Last week, the BBC aired a new TV series titled "Bonekickers" touted as a "groundbreaking" show where "history comes alive," and a series that is "Based in fact." The premier episode, though features an odd thing if "fact" is the aim of the Beeb's new TV series: a Christian beheading a Muslim. Yeah, THAT is really a "fact" based premise, isn't it?

Of course, the few remaining Christians in Britain have found themselves a bit put out by this "fact based" show where it is a Christian beheading a Muslim instead of the other way 'round.

And it isn't just a beheading, the entire episode turns our current "fact based" reality on its head as the plot gives us a group of "right wing Christians" bent on purging England of its immigrant population, a group the TV series is fictionalizing as the "White Wings Alliance." In a day when extremist Muslims the world over are killing people for not being a Muslim, this show features the exact opposite situation. Christian "extremists killing innocent, moderate Muslims. For what reason? Only the Beeb knows for sure.

The whole premise is so ridiculous that Andrew Anthony of the Guardian newspaper said, "A Martian watching TV drama of late would probably conclude that the country is crawling with homicidal Islamophobes, desperate to kill those few Muslims who have not already been interned by the government or shot by the police." In his droll way, of course, Anthony is saying that none of that is happening despite the outrageous plot line that appears in this "fact based" series.

The Independent's reviewer was no kinder saying, "Murderous Christian fundamentalists, like the ones on Bonekickers, are frequently on TV, but their Islamic counterparts rarely make an appearance. Our TV controllers have a tendency to make like the three wise monkeys when it comes to Muslim extremism: hear no evil, see no evil, broadcast no evil." So much for "facts."

From the Bonekickers website, the show is describe as such:

Bonekickers is a highly original six-part series about a dynamic team of archaeologists... As a team their skills combine under a variety of imperatives to extract bodies, books, weapons and all manner of artefacts which lead them into an investigation of the past that will unlock dangers and mysteries in the present.

Based in fact, the series has on board the expertise of Professor Mark Horton, Head of Archaeology at Bristol University, a specialist in the archaeology of historical societies around the world and Bonekickers consultant on the factual evidence and background to the relics featured in each episode.

In any case, many viewers complained about this upending of reality, so many so that the BBC had to respond with a statement. And the BBC has responded to critics of their new series quite unsatisfactorily, it seems.

Complaint

We've received some complaints from viewers who felt the scene featuring a beheading in Bonekickers on BBC One, Tuesday 8th July 2008 was inappropriate viewing.

The BBC's Response

We regret that some viewers felt the beheading scene was inappropriate. It appeared half way through episode one of Bonekickers, by which time the character's extreme fundamental belief' had been revealed, providing the audience with a good build up to the scene in question.

This storyline looked at religious fundamentalism within a fictional Christian group, and one character in particular who took his beliefs to an extreme. His ignorance and misguided behaviour lead to the beheading of a peaceful Asian Muslim character in the drama. His actions are clearly condemned by leading Muslim and Christian clerics. The drama also has the balance of a Christian character that has a deep faith which she uses humbly and only for good.

The killing and the method used reflected the flawed beliefs that the character had. It does not attempt to condone or glamorise such a violent act in any way. The drama seeks to highlight the consequences of a misguided fundamentalist taking his beliefs to violent extremes.

The inclusion of the scene had been carefully considered and was very much central to the story line and reflected the character's extreme fundamental beliefs and state of mind.

They regret nothing, of course.

So, lots of “extremist Christians” running about the countryside beheading moderate Muslims over there in England? There must be. After all, we did mention that this is a “fact based” series, didn’t we?

Speaking of bones, this appears to be another reason why the west hasn't the backbone to stand up to Islamic extremism, doesn't it?

(Photo credit: Blackstar.co.uk)

Andrew Breitbart, CEO of Breitbart.com, had a great op ed in the Washington Times yesterday about how Hollywood oppresses Republicans and conservatives in La La Land. Detailing the travails of Republicans in Hollywood -- including destruction by Hollywood's liberals of personal property owned by identified Republicans -- Breitbart laments the "bullying" the self-proclaimed tolerant lefties mete out to those who walk the Republican side of the street.

Breitbart says of this ideological inbreeding:

But Los Angeles is a one-company town. And because of bullying (or what Democrats would call blacklisting or “political discrimination” if the shoe were on the other foot), Hollywood has become a one-party town. History will show this dynamic hurt both the creative and the political processes. In the absence of checks and balances we end up with a system that creates a mainstream film about Ronald Reagan -- written, produced and directed by narcissistic and myopic partisans who only viewed the Gipper through the lens of partisan AIDS activism. Like anyone would watch an epic movie about America’s victory in the Cold War.

Hollywood is so left-wing that it hurts its own bottom line by constantly producing films that no one wants to see. Especially their current crop of dreck about the war in Iraq. Breitbart mentions the many failures of these left-wing, anti-Iraq war films.

More than a dozen box office failures vilify the troops without a single counter-perspective seeing the light of day. Yet one impactful and heartfelt pro-war film, Brothers at War, dares to tell the story of a noble and patriotic American family yet can’t find a distributor.

But there is another way to see how little America cares for these anti-American bombs. It is instructive to take a quick look at the box office takes for these unmitigated disasters to see how Americans have reacted to these films.

• Lions for Lambs $15 million
• Stop-Loss $10 million
• Rendition $9 million
• In the Valley of Elah $6 million
• No End in Sight $1 million
• Gunner Palace $601,000
• The War Tapes $255,000
• Iraq in Fragments $205,000
• Redacted $66,000
• Home of the Brave $52,000
• Grace Is Gone $51,000
• Battle for Haditha $9,000

Now, in contrast, some of the current crop of films at the theater have earned so much more than these flops that it boggles the mind. Even those films considered flops, like Speed Racer, have so far out earned Hollywood's dreary, anti-American Iraq war films that it seems impossible to believe.

Winners thus far this Summer are:

• Iron Man $300 million
• Indiana Jones 4 $300 million
• Kung Fu Panda $200 million
• WALL-E (After only two weeks) $163 million
• Sex in the City $148 million
• Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian $139 million

And here are some of what are being called box office bombs this Summer:

• The Happening $63 million
• Speed Racer $43 million
• The Love Guru $31 million

Even the execrable Eddie Murphy debacle "Meet Dave" earned $5 million thus far and it just came out on July 11. Comparing these numbers to the paltry box office take of Hollywood's horrible Iraq war movies is an eyeopening exercise.

Breitbart sums up his point thus:

The litany of negative consequences to the ideological rigidity of modern Hollywood is virtually limitless. The lack of tension between competing ideas has made the arts increasingly tedious and rendered the celebrities woefully uninteresting.

Well, if nothing else, the box office earnings I just recounted tend to support that, at least to reveal that Americans simply don't agree with Hollywood's point of view. Yet they persist in being as far off target from how the average American feels about this country as possible.

Breitbart is right. Hollywood does not reflect the ideology of most Americans. And its militant, hatred of the ideology of the largest number of America's citizens, as well as its hypocritical comportment in reaction to that ideology, makes the lie to its claim of being the more "civilized," "caring," and "intelligent" spot in the country.

(Photo credit: zdnet.com)

The leftists of the nutroots went gaga when Barack Obama claimed that he'd stand against taking money from lobbyists with his campaign for president. It was because, of course, he was for a "new era" in politics. He is for "change." Isn't he special, the nutrooters sigh contentedly.

Well, apparently Obama's standard of a "new age" in politics doesn't carry too far into his campaign. Obviously Barack Obama has no real power over the Party from which he claims to head because the Democratic National Convention is being funded by... you guessed it... lobbyists.

As the New York Times reports, the man being tapped by the DNC to head the fundraising for their national convention is well connected lobbyist Steve Farber.

Mr. Farber’s vast contact list could prove crucial in raising the millions of dollars needed by the Denver host committee to showcase Senator Barack Obama and the Democratic Party in August in Denver. But Mr. Farber’s activities are a public display of how corporate connections fuel politics — exactly the type of special influence that Mr. Obama had pledged to expunge from politics when he said he would not accept donations from lobbyists.

Well, so much for getting the influence of lobbyists out of politics, eh Mr. Obama?

A few days ago I posted a story on a recent article in the New York Sun by Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow at The Hudson Institute, that focused on how the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) had not fully funded the pension plan of their rank and file members while they had over funded the pension plan of the Union's chief officers.

Well, today at noon (CT) I was included as part of a conference call on the pending release of the full study upon which that earlier article in the Sun was based, written by by Diana Furchtgott-Roth. This study reviews 21 -- the SEIU included -- of the largest unions in the country to see where pension solvency stood in general. The results are shocking.

The Hudson study found that by 2005, the last full year of reports filed, 21 of the nation’s biggest unions show that their rank and file members' pensions are only funded at an appalling 67.7%. Conversely, the pension funds of the union bosses are funded at a much better 88.3%. So, the union bosses -- all of who have a separate pension fund than their own rank and file members -- have made sure THEIR pensions are funded at a much higher rate than that of their own members. Needless to say, the union bosses administer both their own and the rank and file members' funds.

The SEIU is particularly egregious in that the union bosses have a pension funded at 103% while to poor rank and file members are only at a paltry 75% funded.

For their part, the SEIU in particular claims that the Hudson Institute numbers are off and that the 2005 numbers no longer apply. The SEIU claims that they have improved their pension status since then and fault the study from Hudson as old news. They also said that those 2005 numbers weren't correct in any case.

In reply to that criticism during the conference call, Diana Furchtgott-Roth said that the 2005 numbers are the most current numbers on file with the Federal government and that the various unions have not fulfilled their reporting requirements for any more up to date information. (On that note, I have to say this is a situation that is intolerable. These unions are dragging their feet in the reporting duties to the Gov't, duties that are mandated by law. Also, these reporting requirements are something that Barack Obama has pledged to try to eliminate for his union supporters should he become president. If it were up to Obama the unions wouldn't have to disclose anything!)

Diana Furchtgott-Roth did ask a pertinent question about the SEIU's reported 2005 pension numbers. The SEIU claims the numbers did not reflect the pension fund status even in 2005, as mentioned. This caused Furchtgott-Roth to wonder why the SEIU reported fraudulent numbers on their required report to the Feds? It seems unlikely that they would have violated Federal law and supplied false numbers. We can but take their report at face value.

In any case, the Hudson Institute will unveil the full report tomorrow so that we might all take a look at their stats.

One thing that the study does show, however, is that the unions care a lot about the pensions of their own high officers but not very much about that of the poor rank and file membership.

Teddy Roosevelt impressed the nation with his focus on conservation and while he was president was responsible for pushing to conserve our nation's wilderness in the form of sundry national parks, mostly in the western U.S. This was a worthy enterprise, few can deny. But what is the true purpose of these conservatories but to set aside tracts of land away from developers so that nature can prevail? Is it not a given that these lands should be governed by nature and but set aside by government?

So, we all agree that government may take the unspoiled wilderness and save aside a portion of it to be left to the machinations of Mother Nature so that future generations might see what our landscape looked like untouched by man's industry. Well and good.

But, what if Mother Nature isn't so kind as Uncle Sam? We have here a perfect example of what happens when government gets involved in anything and it's what the military calls mission creep.

The AP reported this week that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is issuing warnings that the nation's second oldest wildlife refuge is deteriorating and "needs" restoration. This alarming rhetoric should get the most concerned conservationist's attention. "Deteriorating" is quite a frightening term after all.

But, why is it "deteriorating"? Is it industrial encroachment? Is it human neglect or pollution?

Not really.

The Chandeleur and Breton islands have been battered by hurricanes in the past four years and they took a pounding from Hurricane Katrina, which "reduced the islands by one-half of their pre-storm size," the agency said in a new report.

So, Mother Nature is responsible? Yet, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are claiming that "the nation should pour money into restoring the refuge" as if the U.S. government and we the people -- who pay its bills -- should take responsibility for what Mother Nature hath wrought?

The logic simply does not stand to reason.

We made these wildlife refuges to allow Mother Nature to reign supreme. Yet, when Mother Nature makes her decision to destroy these same places, we feel somehow responsible to step in and... what... "fix" Mother Nature's "mistake"?

This is the arrogance of government writ large. What we have here are some government drudges who are justifying their jobs by raising false alarms about what we the people should be forced to waste our money upon. We have some government men who are tasked with safeguarding a couple of islands so that Mother Nature can operate unhindered suddenly deciding that they are smarter and more responsible than Mother Nature herself to govern those pristine garden spots.

What arrogance these men exhibit.

And, at what cost do we "fix" Mother Nature's obvious neglect, government man?

Because the islands are so far from shore, restoration would be expensive and would cost tens of millions of dollars, Bohannan said. Scientists are studying what sections could feasibly be restored, he said.

Mark Schexnayder, a coastal adviser for Louisiana State University's Sea Grant Extension, said the nation and state need to find the money to save the islands regardless of the cost.

But why, why should we be more caring than Mother Nature, Mr. government man?

"It's got historical significance and it's the largest rookery for our state bird, the brown pelican," Schexnayder said. "I'm not willing to fold the tent and go home."

See, here is your logical error, Mr. government man. Birdies have these things called wings. When they find their natural home destroyed naturally, they naturally fly away with them wingie thingies and find a new home. They won't just stand on the islands and drown as the ocean overtakes the land. All life will not end if nature decides in its infinite wisdom that these little islands are to be no more.

Certainly I am not for wanton destruction by men of our natural habitats. Absolutely I think we can be sensible enough to put aside some bits of our natural resources and lands to maintain those habitats. But when nature itself steps in to say otherwise, who are we mere humans to nay say that eventuality?

It is wrong headed and illogical to pour tens of millions of dollars to protect nature when nature itself is saying no to such protection.

But, then this is what we mean by "mission creep." These government drudges have a charge and that is to save these islands for nature and they aren't going to let nature get in the way of that cushy government job. They have gone from assuming they are helping nature to assuming they are ruling it.

Mission creep at its most extreme example. And its most obscene.

For those unfamiliar, since May of this year the Associated Press has had a new Washington Bureau Chief, a past AP reporter named Ron Fournier. According to Politico, the previous chief was pushed out to make room for Fournier in a "hard-feelings shake-up" with the old chief left worried that Fournier might "destroy" the AP. A pretty stark assessment, of course, but not necessarily all sour grapes from the passing chief because there is a legitimate reason for her to worry about Fournier. You see, Fournier has decided that a more hard-charging, opinion oriented style of writing is the new direction the AP should take in this new Internet age and it's a direction that makes the AP's past bias even more pronounced.

Former chief, Sandy Johnson, is a bit worried about Fournier's new direction. “I loved the Washington bureau. I just hope he doesn’t destroy it,” she is quoted as telling the Politico. It seems she has reason to worry.

There’s more to her vinegary remark than just the aftertaste of a sour parting. Fournier is a main engine in a high-stakes experiment at the 162-year old wire to move from its signature neutral and detached tone to an aggressive, plain-spoken style of writing that Fournier often describes as “cutting through the clutter.”

Fournier is also reported as saying that his goal is to "stick it to somebody who deserves it" because the "public is losing faith" in government, religion, the military, big business and the courts. Fournier dead on about the one institution that the public mistrusts in great numbers: the media. The public does mistrust Fournier’s own profession, indeed.

No, to Fournier, the media seems to be the nation's savior and therein lies the danger he represents to the nation as a whole. He thinks he is our savior lending him the possibility of arrogant overreach.

“There’s a bigger need for this kind of journalism than ever,” he said. “The public is losing faith.” Fournier rattled off a list of institutions, including organized religion, government, media, the military, big business and the courts, in which recent Pew polls show public confidence at all-time lows. “It’s our responsibility,” he said, “to step into that breach and say, ‘Hey, what the hell is going on here?’”

And here it was thought that the AP was a news organization and not a punditry factory. Looks like Fournier really is looking to tear down the old AP and substitute his new "sharp, edgy analysis" for its supposedly traditional just-the-facts style of journalism.

As a road map to the future, one might read a June 1 Fournier essay written as he was settling in to the AP chief's chair. In that essay Fournier has some revealing rhetoric and ideas showing in what direction he imagines the AP should head. An attached note at the start of the essay is interesting, indeed.

It's AP's goal this year (and henceforth) to make this accountability journalism a consistent theme in our coverage of public affairs, politics and government. We have unmatched resources and expertise in every state to report whether government officials are doing the job for which they were elected and keeping the promises they make.

Muckraking journalism, pure and simple.

With this dangerous step over the line of fact based journalism, Fournier invites opinion to invade ever more into the AP's reporting. In fact, there would seem to be no way to prevent it with this flirtation with advocacy writing.

Fournier starts his essay with the following paragraph:

Katrina made a believer out of me. I had always known that The Associated Press played a role in holding public officials accountable, but it took a killer hurricane and an incompetent, arrogant government response to make me realize this is no mere role. It's an obligation, a liberating one at that.

Fournier then goes on to illustrate his directive to the AP's writers concerning what he wants to see from them. In one section he tells reporters to keep two questions forefront in their minds when writing for the wire service.

Make two questions a habit in every source conversation (from governors and lawmakers to lobbyists and bureaucrats): What's the biggest promise that's been broken in town this year? What drives you most nuts about (the relevant government entity)?

Further, Fournier is urging his writers to become the voice of the news as opposed to a faceless reporter. He wants them to "write with authority" instead of passively. He wants them to assert criticism is true if they think it is. And it is because, he feels, the media didn't attack Bush enough over the Iraq war and Katrina.

A colleague of mine in Washington, Cal Woodward, has an interesting rule about accountability journalism: Whenever possible, he avoids the phrase "critics say." More often than not, it's a crutch to hide lazy reporting or uncourageous writing. If the "critics say" something that you know to be true, you should assert it yourself and not let it be watered down by a broad, meaningless attribution. You be the critic. That's the role we played after Katrina:

But there is no question that Fournier is insisting that his writers step forward in a more vigorous, straight forward style that reveals their own voice far more than just-the-facts. There is no question that what we have here is a new AP the will dispense with the past habits of a guarded assertion of critics of the issues of the day for a far more expressive style that seems to state critics' positions as facts instead of opinion. This is not reporting, but advocacy.

With Ron Fournier, we might find that the AP gives us here more fodder to reveal liberal bias in the media than ever before. It might be good for the media critique business, but it isn't good for America.

(Photo credit: allamericanspeakers.com)

Edit to fix error in quote attribution.

The Armed Forces Press Service issued a press release on Thursday morning, July 10, in celebration of the fact that the U.S. military has had 13 consecutive months of meeting and/or exceeding recruitment goals. Sadly, the media stayed sullenly quite all day, taking no notice of the success of our military on OR off the field.

Regardless of the fact that the media ignored the good news, there is good news, indeed.

The June recruiting and retention figures reflect recruiters’ hard work and young people’s continued willingness to step up and serve, Lainez said. The Army signed up 9,365 new soldiers in June, 101 percent of its 9,250-soldier goal. The Marine Corps recruited 4,531 Marines, topping its monthly goal of 3,934 recruits by 15 percent. The Navy met its goal of 4,209 sailors, and the Air Force brought in 2,203 airmen, six recruits over its June goal.

The numbers for the reserves and National Guard were also strong and retention also rolled on a pace.

Of course, when the media does bother to report on military recruitment being up they still have to focus on the supposed "unpopularity" of the war even as they report that the military seems to have little trouble making their recruitment goals.

So what about that "unpopular war," anyway? Isn't it affecting the armed services?

"There were concerns about how today’s fight would affect retention, and yet, retention has been as strong as any period in our history,” he (Bill Carr, deputy undersecretary of defense for military personnel and policy) said on the all-volunteer force’s 35th anniversary. “Volunteers want to serve; their performance is strong, their behaviors are strong, and their discipline is high."

So, the big question is: where are the media on this?

Well, the answer would be that the media are in the same place on reporting healthy recruiting goals being easily met by the U.S. military as they are reporting on the incredible successes seen in Iraq. Consistently silent.

The media are obviously so out to discredit the U.S. military that they refuse to even report the news.

(Photo credit: CBSnews)

The ex-girlfried of Governor John Corzine (D- NJ), Carla Katz, found herself in a spot of bother this week. It seems she was removed from the presidency of the largest state-worker union in New Jersey because an internal investigation revealed she had "misappropriated" union funds and violated Federal labor laws.

"An extensive internal review revealed probable cause to believe that the local is engaged in ongoing financial malpractice, the misappropriation of union funds, a failure to comply with state and federal law, as well as the CWA constitution, and the suppression of dissent," CWA's national board said in a news release. "The CWA national executive board has determined that it has no choice but to take this action to protect the rights and resources of the members of Local 1034."

Naturally, Governor Corzine refused to comment on the news, but Katz is putting on the faux outrage in her statement.

"This action by the national union is appalling and the charges against our local's leadership are completely false. It is a travesty that the retaliation against me, and my fellow union leaders, for our opposition to the bad state worker deal, continues in full force," Katz said. "The national's baseless and extreme action, done without any notice, tramples the democratic rights of the members of our union under the deceptive guise of protecting democracy."

The guv and this union member have been in trouble before when gifts from Corzine to Katz were revealed raising the question of the propriety of the gifts.

Here is what the guv's luv thug is accused of:

• Misappropriated union funds to support her own personal interests and her own union election campaign by using local dues to pay for travel and lodging and other expenses for people recruited to campaign for her.
• Authorized -- with little or no oversight -- the use of more than $700,000 in union funds to be used for political donations, some of which went to candidates in areas where the local has few members.
• Threatened the employment of an internal critic and retaliated against union members in violation of federal law and the CWA constitution.
• Failed to maintain mandated time records to establish what she has been doing as the top official of her local.

Looks like Katz is finally getting her comeuppance.

It was said of Abraham Lincoln upon his passing that "now he belongs to the ages," and that is the same sentiment I find myself feeling upon learning that Tony Snow has died of colon cancer today at age 53.

The Bush administration released a statement through current press secretary Dana Perino, she who inherited Mr. Snow's warm podium, upon Mr. Snow's passing saying, "The White House has lost a great friend and a great colleague. We all loved watching him at the podium, but most of all we learned how to love our families and treat each other."

This couldn't be better said. I last met Tony Snow at the MRC Dishonor awards (see picture of Tony and I) only but a few short months ago and a more gracious man one could never meet. Snow was tasked with delivering the keynote address and his words were, as always, filled with grace, good humor, and optimism even as he must have known he wasn't long for this world.

And after his address, after the festivities of the night ended, Mr. Snow happily stayed for pictures and questions from those in attendance. Even as many of the other notable speakers (Ann Coulter and Cal Thomas for instance) quickly made for the exits, Tony Snow, despite his debilitating illness, stayed, shook hands, stood for photos and bantered with the attendees of the dinner. That is how my ugly mug got snapped standing next to this fine, fine American.

This is a sad loss for America. But let us remain as humble as Tony Snow in our assessment. The country will go on, of course. Tony Snow wasn't the end all and be all of America and his passing won't end our great experiment in self government. He would be offended, I'm sure, if we made too much of his passing. He was too humble a man for that.

But it will be a tad colder and less friendly as well as a bit less optimistic now that this wonderful fellow has passed on to his just rewards.

Rest in peace, Tony Snow. We'll miss that sunny countenance and thoughtful commentary we'd become so used to. A hale fellow well met has passed, but his lessons of self determination and his surety that these United States is not a failed premise will stay with us forever.

Robert Anthony Snow

Born June 1st, 1955

Died July 12th, 2008

Along with a few of his police bodyguards Mayor Frank Melton of Jackson, Mississippi has been indicted on Federal civil rights violations. It seems that in his zeal to curb drug crime, Melton forced some local youngsters at gunpoint to take a sledgehammer to a private residence that Melton claimed was a drug house.

One little problem, Melton had no court order and no right to destroy a private residence. Yet he and his rogue police bodyguards illegally entered this private residence and wrecked the place anyway.

The federal indictment alleges that on Aug. 26, 2006, the defendants invited several young men into the police department's mobile command unit. The group drove to a home on Ridgeway Street, where Wright allegedly ordered the occupants outside at gunpoint.

"Thereafter, Mayor Melton allegedly knocked out several windows of the home with a large stick and ordered the young men accompanying him to destroy the home using sledgehammers while Wright and Recio stood guard," the Justice Department statement said.

They call Melton's style of crime fighting "unorthodox" as he cruises the streets in a special "mobile command center" and he carries guns around like he was himself a police man. Naturally, his unconcern over private property rights, his kidnapping of these "several young men" and his storm trooper tactics are causing him a spot of trouble these days.

OK, OK, its all rather interesting. The stories have all sorts of details about this odd little incident. Well, all but the fact that Melton is a Democrat. It seems that this little factoid was "not germane" to the story as far as the Associated Press is concerned. (And neither was it pertinent in their short treatment of the story, apparently.) PRNewswire didn't mention the party, either. Unsurprisingly, local TV station WJTV of Jackson missed it and so did WLBT. The Clarion Ledger never mention it either, but then they are the local paper and it would be assumed that their readers are already informed of the party of their own mayor.

Mayor Jackson has been jailed for his antics before (hence the mug shot that accompanies this story), so it is no surprise that he is in Dutch with the law again. The larger question is why people would continue to vote for this man and so many like him across the country?

One can only imagine how the AP, for one, would be crowing the party of this mayor should he have been a Republican. It would be "Gun Slinging Republican Mayor Indicted," for sure.

Anyway, this story may go larger today so let's see how many news outlets remember that Mayor Melton does, indeed, belong to a political party and that his party is Democrat?

(Image credit: the Jackson Free Press)

There is an interesting little report about a city Supervisor in Amherst, New York and how the city employee unions have demonized him since being elected as a reformer 2 years ago. It is an object lesson in how unions will demonize instead of work with anyone.

When Mohan took office 2 years ago as a reformer, he clearly specified that he wanted union contracts -- a huge financial burden for most municipalities -- retooled to pare back rich pay packages and fringe benefits.

“Someone has to speak for the people,” he said at last week’s Town Board meeting, where he opposed a police union contract that ultimately passed with only Mohan voting “no.”

Sounds like a fine public official to me! And one thing is sure, the unions sure aren't speaking for the taxpayers in ANY city in ANY state of the Union. All they want is to rip off the taxpayers as much as possible.

Naturally, Supervisor Mohan's success at opposing union thugs and paring back thei ill-gotten gains has made him a target of unions.

But the town’s union leaders describe Mohan’s comments as outrageous, offensive and, in some cases, “outright lies.”

In any case, we here at the blog wish Supervisor a long, long, union agitating career.

On Sunday, July 13, in Jonesboro, Georgia, an immigrant Muslim father strangled his daughter to death in a so-called "honor killing" because she protested being forced by her family to marry a man she did not know. No feminist uttered a word about the murder of twenty-five-year-old Sandeela Kanwal. On the following Wednesday officials in the city government of Atlanta, Georgia bowed to the pressure from one feminist nut to stop posting "men at work" signs in the city because they are "sexist."

The contrast is stark as well as revealing, if not entirely disgusting. It reveals an American feminism that is a hypocritical, unserious, sham that deserves nothing but derision. A movement that indulges in oblivious, frivolity while real pain surrounds them.

The western world is in the midst of a clash of cultures that is killing thousands of people every week. The west is seeing a religio-political system calling itself Islam perpetrating some of the most oppressive actions against women in modern history. Women are daily and by the millions beaten, raped, mutilated, and oppressed in uncountable ways by adherents of a so-called religion. This is not only happening in far away lands, either. Imigrants are importing these barbarous, uncivilized ways into the west and right into our midst.

Girls of Muslim heritage throughout the west are being forced into marriages against their will, sold into sexual slavery, their genitals are being mangled in a faux religious ceremony and they are being treated as second class citizens by their parents and relatives, immigrants of Muslim background.

And as these very real crimes against women occur what do the feminists of Atlanta, Georgia get all exercised about? The elimination of signs that say "men at work."

Feminists in America and other western nations have a possible crusade just aching for their care and development, yet these same feminists who pretend that women's rights are their priority consistently ignore real oppression. These oppressed Muslim women suffer unimaginable horrors at the hands of their uncivilized religion and imported, backwards culture all the while western feminists sit on their hands and concerns themselves with pointless issues like city signage.

As Sandeela Kanwal was agonizing over her forced marriage in Jonesboro and later as her murdered body lay on the floor of her Father's home, the last bit of precious life fading, a childish, foolhardy "feminist" named Cynthia Good was congratulating herself on somehow striking a blow against oppression by making Atlanta get rid of a few paper signs.

While millions of young girls cower and allow themselves into forced marriages all across the west, magazine editor Cynthia Good trumpeted her success and called for the rest of the country to join her earthshattering, important efforts. "We're calling on the rest of the nation to follow suit and make a statement that we will not accept these subtle forms of discrimination," chortled the facile Good to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

This is the result of liberal moral equivalence. The western liberal's self-destructive insistence that each culture is just as good as the next, yet at the same time the assumption that our own is somehow worse for its "oppression" and "discrimination," courses throughout the veins of pernicious feminism. The delusional insistence that we, the west, are the bane of civilization as poor young girls like Sandeela Kanwal lead pitiful existences often meeting a violent end right under the noses of these same "feminists" who claim moral superiority is an outrage. The belief that a paper sign alerting passersby that people are working in the area is worse than the murder of Sandeela Kanwal and others like her is a travesty.

Feminists are execrable yet are given the benefit of government money in our universities and places of high esteem. Today, feminists are as bad a holocaust deniers, as bad as Soviet apologists, for their willful ignorance of the oppression of women that goes on around them every day.

The Soviets used to call westerners who gave them cover for their crimes against humanity "useful idiots." Muslims call westerners who turn a blind eye to their oppressions "dhimmis," folks who have a lesser stance in Islam but follow along dutifully ignoring the crimes around them. Cynthia Good is a dhim idiot. She make fools of every person everywhere truly concerned with eliminating oppression.

Did you know that violent white men are never arrested for their actions? The Chicago Sun-Times' Mary Mitchell is sure of it, if you aren't. In another of her typically race baiting articles, Mitchell this time says that any time a white man is engaged in violent behavior, he is let off "to go on his merry way," never to be "held accountable" for his actions. Race monger Mitchell is sure of this, see, because she saw a traffic scuffle between two "old white guys" where no arrests were made by Chicago police.

Two "old white guys" let go without arrest after a traffic altercation? Wow, case closed, racism exists, eh?

Mitchell claims she saw a traffic altercation where one white guy jumped from his car and verbally abused another white man in the car behind him. The Chicago police were called and, in the end, both drivers were told to "go on their merry way," as Mitchell put it. No arrests were made. Then again, no real violence occurred, either.

Mitchell claims she and other witnesses were stunned.

Then, things fall apart. Honda is back in the car and drives away. What? We witnesses don’t understand. Shouldn’t this guy remain on the scene, or be escorted to the police station? Don’t the cops need to write up some kind of report or dispense some tickets for traffic violations? (Obstructing traffic, for starters.)... Then the cuffs are taken off of Explorer and he, too, is allowed to go on his merry way. No ticket. No arrest.

The police explain to Mitchell that the man accosted did not want to press charges, so the incident was over.

But, this didn't stop Mitchell from imagining she saw racism in this incident... of course, Mitchell sees racism in everything under the sun. After explaining what she saw, Mitchell goes off on a tired-of-the-man-keeping-me-down rant that is just as silly as it is unsupported by any real facts.

Not equal justice:

This is American justice for white men. The other side of what is typically picked up by the media. Images of black and Latino men, young and old, who get yanked from their vehicles, strong-armed, handcuffed, frisked, and physically held, sometimes by the bottom of an officer’s shoe, on the street until they are loaded into a wagon and carted off to the nearest holding pen.

This is how white men are (not) held accountable for their actions. I can imagine how this whole scene would have been dealt with by authorities had the brawlers been men of color.

Not one of the cops I saw held their hand instinctively, protectively over their weapons, a hair trigger away. I suppose everyone knows that old white guys, even when they’re perps, are just not that scary.

"Justice for white men?"

Mitchell is the Sun-Times' resident race monger, a large portion of her columns seem to have been dredged up from 1956, but this one is poor even by her low standards. I mean, is she serious that this anecdotal evidence is enough to state a thing as fact? All black men would be jailed in an exactly similar incident? Apparently so.

Did Mitchell offer any statistics to buttress her wild claim? Did she show any studies or police reports? Not a one. She just made the wild leap of logic to comply with her prejudices.

Her capper is a piece of work, too.

Still, I wouldn’t take any chances. Beware of an angry white man driving a Ford Explorer, who thinks, and now knows from experience, that he is entitled to do whatever he wants whenever he wants to whomever he wants with little fear that there’ll be consequences or repercussions.

In light of this line of “reasoning,” how many black athletes can we point to where this line applies? Has there not been many a black athlete who has repeatedly broken the law on many levels but felt that he was "entitled to do whatever he wants whenever he wants to whomever he wants with little fear that there’ll be consequences or repercussions"?

Should I look at the example of black athletes and make that an excuse to say that all black men can get away with anything they want, that they are never held accountable for their actions? If not, why not?

I wonder what race-monger Mitchell would say to that?

As the media systematically ignores the good news in Iraq, the AP instead turns to “reporting” on a “journalist’s” Iraq love tryst. Why we need to see a story of CBS' Lara Logan's romance troubles is anyone’s guess? But apparently the AP thinks that Lara Logan's love tryst with a married contractor in Iraq is "news" while the surge and the complete lack of any real civil war in Iraq is not.

Here is the problem with the news media. Dan Rather fell for it. Walter Cronkite was overcome by it. Each of these "journalists" imagined that they were the news, that their lives and opinions were just as important to the nation as the news upon which they reported.

Sure Logan is a slightly better than average looking newsbabe, but so what? Is her horsing around with a married man something that is important to the world? Is her slutting around with multiple partners during her time as a correspondent in Iraq something that we all have a hunger, a NEED to know?

I just don't see it. I just don't see how her loose moral choices could be a compelling story of any kind... unless it is as an object lesson against her actions. Even then. But, here is where we are in the media today. Instead of pursuing the news, instead of worrying about the integrity of the truth, we have "journalists" who want to be the story instead of just reporting on it.

So, while the news media is steadily and universally ignoring the good news in Iraq we DO get to see the story of the somewhat comely Logan and her romantic saga involving out of wedlock birth, multiple partners, and all the mess that entails.

All the news you can use.

(Image credit: USA Today)