her family have surely brought upon themselves.

In fact, her story sounds like the scene in the old Blues Brothers movie where John Belushi is on his knees pleading with Carrie Fischer to forgive him. There was a flood, he whined, locusts came, it was the end of the world, it REALLY wasn't his fault, he swore to God. Similarly we get the tale that Gloria Nunez' car broke down, she can't find a job, she had a car accident that left her "depressed and disabled, incapable of getting a job." She is now somehow forced to live on a "$637 Social Security check and $102 in food stamps." Naturally, none of it is her fault. All the seeds for the common welfare tale are there.

'I Just Can't Get A Job'

Nunez, 40, has never worked and has no high school degree. She says a car accident 17 years ago left her depressed and disabled, incapable of getting a job. Instead, she and her daughter, Angelica Hernandez, survive on a $637 Social Security check and $102 in food stamps.

Hernandez received her high school diploma and has had several jobs in recent years. But now, because fewer restaurants and stores are hiring, she says she finds it hard to find a job. Even if she could, she says it's particularly hard to imagine how she'll keep it. She says she needs someone to give her a lift just to get to an interview. And with gas prices so high, she's not sure she could afford to pay someone to drive her to work every day.

There are all sorts of extended family members mentioned in this little tale of woe. Greandmothers, sisters, daughters. But one glaring absence might dawn on the reader. No where in the story is a mention of a Mr. Nunez living with the family and trying to provide for them. No where do we see contemporaneously included in this tale a Father or husband.

There is one tiny little thing tucked into this story, though, that might escape notice. At least it is something that seems to have escaped the notice of too many Americans who sit about expecting some magical employment fairy to float down out of the sky and hand them a $50,000 dollar a year job and who, while they wait, sponge off the rest of us with state aid and Federal benefits.

The only employer within walking distance is a ThyssenKrupp factory that makes diesel engine parts. That facility, which employs 400 people, is shutting down and moving to Illinois next year.

The ThyssenKrupp factory is moving to greener pastures, to greater opportunity, to a better, more lucrative environment.

One must wonder why don't the Nunez.' In fact, why aren't a large number of Americans moving to where the jobs are?

There have been many, many periods in American history when large numbers of Americans have uprooted themselves and moved to where there was a better opportunity to make their mark in life. "Go west young man" was once a rallying cry for an American diaspora. The wagon trains rolled by the thousands at a time when such travel often resulted in death. The dust bowl years saw many of those living in the near west moving to California, the land of milk and honey. After the turn of the century, hundreds of thousands moved from the south to the north when work became plentiful there -- especially for America's southern black population. Even recently, the south began to fill back up as work became more plentiful there. And there were many more eras of internal shifts in population that I didn't mention here. They all moved when a certain section of the country became stagnant and another offered opportunity.

Today it is the west that once again needs great numbers of Americans to move there and fill jobs. Western states are finding themselves with jobs, but no one to fill them.

So, why aren't large numbers of Americans moving west? Because they've been conditioned to imagine that if they can't easily find a job where they are at, their government will hand them everything for "free." They've become used to imagining that the state should take care of them instead of imagining that they are responsible for themselves.

These kinds of reports without context or any greater exploration of the situation is the sort of "journalism" that helps drive down morale for America for little real gain. Of course, for NPR the main point is to help achieve bad times, not merely report on them. NPR would rather see Americans lounge about their homes feeling desperate and turning to government for succor. NPR wants to breed dependency, not self-reliance.

And dependency is what we see in Gloria Nunez. She is filled with all sorts of excuses of why her life is so darn hard. The world is out to get her, it appears. But there are jobs a plenty out there. Only, they take some effort on the part of the seeker. The magical employment fairy is going to float down and wave her magic jobs wand neither on Gloria Nunez nor anyone like her.

Americans have many times taken their own lives in their own hands and set out to find a better life. Now days, however, the Gloria Nunez' of the world seem to imagine that everyone else should come to their aid. America must become again that land of rugged individuals leaning forward into any ill wind that blows to forge ahead and succeed.

Government isn't the solution. Someone should tell that to Gloria Nunez and NPR.

(Photo credit: NPR.org)

-By Warner Todd Huston

Nope, there isn't any leftward tilt at MSNBC, is there? How could there be when MSNBC was introducing a John McCain clip during a "news" story and instead of the video of John McCain, up popped Heath Ledger as "The Joker."

Our old pal Johnnydollar captured the video.

Of course, it is equally as possible that it was just plain incompetence in the control room, but anyone would be excused for thinking it is an Obamaidiot in the control room instead of just an average, everyday idiot!

And with the Obama clan's famously thin skin, who doesn't think he'd be "outraged" over this were it an Obama intoduction followed by a Joker video clip?

We report, you deride.

(H/T to http://conservathink.blogspot.com)

By-Warner Todd Huston

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, the reputed "Constitutional scholar," just today said on CBS's Face the Nation that he went to Iraq to talk to important leader that he expects to be "dealing with over the next eight to 10 years." So, does this "Constitutional scholar" not realize that there is this little thing called the 22nd Amendment that holds a president to only two, four year terms? Um, that would be a grand total of only 8 years, Barack, not 8 to 10. Of course, the big question is, will we see this idiot gaffe race through the MSM as it would if a Republican had said it?

At the very least ABC's Jake Tapper, one of the best political reporters in the biz, sure noticed. Tapper has a blog entry on his "Political Punch" blog all about it with an amusing side note about time travel added in just for fun.

Today on CBS's Face the Nation, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in Afghanistan, told the paparazzi-pursued correspondent Lara Logan that "the objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years.

Tapper zings the presumptuous nominee a good one.

The notion that Obama will be dealing with world leaders for eighjt-to-ten years, possibly up through July 2018, suggests that either (a) he believes that not only will he be elected and re-elected, but the 22nd amendment will be repealed and he will be elected for a third term, OR (b) he was speaking casually and just meant two terms.

Tapper goes on to zing Obama several more times before this entry is done.

But, why is it that Tapper is seemingly the only denizen of the MSM ever willing to bring out these stories? Why does the MSM so constantly give the Obamessiah a pass? I'll bet you can say why.

But here is a real point to ponder. What if John McCain had said he'd be president for the next 10 years? Wouldn't the press and every late night comedian gin up the "he's old and senile" jokes until those jokes would go through the country like wildfire?

Lastly, we have yet one more example of this man's arrogance. He is beginning to carry on foreign policy before he even gets elected!

"And it's important for me to have a relationship with them early, that I start listening to them now, getting a sense of what their interests and concerns are."

You see, Barack, that is a president's job! Have you been elected yet?

What do you think?

-By Warner Todd Huston

In one of the most ridiculous examples of unbridled hyperbole, Reuters has decided that singer Bruce Springsteen is the one responsible for bringing down the Berlin Wall and ending the Cold War. Yes, that's Bruce "Scorn in the USA" Springsteen, one of the most anti-American rockers on the scene. I know what you're thinking, "But what about Ronald Reagan?" Forget it, man, it's Bruce all the way as far as Reuters is concerned. Maybe it was his gravely warbling that Joshua-like brought those walls tumblin' down, maybe his caterwauling is what turned the trick, but, quite despite any common sense and in a childishly, foolish and overly simplistic review of history, Reuters is sure that Bruce is the hero of Berlin. It is a great example of reductio ad absurdo if there ever was one, not that Reuters is aware of it.

This Reuters piece is so filled with nonsense, so blind to all the complicated political and social influences that really ended the Cold War, that it is hard to know where to start reviewing it. I can but shake my head at its simple minded analysis.

Seriously. Reuters really means it. Oh, don't confuse them with all that economic and political history gobbledegook. It was one concert that ended a generation of communist oppression not the might of the US and its president determined to destroy the "evil empire." It was "Thunder Road" and "Born to Run" sung in that less then melodic Springsteen style that brought the end to the Cold War.

From the title onward, a half sentient review of history prevails.

"Did Bruce help bring down the Berlin Wall?," the headline asks, with the subhead helpfully telling us that yes is the answer. "His comments at 1988 concert helped fed East Germans' discontent," Reuters earnestly informs us.

See, here is the thing, maybe Bruce's little concert did momentarily add to the zeitgeist of the times, but it had little to do with the final conclusions arrived at. There was no causality. Zip. Nada. In fact, the eventual outcome had already been set in motion before this screeching rocker ever took to the stage.

Just look at the revisionism in this absurd story:

But now -- 20 years after the American rock star went behind the Iron Curtain -- organizers, historians and people who witnessed it say his message came at a critical juncture in German history in the run-up to the Wall’s collapse.

Please, spare us this idiocy.

And look at the puffery they lend to Springsteen.

Springsteen, an influential songwriter and singer whose lyrics are often about people struggling, got permission at long last to perform in East Berlin in 1988.

"Influential" in what way, exactly, Reuters does not say.

All the wild claims of how "important" was the 1988 Springsteen concert in East Berlin aside, there really is one small, almost unnoticeable thing in this story that speaks as to what Bruce Springsteen really is. Tucked into this story are two references that tells us why, exactly, the oppressive East German commies thought that it was a good idea to have Bruce Springsteen come to their benighted city. It was his anti-American political positions.

In two sentences we get the gist of how the East German authorities saw this singer.

Even though his songs are full of emotion and politics, East Germany had welcomed him as a “hero of the working class.” The Communists may have unwittingly created an evening that did more to change East Germany than Woodstock did to the United States.

And...

Dietrich, 63, said Communist party hopes that a small taste of Springsteen might pacify youths backfired. There was even a positive advance review in the Neues Deutschland daily: “He attacks social wrongs and injustices in his homeland.”

In other words, the reason the East German commies thought his appearance might not be such a bad thing is because they felt Springsteen SHARED their principles. They thought they were welcoming a compatriot to their city.

And one of the things Springsteen is reported as having said on stage that night could be construed to show that the East German commies were right.

“I want to tell you I’m not here for or against any government,” Springsteen said, as he pointedly introduced his rendition of the Bob Dylan ballad “Chimes of Freedom.”

He isn't "for or against any government?" He didn't stand against a police state that shot its own citizens just because they wanted to visit another, neighboring country? Bruce wasn't against a state that arrested people, tortured and imprisoned them with no recourse to due process of law? Springsteen wasn't against a country that nearly starved its people to death?

No wonder the East German commies didn't think a Bruce Springsteen concert would threaten their iron grip on the state. They thought he was one of them!

There is so much balderdash in this Reuters piece that I just can't get to each morsel of its blather here. All I can say is that this thing has to be read in its entirety to be believed. Only a full read can make one appreciate the total ignorance of real history and the wild puffery of a self-loathing, over rated singer such as Bruce Springsteen.

(Photo credit: msn.com)

**UPDATE of monumental import**

Stop the presses. It looks like Reuters was behind the curve in assigning the end of the Cold War to a simple songster. The BBC beat Reuters to the punch in 2004 by finding that it was really David Hasselhoff what took down that wall!

Yes, the Hoff, the Hoffenstein, the Hoffmeister, if you will, was really the triumphant Cold Warrior to warbler.

Did David Hasselhoff really help end the Cold War?

Baywatch star David Hasselhoff is griping that his role in reuniting East and West Germany has been overlooked. So what part, if any, did the hunk in trunks play in ending the Cold War?

Barely a month after the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, the city that had been divided by politics for more than 40 years was united in song...

...You've just GOT to read the rest of this one.

-By Warner Todd Huston

Unions have been decrying outsourcing for years. The word "outsourcing" has been used as a boogieman to blame declining union jobs upon for the last decade. Unions, for their part, claim to desire to stand up against outsourcing -- especially that of outsourcing jobs overseas -- and wish to push the home grown alternatives to outsourcing jobs, namely keeping them in the country and under the control of the union.

Yet what have we discovered here on the blog? Why that the nation's largest union, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has outsourced the design of one of their own web pages to someone in Slovakia, that's what.

We've waited to report this story because the webpage in question presented a time sensitive situation. The SEIU was trying to create what they were calling the "Take Back the Economy Day" and that day was to be July 17th. The SEIU hoped to spur people to "take aim at the special perks and tax loopholes that buyout firms depend on to get rich," and get people involved to protest the success of "buyout firms" such as Kohlberg, Kravis and Roberts.

Well, July 17th has passed us by and we here on the blog are not in danger of accidentally advertising their event in time to assist anyone in joining their July 17th effort.

That being said, here is what we found not long ago. The original SEIU webpage looked quite a bit different than the one that graced the web during the several days before their July 17th kick off day. The major overhaul was interesting in the respect of where the design of the page had come from.

It appears that the original page was designed by a fellow named Milan Kohut who's business of web design is based in Slovakia, a small Eastern European nation (Near Ukraine, Poland and the Czech Republic).

But, on July 6th, only a short time before the July 17th event deadline, the SEIU suddenly undertook a major overhaul of the webpage design. Gone was the outsourced work and in was one hosted from here in the USA.

The constant griping about outsourcing by unions is common, as mentioned. But here we had one of the largest unions in the nation outsourcing their web design? Was it so hard to find an American web designer to have created their pages? And why the sudden overhaul eliminating the Slovakian designer's work?

Curiouser and curiouser, eh?

-By Warner Todd Huston

The EPA is looking to expand its powers even more thanks to the Supreme Court of the United States. It is about to meddle ever more in our national economic health with its claimed "fixes" to the non-existent "problem" of global warming.

But, we citizens have a chance to have our say. The EPA has opened up to public comments on their latest power grab. I urge each of you to email your insistence that the EPA lay off our economy with their anti-capitalist notions of fixing the non-existent problem of global warming.

We only have 120 days to make our comments so get this to EVERYONE you know. To email a comment use this address: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov

And be sure and put in the subject line of the e-mail the following information:

Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0318

Here is some of the info on the government website:

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is inviting comment from all interested parties on options and questions to be considered for possible greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act. EPA is issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to gather information and determine how to proceed.

The Advance Notice

The ANPR is one of the steps EPA has taken in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. The Court found that the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions if EPA determines they cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The ANPR reflects the complexity and magnitude of the question of whether and how greenhouse gases could be effectively controlled under the Clean Air Act.

The document summarizes much of EPA's work and lays out concerns raised by other federal agencies during their review of this work. EPA is publishing this notice at this time because it is impossible to simultaneously address all the agencies' issues and respond to the agency’s legal obligations in a timely manner.

Key Issues for Discussion and Comment in the ANPR:

• Descriptions of key provisions and programs in the CAA, and advantages and disadvantages of regulating GHGs under those provisions;
• How a decision to regulate GHG emissions under one section of the CAA could or would lead to regulation of GHG emissions under other sections of the Act, including sections establishing permitting requirements for major stationary sources of air pollutants;
• Issues relevant for Congress to consider for possible future climate legislation and the potential for overlap between future legislation and regulation under the existing CAA; and,
• Scientific information relevant to, and the issues raised by, an endangerment analysis.

EPA will accept public comment on the ANPR for 120 days following its publication in the Federal Register.

Background

In April 2007, the Supreme Court concluded that GHGs meet the CAA definition of an air pollutant. Therefore, EPA has authority under the CAA to regulate GHGs subject to the endangerment test for new motor vehicles – an Agency determination that GHG emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

A decision to regulate GHG emissions for motor vehicles impacts whether other sources of GHG emissions would need to be regulated as well, including establishing permitting requirements for stationary sources of air pollutants.

To view the five technical supporting documents in the docket go to http://www.regulations.gov. The document titles are:

1. Technical Support Document - Benefits
2. Technical Support Document - Stationary Source
3. Draft Technical Support Document - Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act
4. Technical Support Document - Section 202 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
5. Vehicle Technical Support Document - Mobile Source

Email them right away.

-By Warner Todd Huston

WAFB TV Channel 9, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana pulled out all the stops for this ridiculous report claiming that "some women" in the Pelican State are resorting to working in strip clubs because gasoline is so expensive. To prove it, WAFB found one woman that said so. I'd say that clinches this as "fact," then, wouldn't you?

In typical sensationalistic news fashion, WAFB TV assumes that because gas is more expensive, women across the state are throwing away their morals to work as strippers.

During these tough economic times, many people are struggling to make ends meet. The city's housing market is in a slump, gas and food prices are rising, and some say it's either sink or swim. Now, some women are going to great lengths to make some extra cash right in Baton Rouge.

Really? "Great lengths," eh? So, to believe this report we have to assume that strip clubs are doing well enough that a great influx of new employees is possible. But here is the question: if the economy is so bad, how is it that strip clubs are going so strong? That doesn't make much sense, WAFB.

Still, the sensationalism continues.

It's a fantasy, an escape for some attempting to close off the outside world. However, for the women inside who are barely clothed and strapped into high heels, exotic dancing can be a way to survive. "All of my bills were getting to be too much, especially when gas started going up," says one woman, who'll be referred to as Amber throughout the report to protect her identity.

Absurdly, WAFB uses the "some women" line twice.

With the average price of gasoline in these parts at an all-time high of $4.00 per gallon, and food costs rising, some women are entering the world of adult entertainment. This world of quick cash is nothing new to Amber. She stripped for three years in local clubs, but took a break after finding out she was pregnant. She then got back into the profession shortly after gas prices started rising and feeding her child got difficult. "Honestly, there are some days where I just don't eat because I can't afford to go buy food. Especially when it comes to diapers or milk, oh my God."

Then the TV reports hits even more salacious material by talking about the "rapes" that occur in these strip clubs, the drug abuse, etc. WAFB pulls out all the stops for this piece.

The ending is interesting, too.

Amber says she is currently in school. She says she knows quite a few women who have recently turned to exotic dancing in order to either pay their bills, get through school, or take care of their children.

Say, WAFB, did you ever think to wonder exactly why our poor little Miss Amber knows so many women who have turned to exotic dancing to make a living? Might it be that it's because these are the sorts of people she hangs around with? I mean if one hangs around with feminists, then all one will know is feminists. If one hangs around a bowling alley, one will get to know an awful lot of bowlers. And, did anyone stop to wonder where Mr. Amber was? And did anyone realize that one of the reasons that Miss Amber is having such a bad time of it is because there isn't a Mr. Amber to help her?

Taking Amber's experiences and exploding them into some sort of state wide trend is amazing. But that is what WAFB certainly tried to do. Welcome to sensationalist TV. It's the Jerry Springer news in Louisiana.

(Image credit: merchantcircle.com)

-By Warner Todd Huston

Randi Weingarten has delusions of grandeur. She thinks she should be given the power of a dictator instead of those of a teachers union president. Instead of just teaching kids, Weingarten imagines that she should become doctor, nanny, nutritionist, psychologist, and mother to every kid in America. She imagines that she should be given the care and feeding of all the nation's kids.

Parents? Who need 'em when we've got Mother Weingarten to trot them off to re-education camps where they will be fed and cared for on a daily basis?

Catch the arrogance, see this nanny-state despot lining up her dream state in her tiny, anti-family mind.

“Can you imagine a federal law that promoted community schools — schools that serve the neediest children by bringing together under one roof all the services and activities they and their families need?” Ms. Weingarten is expected to ask in the speech, a copy of which was provided by the union to The New York Times.

“Imagine schools that are open all day and offer after-school and evening recreational activities, child care and preschool, tutoring and homework assistance,” the speech reads. “Schools that include dental, medical and counseling clinics.”

Yes, imagine it. Imagine the billions of dollars needed to bring all these services from government to kids. Imagine the further destruction of the family as it happens, too.

This arrogant woman's ideas are no less a usurpation of the role of the family, an abrogation of supreme power over our kids unto herself, and an amazing expansion of government power including the bloated budget to do so.

This is a dangerous, anti-American game this woman is playing. But, it reveals the oppressive idea of the role of government indicative of Democrats. They are nothing if not pure Stalinists.

-By Warner Todd Huston

Apparently the newest big-deal-ad that everyone is supposed to get all upset over is an advertisement by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) that came out this week. Unfortunately for them, I can't see how anyone would get too exercised over it. In fact, to my mind the message and its treatment are perfectly well handled. So, it all is a humbug instead of a controversy.Yes, this is quite a first for PETA. An ad we DON'T have to get upset over.

I guess some people are wondering if the ad is based on a moral equivalence of spaying and neutering animals and teen pregnancy. Apparently, we are supposed to get all up in arms that the ad features parents telling their young teenaged daughter to go have all the sex and pump out all the kids she wants because they can just abandon the unwanted kids in the streets or in shelters. This, of course, is a satiric way to comment on the fact that pet owners don't spay and neuter their pets and, therefore, their pets have unwanted pregnancies that get dumped in the street or left at shelters.