May 2008 Archives

Watching it live on CNN.com. Unanimous vote to devalue Florida's citizens. Michigan coming up - more later.

Update: Will Michigan will award 59 delegates to the candidate no one voted for? Hope and Change!

Harold Ickes: Hillary is taking this to the credentials committee!

Update: 19 for, 8 against. Michigan's voters are half value as well as Florida, with the addition of awarding delegates to a candidate who wasn't even on the ballot. Viva democracy!

No, it wasn't Obama who threw Florida's and Michigan's voters under the bus - be he'll surely be running them over with it on the way to November.

Gateway Pundit has video highlights.

AP kicks the downed Hillary: "The deal passed 19-8. Thirteen members of the committee supported Clinton, so she wasn't even able to keep her supporters together."

In a rapid decision that took less than twenty years, the Messiah acts:

ABARDEEN, S.D. - Barack Obama is resigning a 20 year membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ in the aftermath of inflammatory remarks by former pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Obama campaign communications director Robert Gibbs said Obama had submitted a letter of resignation to the church and would discuss his decision in a session with reporters later Saturday.

It could be iPods. They'd certainly be here long after we're gone, wouldn't they?

A Fox News employee who says she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder after being bitten by bedbugs at work filed a lawsuit on Thursday against the owner of the Manhattan office tower where she worked.

Maybe if they didn't provide beds for their employees....

Via AP/Yahoo:

Supporters for Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton staked out competing positions Saturday as Democrats searched for a compromise to seat disputed convention delegations from Florida and Michigan and clear the way for a smooth end to the marathon struggle for the presidential nomination.

In the opening hours of a daylong meeting of the convention's Rules and Bylaws Committee, Clinton's designated spokeswoman urged the panel to grant a full vote for each of Florida's 211 disputed delegates.

"In life you don't get everything you want. I want it all," California State Sen. Arthenia Joyner said with a smile.

But moments later, Obama's campaign called for half-votes for each of the 211. Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida said that marked an "extraordinary concession, in order to promote reconciliation with Florida's voters."

Wexler translated: "Florida's voters are only worth half as much as voters elsewhere, and should be so happy we've granted them half-person status that they'll fall in line with my guy Obama." Yep, that should promote reconciliation, alright.

It will be interesting to see how all of the bad feelings translate into real votes come November. Certainly there's no lack of bitterness about Hillary's supporters among the 'hope and change' set. A liberal Delaware blogger predicts:

Hillary Clinton supporters will continue to be the low class losers that we all know them to be.

Yeah. I can smell the bridge-building in the air. Can't you?

Not bloody likely. The Democrats who have blocked oil exploration, nuclear energy, and every other method of powering the country have clung to their flawed theories through thick and thin (mostly thin, as we're seeing wholesale damage to the economy as a result). Indeed, it's hard to find any type of energy they do support. Even wind power, popular with the local Joe-bag-'o-socialism class here in Delaware, meets heavy resistance from Democrat elitists at the federal level. One has to wonder what life for Americans would look like if Democrats in Washington took their distaste for all things energy to its logical conclusion and banned all energy sources they didn't like - something like this?

While Congress has been the real villain in the energy mess we find ourselves in, the executive branch could make an impact if the right approach were taken with Congress. Unfortunately, we have little to look forward to regardless of who wins in November. Obama would raise gas prices through increased taxation, and offers no hope at all that prices would decline through increased supply.

The nation wouldn't fare any better under McCain. McCain's "cap & trade" plan would be no less of a disaster than any similar plan advanced by the left, and he opposes increasing oil supplies. His only saving grace - indeed, his only dramatic difference from the Democrats - is his opposition to increased taxing of the American people through corporate surrogates (aka the oil companies).

An argument could be made that we may fare worse under McCain, as his legendary stubbornness would keep his administration stuck on stupid while the citizens suffer under an ever-worsening economy. Obama, on the other hand, is a political opportunist who might relent on some of his harmful agenda in response to negative polling. In other words, a weasel might be less harmful than someone guided by principle. That's a painful point to have to make, and shows just how bad things have been allowed to get in our political system.

*sigh*.

As I said above, though, Congress is the primary cause of the problem. This also means that they're in a position to correct it as well, if the pressure is high enough. It may not be possible, but there's nothing to be gained by not trying. Calls and letters to Congress are a start. In the same spirit, petitions and lobbying also make your opinions heard. If you're looking for a petition, start with Newt (H/T Don Surber):

While there are many important issues this election season, there are none that affect all Americans as much as this one. Regardless of political stripe, everyone should be joining in the effort to convince our government to stop obstructing energy independence and increased prosperity.

How can anyone claim to have good judgment when they surround themselves, for years, with people that have to be disavowed as soon as a public light is turned on them?

Because learning firsthand what's really happening in Iraq and visiting with all those victims in the US military he claims to care about would just be a "stunt":

John McCain's proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don't need any more 'Mission Accomplished' banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge.

You really have to hand it to McCain - rather than shy away from the Iraq war as a campaign topic, he's been making it a centerpiece issue. You'd think that Obama, whose war stance was sold as the reason to pick him over more experienced Democrats in the primaries, would be delighted to go toe-to-toe with McCain on this issue. Instead, he cowers from any direct debate, and falls back on distortions such as his dishonest claim that McCain doesn't want the troops to get an affordable education or the "100-year war" lie that he's told so frequently.

It requires more than just judgment to lead. It requires courage as well. Obama is proving that he lacks both.

Amnesty International USA will be in Dilworth Plaza to protest Gitmo:

Amnesty International USA (AIUSA) brings its national tour of a life-size Guantanamo prison cell replica to Philadelphia beginning Friday, May 30 until Sunday, June 1. On Saturday, May 31, AIUSA members and other activists will gather from noon to 2 p.m. in Dilworth Plaza (adjacent to City Hall) in Philadelphia, to listen to local musicians, the Late Nite Drifters and Tom Mullian, experience the cell and continue to push the Bush administration to shut down the U.S.-controlled detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

That's the Guantanamo Bay facility that's full of people who, if they had the opportunity, would kill the protesters along with their family and friends and consider it a good day after doing so. And indeed, many of those who have been released from Gitmo have returned to the battlefield to fight for al-Qaida or the Taliban, either of which would provide prisoner treatment that would make Gitmo look like a day care center in comparison.

The exhibit will be complete with starry-eyed, deluded moonbats in stylish orange jumpsuits. AIUSA is also asking visitors to make useful idiot videos:

Visitors may tour the cell and record a 30-second reaction video that will be posted on youtube.com and tearitdown.org.

I hope they get lines of people to look in the camera and say "It's better than these killers deserve". I suppose we wouldn't see any of those clips on you tube, though.

Oh, brother:

MIDDLETOWN, Connecticut (Reuters) - U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama, seen by some as the heir to the Kennedy family legacy, praised Sen. Edward Kennedy as a champion for the poor and struggling, as he stepped in for the ailing Massachusetts senator at a graduation ceremony.

Ick.

Are they prepping for an announcement? The headline sure makes it look that way: The era of big Clintons is soon over.

There's been a Clinton running for the White House or living in it for approximately forever. Bill, it could be said, was born to run. Running became Hillary's destiny, too.

One quarter of Americans have never known life without a Clinton trying for or having the presidency. Millions have gone from diapers to diplomas in the time of the Clintons.

When Hillary Rodham Clinton finally exits the 2008 Democratic presidential race, she will end a decades-long, power-couple streak of unique political energy, savvy ideas, colossal policy flops and raw ambition dressed in pants suits and briefs, not boxers.

"Every day is an adventure," Bill said cheerfully at the start of it all. And how.

By now, the Clintons have been assigned mystical qualities of perseverance. The notion that the adventure is over is almost beyond comprehension.

"I never quit," she says. "I never give up."

Even in defeat, Hillary Clinton has made history as the first woman favored for a major party presidential nomination — the first with a real shot at the presidency.

Or maybe it's AP's way of telling us that they, like Jimmy Carter, aren't endorsing either Democrat.

It's not often I run across a blog post worth bookmarking - here's one: Barack Obama In Quotes: Version 2.0.

Added: Not as bookmark worthy, but in a similar vein: Politico's Guide to Undisciplined Messaging, a list of words and phrases candidates should avoid. Top of the list? "Sweetie".

Obama gets a double-super-secret back-door endorsement. Of course, it's only a distraction, folks. Via AP/Reuters:

HAVANA (Reuters) - Cuban leader Fidel Castro on Monday called Democrat Barack Obama the candidate most advanced on social issues running for U.S. president but said his speech on Cuba last week was a "formula for hunger."

In one of his periodic newspaper columns published in Communist Party newspaper Granma, Castro said he had "no personal rancor" toward Obama, but "if I defended him I would do a huge favor for his adversaries."

Che Guevara was unavailable for comment.

May 23 (Bloomberg) -- Airbus SAS, the world's largest commercial aircraft maker, is valued at ``less than zero'' after this year's 32 percent drop in the shares of parent European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co., according to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. analyst Joe Campbell.

``The market is viewing Airbus as a liability, rather than an asset,'' said Campbell, 62, who is based in New York and has ranked among the top five aerospace analysts for six consecutive years in an Institutional Investor magazine poll.

Normally, I tend to root for Boeing, being an American company and Airbus' biggest competitor, but I can't take any pleasure in this. I prefer for Airbus to be a healthy company, as it makes our aerospace industry players in the U.S. better.

I hope you are all having a wonderful long weekend. TB, the kids, and I certainly are. Yesterday we had a movie night, and broke with our usual routine to dine in front of the TV. The movie was National Treasure: Book of Secrets. The movie fell somewhat short of the first due to its predictability, but the banter and special effects were top notch. And there was a hint of a third movie to come which we'll definitely want to see.

Today, the kids are over at a schoolmate's house for the afternoon. TB is taking it fairly slow since she's recovering from a tooth extraction combined with a sinus infection. Me, I've got around 35 pounds of pork shoulder (butt roast) on the smoker - it's pulled pork for dinner tonight.

Had we not received the invite for the kids, I would have liked to have driven south to the tour of Dover's Revolutionary War veterans at Christ Episcopal Church Cemetery in Dover. Did you know we lost 25,000 people in the Revolutionary War? Not all were battlefield deaths, most died from disease or in prison ships. Casualty-wise, the Revolutionary War differs dramatically from our current conflict in scope. What the first war does have in common with today is that the troops then, as now, were all volunteers.

While all those who have died in defense of our country deserve respect and remembrance today and every day, there's a special place in my thoughts for those who willingly serve knowing that they may not survive. It's a devotion and love for country and countrymen that some Americans don't feel and can't understand. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as this is a free country and folks can believe as they wish. Still, I can't fathom the need for some to take a day like this and use it to deride the sacrifices so many have made for our country.

For example, I saw a post yesterday on another blog suggesting that we separate Memorial Day into two holidays - one to "honor the troops that were drafted into fighting", and another to shower contempt upon those "schmucks that signed up for it" who "knew what they were getting into". This means volunteers, including, for example, the 25,000 I mention above and the 6.3 million who volunteered during during the second world war.

However, it's still a free country, and I don't mind having volunteered 20 years of my life toward maintaining his right to spit contempt and ignorance.

Back to the real nature of the holiday, though. TB and I wish for all of you to have a safe and happy holiday as we honor and thank those who gave us the freedoms we enjoy today.

Especially the volunteers.

Spend a little time over at Newsweek and you might wonder if they have any time left over for journalism. Their left-leaning bias has been obvious in recent years, but they've finally shed any pretenses. Their current cover story is not even a news story, but a long memo to Obama with heart-felt advice on how the Messiah should run his campaign and win this fall. I'm still digesting it, but here's a little jewel from page 2 (emphasis mine):

It's also important for you not to play the race card yourself. You can't imply, or be seen to imply, that anyone who criticizes you is a racist, closeted or otherwise.

The addition of the word "yourself" is telling. Newsweek is actually suggesting that it would be bad for Obama should he play the race card himself, but it's OK through others. What others? Why, Newsweek, of course. The entire issue is devoted to the subject, and they've even developed a whole new poll just to suggest that anyone not voting for Obama just might be racist:

Even as he closes in on the Democratic nomination for the presidency, Sen. Barack Obama is facing lingering problems winning the support of white voters--including some in his own party. In a new NEWSWEEK Poll of registered voters, Obama trails presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain 40 percent to 52 percent among whites.

This even as Newsweek warns Obama that "You will never get the real racists to come around." The poll itself is here, and includes a "Racial Resentment Index" based on the following list:

Disapprove of racial preferences (Q17=2)
Less qualified people hired often (Q18=1)
Whites lose out (Q19=2,4)
Gone too far pushing rights (Q20a=1)
Poor too dependent on government (Q20b=1)
Blacks responsible for own condition (Q21=2)
Disapprove of interracial marriage (Q22=2)
Few things in common with blacks (Q23=3)
Would mind if black person moved close (Q24=1)
Would be upset if daughter dated black (Q25=2,3)

It would be difficult to imagine how they could be more incendiary in their questioning.

NewsBusters notes that there's only one side of the story in the Newsweek poll:

This raises two important questions for Newsweek:

1. Why wasn't it concerned about McCain's lingering problems winning the support of black voters?
2. Why didn't it measure a Racial Resentment Index for the non-whites that participated in the poll, especially for the blacks that overwhelmingly support Obama?

Good questions. The answer is that their interest in McCain is how best to defeat him. In the same issue, Newsweek raises issues about McCain's age and health. Unable to find a smoking gun of imminent Alzheimer's or cancer, they conclude in one article:

But the eventual winner of the election—no matter who it is—should be forewarned. Roizen has assessed data on presidential health back to the 1920s and finds that the stress of the job takes a toll. "Every year in office, you age two years," he says. It's not hard to calculate the effect this would have on McCain. After two terms, his calendar age and Real Age would be right back in line.

And in another, they just go for negativism in the title: "An Answer for Every ‘Little Jerk’" Again, failing to find anything bad in the medical records, they feel compelled to insinuate that McCain's gaffe last December was directed at anyone who showed curiosity about his age and health.

It's sad that any news organization would go to these lengths to promote a political agenda. Sadder still is that this type of in-kind campaign donation posing as journalism will increase as November nears.

Via AP/Yahoo Green, more clinging to guns and xenophobia:

BUSKIRK, N.Y. - A few years ago, Kathleen Breault was just another suburban grandma, driving countless hours every week, stopping for lunch at McDonald's, buying clothes at the mall, watching TV in the evenings.

That was before Breault heard an author talk about the bleak future of the world's oil supply. Now, she's preparing for the world as we know it to disappear.

Breault cut her driving time in half. She switched to a diet of locally grown foods near her upstate New York home and lost 70 pounds. She sliced up her credit cards, banished her television and swore off plane travel. She began relying on a wood-burning stove.

"I was panic-stricken," the 50-year-old recalled, her voice shaking. "Devastated. Depressed. Afraid. Vulnerable. Weak. Alone. Just terrible."

Convinced the planet's oil supply is dwindling and the world's economies are heading for a crash, some people around the country are moving onto homesteads, learning to live off their land, conserving fuel and, in some cases, stocking up on guns they expect to use to defend themselves and their supplies from desperate crowds of people who didn't prepare.

Maybe some of these folks have seen too many post-apocalyptic science fiction movies. Many are convinced that we're headed for anarchy by 2012. So they're planning for a personal future that looks like half the content on the Sci-Fi channel. Think "Little House on the Prairie" with Mel Gibson and Ruger's entire product line in the starring roles.

Democrat oil policies obstructionism doesn't seem to be creating the utopia that the left promised, does it?

Call them Kool-Aid drinkers. Political romantics. Starry-eyed dreamers.

Lets not forget trained parrots.

I promised I'd write more on John Hawkins' pronouncement on John McCain and his shifting immigration stances. And I say "shifting" only because his stance has been perceived as shifting. Personally, I now believe it never did. While there may have been some confusion as to the scheduling of McCain's agenda , the priorities have remained the same.

I share John's (and other's) distaste with McCain on the subject of immigration. It's McCain's single worst position among the conservative base, and rightly so. Anyone who saw the interviews and and watched the debates last year where the Maverick gave his pained definitions of amnesty knew then that he too was aware of that fact, and carefully tiptoeing through his answers. McCain has carefully played word games in the media with great success. And regrettably, too many folks so wanted to make lemonade from lemons that he largely went unchallenged on what has from the beginning been about amnesty and never changed.

In this, I do fault Senator McCain. His semantic games have lacked the candor and bluntness that he likes to portray as his strengths. Here he is in September last year arguing that comprehensive immigration reform isn't amnesty (skip ahead to about 2:45):

I often wonder why McCain's definition of amnesty didn't sink his bid for the nomination as soon as he said it. It's a word that has multiple meanings, "forgiveness" is not even cited as a definition by most dictionaries. His willful misrepresentation of the context and definition of the word used by the citizens to whom he responded was a disturbing blast of arrogance and condescension that should have had more folks seeing flashing red lights and hearing klaxons. Sigh.

But back to the larger point - Senator McCain's position on immigration reform shifted little when he started proclaiming that he "got the message" from the border hawks. Indeed, all that changed was the schedule. Here he is on O'Reilly describing his vision of immigration reform:

Note how he combines the issues in his answer as "immigration reform". Other than the "security first" part, how is this different from his comprehensive immigration reform from last year?

Most of the punditry and the blogosphere (including yours truly) assumed that when McCain said "security first" he meant "separately". I'm going to suggest something to you all:

John McCain always intended to resurrect the previous bill in full, with the addition of some sort of timetable and milestone provisions regarding border security to pacify the border hawks.

Assuming that the suggestion above is correct, has John McCain lied about immigration? That's a toughie. Certainly he has through omission - his campaign speeches have been long on promise regarding immigration but short on the mechanics required to carry the promise out. In fairness, McCain may have originally assumed that everyone knew that his bill would come back with the addition of the security first provision. However, over time he surely should have been been aware that folks had the wrong interpretation, and he shouldn't have let let it go this far without clarifying his position.

But go back through everything he's said about immigration since last summer - can any of you find in his words something that refutes my suggestion above? I can't.

When a myth circulates that portrays a politician in a negative light, they're quick in the attempt to dispel it. But when a myth shows them in a positive light, there's a reluctance to do so. It's a quality not unique to John McCain. But this particular myth should have been exposed in the blogosphere, and it was not. Not to pick on John Hawkins, but he was taken in like the rest of us. From his commentary at Townhall.com:

Then there's immigration, where we know McCain is just dying to put the illegal immigrants in this country on a path to citizenship. However, he has pledged to secure the border before he does that. In all honesty, with the glacier-like speed that the federal government moves, there is zero chance that is going to be completed in the next four years. Yet, as security improves, more and more illegal aliens will leave the country on their own. So even though McCain's motives wouldn't be pure, enforcement by attrition would still occur during his first term and if conservatives hold McCain to his promise, it's very possible that he wouldn't be able to implement amnesty by 2012.

If you assumed that McCain would deal with amnesty in separate legislation only after the border is secured, this was a reasonable conclusion - the clock on McCain's presidency would run out long before he could enact amnesty. This was my hope as well. But McCain never said he would enact separate bills, he simply said the border would be secure first.

So based on recent statements, and reviewing past ones, what would immigration reform look like under John McCain?

It would be a comprehensive bill. Some sort of plan to secure the borders would likely be required to be accomplished first, followed by Z-visas and path to citizenship but only after certain metrics have been met. Even if the border takes more than four years to fix, we would be stuck with the enduring and destructive legacy of amnesty. No clock-watching will change it, and having already passed the larger bill, Congress will feel free to accelerate the more harmful parts without waiting for border certification. The danger here cannot be overstated. Once amnesty is the law, any pre-conditions can be altered quickly and easily.

Back to theme about McCain and whether his recent statements expose either lies or betrayals - have we been had? Yes, we have. But McCain doesn't deserve all the blame. The assumptions of how McCain's plan would manifest itself by the punditry and the blogosphere have been nearly universally flawed in spite of the fact that McCain himself never confirmed those assumptions. We hoped that he meant the issues would be dealt with separately, and didn't want to see that he could take other paths and still keep his promise.

Like it or don't, most of us on the right should be reserving some of the anger being displayed this week for ourselves.

One of my favorite bloggers has drawn the line - he ain't votin' for the Maverick. Why?:

He's a man without honor, without integrity, who could not have captured the Republican nomination had he run on making comprehensive immigration a top priority of his administration.

I think we'll be seeing more of this - I'll have much more later today.

And all due to a clerical error:

Only hours before the House's 316-108 vote, Bush had vetoed the five-year measure, saying it was too expensive and gave too much money to wealthy farmers when farm incomes are high. The Senate then was expected to follow suit quickly.

Action stalled, however, after the discovery that Congress had omitted a 34-page section of the bill when lawmakers sent the massive measure to the White House.

That means Bush vetoed a different bill from the one Congress passed, raising questions that the eventual law would be unconstitutional. Republicans objected when Democrats proposed passing the missing section separately and sending that to Bush.

In order to avoid those potential problems, House Democrats hoped to pass the entire bill, again, on Thursday under expedited rules usually reserved for unopposed legislation. The Senate was expected to follow suit. The correct version would then be sent to Bush under a new bill number for another expected veto.

Lawmakers also will have to pass an extension of current farm law, which expires Friday.

"We will have to repass the whole thing, as will the Senate," said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y. "We can't let the farm bill just die."

Oh, yes we can - don't let this chance pass you by. Call your elected officials and tell them to start being responsible!

Update: Overridden as is, and they'll add the extra 34 pages as a separate bill after their Memorial Day break. Republicans are going to lose seats over siding with the liberals on this and other recent irresponsible porkfests. They just don't seem to get it, do they?

Congratulations to our newest Americans, and thanks for doing it legally.

'Bout damn time:

NAYPYITAW Myanmar - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, on a mission to open Myanmar to international disaster assistance, said the ruling junta agreed Friday to allow "all aid workers" into the country to help cyclone survivors.

Ban's comments came after a crucial two-hour meeting Friday with the junta leader, Senior Gen. Than Shwe, the country's most powerful figure. Myanmar's junta has until now refused to allow an influx of foreign aid and experts to reach survivors of the May 2-3 Cyclone Nargis.

We may never know the human cost of the ruling junta's paranoia. Hopefully, the citizens of Myanmar will one day recognize where the responsibility lies and act accordingly.

Everyone complains about the rising costs here in the US, which are rising due to decades of liberal energy policies preventing supply from keeping up with demand. But at least we don't yet have runaway inflation like Zimbabwe:

HARARE, Zimbabwe - Weary Zimbabweans are facing a new wave of price increases that will put many basic goods even further out of their reach: A loaf of bread now costs what 12 new cars did a decade ago.

Independent finance houses said in an assessment Tuesday that annual inflation rose this month to 1,063,572 percent based on prices of a basket of basic foodstuffs. Economic analysts say unless the rate of inflation is slowed, annual inflation will likely reach about 5 million percent by October.

As stores opened for business Wednesday, a small pack of locally produced coffee beans cost just short of 1 billion Zimbabwe dollars. A decade ago, that sum would have bought 60 new cars.

As bad as things are here, at least our oil-driven problems can be fixed over time - all it requires is for Republicans to stop acting like Democrats when it comes to oil policy (listening, Sen McCain?) and for Democrats to start thinking about what's best for Americans instead of bowing and scraping to environmental extremists who oppose anything resembling common sense.

An arrest was announced this morning:

A Boeing Co. assembly line worker from Trevose has been arrested on charges of hacking wires on a $30 million Chinook helicopter being assembled at a Ridley Township plant last week.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Meehan announced the arrest today, about a week after damage was discovered on two of the new model Chinook CH-47F helicopters. The dual-rotor aircraft were still on the assembly line, and no damage was found to other models in production or already deployed.

Meehan's office identified the arrested man as Matthew K. Montgomery, 32, an employee for 18 months at the Boeing plant. Montgomery admitted that he damaged one of the aircraft he was working on, Meehan said. Montgomery was arrested last night while being interviewed by Defense Department investigators.

Apparently, I was right about the motive - the sabotage was caused by a disgruntled employee:

Meehan said he would not speculate on a motive in the Montgomery case. According to an affidavit filed in the case, Montgomery was told on May 10 - two days before the severed wires were detected on one of the Chinooks - that he was being transferred to another assembly line at Boeing.

Montgomery told investigators yesterday that he cut the wires the day he was told of the transfer, the affidavit said.

There may have been "some sense of lack of appreciation for the job he may have been doing," Meehan told reporters at a news conference.

Well, he certainly got his wish - there's no way he'll get transferred to another assembly line now.

He appeared before a judge today, and was released on own recognizance. He also agreed to undergo psychiatric evaluation.

Both Boeing and the feds quickly settled on referring to this as "vandalism", rather than calling it sabotage. To me that suggested that they had an idea early on as to who and why.

They're still treating the second aircraft as a separate incident, and the investigation is ongoing.

Comical:

Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan and a one-time opponent of civil rights legislation, endorsed Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination on Monday.

Wright, Farrakhan, and now Byrd - Obama may have some difficulties with blue collar workers and bitter middle-staters, but he's close to getting that all-important hard-core racist demographic sewn up.

On the heels of attacking Republicans last week on what he called "fear-peddling" and "fear mongering", Obama misrepresents McCain's Social Security plan to a room full of seniors in order to frighten them:

"Let me be clear, privatizing Social Security was a bad idea when George W. Bush proposed it, it's a bad idea today," Obama said. "That's why I stood up against this plan in the Senate and that's why I won't stand for it as president."

Obama uses the same, tired, old politics tactic used before on this issue by his party. It's never been suggested by Republicans that all of Social Security be privatized, just a very tiny portion - yet Obama, just like the rest of the Democrat party, continues to paint it as if the plan transferred the whole ball of wax to penny stocks. But disclosing the truth wouldn't have the desired effect of fostering fear and uncertainty.

If an ordinary citizen like you or I went to a nursing home and told the residents vicious untruths about their future security and well-being for the sole purpose of frightening them, it would be characterized as cruel and terroristic, and rightly so. Yet for some reason, when a typical old-politics Democrat like Obama lies to the elderly with the intent to foment fear and panic, it's called "hope" and "change".

Elizabeth Edwards, in an email to Politico on whether she'll endorse a candidate:

"If I say I like chocolate ice cream better than strawberry, it doesn't mean either (1) that I like chocolate or strawberry as much as vanilla or (2) that I dislike strawberry. I say what I mean."

Yep, that clears it up. She goes on:

As for her personal relationships with Clinton and Obama, Edwards wrote, "I like both (or, counting spouses, all four) of these people personally. Do we play Boggle together or go biking together? No, although it would be okay with me if we did. They are interesting, compelling people with many of the same thoughts as I have about the issues that confront us."

Sounds like an invitation to me. Wonder if she'll serve ice cream?

AP reaches way down to dredge up some gratuitous victimization sympathy for Obama:

HONOLULU - Growing up as a young man of mixed race, Barack Obama benefited from the spirit of tolerance that defined Hawaii's racial climate.

His childhood in the country's idealized melting pot was far from painless, though.

As part of the islands' small group of black Americans in the 1970s, he encountered racism and struggled to form a black identity.

Obama's experience in Hawaii is echoed by other blacks, including some of his schoolmates, and challenges the state's vaunted image of racial harmony.

"A big joke amongst the brothers was you could be anything else but a brother and have free rein of the world in Hawaii," said Rik Smith, a black former schoolmate of Obama's at Punahou, an elite private school in Honolulu. "When it comes to people of color, black people, there's a huge amount of racism."

Obama has carefully avoided making his race the main issue, but his surrogates and the media use it at every turn. One has to wonder if there will be a backlash against the continuous drumbeat of "If you don't vote for Obama you're a bigot", which the above-quoted article serves to underline. This is a major expansion of the theme, showing Obama as a life-long victim of racism, and the votes that aren't cast for him are just a continuation of that same injustice.

In discussions with friends and around the workplace, I've heard lots of reasons for not supporting Obama. His race isn't among them. If Obama's supporters in the media keep pushing this theme, that could change. Fostering racial division isn't the best way to win folks over.

Funny thing is, I've been waiting for this headline to show up eventually:

No, I'm not knocking Meals on Wheels, I know they do some good things. But that headline nears perfection in victimhood, and that doesn't happen every day...

In a story about old atrocities committed in another country by non-Americans, you'd think the title would identify the perpetrator of the atrocity directly. Not AP, though. Check this headline:

Here's some of the article itself, nearly as bad:

DAEJEON, South Korea - Grave by mass grave, South Korea is unearthing the skeletons and buried truths of a cold-blooded slaughter from early in the Korean War, when this nation's U.S.-backed regime killed untold thousands of leftists and hapless peasants in a summer of terror in 1950.

With U.S. military officers sometimes present, and as North Korean invaders pushed down the peninsula, the southern army and police emptied South Korean prisons, lined up detainees and shot them in the head, dumping the bodies into hastily dug trenches. Others were thrown into abandoned mines or into the sea. Women and children were among those killed. Many victims never faced charges or trial.

There's always a way to blame America, isn't there?

You could also see this as a "name that party" exercise from history - can you guess who, in 1950, was in charge of the US military and his party affiliation from the article?

For E. Coli:

CHICAGO - Federal officials say a Chicago-based company is recalling beef products distributed in 11 states because of possible E. coli contamination.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture said Saturday that no illnesses have reported from the meat, produced by JSM Meat Holdings Co. The agency was uncertain how much meat is being recalled.

The meat being recalled is used in ground beef products. Included are 30-pound and 60-pound boxes and 47-gallon barrels of "MORREALE MEAT" beef products. The products have the number "EST. 6872" inside the USDA mark of inspection.

The products have 15 different labels including, "Boneless Chucks," "Boneless Clods," "Flat Rounds," "Gooseneck Rounds" and "Knuckle."

A message left for a company spokesman after business hours wasn't immediately returned.

The states affected are Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

E. coli, a potentially deadly bacteria, can cause diarrhea, dehydration and kidney failure.

Y'all be careful out there, okay?

Scott over at Power Line points out Obama's pre-loss excuse-making for the state of Kentucky:

"What it says is that I'm not very well known in that part of the country," Obama said. "Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle."

And Scott also points out that Illinois shares a border with Kentucky while Arkansas does not. Good catch.

Perhaps Obama is just too exhausted from his rigorous campaign schedule to remember the 58th and 59th states, Missouri and Tennessee, which fall between Kentucky and Arkansas.

Or, perhaps he was speaking metaphorically about the attitudes and intellect of the folks of Kentucky. Because we all know that Kentucky, like Arkansas, is full of bitter, gun-totin' bible-thumpin', racist backwater hicks who can't summon the intellect to see that Obama is the savior of us all.

LORETTO, Ky. - The day of campaigning had barely begun and Hillary Rodham Clinton was already eyeing the whiskey.

She was campaigning at a whiskey maker, and the article acknowledges that fact. But the accompanying pictures don't help:

I wouldn't be surprised if this gets pick up by the tabloids.

It's fairly predictable that when gay issues are in the news, the usual peripheral background stories appear. You know, the ones about a "gay gene", or the fluff pieces showing some gay couple raising a an apparently well-adjusted child, etc.

The ruling last week by the California Supreme Court on the state's gay-marriage ban has brought the "it's OK, monkeys and penguins do it" people out of the woodwork:

As gay couples celebrate their newfound right to marry in California and opposition groups rally to fight the ruling, many struggle with this question: Is homosexuality natural?

On this issue, Nature has spoken: Same-sex lovin' is common in hundreds of species, scientists say.

Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo, were a couple for about six years, during which they nurtured a fertilized egg together (given to them by a zookeeper) and raised the young chick that hatched.

According to University of Oslo zoologist Petter Böckman, about 1,500 animal species are known to practice same-sex coupling, including bears, gorillas, flamingos, owls, salmon and many others.

Animals also eat their own young and slaughter each other based on instinct, not morality or intelligent thought. Shouldn't we aspire to be a little better than that?

It's interesting that the biologist quoted in the article laments:

The funny thing is that people say homosexuality is unnatural, that non-humans don't engage in homosexual behavior, but that's not true. Then they'll say it's base and animalistic."

Can't imagine where they got that idea...

Breaking - Senator Ted Kennedy may have had a stroke:

BOSTON - Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts was hospitalized Saturday after suffering stroke-like symptoms, according to a knowledgeable official.

There was no immediate word on his condition.

The official who provided the information declined to be identified by name, citing the sensitivity of the events.

Hyannis Fire Lt. Bill Rex told The Associated Press that a 911 call came in from the Kennedy family compound at 8:19 a.m. A man was transported to Cape Cod Hospital and transferred by air at 10:10 a.m. from Barnstable Municipal Airport to Massachusetts General Hospital.

Kennedy, 76, has been in the Senate since election in 1962, filling out the term won by his brother, John F. Kennedy.

There's always the possibility that he did not suffer a stroke, but was rushed to the hospital out of an abundance of caution. Hopefully, that will be the case.

While we here at DGITL have differences with Sen. Kennedy's political views, we sincerely wish him a full and rapid recovery from his health misfortunes.

Update 1:34 PM EST: Fox News is reporting that friends and family are starting to gather, this suggests that the Senator's condition is indeed serious. The hospital is due to give a statement soon, I'll pass it on as I get it...

Update 1:49 PM EST: It's now being reported that he suffered a seizure, not a stroke.

Update 2:06 PM EST: It appears the Senator is stable, but will remain under observation for the time being while doctors investigate the cause of the seizure.

Update 4 (2:10 PM EST): One of the most disgusting behaviors of the left is their negative reaction when someone on the right suffers from health problems. The reaction to Tony Snow's cancer stands out as a good example. While it does happen less frequently on the right, it's no less repugnant. I'm frankly surprised and stunned to see this post at Right Wing News.

Update 5 (2:32 PM EST): Charles should take pride in his readers - they're just the opposite of the commenters at Huffington Post and similar sites.

Update 6 (2:43 PM EST): In fairness, the post at Right Wing News mentioned above was from a guest blogger, not from John Hawkins. Just want to be clear.

Since it's turning out to be "bitterness day" here at DGITL...

NARAL has endorsed the Messiah, and it's membership couldn't be unhappier:

"It's created a firestorm," said NARAL Pro-Choice New York President Kelli Conlin, who was on the conference call. "Everyone was mystified ... saying, 'What is the upside for the organization? And, frankly, [there was] a lot of concern about the donor base. ... There was real concern there would be a backlash." There was a backlash, and it was swift, starting with NARAL's own website. At last count, there were more than 3,300 comments in an electronic chat about the endorsement, the overwhelming majority of them negative. "Shame shame shame!" read one, with many correspondents threatening never to support NARAL financially again. "No more donations from me!!!" wrote another.

In Washington, two dozen women members of Congress who support Clinton held a quickly organized press conference to tout her abortion-rights record Wednesday night. Ellen Malcolm, founder of the abortion-rights women's fundraising group EMILY's List, sharply rebuked NARAL for its endorsement. Two former members of Congress (and Clinton supporters) -- Geraldine Ferraro and Pat Schroeder -- jabbed at NARAL for endorsing before the general election. "Looks like some higher ups at NARAL are trying to get jobs in the new administration ... nothing else makes sense to us," they wrote in a joint letter.

A number of feminist donors -- including several Obama supporters -- were shaking their heads at the timing, said a source who has worked on women's health and reproductive rights issues for 25 years and meets routinely with top contributors to the cause. "Without exception, the response was, 'It's a really stupid thing to do,'" said the source.

And even former NARAL Pro-Choice America President Kate Michelman, who is working on behalf of Obama, was taken by surprise, saying she learned of the endorsement only when a reporter called her. Although she wouldn't comment on the timing, she was clearly worried about damage to the larger cause of women's rights. "I don't think there's any question that there are strong Obama supporters who are pro-choice who are surprised by the decision, and probably some are upset by the decision, because NARAL's mission is of course to protect women's liberty -- especially reproductive rights, but women's liberty in general."

And here's this from the WomenCount PAC:

The newly formed WomenCount PAC strongly denounces the endorsement of Barack Obama by NARAL Pro-Choice America, joining mounting opposition to the move from Emily's List, a long list of woman Members of Congress, and other longtime supporters of NARAL.

"The idea that NARAL would create a divisive and potentially permanent rift in the pro-Choice movement is a shortsighted, irresponsible rush to judgment," says Allida Black, a founding member of WomenCount PAC and editor of The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers at George Washington University. "Using this important issue in such an irresponsible way can only be interpreted as blatant pandering."

Hey, gals, might I suggest redirecting your bitterness into guns, god, and xenophobia? It could prove to be therapeutic, and may even help you see an alternative to your abortion zeal.

And the Politico article on the subject goes nicely with the image above - "Hillary turns fire on media". Read it all, but here is the thrust of it:

Clinton has long complained that the media have treated her more roughly than Obama. But the campaign began courting a media backlash as a central strategy after her surprisingly narrow win in Indiana and crushing loss in North Carolina, which together were characterized by the press as sealing the Democratic presidential nomination for Obama.

Campaign aides were particularly livid at Russert's election night declaration on MSNBC that, "We now know who the Democratic nominee is going to be, and no one is going to dispute it" - even before the network called Indiana for Clinton.

Ironic that for years she's complained that the media existed as a right-wing attack vehicle, only now does she learn the truth. Maybe she should try clinging to... well, you know.

Via AP/Yahoo:

"Women are feeling a lot of sadness, disappointment and some anger as they look back at what happened in this race," said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.

And at least part of that anger, Walsh says, is directed at the sexism that some feel seriously harmed the former first lady's candidacy — from T-shirts bearing photos of Clinton and Obama with the slogan "Bros Before Hos" to Hillary Clinton nutcrackers sold in airports.

Question for the feminists - have you tried clinging to guns, god, and xenophobia? It works for the rest of us.

Or, at least that's the way it appears in this Des Moines Register article I ran across this morning while searching Yahoo News for McCain stuff:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain's family background as the son and grandson of admirals has given him a worldview shaped by the military, "and he has a hard time thinking beyond that," Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Ia., said Friday.

"I think he's trapped in that," Harkin said in a conference call with Iowa reporters. "Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous."
Advertisement

Harkin said that "it's one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that's just how you're steeped, how you've learned, how you've grown up."

He said that "I just want to be very clear there's nothing wrong with a career in the military" and that he has friends who are generals and admirals who have served the country well.

"But now McCain is running for a higher office. He's running for commander in chief, and our Constitution says that should be a civilian," Harkin said. "And in some ways, I think it would be nice if that commander in chief had some military background, but I don't know if they need a whole lot."

No friends with lower rank than Admiral or General? Elitist.

That last graph says a lot about the twisted viewpoint that Sen. Harkin holds. McCain doesn't count as a civilian to him, and I assume that would apply to me and many more like me as well, as I was a volunteer for 20 years in the Air Force.

I have news for Sen. Harkin - my military career did not strip away my citizenship, and Sen. McCain's service didn't strip away his. After retirement or separation from the military, we become civilians - unless Sen. Harkin can find some basis in law why we should be treated as some sort of sub-class of citizen with less rights than folks who served unwillingly. The contempt that the left holds toward the military usually does not surprise me, but this kind of distorted and sick view coming from a Senator still gets my blood boiling.

Update: Considering the source - I had forgotten Sen Harkin's past regarding his own military record. Thanks to Glenn for his somewhat better memory.

Yesterday I got an email from the NRCC blog:

If you're reading this blog, chances are you're not happy with Washington. A bipartisan poll conducted this month shows that 73% of Americans disapprove of the way Congress is doing its job. Americans are frustrated, and rightfully so.

Families today face challenges that yesterday's laws simply don't address. We need to fix government, and one solution is to update our laws so they provide America's families with more freedom in their jobs; greater healthcare and retirement security; safer communities; access to quality, affordable education; and the ability for future generations to compete in the global economy.

I read it to TB with the party identifiers removed, and she thought it came from a liberal. Apparently others see it that way, too, as the post has received close to 700 comments, nearly all of them negative.

When I first viewed the post there were only a handful of comments. The big boost seemed to occur after Michelle Malkin posted on it (No, I won't link - go find it yourself.).

One wonders if Tom Cole reads the comments to his posts. I further wonder if any of the comments will be taken seriously.

Somehow, I doubt it. And I hope they're not counting on donations from me.

Update (5:37 PM EST): Now nearing 1,000 comments. No change in mood.

Was to blame for those of you that could not get here over the last day and a half.

Apparently, cPanel mangled one of the server alias lines in the apache configuration during an update. I could see the blog's files through an FTP program, but going to the blog or Movable Type through a browser got a post-installation screen for cPanel.

Once I alerted Hosting Matters, they got right on it and fixed it yesterday evening. Thanks to Annette, who has fixed a couple of glitches for me in the past.

Sorry for the quietness this morning - had a busy work day.

Boeing started production again on Chinook helicopters. If there was any doubt that this was not an accident, the Pentagon has removed it by offering a $5,000 reward for information leading to the culprit.

I haven't had much time to scan news today, so please forgive me if any of this repeats what has already been reported. It's been confirmed to me that the washers were dropped into the oil sump of one of the transmissions - the one that combines the drive shafts from the engines and turns output shafts to the forward and aft rotors. The oil sump is protected by a debris screen which would have to be removed in order to place any foreign objects inside - not something that can happen by chance.

The wire harness was not cleanly cut, but looked as if someone used dull tin snips or scissors to sever, and struggled to do so. Both of the folks at the plant I spoke with agreed that this was not an accident.

I've heard that nailing the culprit may be difficult - Boeing has lots of security cameras in use to watch the perimeters of the buildings and grounds, but few positioned to view the interiors of buildings. While it may be possible that the list of potential suspects has been narrowed down to a short few, proof may be, for now, in short supply. The working assumption is that the acts occurred last weekend, when fewer folks were around to witness the damage.

Now that production has resumed, I expect the investigation will occur quietly in the background as most people will be focused on getting back on schedule. But I've been promised a call from a friend there should there be anything worth passing on. Stay tuned.

This morning I wrote on the topic of racism being used by the media to explain why anyone would want to vote for someone other than Obama. Charles at Little Green Footballs has another example:

Meanwhile, some white Americans are turning themselves inside out to come up with excuses for why they’re not supporting Obama. It seems like just yesterday that these folks were arguing there is no racism in the immigration debate, and now they’re insisting there is no racism in the presidential election.

The quote above is from CNN, another media outlet known recently for fawning coverage of the Messiah. Ironic is that the author suggests that blacks are supporting Obama because of his race, a notion that gets charges of racism when put forth by non-supporters. Follow the link above to LGF for more.

Update: In a similar vein, also check out this excellent post from Paul at Power Line: Loathing of fear on the campaign trail, Part One.

Yesterday, Boeing shut down production at the Ridley Park plant where CH-47 Chinook helicopters are assembled:

WASHINGTON - Army criminal investigators are looking into damage to two military helicopters on a production line at a Boeing Co. plant in suburban Philadelphia, prompting the company to shut down the line.

Rep. Joe Sestak, a Democrat whose district includes the plant, said Wednesday he was told that wires that appeared to be broken or severed were found in one helicopter and a suspicious washer was found in a second.

My sources (fair reliability, better than 60%) tell me that the "wires" were an entire wire harness, and the washer was more than one. The wire harness was apparently in an area where accidental breakage is highly improbable, and the washers were placed in an area where the only way they could have gotten there has to be planned and deliberate. I have a few more details but I'm waiting for confirmation before passing them on. However, I will share that at no time was there any danger of defective aircraft being delivered to the Army - Each and every aircraft is inspected thoroughly and passes a rigorous flight test regime before delivery. Additionally, these helicopters are put together the old fashioned way - by hand. That means lots of eyes on each aircraft each day, and chances are good that these problems would have been discovered outside of any quality process. I know many of these folks personally, and they take a great deal of pride in what they do.

Boeing sent home over 100 production workers yesterday, and todays production crew, including evening shifts, were told to remain home save for a minimal crew to assist in inspecting the other 6 aircraft on the assembly line.

As to a motive (should this be determined to be deliberate), there are several possibilities I can think of:

• Disgruntled employee - the most likely cause in my opinion. Someone who's been under fire at work recently may have decided to "get even".
• Corporate sabotage - Boeing is in a battle with Lockheed and Sikorsky over a $15 billion contract for USAF aircraft called CSAR, for Combat Search and Rescue. Boeing initially won the contract but the award has been tied up by numerous challenges to the government from the losers. One of the reasons Boeing initially won was low risk, a series of "mishaps" could certainly cast a shadow over that advantage.
• Domestic dissident - Chinook aircraft are, after all, military aircraft. There are a number of our own citizens who hold the administration, the military, and the war in contempt. Not everyone who works in the defense industry is a Republican.

I think the likelihood of international espionage is small, as this is a manufacturing site with the type of security you'd expect at a defense contractor. They don't do tours or allow unscreened visitors.

I have a personal interest in this one, so I'll be watching closely and let you know what develops.

The MSM is going scorched earth on Hillary. As she trounces Obama by a greater than 40 point margin in W. Va., an Obama-smitten media is going where they've never gone before in order to minimize the victory - racism in the Democrat party. From the New York Times, we're treated to this wrap-up on W. Va.:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton won a lopsided victory on Tuesday over Senator Barack Obama in the West Virginia primary, where racial considerations emerged as an unusually salient factor. Mrs. Clinton drew strong support from white, working-class voters, who have spurned Mr. Obama in recent contests.

The number of white Democratic voters who said race had influenced their choices on Tuesday was among the highest recorded in voter surveys in the nomination fight. Two in 10 white West Virginia voters said race was an important factor in their votes. More than 8 in 10 who said it factored in their votes backed Mrs. Clinton, according to exit polls.

Besides a few hints at the end, the article doesn't really say why the 80% for whom race was not an important factor voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. You'd think that would be the bigger story - that, for example, 53% of West Virginia voters felt that the Messiah was dishonest, apparently so much so that 8 of 10 of those actually favored the heroine of the Tuzla Dash at the polls.

For another good example, take this article by the Washington Post with the loaded title "Racist Incidents Give Some Obama Campaigners Pause" filled with examples of Obama workers being treated to racism as they courted registered Democrats for the Indiana primary:

Victoria Switzer, a retired social studies teacher, was on phone-bank duty one night during the Pennsylvania primary campaign. One night was all she could take: "It wasn't pretty." She made 60 calls to prospective voters in Susquehanna County, her home county, which is 98 percent white. The responses were dispiriting. One caller, Switzer remembers, said he couldn't possibly vote for Obama and concluded: "Hang that darky from a tree!"

You might think the "ugly truths" I reference in the title is that Hillary's base (and by proxy the Democrat party in general) is swimming with racists. Nothing could be further from the truth. (Both parties do have some individuals who are racists, although those of us on the right have argued for years that the Democrat party's policies are racist, as they discourage assimilation into and participation in the American dream.) No, the "ugly truth" is that the media is willing to paint large parts of the population as racist in order to secure the victory of a favored candidate.

Willing, too, is Obama's campaign. All of this is telegraphing Obama's (and the fawning media's) strategy for the fall, as hinted to by Obama's own campaign manager, David Plouffe:

I mean the vast, vast majority of voters who would not vote for Barack Obama in November based on race are probably firmly in John McCain's camp already.

If the Obama camp and the media are willing to go this route in a blue on blue contest, imagine what we'll see in the Fall. In spite of all the pretty rhetoric about new politics and civility, this is starting to shape up as the nastiest Presidential campaign in history.

Via AP/Yahoo:

Both the House and Senate are expected to approve, with bipartisan support, legislation Tuesday directing Bush to temporarily halt the shipment of about 70,000 barrels of oil a day to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Bush has refused to do so, arguing that this small amount of oil won't impact prices and that for security reasons he wants to increase the stockpile to its full capacity of 726 million barrels. It now has about 701 million barrels, equal to nearly two months of oil imports.

I have a relative who is a consultant to the oil industry - he tells me that this would have a small effect on prices, and would be factored out by the markets in short order. Of course, it also doesn't address the underlying problem - demand internationally is on the rise, and only tapping our own resources will provide a long term fix.

Yesterday I posted on the article from AP fact-checking the various proposals in play, but I didn't get back to it as I had planned. Two things stood out for me:

1. Each of the plans by Democrats would actually increase the pain at the pump. Increasing taxes and over-regulating always fails, nice to see an MSM article acknowledge it.

2. Each of the plans that would work have been stymied by Democrat obstructionism. The AP even inadvertently points out the irony of the ANWR debate - that results would be 10 years out, and had Democrats acted responsibly 13 years ago, we would be benefiting today.

Sadly, most politicians rarely look past the next election when considering policy. Help for the country that comes in a decade comes too late to help in re-election. Everyone should be reminding their Representatives and Senators that they have a greater responsibility.

Actually, I have a hard time believing this guy's story. But if it's true, it certainly breaks records for poor treatment of a passenger from an airline:

A New York man who says he was denied a seat on a five-hour jetBlue flight and was instead told to "hang out" in the plane's bathroom has sued the airline for $2 million, saying he suffered "extreme humiliation."

When Gokhan Mutlu arrived to check in for a jetBlue flight from San Diego to New York in February he was told the flight was full, according to the lawsuit filed in New York State Supreme Court.

But Mutlu was allowed to board after a jetBlue flight attendant agreed to give up her seat and travel in an airline employee "jump seat." It was not clear in the lawsuit whether the flight attendant was working.

However 90 minutes into the flight, the pilot told Mutlu the flight attendant was uncomfortable and he would have to give up his seat and "hang out" in the bathroom for the remainder of the flight, the lawsuit said.

The pilot "became angry at (Mutlu's) reluctance" and said Mutlu "should be grateful for being onboard," the lawsuit said. When Mutlu volunteered to sit in the "jump seat," he was told it was reserved for airline personnel.

At one point, the airplane experienced turbulence and Mutlu sat on the toilet seat without a seat belt, causing him "tremendous fear," the lawsuit said.

JetBlue was not immediately available for comment.

Every passenger and crew member is required have a seat with a safety belt. That's not jetBlue's rules, but the FAA's. Willfully disregarding FAA safety regulations would have serious consequences and the pilot on this flight would know that. While the FAA can fine carriers, suspension or revocation of licenses and permits are potential actions the FAA can take for such violations.

While it's possible that a single crew member could have taken leave of his/her senses in this case, what's the likelihood that the entire flight crew jumped the shark just for Mr. Mutlu's benefit?

Being in the aviation industry and also having traveled extensively, I've heard my share of horror stories and even witnessed a few. Unless there's a whole lot more to the story than the aggrieved passenger is telling, this one doesn't pass the smell test.

AP's H. Josef Hebert has an article out on the divide in Congress over how to deal with gas prices, and there's actually some well-deserved but rare (for AP) criticism of the Democrat's plans. They miss the boat somewhat on the analysis of the Republican proposals, but I'll take it overall as a refreshing view of the issues involved.

I don't often quote articles in their entirety, but I suspect this one won't survive the morning meetings at AP and will be altered to give a less-balanced view or pulled entirely.

WASHINGTON - As millions of people approach the summer vacation season under the threat of $4-per-gallon gasoline, Congress is scrambling to respond. But don't wait for anything that will drive down prices at the pump.

A Senate vote on a GOP plan is scheduled for Tuesday, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has promised to bring up a Democratic package before the Memorial Day congressional recess. Except for halting the flow of oil into the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve, neither plan is likely to go very far. Both will be challenged by filibusters by opponents, meaning they would require 60 votes to advance.

Here is a rundown:

THE DEMOCRATIC PROPOSALS.

_Enact a windfall profits tax on oil companies.

SPIN: Oil companies are making too much money, earning $123 billion last year while motorists faced soaring gasoline costs. Imposing a 25 percent windfall profits tax on the five largest oil companies and repealing $17 billion in tax breaks could help the shift away from fossil fuels toward alternatives. Taxes could be avoided if profits are used for refinery expansion or development of wind, solar or biomass projects.

FACT: Profits are large because the companies are huge, and oil now sells for well over $120 a barrel. The taxes could spur some new alternative energy projects, but economists say they also could reduce investments in oil and gas exploration, and are unlikely to affect prices. They could do more harm than good, says Robert Hansen, senior associate dean at Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business. "Anytime you put in a tax you create an incentive to avoid it," says Hansen.

___

_Create a law against energy price gouging and new rules to stem energy market speculation.

SPIN: The government must police the energy markets with a federal law against price gouging and new rules against market speculation. The proposal creates a federal price gouging law with civil penalties of up to $5 million during a presidentially declared energy emergency. The law would prohibit refiners, wholesalers and retailers from charging an "unconscionably excessive price." Traders would be required to put up more cash collateral in the energy futures markets to curb speculation.

FACT: Energy price gouging laws now in 28 states are uneven and inadequate to deal with energy market abuses. Congress has considered a gouging law since 2005. Separate versions have passed both the House and Senate, but never gained final approval. Critics say gouging is ill defined and the law amounts to price controls. Bush has threatened a veto.

A former Federal Trade Commission chairman argued such a law could do consumers more harm than good and may result in higher prices if providers, fearing stiff penalties, avoid selling fuel when prices soar.

Increasing cash collateral, or margins, in energy futures trading could curb speculation, but there might be unintended consequences. Such new requirements, said a spokesman for the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, which would enforce the new rules, "may drive traders to unregulated trading or overseas" without reducing market abuses.

___

_Take on the OPEC oil cartel.

SPIN: We need to stand up to the OPEC oil cartel. The Justice Department would be given authority to bring antitrust cases against countries that collude to fix prices as part of OPEC.

FACT: While politically popular, such a measure would probably not change OPEC production decisions and could provoke retaliation. Similar proposals have been debated in Congress since 2005. "It's a catchy phrase, but it doesn't have any substance," says energy consultant Robert Ebel of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

THE REPUBLICAN PROPOSALS.

_Pump oil from Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, now off limits.

SPIN: The coastal strip of ANWR, as the refuge is called, probably has 11 billion barrels of oil. At the rate of 1 million barrels a day, it would add to domestic production, reduce U.S. reliance on imports, lower prices and produce jobs. With modern technology wildlife and the environment can be protected.

FACT: Drilling in ANWR has been debated for 28 years and remains one of the most contentious environmental issues. Several times the House, under GOP control, has approved development; it passed Congress in 1995 only to be vetoed by President Clinton. Drilling supporters repeatedly have been unable to get the 60 votes needed to overcome filibusters and are unlikely to do so this time.

While ANWR has substantial oil, none would flow for 10 years. Even then, its impact on global production of 87 billion barrels a day will be minimal, energy experts say, as OPEC could adjust to compensate.

___

_Develop vast amounts of oil and natural gas in offshore waters now off limits.

SPIN: For a quarter century, energy development has been blocked in more than 80 percent of U.S. coastal waters, depriving the country of vast oil and gas resources. States should be allowed waivers to the moratoria and get some of the revenues from development.

FACT: Most areas of federal offshore waters outside the western Gulf of Mexico and off much of Alaska have been placed off limits to drilling by a succession of presidential orders and congressional action to protect tourist industries and avoid the risk of spills and environmental damage. The House has twice approved giving states the right to opt out of the federal ban.

___

_Ease permitting for new refineries.

SPIN: A shortage of refineries is fueling high gasoline and diesel prices. There has not been a new one built in 30 years, with environmental and other permitting problems contributing to the reluctance of oil companies to build new refineries.

FACT: The lack of new refinery construction has been more an issue of economics, not government regulations. While the oil industry has complained about permitting and environmental regulations, oil company executives also have said the permitting issue has not been a deciding factor over refinery expansion or construction. Refinery investments are based in expectations of increased demand.

Oil company executives, asked recently if they wanted to build new refineries, said no. In part, this is because of the growth of ethanol as a substitute for gasoline. The industry prefers to expand existing refineries.

___

_Allow coal-based diesel be used as motor fuel.

SPIN: Coal is the country's most abundant energy resource, and technology exists to produce diesel fuel from coal. A mandate to produce 6 billion gallons a year of coal-derived motor fuel by 2022 would contribute to greater energy independence and spur the industry's development.

FACT: The process requires large amounts of energy and results in greenhouse gas emissions, running counter to efforts to combat global warming.

I'll try to have more on this subject later today.

Via AP/Yahoo:

YANGON, Myanmar - The first U.S. relief airlift arrived in Myanmar on Monday after prolonged negotiations with the country's isolationist junta, which considers Washington its enemy and has restricted international aid to as many as 2 million cyclone victims.

The unarmed military C-130 cargo plane, packed with supplies, flew out of the Thai air force base of Utapao and landed in Yangon. Two more air shipments are scheduled to land Tuesday.

After the plane's arrival, the supplies were transferred to Myanmar army trucks.

Not enough, and not as fast as it needs to be.

Update: AP corrects, the flight hasn't yet landed, just launched:

YANGON, Myanmar - The U.S. launched its first relief airlift to Myanmar on Monday after prolonged negotiations with the country's isolationist junta, which considers Washington its enemy and has restricted international aid to as many as 2 million cyclone victims.

For Jenna Bush and her new hubby over at CBS News:

I hope they”ve both been sterilized so as not to spawn any more GOP scum.

With lots more over at the Pirates Cove.

Mostly funny, except the parts about Obama having ethical standards and not playing the race card, both of which we know aren't true. Especially funny is the part about the superdelegates choosing the candidate and not the people, since it is true. Selected, not elected, folks. Thanks to SNL for rubbing it in for my lefty-lemming friends:

Heh. I was thinking "Psycho".

A Red Cross boat filled with enough supplies for around 1,000 people sank this morning. At least the crew of 4 survived.

One wonders if the Myanmar government would have been too busy counting votes to distribute the supplies had the boat not sunk, though. The country's rulers continued with a referendum yesterday designed only to rubber stamp their grip on power. The ruling generals claimed a massive turnout as they placed polling places in close proximity to victims waiting for relief supplies. No, I'm not kidding - while they block foreign supplies, they expend their own resources to set up voting centers. Sick.

YANGON (AFP) - Myanmar's ruling generals said Sunday there was "massive turnout" in their national referendum, held despite pleas to devote their resources to saving more than a million victims of a devastating cyclone.

Even as aid groups warned that the official toll of 60,000 dead or missing could rise unless the neediest survivors get help immediately, the regime went ahead with Saturday's vote to ratify a new constitution.

Polling stations were set up close to makeshift camps for the homeless, while much of the international community urged the generals to focus on a relief effort stalled by their refusal to allow in most foreign aid workers.

But in a story that made no mention of the cyclone tragedy, the New Light of Myanmar newspaper -- a mouthpiece for the junta -- said some places had to extend voting hours to let everyone cast their ballot.

"The referendum was held successfully ... with massive turnout of the citizens," it said.

State television on Sunday continued to show pictures of the generals casting their ballots in a vote that critics said was intended only to strengthen their 46-year grip on power.

For the moment, all the rest of the world can do is sit and watch...

John Hinderaker has posted the entire opening remarks of Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona at yet another House hearing where the subject of torture is being demagogued by the left. It was excellent. Go read it all, but here's a sample:

Severe interrogations are rarely used. CIA Director Michael Hayden has confirmed that despite the incessant hysteria by a few, the water boarding technique, for example, has only been used on three high-level captured terrorists, the very worst of the worst of our terrorist enemies.

Director Hayden suspended the practice of water boarding by CIA agents in 2006. Before the suspension, he confirmed that his agency water boarded 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaida and Abdullah Hem Nashiri (ph), and each for approximately one minute.

But who are these people, Mr. Chairman? When the terrorist Zubaida, a logistics chief of Al Qaida, was captured, he and two other men were caught building a bomb. A soldering gun that was used to make the bomb was still hot on the table, along with the building plans for a school.

Rep. Franks is being generous - the incessant hysteria has been by much more than a few, and so successful (thanks to a sympathetic media) that large parts of the population believe that torture has been in widespread continuous use and still continues today. Still, the remarks as a whole are the best example of placing this issue in perspective I've seen.

I noticed the press' trumpeting Obama passing Clinton in super delegates today, and this from the AP story:

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama erased Hillary Rodham Clinton's once-imposing lead among superdelegates Saturday when he added more endorsements from the group of Democrats who will decide the party's nomination for president.

Remember, Democrats - in your party, only the elite decide. How does that make you all feel?

Charles nails Obama on his attempt to rewrite his own ignorant words in the pages of the New York Times:

Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that “for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state. Mr. Obama believes “that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need,” Dr. Rice said. “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”

Click through on the link above to LGF, Charles has posted video and quotes from Obama's own website that exposes Susan Rice's words as a cheap and sleazy whitewash. Just as Obama has rewritten history on his relationship with the racist Rev. Wright, his hope is that memories are just too short and the folks will be fooled.

I expect much more of this sort of thing once the general election ramps up. Shame is, he'll get away with most of it though the efforts of a complicit media.

David Crary of AP has an article today about the divide among feminists in the current Democrat primary. While the article is intended to be sympathetic, Crary's premise highlights the moronic nature of identity politics in the Democrat party:

Are the activist women supporting front-runner Barack Obama betraying their gender? Are Clinton's feminist backers mired in an outdated, women's-liberation mind-set?

Anyone that feels these questions are valid and worthy of exploration needs to get out more. While there's no question that aligning one's self with folks who are similar to you brings comfort in social and personal settings, it only serves to replace critical thought with emotional baggage when applied to politics.

Some of the quotes from Gloria Feldt in the article:

"We're squandering an opportunity to be seen as a voting bloc that turns elections," Feldt said. "Unless we are working together, in a strategically thought-out effort to vote in our own best interests, we are in danger of never having another election where people will say women can determine the outcome."

"I'd feel very sad to miss this enormous opportunity to bring the United States of America into the circle of nations that have had women as their leaders," she said. "I feel strongly when you have the opportunity to support a women so clearly qualified and capable, do it. Do it for your daughter."

Not knowing Ms. Feldt personally, I'm going to assume that in all other areas of her life she probably exhibits some substantial amount of critical thought in most of her non-political life decisions. When she needs a medical procedure, does she choose her doctor based on qualification or gender? Did she buy her house based on the gender of the builder or the quality of construction?

Why, then, would she vote for something as important as the leader of the free world on something as trivial as bringing the "United States of America into the circle of nations that have had women as their leaders"? Does this concept really trump more mundane considerations such as qualifications, experience, or judgment?

We see the same kind of unreasoned thinking in some of the groups backing Obama as well. According to recent polls, 90% of blacks support Obama. While the polls don't exactly tell us why, it isn't hard to figure out. Obama's support from the black community isn't because of his leadership experience (he has none), his legislative achievements (he has none), or his ground-breaking new ideas for America (he's lock-step with his party on every issue).

Again, I pose that most black Americans would make rational decisions in other areas of their lives - they shop for price and quality, they pick the best housing situation they can afford, make the best decisions they can for their children, all based on other factors than race. Is the Presidency so unimportant that symbolism replaces reason?

Someone please tell me which candidate is running on an anti-female or anti-black platform. I haven't heard Clinton or McCain propose the reintroduction of slavery. I haven't heard Obama or McCain propose taking away women's voting rights (and please don't give me any crap about abortion - that argument isn't about feminism and you all know it).

My sincere hope is that this election will expose the folly of identity politics once and for all, and folks will start basing their votes on what's best for the country. But the signs are that it will continue to be a replacement for common sense.

Since this divide ultimately benefits conservatism, I suppose I should be glad. But I'm not. Is that wrong?

Maybe he's just dreaming aloud about all the new states we're gonna get when he uses that charm of his to sway all of our enemies. Keep it in mind whenever he mentions the goal of a Palestinian state.

If you haven't heard, yet another comic book hero has made it to the big screen - and by all accounts, it's really good. I think it's odd that so many folks were surprised that Robert Downey Jr. turned out to be such a good fit in the role of Tony Stark. While his personal life has been (politely speaking) a mess, he's still a very talented actor, and the qualities that made him a big draw in years past really shine through in the clips I've seen.

I haven't decided whether I'm going to see this one in the theater yet. I usually wait for DVD for most films nowadays. But I'm pleased that Iron Man has been resurrected for a new generation of fans, as it was one of my favorites while growing up. The appeal for me was that Tony Stark wasn't blessed with super powers such as laser vision or unnatural strength, he was super due to his ingenuity and drive. In other words, anyone could become Iron Man if they applied themselves. This made the series unique and refreshing among the sea of aliens, magic and mutations that make up most comic characters.

If you haven't visited Colossus of Rhodey lately, Hube is an even bigger fan of Iron Man than I am. He's been posting trivia and background on the Iron Man comic series. Go on over and just keep scrolling.

Some folks just can't wait for the non-stop giveaways and entitlements to come from either a Clinton or Obama presidency. This one's clever, though - buy his vote and he'll use the proceeds to buy more votes.

So let the bidding begin:

Just a thought - will he withhold his vote if he doesn't get the 20 mil?

Unfortunately, it's the wrong one.

If you missed the O'Reilly interview of McCain last night, here's a clip where he promises virtually no help on increasing oil supply while waiting for the elusive next energy source to be developed in who knows how many years. No drilling in ANWR, and leaving production off shore up to the states - which is about the same as saying no drilling considering the constituencies involved.

I guess all we can hope for is that gas prices won't go up as much under McCain as they would under Obama. Big whoop.

Well, at least he'll give us border enforcement first, right? Um, no. Keep watching as he falls back on his comprehensive reform lines. I wouldn't be surprised if his poll numbers plummet ten points after this performance.

And folks are raising the specter of McCain losing his bearings. Shame it's not true, I think that might be preferable to his current lucidity.

Can't we get a mulligan on the primaries?

Update: While I'm loath to validate a trackback blackballing site, credit where credit is due - Allahpundit may be on to something here. Delaware, after all, is also a foregone conclusion.

Long-time readers may recall my last coffee pot purchase. Due to a design flaw, that pot has, for now, died. My previous recommendation of that pot now has a caution attached - don't use very finely ground coffee and you'll likely be happy.

The flaw has to do with where overflow from the filter basket goes - right back into the clean water reservoir. Last week, I bought some coffee that was very finely ground(Buck's County Coffee) with clogging as the result. I wound up making coffee by slowly pouring boiling water from the tea kettle through the grounds.

I went back to the local Linens & Things to find a replacement until I have time to take apart and clean the clogged pot. I hadn't intended to get another Cuisinart, but based on a very strong recommendation from the salesperson, I passed by the more full-featured models and picked up this one.

It hasn't the flaw of my clogged pot - the overflow goes in the carafe, not back into the reservoir. And it makes terrific coffee - as good as the model it replaced. On the minus side, it lacks bells and whistles like a clock and auto turn-off. The carafe pours well, but it's globe design makes getting the last cup awkward.

But it's the best no-frills pot I've ever owned. I heartily recommend to anyone who can live without the extras, and it's only $30.00 - far less than Cuisinart's full-featured models.

Once I get time to fix the clogged pot, the new one will be stored as a spare. Or maybe not. I haven't decided.

BTW, the Buck's County Coffee is very good if your pot can handle it.

After months of complaining (and getting nowhere), I've noticed that Blogrolling is finally working again. Every ping this week has gotten through with no errors.

To whoever fixed it, thank you.

Over $124 per barrel - Democrat obstruction of drilling and refining continues to wreak havoc with the economy.

Gateway Pundit says this this will be the #1 Issue in the 2008 Elections. I hope so. The Dems have been completely wrong on energy for decades, and their chickens are coming home to roost in $4+ gas. Anyone who seriously believes that higher taxes on the oil industry will lower gas prices is simply deluded.

Quick, what's the title of this post referring to?

If you guessed you, have a cigar. I'm not a breakfast person, and I'm grateful I didn't have to hold down an omelet while reading this:

Since they first walked the planet, humans have either buried or burned their dead. Now a new option is generating interest — dissolving bodies in lye and flushing the brownish, syrupy residue down the drain.

The process is called alkaline hydrolysis and was developed in this country 16 years ago to get rid of animal carcasses. It uses lye, 300-degree heat and 60 pounds of pressure per square inch to destroy bodies in big stainless-steel cylinders that are similar to pressure cookers.

Ick.

This kind of military display hasn't been seen on Red Square since before the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia has been spending more and more on their military in recent years, and Putin has done much to reverse freedoms gained over the past decade. The new president, Dmitry Medvedev (shown above in his new role of marionette) is continuing Putin's policies.

This is the Soviet-style saber-rattling that used to be aimed at the U.S., but it appears that this display of nuclear warheads and tanks is directed at next-door neighbor Georgia, where tensions have been increasing steadily over the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russia has been increasing troop numbers along the border and war could be coming soon in Abkhazia unless one side or the other backs down.

Although most Americans' attention is on the middle east, this area bears watching as events unfold.

LANSING, Mich. - Michigan Democratic leaders on Wednesday settled on a plan to give presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton 69 delegates and Barack Obama 59 as a way to get the state's delegates seated at the national convention.

Because Democrats are all about fairness, right?






Added - had trouble finding a Hillary photo worthy of the seething rage and anguish she must be feeling over Michigan's proposal. This will have to do:

Race-baiter Al Sharpton getting perp-walked:

You know, Al really should have taken the leap when he was offered that sit-com back in '05.

H/T Gateway Pundit.

A lot of buzz is being generated lately by the discussion on whether to eliminate the federal gas tax temporarily. McCain wants the "tax holiday", as does Hillary. Obama doesn't. None of the three get it right.

The key word is "temporary" when discussing the gas-tax holiday. Would such a break help ordinary folks? Sure. But not to any great degree, and just wait for the anger come September when prices suddenly jump 18 cents in one day. But the real problem with the gas tax holiday is that it addresses none of the underlying conditions that keep prices high.

Don't be confused, though. I'm not taking Obama's side. His opposition to the gas tax holiday isn't based on anything resembling sanity:

Obama said the proposal to suspend the 18.4 cents-a-gallon gasoline tax and the 24.4-cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day would provide little in actual savings to motorists. He said oil companies would quickly raise prices to make up the difference.

Couched in cynical anti-business tones typical of the hard left, Obama hides the fact that he, along with too many in Congress, is the reason for the high prices in the first place. Opposition to any reasonable expansion of domestic production is the core of $3.50+ gas prices, any will continue to be long after the debate about the gas tax holiday fades.

The oil companies have consistently operated on profit margins of around 8%. Most other industries operate on higher margins. Obama surely knows this, and his populist rhetoric on the topic ranks as some of his most blatantly dishonest.

What we really need (and aren't gonna get this election season) is a policy that allows exploration and production of U.S. oil assets, and a permanent reduction in gas taxes (50% would be a good start). Yes, it would take years for some of the benefits to be realized. So what? Do we really have to dismiss any policy that doesn't give results in a single term of office? I expect elected officials to do what's right for the country no matter how difficult or how long it takes. I'm really tired of instant gratification politics, and bet you are, too.

Of the three candidates, none currently have policy stances that will help at the gas pump, and two have policies that will cause great harm. McCain isn't completely opposed to new drilling, but seems to be too sensitive to environmentalists, who oppose any drilling at all. Clinton and Obama (who both oppose drilling) both want to raise taxes on oil companies, which has historically proven to raise gas prices, not lower them.

It's sad that we have to choose on the basis of who would do the least amount of harm to ordinary consumers, but given that it's all we have, McCain is the clear winner on energy policy.

BTW, am I the only one who's tired of hearing how good we have it here at $3.50 compared to Europe at $7-8+? France, Germany, and the UK pay the same for a barrel of oil that we do, the only reason their pump prices are so high is because their outrageously high taxes are even more outrageously higher than our outrageously high taxes. It's a model unworthy of either comparison or emulation.

If a pandemic hits:

I guess they have to plan for these things, even though it's gonna cause a lot of anguish for the folks who have loved ones in the "let die" categories:

People older than 85.

Those with severe trauma, which could include critical injuries from car crashes and shootings.

Severely burned patients older than 60.

Those with severe mental impairment, which could include advanced Alzheimer's disease.

Those with a severe chronic disease, such as advanced heart failure, lung disease or poorly controlled diabetes.

What do you think? Should these decisions be made in advance? If so, should they be advertising it?

Unlike some folks, she was able to recognize that Jeremiah Wright's racism and hatred of America were potentially harmful to her career:

Winfrey was a member of Trinity United from 1984 to 1986, and she continued to attend off and on into the early to the mid-1990s. But then she stopped. A major reason—but by no means the only reason—was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

According to two sources, Winfrey was never comfortable with the tone of Wright's more incendiary sermons, which she knew had the power to damage her standing as America's favorite daytime talk-show host. "Oprah is a businesswoman, first and foremost," said one longtime friend, who requested anonymity when discussing Winfrey's personal sentiments. "She's always been aware that her audience is very mainstream, and doing anything to offend them just wouldn't be smart. She's been around black churches all her life, so Reverend Wright's anger-filled message didn't surprise her. But it just wasn't what she was looking for in a church." Oprah's decision to distance herself came as a surprise to Wright, who told Christianity Today in 2002 that when he would "run into her socially … she would say, 'Here's my pastor!' " (Winfrey declined to comment. A Harpo Productions spokesperson would not confirm her reasons for leaving the church.)

Got that? She recognized how divisive Wright was, and exercised good judgment in extracting herself from TUC.

Very smart, that Oprah - a person with poor judgment might have, you know, just pretended that he didn't know who and what Wright was until the heat from the media attention forced him to do something.

Still very busy at work, but I expect things to lighten up some this week. Am teaching and developing courses for multiple customers, lots of overtime. Since I'm salaried, though, it doesn't help the paycheck as much as you might think.

Thanks to you all for stopping by, I should be resuming regular posting starting tomorrow.

LB