Starting off with the often ridiculed 1998 hyperbole from writer Toni Morrison who decided that Bill Clinton was the nation's first black president, "Asian Pop" writer,Jeff Yang of the San Francisco Chronicle, has decided that Barack Obama could be the first "Asian American president" if elected in November. Apparently Yang is unaware of how much ridicule has been heaped upon Morrison, and deservingly so, and he is lining up for some smacking around himself with this outlandish Chronicle piece.

We all remember that Morrison claimed that Clinton was some sort of honorary black man in the 90s. Apparently, because Clinton payed attention to -- and incessantly pandered to -- the black power establishment in the 90s, that was all that was required for a race-graft. At least that almost makes some sense, if only metaphorically. Now Yang takes Morrison's loose connections one better, though. Apparently, all Obama has to have done to become an "Asian" is to have known some during his lifetime. After all, Obama is not known for being a politician constantly pandering to the Asian community like Clinton pandered to the black power structure. Does anyone recall Barack Obama sitting in a church as an Asian minister "God D_mns" America? But, why heck, he did grow up with a few Asian-like folks. So maybe there's a little sumpthin' in this!

After commenting on Morrison's absurdities, Yang goes on to moon over Obama.

In fact, reading Obama's absorbing 1995 memoir "Dreams from My Father," it strikes me that the tropes that surround and define Obama can just as easily be read as those of another community entirely. Which raises the question: Could it be that our true first black president might also be our first Asian American president?

Case closed. Obama is now neither white, nor black, but Asian.

So, how is it that Obama can be claimed an Asian instead of a black man? Let's run down Yang's bullet points...

• He was born in Hawaii, an island with a lot of Asians on it
• He lived in Jakarta, home of a lot of Asians
• His half-sister and her husband are Asian-Americans
• He hired a Chinese guy for his staff

Amazing is it not? Why it's almost as astounding as the Lincoln/Kennedy Coincidences... which are also bunk.

Then Yang tries to shoe horn Obama's life story into a story that will be "recognizable to many Asian Americans." Claiming that his interest in education and hard work proves he's really an Asian deep down. Yang does his best to take experiences that could describe the life of many different sorts of people and make of them the "Asian experience."

It's all very tenuous and silly when you get right down to it. Jeff Yang really is reaching for this one as he succumbs to the hero worship besotting the media.

So, this claim of Yang's has got me to thinking. My 12-year-old son has grown up with goldfish. His older brothers had some, as well. And, amazingly, I had goldfish as a kid, too. Does that make my boy a possible honorary goldfish should he run for the presidency sometime in the future? Just wondering.

(Photo credit: San Diego Asian Film Foundation)

The Chicago Tribune posted a story in the July 30 edition that highlights the often absurd hyperbole all too common in the language of environmentalists and eco-watchers. The story detailed the findings of scientists studying Lake Michigan and the ecology of the Great Lakes, one of them saying it is in "catastrophic" shape. Native fish and vegetation are being crowded out by new species and the "Great Lakes are at a tipping point" the Trib warns. It's all presented as some major disaster that should alarm us all, as if Mother Nature is being ruined, presumably by man.

But a closer reading of the story proves that Mother Nature is doing just fine. It is only that our conception of what sort of ecology the Great Lakes should have that is taking a "catastrophic" turn.

The Trib report details the massively changing ecology of Lake Michigan as new species -- like the zebra mussel, the guagga mussel and the round gobie, etc. -- are remaking the ecology of the Great Lakes into something completely new in relation to what it once was. Scientists have found native fish species changing in their eating habits or beginning to disappear with new species adding a new aspect to the chain of life there.

It seems somehow to be alarming scientists.

"We don't necessarily know all the impacts, but we know enough to know that they are being catastrophic," said Cameron Davis, president of the Alliance for the Great Lakes. "The ecological balance of the Great Lakes is at a tipping point. And the question is: Can they recover? Or can we act quickly enough to help them recover?"

Recover? Why are we so worried about recovery? See, here is the truth. New species have arrived in the Great Lakes and are affecting their environment in order to survive. Older species are either adapting or dying off. The ecology is changing. But, there is STILL an ecology!

Besides that, we cannot affect such a change backward even if we wanted to. As mere humans we don't have such a power.

See, in normal circumstances we call this evolution of sorts, we call it adaptation. It is supposed to be how we humans came into existence (yes, we are just as natural as the rest of Earth's inhabitants). And, ecologies have come and gone many, many times on this small blue planet. Greenland, for instance, was once green, became a frozen wasteland, and is now green again. The Antarctic once had a moderate climate. A giant glacier once covered most of North America that scientists might have noticed doesn't happen to be there today. And in each and every case the ecology changed with the climate. Species that once thrived adapted or died to be replaced by new ones which were, in turn, supplanted by still newer ones. It's all pretty natural, really.

Things are changing in the Great Lakes, yes, but why is it assumed this is an evil thing? It looks to me that nature is taking care of itself just fine! Change is constant, adaptation is natural.

Let's stop running around like it is the end of the world, shall we?

(Largemouth Bass Fine Art Print by Paul Brent)

The Wall Street Journal today has an interesting little story highlighting a newly adopted change to the constitution of the powerful Service Employees International Union. At issue is whether it is legal for the union to require the locals to "donate" the equivalent of $6 per member to the SEIU political action committee. This new requirement has netted $150 million dollars that the SEIU is going to spend to help Democrats get into office in 2008.

The union adopted a new amendment to its constitution at last month's SEIU convention, requiring that every local contribute an amount equal to $6 per member per year to the union's national political action committee. This is in addition to regular union dues. Unions that fail to meet the requirement must contribute an amount in "local union funds" equal to the "deficiency," plus a 50% penalty. According to an SEIU union representative, this has always been policy, but has now simply been formalized.

The problem is that this requirement placed upon the locals may violate Federal laws stating that contributions to a union PAC has to be voluntary, not mandatory.

SEIU prez Andy Stern is no stranger to campaign fraud, though. In 2004, Stern was instrumental in creating a political action committee called America Coming Together (ACT) that ran afoul of the law.

The Federal Election Commission later imposed a $775,000 penalty on ACT for violating campaign finance laws, the largest ever against a 527. Big as it was, the fine equaled less than one cent on the dollar for the $100 million that ACT improperly used to influence a national election. Mr. Stern was only a founder of ACT. But the political lesson is that the benefit of breaking the rules and potentially winning an election far outweighs a minuscule financial penalty well after the outcome is decided.

And now we have another possible violation in forced "voluntary" donations that the union is extorting from its own members.

Unions mean coercion. The two go hand-in-hand.

Jonathan Weisman is reporting on his "The Trail" blog that presumptuous Democratic nominee Barack Obama told House Democrats that he believes himself to be the symbol of all that is good in America. It appears that he is beginning to believe the over-the-top hype that he really is the Obamessiah for America. So, will this little Washington Post blog post make waves in the media? Will Barack's increasingly out-of-control ego become the talk of the day?

Weisman reports that candidate Obama met in a closed door meeting with House Democrats and he let loose with a "real zinger," as Weisman put it. He told the rapt audience of House members that his candidacy was the moment "the world is waiting for" -- as if the whole world clamored for his presence? He went even further than that proving that he may be losing touch with reality and believing his own surreal campaign rhetoric.

"I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions," he said.

Wow, the arrogance in that. The hubris, the astounding hubris of it all is overwhelming to anyone that knows even a tiny bit of human history. This is the sort of thing if said by a Republican would be hung around that candidate's neck like a mill stone. The epithet of "arrogant" would be the tail pinned forever to him and would appear in every single news story. Should a Republican bespeak of himself in such terms, he'd be branded the next Hitler leading us all to ruin.

Why Obama gets a pass for this sort of messianic rhetoric is amazing to me. It also amazes me that his string pullers are allowing him to speak like this. He is building himself up so high that he cannot possibly maintain this level of acclaimed perfection of purpose and spirit. If he wins in November, when the inevitable compromises and missteps begin to occur, and his high flung rhetoric begins to ring hollow, he will assuredly fall far faster and much farther than any common politician. Certainly his reputation as the new messiah will not be able to stand the tarnishing of real life and his mind-numbed fans will awake from their stupor and find themsleves livid at his failures?

Measured by his impossible campaign rhetoric, meteoric rise without being vetted by his fans, and his utterly empty experience, Barack Obama promises to be the biggest failure in our history. And surely his candidacy will drive cynicism to ever greater heights.

Let's hope that small reports like Weisman's start to get through to people and cracks begin to appear in Obama's current teflon coating. But so far, he has been allowed to get away with massive amounts of arrogance in rhetoric and campaign posters. The media has thus far either ignored, made excuses for, or merely joked about this style of campaign he has been running -- a style that is only getting more pronounced as the weeks roll on.

Many of you will recall when George W. Bush said that Jesus was his role model. You'll recall how the media nearly went apoplectic over his use of a religious figure and he's been called a "zealot" ever since. Well, here we have a candidate who thinks he himself is that religious figure and the media hasn't even noticed.

If this doesn't show how they are in the tank for Obama, it's hard to find a better reason.

How many Germans would vote for Barack Obama for our president? CNN claims to know. During the last weekend that Barack Obama was in Germany, CNN used a graphic on the Wolf Blitzer show that claimed that 72% of Germans preferred Obama with only a mere 11% who favored John McCain. Of course, CNN didn't think it relevant to mention that only 501 Germans were even polled, nor that the poll was conducted by German pollster Emnid for a notorious tabloid newspaper named Bild -- not the most trustworthy of sources. This is the same newspaper that published with "gushing immaturity" an Obamtastic "report" by one of their giddy female reporters who supposedly worked out with Obama in his hotel gym after which Obama claimed to have been "hustled."

So where did this lopsided, 72% approval rating come from? How was the poll conducted? What questions were asked? How do we know what level of knowledge the respondents had about our candidates? Why should we just assume that this is even a relevant result to our elections? I guess all that CNN needed was to show that Obama is loved by Germany, no other investigation needed.

To give you a flavor of the sort of stories that comprises "news" with Bild tabloid, a perusal of some recent stories are in order. With such "news" as an interview with one Tatjana Gsell headlined "I Love Sex and Eroticism," and another touting that "Sexy Claudia is Lahm's New Neighbor" (Philipp Lahm is a German Sports figure), various Amy Winehouse stories and at least one story with a photo of actress Bai Ling bending over showing her breast popping out of her dress, you can see the caliber of stories that fills Bild Newspaper. They are also chock-a-block with sports stories galore. So, not much for hard news, to be sure.

It is claimed that Bild tabloid was created for the many Germans who are not well educated. Bild is German for "picture" so you can see that highly crafted writing is not a priority there. And with the constant salacious sex stories and pictures of nude women we can see that they have lived down to their reputation. Bild tabloid is not in a much higher bracket than America's National Enquirer by comparison.

And this is the source that CNN goes to looking for support of their contention that everyone in Germany loves Barack Obama? Apparently so. Of course, they aren't alone because Newsweek Magazine did the same thing. In a July 24 report, Newsweek used the same Bild poll to "prove" Germany's undying love for Obama. In that report Newsweek seriously intoned that "an opinion poll published last week in the Bild newspaper found 72 percent of Germans would vote for him over Republican John McCain in the Nov. 4 election if they could."

There is no indication, of course, what Germans really know of Barack Obama showing how informed that opinion might be.

On a side note, Obama's reaction to the Bild-reporter-in-the-gym story is somewhat amusing. Everyone is all willing and ready to use a Bild report to prove that Germans love Obama, but when Bild exploits the little gym meeting in a typically tabloid way, Barack seems to have become a bit cheesed off.

In a Der Spiegel report on Obama's reaction to the Bild gym workout story, Obama is being quoted as calling Judy Bonesky, the Bild repoter, a "ganz gewöhnliches deutsches Mädchen." A translation of this is "ordinary German girl." This has me wondering how many German girls he's ever met to know if Bonesky is "ordinary" since he hasn't been to Germany much -- or at all -- before this trip?

Still, Barack was a bit miffed at being played by the tabloid employee, claiming to The New York Time's Maureen Dowd that he'd been "hustled."

She hustled us. We walk into the gym. She’s already on the treadmill. She looks like just an ordinary German girl.

Again with the "ordinary German girl" stuff. The woman was 27, a tad older than a "girl," anyway.

So, Barack is happy to get Bild's specious poll of German support, but miffed when they plant a tabloid reporter to exploit a gym visit? Seems a bit contradictory. If this paper is sensational enough to exploit a simple gym visit, what will they do to get sensational poll results like a 72% approval rate?

(H/T and image courtesy of "Annie Sweetie Oakley" from http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com)

You'd be excused if you felt like you fell down Alice's rabbit hole with this story, only you'd soon discover that this Alice is named Andy, and it is quite real, indeed. Not long ago, Andy Stern, the radical chief of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), tried to sue members of an internal faction of his own union, the United Healthcare Workers (UHC). Stern alleged that the UHC was misappropriating funds. The suit was brought, conveniently enough, just before the SEIU convention held at the beginning of June, so that the worst possible light would be directed upon the insurgent faction of the SEIU just before they all came together to address the issues in dispute.

Well, as of June 222nd, US. District Court Judge John F. Walter threw out the SEIU's lawsuit saying it was completely without merit.

The court ruled that SEIU had brought no valid legal claim against members of United Healthcare Workers-West (UHW) and the case was dismissed without the need for a hearing. The ruling entitles UHW members to compensation fr≠om SEIU for costs incurred as a result of the illegitimate lawsuit. UHW will seek full compensation on behalf of the ten members named in the suit.

According to UHW's Executive Board Member Rosie Byers, the lawsuit was only "PR stunt" initiated to "to silence reformers within the union."

The charges made against local union members had no legal basis. The only purpose of this suit was to harass and discredit members of UHW who had spoken out against Andy Stern’s and Anna Burger’s backroom deals with corporations that hurt healthcare workers and our patients.î

Seems pretty obvious that Mrs. Byers is right on target with her claim. After all, if the suit was so baseless, Andy Stern's own legal council would have been sure to make him aware of that fact. It is hard not to assume that he launched the lawsuit only in an effort to make the rest of his union membership feel that the UHW faction was illicit just before they arrived at the annual convention. This cloud over the UHW would have been sure to influence other union members that the UHW was untrustworthy and, therefore, would have discredited the UHW's concerns and actions at that very convention.

It worked, too. Stern's top heavy plan of cutting out local union representation in the operations of the union passed handily at the convention in June. And, now that SEIU prez Stern won and the convention is over, the nuisance lawsuit can be safely tossed aside.

Remember folks, this is the major union that backs Barack Obama. If they are this ruthless and anti-democratic in their own union to their own membership, what do you think they have in store for the rest of us?

I have been made aware of a great resource tool for tracking bills that have taken a vote in Congress. It is called Govit.com (http://www.govit.com/) and it really helps when looking to see what Congress voted on, who voted for what, and when it happened.

Here is the "about" section to better describe the site:

Govit empowers citizens to take action in our representative democracy. On Govit you can connect with your elected representatives. Organize and promote specific legislation.

Vote on active legislation and have your vote sent instantly to your reps. Keep a a running record of your votes compared to your reps, and others (when election time comes, you'll know if your representatives have really represented you!).

You can also do cool things like see what legislation the presidential candidates have sponsored, or check their voting records.

Govit is a non-partisan democracy platform. It was built by a regular citizen (Taylor Norrish), and has no special interest or government backing.

Go on over to http://www.govit.com/ and take a tour. It's a very useful site.

In yet another example of why the west might not beat the onslaught of radical Islamofascism, Minette Marrin of the Timesonline thinks she has found a solution to the clash of cultures. Marrin details the extremism evinced by too many Muslims in England and then posits a solution: ban all religion. Talk about an absurd idea. It's as foolish as throwing out the baby with the bath water. It also discounts thousands of years of worthy and enlightened western culture influenced, guided and based on Christian philosophy.

In To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups, Marrin's wooly headed prescription also serves as a fine example of the most shallow of PC, postmodern "thinking." Famed French mathematician Jules Henri Poincaré once said that, "to doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection." It is a lesson in discernment and critical thinking that escapes most on the left, and specifically this prosaic, anti-intellectual Timesonline columnist.

The first half of Marrin's piece details recent poll results revealing the extremist leaning of Muslim students in England and it is alarming information, indeed. These poll results show, for instance, that four out of ten Muslim students in Britain support Sharia law in the UK. One third said that killing in the name of religion was justified. It shows that a quarter think women are not equals to men. The poll also shows that, among other results, 57% believe Muslim soldiers in the British army should be allowed to opt out of the war on terror. This alarming YouGov poll will be released on Monday, July 28. To sum up, Marrin says of the poll:

The authors make it clear that the majority of Muslim students support secularism and democratic values and are broadly tolerant of others. However, the CSC points out that the incidence of conservative and separatist Muslim beliefs has been growing and is more prevalent in young Muslims than in their parents’ generation. British Muslims used to be much more moderate.

It is an alarming poll. Of course, who can doubt such results? The Brits have for decades been collectively turning their back on western society with politically correct teaching that holds that their own culture is no more than just another culture and, therefore, not deserving of special consideration. Like most left leaning provocateurs, British liberals have become fond of morally equating their own culture with the worst lot of humanity. On the other hand, these young Muslims are taught from birth that their religion is superior. Not only that, but Islam is a political system as well as a mere religion. So why shouldn't British Muslims seek to replace the British culture with one they are taught is superior? If the English aren't going to insist their culture is optimal, why should anyone else?

In all this England is reaping what it has sown. Also in this they aren't much different than the French, the Germans, Spain, Canada, and to a lesser extent, even the U.S.A.

It is enlightening information and serves as a good warning, but Marrin isn't done. She wonders aloud what we should do. "Insecure young people can be swayed by extremists," she assures us, "The question is how to stand up to the extremists."

Marrin begins with a good idea saying, "First, I think, we should abandon all discussions of what Islam truly is." That is a pretty good prescription, but it isn't a subject of much discussion in the west, really. Westerners aren't interested in what is or is not the "real" Islam. That is a question that has vexed the Muslim world from time immemorial and will surely never be resolved. What the west is interested in, though, is what Islam is not, and that is a "religion of peace." Still, no matter what it is, it is a major problem and solving that problem is all the west is interested in. Muslims living in peace is not something the west is interested in meddling with. Muslims on the rampage is.

And now we get to Marrin's solution of banning all religion, her nihilistic suggestion.

What follows inescapably from this is that religious people and their views should not be officially recognised in groups. Religion should not be allowed a public space or public representation. This is hard for those of us who used to love the muddled Anglican compromise; it means the disestablishment of our national church – if it doesn’t self-destruct first.

The challenge of other, fiercer and more divisive convictions has forced the issue; multiculturalism has been subversive. There must be no more religious schools – personally I would leave those that exist alone. There must be no public recognition of religious associations as representatives of anything or anybody: not on campuses, not in student unions, not in government consultations or in parliament.

Now Marrin's absurd, overreaction would make sense if there were even half as many honor killings in Britain perpetrated by Christians, Buddhists -- or even Druids for that matter -- as there are Muslims. It would make sense if Christian nations were exporting terror cells secretly into nations throughout the world. It would make sense if major Christian leaders were issuing their own fatwa-like proclamations calling their flocks to violence, oppression, and self-immolation.

It would be a perfectly sensible idea to ban all religions if all religions were exactly as dangerous as Islam. But they aren't. In fact, it isn't even close. Islam is by many magnitudes of measurement a far more dangerous ideology than any other religion on the planet.

Yet, in a reductionists silly fantasy, Marrin offhandedly decides to veer off track and rush to ban all religions instead of making even a tiny attempt to actually deal with the real problem. This is the same sort of empty headed thinking that would punish the bully and his schoolyard victim for fighting on the playground. Hers is the same sort of idiocy that reduces all human actions to moral relativity. Marrin's ultimate destination for her vacuous reasoning would equate the works of a Gandhi or a King, Jr., to that of a Stalin or Hitler. After all, all of them espoused their philosophies loudly and insistently and brought many followers to their side.

Certainly, a banning of Islam is not perhaps a solution out of the question. After all, Islam is the problem, here. But a foolhardy banning of all religion just because one is currently a problem is no solution at all. But it is a "solution" that falls into Poincaré’s admonition. It has the dubious benefit of eliminating any reflection. Sadly, it is the way of the unthinking left that we've become so tiresomely familiar.

In a follow up report to our earlier coverage, the Hudson Institute has unveiled its damning study on the largely ubiquitous insolvency of the pensions plans of the nation's largest unions (download PDF here)

Excerpts:

At a time when unions are intensifying efforts to organize American workers, it’s troubling to see a widespread pattern of relatively poor performance among collectively bargained pension plans. They perform poorly relative to plans sponsored unilaterally by employers for nonunion employees. Equally disturbing, some pension plans for union officers are better funded than the plans for rank-and-file union members. The disparity raises this question: Do collective bargaining contracts lack provisions for the funding necessary to generate the generous retirement income that unions advertise?

...

Our analysis finds that pension plans for the officers and staffs of union were much better funded than those for the rank-and-file. On average, the 21 largest union pension plans had less than 70 percent of the finds that they would need to cover their total obligations, and none were filly funded. Seven were less than 65 percent funded. Yet 23 officer and staff funds from the same union had 88.2 percent of the funding they would need to pay promised pensions, including seven fully funded plans and another 13 with at least 80 percent of their required funds. Excluding the seven plans strictly for union office employees, staff funds had 98.4 percent of their required funds.

Unions have also been caught using their funds to achieve their political ends. In 2005, the Department of Labor wrote the AFL-CIO a letter telling it to reconsider such practices. Theoretically, pension funds are not permitted to make investment decisions based on politics or public policy. Using pensions as a political tool hurts union members because it may push their retirement funds into lower yielding investments. That diminishes investment returns and thus reduces resources available to pay promised benefits.

....

(My emphasis above)

This is a very interesting report that reveals how little unions really care about their own membership, the "little guys" that unions are supposed to be protecting. Unions have seen the draw of political power and found that bright, shiny object of far more interest then merely protecting the interests of their own members.

And now, as an International man of mystery, I find that the famed German magazine Der Spiegel has quoted me making fun of one of their competitors, Bild newspaper.

In my July 25th piece on the "gushingly immature" Bild newspaper reporter that had a workout with Barack Obama, I lambasted the German daily for acting like a "rock-star struck teeny bopper" instead of a serious, adult reporter.

Well, now Der Spiegel, one of the largest selling German language magazines in the world, ran a story today reporting that Barack Obama is claiming he was "hustled" by the Bild reporter. In the Spiegel report, my July 25th piece is quoted and I am referenced by name.

The translated Bild report was rapidly picked up by US blogs, where it became the subject of endless derision.

Blogger Warner Todd Huston wrote: "Apparently, Bild, a newspaper in Germany, hires 14-year-old, starry-eyed, fan-girls as reporters instead of serious grown-ups. Or, at least one would be excused in thinking this reporter was a rock-star struck teeny bopper upon reading her gushingly immature account of having an exercise workout with Barack Obama on the German leg of his trip."

Bonesky is actually 27. "Let's enjoy her sexytime memories, together," the Washington blog Wonkette said, recalling the encounter in a wooden translation of the Bild report that evokes fictional reporter Borat in his comedy "Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan."

So, me and the Wonkette are heard 'round the world.

This is so much fun!

** Now With Update... A Soldier Speaks **

The New York Times is miffed. They aren't happy that there has been a dearth of news photos showing dead American soldiers in the war in Iraq. The Times is lamenting that there have been "4,000 U.S. Combat Deaths, and Just a Handful of Images," so more carnage and death is their druthers. Well, more American dead, anyway. They aren't interested in the dead of the enemy, to be sure.

Using the story of photog Zoriah Miller who had his embed status removed when he publicized photos of dead U.S. Marines after a suicide bombing, the Times reveals their pique over the fact that not enough dead Americans have been peddled to the American public. The Times denounces the military for protecting the troops and their families saying, "after five years and more than 4,000 American combat deaths, searches and interviews turned up fewer than a half-dozen graphic photographs of dead American soldiers."

Complaining for opponents of the war that the lack of casualty photos has created a a situation where the "public portrayal of the war is being sanitized," the Times wonders if the homefront is being badly served because we here are not seeing the "human cost of a war that polls consistently show is unpopular with Americans."

How the Times can imagine that the anti-war set aren't getting their opinions out to the public is anyone's guess. And how the Times can imagine that the "human cost of war" is being "sanitized" is also a puzzlement. After all, for the last four years and until recently we had been daily treated to the media's recital of the American body count, letting us know just how many Americans had died. Again, the body count of the enemy didn't interest them at all.

Of course, the story of photographer Miller seems compelling... at least to the Times. His photos showed the after math and success of a suicide bombing and this is precisely why the military didn't want his photos shown to the world.

“Specifically, Mr. Miller provided our enemy with an after-action report on the effectiveness of their attack and on the response procedures of U.S. and Iraqi forces,” said Lt. Col. Chris Hughes, a Marine spokesman.

The story details the story of several photographers that have been disembedded by the military brass after publishing photos of dead U.S. soldiers and reports that many embedded journalists are being kept from areas of battle is revealed.

The New York Times illustrates their story with photos of dead American soldiers from D-Day during WWII as if to say that it was always allowed to show dead soldiers in previous wars, as if these are somehow new restrictions. First of all, that isn't true. But secondly, we are in a different era, a time when a fire fight can happen and mere minutes later photos of the aftermath can be beamed across the world to TV and news outlets. This nearly instant reporting leaves little time for the public to assimilate facts about any battle, much less give family members the opportunity to find out about the fate of their loved ones through proper, more respectful channels.

But, I guess the media have little use for respect.

The military responded to the Times' carping with some solid points.

Military officials stressed that the embed regulations provided only a framework. “There is leeway for commanders to make judgment calls, which is part of what commanders do,” said Col. Steve Boylan, the public affairs officer for Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq. For many in the military, a legal or philosophical debate over press freedom misses the point. Capt. Esteban T. Vickers of the First Regimental Combat Team, who knew two of the marines killed at Garma, said photos of his dead comrades, displayed on the Internet for all to see, desecrated their memory and their sacrifice.

“Mr. Miller’s complete lack of respect to these marines, their friends, and families is shameful,” Captain Vickers said. “How do we explain to their children or families these disturbing pictures just days after it happened?”

Now, the Times quotes photographer Miller as being "surprised" that his images of dead American solders raised any ruckus. He callously just chalked their deaths up to something that "happens every day," and blew off any criticism. But there is one more aspect of this that explains why the military blanches at allowing the media to exploit the deaths of our soldiers.

Have you seen any stories about Iraq's Sgt. York? How about the Iraq war version of Audie Murphy? In fact, how often do you see any story that reports on the heroism of one of our soldiers in Iraq? The media hasn't wasted much of its precious ink on what they must consider such trivialities. But, they'd certainly love to see the mutilated corpses of our troops splashed across their pages and TV screens!

So, since the news isn't balanced and the soldiers are treated by the media as victims and used solely to promulgate their anti-war and anti-Bush themes, is it any surprise that the military won't let them use graphic photos of our troops' deaths, too?

It sure isn't to me.

** UPDATE **

I have been contacted by Capt Esteban Vickers, one of the officers quoted in the New York Times story, and he asked me to pass along the full text of the letter he sent the Times' reporter on this issue.

Jul 8, 2008, at 12:44 AM, Vickers Capt Esteban T (CF RCT1 S-1 PAO)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Mike,

The moment I saw these photos, my first thoughts were of the Marines' families. These pictures posted, before they had a chance to bury their loved ones, before they could have a memorial service, before they had an opportunity to grieve. Not only did Mr. Miller violate his embed agreement but what is most disappointing is his complete lack of respect to these Marines, their friends, and families is shameful. With the effortless accessibility of the internet how do we explain to their children or families these disturbing pictures just days after it happened?

In the Marine Corps once you become a Marine, you join an elite brotherhood. As Marines, we take the term "band of brothers" literally. Every Marine past, present and future becomes my brother. For Marines in combat, it is a bond who's strength is difficult to describe but stronger than anyone can imagine. As such, when a Marine is killed in action there is a very deep emotional tie to our fallen comrade. Furthermore, is that bond extends to their family as well. By putting these pictures on his blog, Mr. Miller showed complete disrespect to the families of these men and their fellow Marines

When the Marine Corps embeds a reporter we put a certain trust in that reporter not just in the fact that they will follow the rules and regulations they sign upon embedding, but also to have common decency and a sense of propriety. The Marine Corps prides itself on accepting and embedding any media member whether they write for a blog, national newspaper, or any other media outlet. We put certain trusts and confidences in them, and in turn we give them open access to everything we do. We treat them as one of our own; we are prepared to ensure their safety so they can tell their story. Mr. Miller not only violated his embed agreement but more importantly he violated our trust, taking advantage of a tragic incident solely for his own self interests.

Mr. Miller claims that he posted these images and the accompanying blog to give the world a sense of the reality of war. Nobody understands the horrors of war better than those who fight it. Had Mr. Miller afforded the families of these Marines the courtesy of waiting until a more appropriate time to post his blog, or better yet ask the Marine Corps chain of command about posting the blog things may have turned out differently. However, he failed on both accounts. He failed to have decency or respect for the families or their loved ones and exploited the safety of our service members by supporting the efforts of this attack. He undermined the trust we put in embedded reporters. He truly does not understand or simply does not appreciate the environment we operate in and the internal damage he can inflict. We work very hard building relationships and respecting Iraqi culture. The display of not only our Marines but the Iraqi sheiks only serves to supersede that relationship. The reporter came with the Marines; the local leaders trust our integrity and this one act of posting these photographs can damage our relationship.

Respectfully sent,

Capt Esteban T. Vickers RCT-1 PAO Camp Fallujah, Iraq DSN 3404-513

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

And I want to take this opportunity to thank Captain Vickers for his service.

(Photo information: Caption= "Army soldiers hand out aid at an Iraqi school in Mullah Fayad. (U.S. Army)," Pulled from the Detroit News, April 11, 2008.)

I had the great pleasure to sit down with Vipul Vyas of skewz.com last week and the result was what they are wonderfully titling Skewz Podcast #14: A Romp Through The History of Media Bias with Warner Todd Huston of Newsbusters.org. It may be a mouthful of a title, but it was a mouthful of an interview. That Vipul Vyas fellow can really talk. Why I hardly got a word in edgewise... well, OK. I had a few things to say.

Ostensibly, Vipul and I were going to discuss my work with NewsBusters.org -- which we did -- but the discussion ranged over quite a bit more ground than just that and it was nice to have enough time to just let the conversation go where it would. Vipul was a gracious and intelligent host, as well, and he made the interview a breeze.

Be sure and range on over to the podcast and take a listen. It was a lot of fun and I'm sure you'll enjoy it as much as I did.

Remember, I have my own weekly podcast at Voice of Liberty Podcast Newtork. So, be sure and visit the VOP site each week for the newest episodes.

Obama's home political supporters, the leftist "community" organization called ACORN, is guilty of hiding the theft of one million dollars of its funds by the brother of the organization's founder, Wade Rathke. But, it is even worse than just a case of common embezzlement. It turns out that the ACORN board and brother Wade, leader of the political activist group, tried to cover up the theft so that his bro wouldn't get caught up with the Feds and punished for his theft.

This from the July 9th edition of The New York Times:

Acorn chose to treat the embezzlement of nearly $1 million eight years ago as an internal matter and did not even notify its board. After Points of Light noticed financial irregularities in early June, it took less than a month for management to alert federal prosecutors, although group officials say they have no clear idea yet what the financial impact may be.

The brother, Dale Rathke, embezzled nearly $1 million from Acorn and affiliated charitable organizations in 1999 and 2000, Acorn officials said, but a small group of executives decided to keep the information from almost all of the group’s board members and not to alert law enforcement.

These are the kind of ner-do-wells we are dealing with where it concerns ACORN. Cronyism, theft, embezzlement, cover ups.... and these are the people behind the many union efforts across the nation, as well as the Barack Obama campaign. It is also the group that Obama grew into political maturity with.

If these facts don't show you what sort of nefarious characters we are dealing with... well, you aren't interested in truth.

Now here is an interesting little story that doesn't seem to be getting any media coverage. In South Dakota after being held up in courts since 2005, a new law finally took effect on July 21 requiring any abortion doctor to read a statement covering the possible ill effects that abortions have on women -- both mental and physical -- at least two hours before the procedure occurs. The one Planned Parenthood office in South Dakota had taken the state to court to stop this law being implemented, but lost their case on the 18th. On the day the law was to take effect, though, the Planned Parenthood office did not open its doors for "business," refusing to abide by the new laws. Doesn't this refusal to operate tend to confirm that Planned Parenthood is in the game for ideological reasons as opposed to being only interested in women's health?

This is a big defeat for Planned Parenthood, and a great victory for anti-abortion supporters yet the media is silent on the issue. That seems rather curious.

The new notification law requires a doctor to read a prepared script filled with the sort of info that PP tries desperately to exclude in their normal day-to-day operations. The Washington Post had a story about the new law on July 20.

Under the law, doctors must say that the woman has "an existing relationship" with the fetus that is protected by the U.S. Constitution and that "her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated." Also, the doctor is required to say that "abortion increases the risk of suicide ideation and suicide."

More specifically, the law requires the physician to tell the patient the following information:

• The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;
• The pregnant woman has an existing relationship with that unborn human being and that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States Constitution and under the laws of South Dakota;
• That by having an abortion, her existing relationship and her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated;
• A description of all known medical risks of the procedure including depression and related psychological stress and increased risk of suicide

Naturally, PP is ginning up their highest dudgeon claiming that this simple act of reading some scripted information will be a "terrible, terrible barrier" to women seeking abortion.

"The law is one more terrible, terrible barrier," said Sarah Stoesz, president of the regional Planned Parenthood office. She described the rules as "unprecedented interference in the doctor-patient relationship and unprecedented interference in a woman's life."

Of course, it seems like an untenable position that PP is arguing. Why are they against a few words on a piece of paper? Why is it such an affront to their idea of "health care" to be sure and give their patients accurate information with which to make an informed decision?

Obviously what PP is objecting to is that they won't have free reign to disseminate their own ideologically skewed information to patients and this is why they've closed their office in South Dakota. How such a small gesture of reading a list of information to a patient could be such an impediment to proper health care is anyone's guess.

To even a casual viewer, it would seem to be big news in the abortion fight that Planned Parenthood has decided to quit their work to avoid obeying these common sense laws, but so far only a few sources on the Internet are reporting this story. Worldnetdaily.com, of course, has the story, LifeNews.com has it, and a few blogs posted entries as well. But, no major news outlets have yet to touch the tale.

Curious, eh?

(Photo credit: Foxnews.com)

We have been reporting a bit on the Association of Community Organizations for Reform (ACORN) this week on the Union Label Blog and ACORN is an organization that bears close watch. It was reported that ACORN made $2.9 million from organized labor last year and a lot of this money seems to be slipping past Federal regulators raising significant questions of ACORN ties to big labor.

This money paid to ACORN supposedly covered the expenses for a number of shadowy union activities.

• Training organizers to devise and implement anti-corporate campaigns
• Providing "strike support"
• Conducting campaign research and providing staffing
• "Protecting market share"

Some of these services ware also paid on retainer and not just after services rendered.

ACORN has developed very close ties to the labor movement becoming a sort of "one-stop shop for unions looking to contract out labor activities," according to Maverick Strategies. ACORN's efforts have thus far flown under the radar for Federal regulatory agencies that act as watchdogs and regulators over union activities.

ACORN has, for instance, worked closely with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW). Most notably ACORN served to train SEIU staffers in the anti-Wal-Mart efforts the SIEU launched in the last few years.

Some of ACORN's recent activities are as follows:

• SEIU paid ACORN founder and chief of anti-Wal-Mart strategies Wade Rathke $21,885 in salary and $5,233 in expenses for the role of "campaign project organizer."
• SEIU gave $50,000 contribution to "Walmart Associations" in the care of Wade Rathke
• SEIU paid a $126,000 "subsidy" to Wal-Mart Alliance for Reform Now, operated by ACORN
• Change to Win paid ACORN $30,000 for a "public awareness campaign."
• SEIU twice awarded ACORN a $40,000 "monthly retainer."
• SEIU paid more than $970,000 to ACORN's ACLOC program for "training."
• SEIU Local 5 paid ACLOC $58,487 for an internship phase and for an "organizing partnership."
• UFCW hired ACLOC as a "consultant for organizing program" at a cost of $429,431
• UFCW Local 876 paid $131,089 for a "community standards program."

ACORN is also on record as providing direct staffing for various labor union efforts and programs as opposed to mere training and consultancy work, as well.

This close relationship raises questions as to whether ACORN should fall under Federal regulations as a labor organization.