Ken Berwitz

Two polls came out today.  One is from the Pew Center and the other is from Quinnipiac College.  Both are highly respected as national political polling goes.

-The Pew Center poll shows that, in a head to head race, Hillary Clinton would beat Rudy Giuliani  by 51% to 43%,

-The Quinnipiac poll shows that, in a head to head race, Rudy Giuliani would beat Hillary Clinton by 45% - 43%

Two major polls released the same time and Hillary Clinton's voter support differs by 8%

Now why in the world would you pay attention to any of this?

Ken Berwitz

What is it with a segment of so-called "celebrities"?

They supported tookie williams, the guy who murdered several innocent people in Los Angeles;

They supported saddam hussein, by demanding we leave him alone to starve his people and make war on his neighbors;

They support fidel castro, the murderous communist dicator of Cuba;

They support mumia abu-jamal (born wesley cook), the Philadelphia cop killer;

And they support hugo chavez, the lunatic dictator of Venezuela.

Here is the story, courtesy of  the Associated Press:.

Supermodel Naomi Campbell Visits Chavez

19 hours ago

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — British supermodel Naomi Campbell met privately with President Hugo Chavez on Tuesday, becoming the latest in a series of celebrities hosted by the Venezuelan leader.

Campbell flashed a smile to reporters as she arrived at the presidential palace, but said little about what she hoped to discuss with Chavez.

"I've been here before actually," she said. "A beautiful country, very tropical. You've got great waterfalls."

Then, before turning to walk inside, she added: "I'm not going to be political. Thank you very much."

Last month, Chavez met in Caracas with American actor Kevin Spacey, who praised the Venezuelan government's efforts to support film-making. The Venezuelan President also has hosted recent visits by Hollywood stars including Sean Penn and Danny Glover..

Don't you just love the quotes I've put in bold print?  This isn't political, mind you, its just that there are such nice waterfalls.......

Sometimes I think that, in order to become a celebrity, some percentage of them have to remove their sanity chip, which is then stored until they either grow up or derive no publicity benefit for posturing to the hard left -- whichever comes first.

Naomi, don't forget to say hello to hugo for george and kos.  They all thank you very much.

Ken Berwitz

Harry reid is at it again.

Now he's blaming the California forest fires, which have occurred just about every year I can remember (I'm 61 years old) on....global warming.

Yep, global warming.  That's what did it.  Just ask harry.

This is so blatant an attempt to politicize a natural disaster that it's sickening even by reid's standards.  And he doesn't have any standards.

Here, courtesy of The Las Vegas Sun, is the relevant news story (complete with an editorial comment by the writer that blew me away - and which I've put in bold print):

.

Reid’s inconvenient theory will get House airing

Ken Berwitz

I don't think so.

But since Jack Kelly's over-optimistic analysis does have a number of good points, I am posting it below:.

GOP sweep in the offing?

By Jack Kelly

	>

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Perennial presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, a Democratic congressman from Ohio, told a group of bloggers last week he plans to force House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to take up his measure to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney.

Ms. Pelosi "is working very quietly and very effectively behind the scenes" to gather votes to impeach President Bush, Rep. Diane Watson (D-Cal) told a town hall meeting in Los Angeles Oct. 17.

Democrats compound their foreign policy follies by trying to give college tuition breaks and driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, and by proposing humongous tax increases. After a glimpse of Democrats in power, Republicans don't look so bad. .

Let me repeat; I don't expect any such sweep. 

But, then again, I didn't expect a Democratic sweep in 2006 either.

Ken Berwitz

I read a poll recently that indicated half the country thinks we are in a recession.

That's fair enough, if you consider that most of the economic news being reported by mainstream media is bad.  That's not to say most of the news itself is bad, only that most of what is being reported is bad.

Here is a case in point.  Look at this Associated Press article and tell me whether the news is good or bad today:.

Economy Logs Brisk 3.9 Percent Growth
Wednesday October 31, 9:20 am ET
By Jeannine Aversa, AP Economics Writer Economy Grows at Brisk 3.9 Percent Pace in Summer, Best Performance in 1 1/2 Years

Ken Berwitz

Here is the take on last night's Democratic debate from Nedra Pickler of the Associated Press. 

While I don't agree with every word, I think she did e very nice job of encapsulating what happened.  See if you agree.

As usual, the bold print is mine:.

Clinton Gets No Love in Democrats Debate

Oct 31, 3:38 AM (ET)

By NEDRA PICKLER

PHILADELPHIA (AP) - In the City of Brotherly Love, there wasn't much for a sister.

Ken Berwitz

I watched most of last night's Democratic debate.  Here are my impressions, not necessarily in order of importance:

-Much to my surprise, Tim Russert and Brian Williams asked serious, direct, hard-hitting questions.  They tried to pin down each candidate on specifics.  I don't recall ever seeing more meaningful questioning in a debate than in this one.  I congratulate them both, and hope they do exactly the same if they host a Republican debate.  Questions and follow-ups like theirs is what makes watching one worthwhile.

I also recommend that Chris Matthews watch and rewatch the performance of his two colleagues, to learn how it's done.  He isn't in the same league as Russert or Williams.  Not even close.  No one watches a debate to hear the moderator.  And Matthews (or Mouthews as I usually call him) thinks everyone wants to hear him above all others.

-Yes, "the men" did gang up on Hillary Clinton. What would anyone expect them to do?  She is the front runner, the one every one of the others is behind and has to surpass to win.  So of course they went after her -- as they would have gone after any front runner, male or female. 

Why should this in any way be framed as some kind of affront to women?  Do me a favor and spare me the politics of personal plumbing.  If I want whining I'll go to a day care center just before snack time.

-When Senator Clinton was finally, at long last, subjected to real questioning rather than the puff-piece interviews she has orchestrated all these years, she was terrible.  Talk about taking both sides of the issues!  She made John Kerry look decisive and single-minded by comparison. 

Was Ms. Clinton a disaster?  Not entirely - that's the best thing I can say about her.  Hillary has all the dishonesty of her husband and about 20% of the ability to make it sound good.  No wonder Republicans want to run against her.

-Barack Obama was no great shakes either, but he came out significantly better than Ms. Clinton.  Obama nailed Clinton on her war vote - which she makes easy because she takes both sides on the war - and talked a good game about bringing people together.  Hillary Clinton could only reference bringing people together if she were doing a standup comedy routine.

-John Edwards came across very well, I thought.  But that requires you to not know a thing about him.  If you do, what he says is so far removed from the way he lives his life that hearing him mouth his of-the-people pieties is like chewing on tin foil. 

However, since a great many people don't remember, or even know, about the $400 haircuts, the 28,000 square foot house and the way he made his vast fortune, he probably did best among the three real players.

-Joe Biden sounded like a shoot-from-the-hip idiot.  His insult of Rudy Giuliani is a great soundbite (paraphrased, "all he says is a noun, and verb and 9/11").  But it is disproven every time Giuliani speaks, because it is a ridiculous lie.

One of the candidates, I don't remember if it was Biden or someone else, called Giuliani the most underqualified person running for president in either party.  In reality, Giuliani was a hugely successful US Attorney, a hugely successful two-term mayor of the largest city in the country and has run a highly successful business since then.  Compare those credentials against any one of the candidates on that podium last night (other than Bill Richardson, who has no chance of winning) and Giuliani comes out looking like Superman.

-Chris Dodd is meaningless to this debate, since he has no support whatsoever.  And lucky for him that this is true.  If he were a serious candidate someone might have asked him about his part in making sure companies like Arthur Andersen could cook the books for Enron. 

-Bill Richardson, it seems to me, is auditioning for a Vice Presidential nomination.  The good news for him is that, last night, he presented himself more attractively than I have ever seen him.  He was articulate, sounded natural/unscripted, and made several very salient points.  The bad news is that he nailed Hillary.  And I do not think she could look past that to select him as her running mate.  If I'm wrong (and God knows that has happened), he'd be an excellent choice for her if she's nominated.

-Dennis Kucinich would need remedial help to achieve joke status.

Ken Berwitz

Robert Goulet died today, while waiting for a lung transplant.  He was 73 years old.

I never cared much for his singing - I always thought of him as having an amazingly resonant voice, but not much feel for putting over a lyric. 

Obviously, though, I was in the minority.  Mr. Goulet had a long, successful career as a grammy award winning singer, a stage performer ("If Ever I Would Leave You" was the show-stopper of Camelot) and an actor.

Goulet recently fought through a bout with colon cancer.  But then he was diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis, and that is apparently what did him in.

I'm sorry to see Robert Goulet go.  May he rest in peace.

Ken Berwitz

As of 6:30PM today, there is nothing about this on the MSNBC website. Or cbsnews.com.  Or abcnews.com

Since it is news about Iraq, you probably have guessed that it must be good news - because if the news were bad the networks would be featuring it. 

And if that is your guess, you are 100% correct.  Let me show you:.

Iraqi Security Forces rescue sheik hostages

Tuesday, 30 October 2007

Multi-National Corps – Iraq Public Affairs Office, Camp Victory APO AE 09342 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE RELEASE No. 20071030-09 October 30, 2007 Iraqi Security Forces rescue sheik hostages Multi-National Division – Baghdad PAO BAGHDAD – Soldiers with the 9th Iraqi Army Division, led by Maj. Gen. Riyahd, conducted a mission to rescue abducted sheiks Oct. 29. The mission was conducted to free sheiks from Diyala that were kidnapped in the Shaab area of northern Baghdad the day prior.  The mission was supported by U.S. military advisors to the Iraqi Army and Soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division and the 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment. The mission resulted in the rescue of seven sheiks, the capture of four abductors and the killing of at least three extremists at the location where the sheiks were being held.  The body of an eighth sheik was recovered at the scene.  The rescued sheiks were taken to a nearby Iraqi Army facility where they received medical attention.  Several stated they had been beaten with a tire iron.  The sheiks also stated that they have no doubt that their abductors were Shi’a extremists.  “The execution of this mission shows how far Iraqi Security Forces have come,” said Brig. Gen. John F. Campbell, deputy commanding general for maneuver for Multi National Division – Baghdad.  “The 9th Iraqi Army, led by General Riyadh, reacted very quickly to intelligence they received; they planned and then organized their forces, and executed a tough and precise mission with support from the Coalition.  They are well on their way to being the pre-eminent security force for the people of Iraq.” Iraqi and Coalition Forces continue to hunt all those responsible for the abductions.

.

What excellent news!  The sheiks, who were kidnapped for the crime of  trying to work with us, were rescued by a coalition of both Iraqi and US forces.  And Iraqi forces operatedas full equals alongside US troops.

This is exactly what we hope will happen.  Iraqi forces increasingly are showing that they can handle their county's security, and therefore we can free up our own troops.  If this trend continues (and the rescue described above is far from the first instance of it happening recently) Iraq will soon be able to maintain its own democracy with minimal help from us.

Now, why isn't this a lead story on all three network news sites?  Why does it not even exist on those sites?

The only reason I can think of is that news this good is anathema to them.  Car bombs that kill people are news to the media elite crowd, but not news which indicates that President Bush's strategy is working and there is real hope for a victory in Iraq. 

No, no no.  That doesn't fit the model which has been carefully built by NBC, CBS, ABC and a great many other media venues.  We can't have the sheeple...er, people knowing that Bush might be right.  That's not going to happen.  Better to just ignore it entirely. 

Maybe there will be a car bomb tomorrow and we can do a lead story on Iraq again.  If not, why bother to file a report?

-------------------------

UPDATE:  ABC news has put up an Associated Press report about the sheiks.  That leaves NBC and CBS.

Ken Berwitz

Ron Paul will not be the presidential candidate of the Republican party. 

But despite going nowhere presidentially, Paul has developed a small, but intensely dedicated following - more among Democrats than Republicans, it seems (primarily because of his Murtha-like opposition to the war in Iraq). 

For this reason, you should be aware of the open letter sent to him this past Friday by Michael Medved, the conservative, Jewish movie critic and radio talk show personality.  I think you'll find it more than a little interesting..

Posted by: Michael Medved  at 6:30 PM

Ken Berwitz

Periodically I put up President Bush's approval ratings versus those of the Democratic congress -- a congress that supposedly was put in power because of dissatisfaction with the President.

Well, today's the day.

As usual, I went to www.pollingreport.com and looked at the latest polls for both President Bush and congress.  You can too, it's as easy as can be.

Here are the data as of today:

In the last seven major polls:

-President Bush averages 34% approval;

-The Democratic congress averages 25% aproval.

This continues a trend we have seen for months.  Whereas congress' approval ratings were higher than those of President Bush at the start of the year, this has reversed and now Bush is significantly higher than congress.

You, of course, know this as well as I do because media - which love to tell you about Bush's low ratings - have trumpeted this turnaround just as loudly.  Right?  Isn't that right?  Hello......?

Well, wrong.  In actuality, media have, for the most part gone mute as this turnaround occurred. 

The same media which couldn't wait to tell you about President Bush's sinking approval ratings are amazingly unwilling to report that Bush's numbers are on the rise while congress is falling through a trap door.

Could this be media bias?   Naaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh.

Ken Berwitz

As you may know, FEMA ran a fake "press conference" last week, with its own people asking the questions instead of actual reporters -- which no doubt accounts for the friendly tone of the questions.

You would have to look long and far to find a more asinine, stupid, shortsighted, dishonest event. 

Here, courtesy of www.hotair.com, are the particulars as well as the aftermath:

.

Video: FEMA’s fake press conference; Update: First head rolls? Update: Chertoff unloads

posted at 6:03 pm on October 26, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend | regular view

My heart sank when I heard this happened on Tuesday, as my two Media PCs only retain stuff for three days. Sure enough, nothing on PCs 1 and 2. But what about Tivo? Jackpot. Here it is, preserved for posterity, the “press” conference that wasn’t as it aired on MSNBC. WaPo exposed it this morning in a column written by Al Kamen. The man at the podium is Vice Adm. Harvey Johnson. Quote:

He was apparently quite familiar with the reporters — in one case, he appears to say “Mike” and points to a reporter — and was asked an oddly in-house question about “what it means to have an emergency declaration as opposed to a major disaster declaration” signed by the president. He once again explained smoothly…

“And so I think what you’re really seeing here is the benefit of experience, the benefit of good leadership and the benefit of good partnership,” Johnson said, “none of which were present in Katrina.” (Wasn’t Michael Chertoff DHS chief then?) Very smooth, very professional. But something didn’t seem right. The reporters were lobbing too many softballs. No one asked about trailers with formaldehyde for those made homeless by the fires. And the media seemed to be giving Johnson all day to wax on and on about FEMA’s greatness.

Of course, that could be because the questions were asked by FEMA staffers playing reporters. We’re told the questions were asked by Cindy Taylor, FEMA’s deputy director of external affairs, and by “Mike” Widomski, the deputy director of public affairs. Director of External Affairs John “Pat” Philbin asked a question, and another came, we understand, from someone who sounds like press aide Ali Kirin.

White House spokesman Dana Perino has since condemned the subterfuge and FEMA has apologized, with reprimands possibly on the way. Painfully obvious exit question: If reporters didn’t have time to get to the presser, why not have Johnson simply read a statement and then spontaneously address questions they’d received in the field instead of having staffers pose them as impostors?

Update: I copied comments from the headlines item over to this post.

Update: Three days after the fake presser, one of the questioners has himself a new job. Kicked upstairs?

Update: Chertoff’s promising “appropriate discipline.” Quote: “I think it was one of the dumbest and most inappropriate things I’ve seen since I’ve been in government.”.

Could this be more pathetic?  If so, tell me how - I dare you.

Frankly, an apology is not good enough.  Mr. Johnson should be canned, period.  There is no other way to begin to retrieve FEMA's credibility.

Ken Berwitz

Why is it that, just about every year, we see a spate of damaging forest fires in California?  Is it just an inevitable event or are there reasons it happens that can be addressed?

I'm no expert on this subject and don't pretend to have any answers.  But I read a piece by someone who is and does, which is a real eye-opener. 

Please read this and, if you are like me, you will learn a great deal about why these fires are occurring and how politics is standing in the way of minimizing them.  Pay special attention to the latter part of the article, which spells out the politics I'm referring to:.

Ecoterrorism Kills
But not necessarily the way you think.

By Robert J. Smith

With reports that some of the fires in California may have been started by arsonists, some people have speculated that all the fires were set by ecoterrorists. What these accusations seem to overlook, however, is that the nation has long faced a much deeper and more insidious philosophical ecoterrorism.

This philosophical ecoterrorism envisions and strives for an mythical, pre-settlement America — while ignoring the fact that we have 300 million people living here. This philosophy, combined with governmental inefficiencies, has created the conditions under which forest fires flourish and eventually spread out to destroy private property, as has occurred with the most recent catastrophe.

Every one of this month’s 15 major southern California’s fires started on government lands — mainly in the three or four National Forests that stretch 250 miles from Mexico into Ventura County. These are the Cleveland National Forest, the San Bernardino National Forest, Angeles National Forest, and Los Padres National Forest. Also the Malibu fire came down out of the infamous Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. The eighth-largest fire was at Camp Pendleton Marine Base, which is now run largely as an inviolate Endangered Species Preserve.

These fires have burned out of control for a number of reasons. First, the federal government has mismanaged all the National Forests for a century — believing fires were unnatural and evil, the government sought to extinguish at all costs. The Smokey the Bear era — beginning in the 1940s — exacerbated that policy, pushing to stop every fire within 24 hours.

By contrast, the pre-settlement, open, park-like forests naturally were characterized by relatively frequent ground-hugging low-intensity underbrush clearing fires. However, the action on the part of the feds to stamp these out for about 100 years, filled the forests with duff, needles, cones, deadwood, and downed wood, and thousands of small undergrowth trees — what amounts to a tinder box. In addition, these conditions stressed and weakened the entire forest.

Then the nation let the Greens and “deep ecologists” move us from the era of mismanagement into the trendy era of no-management. This idea they dubbed “natural regulation.”

The “natural regulation” philosophy allowed forests to whither and die from drought, over-crowding, insects, beetles, diseases, and eventually fire. Greens and federal bureaucrats accepted this result simply because they deemed it “natural.”

President Reagan temporarily ended the let-burn policy in the National Parks following its ”successful” debut in the 1988 Yellowstone National Park fires, but he was shortly out the door, and the deep Green philosophy was quickly and quietly reinstated.

As a result of the reigning philosophy and its consequent regulations, we now can’t cut trees, thin over-crowded forests, or clear out underbrush. We can’t spray for insects or beetles, and we can’t harvest green trees. We also can’t salvage brown or black trees while the wood is still valuable.

The California government has given the okay for salvage of standing dying/dead brown and black trees, but unfortunately, there is no place to take them.

Green government policies have shut down hundreds and hundreds of sawmills. California sawmills have dropped from the 200 that were functioning 20 years ago, to about 38 today — a 70-percent drop. No one is going to salvage trees if they can’t process them, and the last sawmill in southern California near the end of the Sierra Mountains is on the verge of closing. It’s down to one shift and only enough logs already on the deck to last until June. (The ESA and courts closed all the National Forests around that sawmill because the fisher, a mink relative, may be added to the endangered species list.) If the sawmill closes, the nearest sawmill would be at least 500 miles north.

The green philosophy certainly reigns supreme. But rather than being directed by some “monkey-wrenching” Earth Liberation Front (ELF) activists, it’s advanced by our national acceptance of their philosophy, and implemented by our presidential advisers, Cabinet members, a vast number of the 70,000 people at the Department of Interior, and lord only knows how many of the 30,000 people in the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture. It’s also upheld by our courts.

Supposedly the passage of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 was going to stop these problems. Many in Congress, horrified by the catastrophic fires in 2000, 2001, and 2002, worked with the Bush Administration to solve the problem in 2003. At the height of the very similar October 2003 southern California fires and after 3,000 homes were destroyed and 17 lives lost, Senator Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) finally agreed to let the Healthy Forests bill go through. But then the Santa Anas fires stopped, cool fogs, rain and snow arrived, and Boxer refused to go to conference. After a month of wrangling, she finally capitulated, and Bush signed the bill on December 3, 2003.

Nonetheless, it didn’t work — just try to use the law. Try to salvage dead trees while the wood is still valuable. Greens will find a judge who will grant a temporary injunction of three months or so — covering the warm season when you can get into the mountains and remove trees. Then snow and ice hit the mountain forests and the standing deadwood has another year to rot and decay, become discolored, and lose value. And you can trust that when the next warm season rolls around, the process will be repeated.

There is a kind of “ecoterrorism” that is destroying America, but it takes the form of green policies. And though it may not be called arson, it’s much worse than the work of some lone ELF disciple.

.

Ken Berwitz

First off, let me assure anyone reading the title that it is not a physical reference. 

That said, Mitt Romney - whom I am not particularly enamored of because he has a penchant for changing his views to suit the office he is running for - had a very good analysis of Hillary Clinton during his interview with Sean Hannity last night.

The interview will be aired on Hannity & Colmes tonight at 9PM.  But, courtesy of Time Magazine (www.thepage.time.com) I am able to post his comments this morning.  As usual, the bold print is mine:.

MITT ROMNEY COMPARES HILLARY CLINTON TO AN “INTERN” ON FOX NEWS CHANNEL “HANNITY & COLMES”

Romney: Senator Clinton Is “A Lovely Person” But “Fundamentally Wrong”

Mitt and Ann Romney sat down today, Monday October 29, 2007, with FOX News Channel’s Sean Hannity to discuss Senator Judd Gregg’s (NH-R) endorsement of Romney and what Romney thinks of Hillary Clinton. The complete interview will air on Hannity & Colmes tonight at 9PM ET.

Following are excerpts from the interview:

ON HIS THOUGHTS ON HILLARY CLINTON AS A PRESIDENT:

HANNITY: It appears Hillary is the inevitable nominee for the Democrats. I want to ask both of you this question. What do you think of Hillary Clinton?

M. ROMNEY: You know, I’m sure she’s a lovely person. I just think she would take America in a course towards Europe, which would lead us to be a weaker nation.

We’d have a weaker military. I think we’d have a weaker economy. I think our family structure will be weaker on all those bases. I think America would not remain the great nation it has always been if she were the leader, and that’s because this is such a critical time.

We face such unusual challenges. And despite being a very lovely person, I think she’s just fundamentally wrong in the course that she would set for America.

ON CLINTON IN PRIMARIES/GENERAL ELECTION:

HANNITY: Yes. She recently said, Governor, in an article with David Yepsen in “The Des Moines Register” — she talked about how Iowa “would be a special burden” for her, or special obstacle for her, because when you look at the numbers, how can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi, talking specifically about the numbers of women that have had — had been elected to high office.

Is that what you have found? She since has apologized to Mississippi over this.

M. ROMNEY: Well, you know, I don’t whether she’s going to be able to attract voters in those states. I think she’ll be able to get a certain portion of the Democratic base and a number of Independents.
But I fundamentally think the people will not vote based upon someone’s gender or their race, or their religion, for that matter. I think they’re going to look at what their vision is for the future of the country, where they would take it, and whether they had the experience and skills to actually lead a nation of our scale in such a critical time.

And I think the greatest drawback beyond the direction she’d take us is that she’s never run anything. She’s never had the occasion of being in the private sector, running a business, or, for that matter, running a state or a city. She hasn’t run anything, and the government of the United States is not a place for a president to be an intern. You need to have experience actually leading and running things.

HANNITY: She says her experience makes her uniquely qualified to be president at this time.

M. ROMNEY: I’d suggest it makes her uniquely unqualified in that she is one of the few that really has not had experience in leading in a significant way an enterprise of some kind, to know how you bring teams together, how you work on key challenges, how you’re able to bring together public support and pull the organization in a direction that allows it to be successful.

HANNITY: Then why is she so popular? And based on what you’re saying here, why do you think she has this level of popularity? Is it just we are a star-struck culture?

M. ROMNEY: Well, there’s a degree of familiarity with people whose names are well known, and she can say things that sound popular. But you have to look beyond saying things to say, can she actually do something and would she do something that would make America stronger or not? And I don’t think she has a record of showing that she’s able to accomplish things and lead an organization, lead something as large as the government of the United States with millions of employees.

And then the question is, would she take us in the right direction?
And I think ultimately, she will not be successful because face to face in debates with me or whoever our Republican nominee is, people will recognize that we’re not going to have a safer, stronger America if she were president..

Like him or not, Romney is 100% correct here, and is providing one of the key attack lines that any Republican nominee will certainly use against Ms. Clinton - she has no qualifications to be president.

What exactly are her qualifications? 

-That she was a lawyer?  So what?  There are countless lawyers; 

-That she was a staff lawyer during Watergate?  Her performance there was so shoddy and dishonest that the chief counsel, (Democrat) Jerome Zeifman, refused to give her a reference..I believe she was the only lawyer on that staff who didn't get one.  In his own words, .  "...Hillary lied to me and the committee on several occasions. Thus, after the disbanding of our impeachment staff I decided that I could not recommend her for future employment in government service".;

-That she became a partner in a (thoroughly corrupt) law firm?  It happened on the same timeline that her husband became the state's Attorney General, and without her so much as trying a case.  It wasn't an accomplishment, it was a gift to curry favor with Bill;

-That she became a senior partner in the law firm when her husband became Governor?  See previous entry;

-That, while the Governor's wife, she was responsible for improving education in Arkansas?  It went nowhere.  No improvement at all.  From #49 out of 50 to #49 out of 50.  I've read that - a number of years after her tenure as chair of an Arkansas Education Standards committee - there was some improvement.  But that was due to the follow-through of others, not Ms. Clinton, even if she tries to take credit for it;

-That when her husband became President she was put in charge of a task force on health care?  It was an unmitigated disaster.  Ms. Clinton left health care professionals off the committee so she could run the show without being challenged.  The result was a set of proposals so unpalatable that every Democrat joined every Republican in voting against them.  And her committee was fined $290,000 for illegalities in how the task force was put together;

-That she has been a senator for 7 years?  So what?  Name a piece of legislation she has sponsored and pushed through the senate.  I bet you can't do it.

That is the real Hillary Clinton résumé.  Not the concocted, made-for-campaign-'08 one. 

Remember Hans Christian Andersen's classic story of the emperor's new clothes?  The one in which a clever pair of brothers convinced the emperor that they had made unique clothing for him out of material so fine that only worthy people could see it?  And, because of that claim, no one around him would admit they couldn't see any clothing?

Remember what happened when the emperor went out in public with his fine new "clothes"?  The people watched him, afraid to acknowledge what they were seeing with their own eyes.  Finally, one little child, too innocent to worry about any repercussions, whispered "He has no clothes", and that reality spread like wildfire until everyone who saw the emperor was unafraid to say he was completely naked.

Well, Mitt Romney isn't a little child.  And I sure don't want to see Ms. Clinton naked.  But every time I hear someone tell me how experienced and qualified she is to be president, I think of that story.

Ken Berwitz

For the last two years we have been told we were going to be socked with hurricanes.

And for the past two years we haven't had one on mainland USA.  That's right.  Not one.

This year, in particular, I recall the prediction that there would be 14-17 hurricanes in total, and that 6 - 8 would be major.

Did you see any?  I know I didn't.  Not the major ones.  Not the minor ones.  Nothing.  Zero.  Zip.  Nada.

Here are the particulars, from COAPS (the Center For Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies:.

.

2007 Yearly Tropical Cyclone Activity to Date

By: Ryan N. Maue, Florida State University

Cross Post at Climate Audit (h/t) Steve McIntyre

Unless a dramatic and historical flurry of activity occurs in the next 9 weeks, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole. During the past 30 years, only 1977, 1981, and 1983 have had less activity to date (January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone Energy). For the period of June 1 - TODAY, only 1977 has experienced LESS tropical cyclone activity than 2007. For the North Atlantic basin, Tropical Storm Noel is currently too weak to impact any of these results. However, one should always be prepared for late-season developments since hurricane season ends on November 30.

2007 lowest September activity on record since 1977

2006 and 2007 lowest October activity on record since 1976 and 1977

There are currently two worldwide tropical cyclones: Tropical Storm Noel and Unnamed Arabian Sea TS...

The North Atlantic hurricane season is currently nearly 30% below normal in terms of a well-known activity metric called ACE. While the number of named storms is above normal, their integrated intensity has not matched the hyper-active expectations of many seasonal forecasters (e.g. NOAA 140-200% above median). The Eastern Pacific off the western coast of Mexico is also experiencing record inactivity. NOAA Atlantic Hurricane Season Outlook Update

Note: on average to date (1970-2006), the Eastern Pacific season is 97% completed, Western Pacific 82%, North Atlantic 93% and overall Northern Hemisphere 87%. .

Ok, here are a few little questions for you:  If this had been a rip-roaring hurricane season, do you think you'd be reading about it in the media?  Do you think there would be expert after expert assuring you that we are experiencing the consequences of global warming and that we had better listen to the doom and gloom squad? 

Do you think there would be more media people singing songs of praise about Al Gore?  Oh, wait, forget that one.  There's no one left in media who hasn't already beatified Gore and his predictions, except for a few conservative talk show hosts.  And everyone knows they don't count.

Here's a little dose of reality you might want to consider.  The predictions about hurricanes were wrong.  Not a little wrong, but immensely, spectacularly wrong.   And media are ignoring it as if it were not newsworthy at all.

Then they squeal like stuck pigs if you say they are biased.  Go figger.

Tell me, how many of the same geniuses who predicted the phantom hurricane epidemic are also among the ones assuring you with cosmic certainty that global warming is going to fry us all unless we dramatically alter our behavior (unless, of course you can afford carbon credits, in which case fell free to gluttonize energy resources to your heart's content).

Think about it.

Ken Berwitz

Joe Biden is one of the biggest mouths in the senate.  Even he would admit to that (I know he would because he did).

But what is also true, and something Biden won't so readily admit to, is that he is perfectly willing to ignore facts that he is fully aware of, and instead put out spin and propaganda he knows to be untrue. 

In my old neighborhood we called someone like that an effing liar. We did, however, use the long form of eff.

Here is a long, but eminently important article by Scott Malensek of www.newmediajournal.us, which gives you all the specifics:.

Senator Joe Biden Still Misleading About Al Qaeda in Iraq
The Fifth Column Scott Malensek, Featured Writer October 29, 2007
Earlier this month, as Senator Joe Biden looked at his latest poll numbers, then he looked at his schedule of campaign appearances (not his Senate schedule, that’s secondary to his real job: campaigning to get a better job), then the Democratic candidate for President decided that he needed to mislead people about the war in Iraq again. If that’s not what happened then all of his years on committees, all of the meetings he allegedly attended, all of the briefings he supposedly read were for nothing; useless, nothing but resume fodder. Either he chose to deliberately mislead people again this month or he’s completely ignorant about the war which he seeks to command.   Senator Biden tried to repeat the Democratic Party talking point that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the fight against Al Qaeda:   "I hope the administration stops this malarkey about that the war in Iraq is about Al Qaeda." – Sen. Joe Biden, Presidential Candidate and veteran of the Senate Armed Services Committee CBS Early Show interview with Hannah Storm. October 16, 2007   Senator Biden either deliberately misled the American people, or he showed the ultimate in wartime ignorance.   1) Al Qaeda is in Iraq and the Al Qaeda forces that are in Iraq are in fact part of the same Al Qaeda that Osama Bin Laden leads (or figuratively leads at least).   2) Another of the Democratic Party’s to-date successful pieces of propaganda is the claim that Al Qaeda wasn’t inside Saddam’s Iraq before the invasion when the Bush Administration claimed, but instead Al Qaeda just so-happened to be there during and after the invasion. That piece of political propaganda too has come to pass for the spin it is, and the fact that Al Qaeda has been in Iraq since before the US invasion has now been proven by multiple, independent sources, multiple detainees, mountains of documents, and more.   3) Democratic Party leaders hoping to cling to their careers as professional, Beltway politicians have also made the claim that Saddam’s regime (which had a long history of using Islamic extremists/terrorists to implement foreign policy) would never work with Al Qaeda or its Islamic extremist affiliates.   Other Democratic Senators/Presidential candidates are deliberately misleading as well...again (or still?). Yet these lies go unchallenged by a media that is either supportive, ignorant, or both.   Al Qaeda in Iraq is the same Al Qaeda as the group that Bin Laden leads. The Los Angeles Times has shown us that the two share financial ties . All sixteen American intelligence agencies confirm that they share the same logistical network as described in a National Intelligence Estimate that was presented to Senator Biden and all members of Congress. Barely a week after Senator Biden made his remarks that the two Al Qaeda groups are disconnected, Osama Bin Laden put out a video in which he issued commands and clearly expressed his leadership to Al Qaeda groups in Iraq thus showing that there is a shared command and control element: Osama Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership councils he leads. If they share the same name, cause, objective, financial, logistics, and command and control, then they are the same. Al Qaeda in Iraq is just another one of the arms of Al Qaeda (recall that “Al Qaeda” translates as “The Base” or “The Center” or “The Origin” and is a network of groups).   Al Qaeda in Iraq has been there since before the invasion. Prior to the U.S. led invasion, there were numerous Islamic extremist groups operating freely and even with the support of Saddam’s regime and Al Qaeda’s command councils. Among these groups, Ansar al Sunni, Ansar al Jeddah, and Ansar al Islam were the most prominent. Saddam’s intelligence forces supported them, and in exchange these groups conducted assassinations and other attacks on Saddam’s opponents in Northern Iraq. Numerous detainees; captured Iraqi intelligence agents of Saddam as well captured members of those groups and captured Al Qaeda detainees all make this claim.   Documents captured in when American Special Forces overran the Ansar al Islam camps in Northern Iraq support this as do documents captured from Saddam’s regime. Various investigations into pre-war intelligence on Iraq have made ambiguous statements about the depth of the relationship between Saddam’s regime and Al Qaeda before the invasion, but none have conclusively declared that there was no relationship. Quite the contrary, investigations like the (independent and bi-partisan) 911 Commission, the (bi-partisan) Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and at least four pre-war CIA publications all stated emphatically that there was not enough evidence collected between 1998 and 2003 to form a conclusion, but that there was evidence of a relationship. Of course, there wasn’t enough evidence gathered because the entire United States intelligence community, all sixteen intelligence agencies, couldn’t manage to get a single human intelligence asset inside Iraq during those four entire years.     When Coalition forces did invade Iraq, they encountered thousands of “foreign fighters” who were there to wage jihad. Even today, Coalition forces are stationed at the very same places that had once been training camps for international terrorists. As time passed, more and more insurgents were captured. It was discovered that a great number of insurgents were actually henchmen for Saddam acting in direct concert with Al Qaeda groups. The list of regime members caught or killed fighting alongside Islamic holy warriors is in the hundreds. Not long after the invasion, those Al Qaeda affiliate groups mentioned earlier joined together and formed Al Qaeda in Iraq (actually several different Al Qaeda umbrella groups), and this summer even Ansar al Islam changed its name...to Al Qaeda.   Senator Biden and other Democrats have told us that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror; the fight against Osama Bin Laden and his network of terrorist groups.  The Democrat Party’s Congress has ordered that the words, “Global War on Terror” no longer be used.  Senator Edwards (another Democrat seeking the Presidency) has said that the war on terror is just a bumper sticker. Leaders of the party’s base like Michael Moore and Bill Maher have told us that there is no war on terror at all. Speaker of the House Pelosi has told us that the war in Iraq is not only not tied to a war that her party’s leaders say doesn’t exist, but she goes further to say that it’s not even a war. It’s “a situation to be solved.”   Meanwhile, the bodies pile up in Iraq. Thousands – perhaps tens of thousands of Al Qaeda foreign fighters have been killed or captured in Iraq. Potential future Presidents with a (D) next to their name flat out tell us this is not happening. They’ll readily admit Al Qaeda is in Iraq killing Iraqis, in Iraq killing Americans, but they won’t admit Al Qaeda is in Iraq. The opening quotation from part-time Senator and full-time Presidential hopeful, Senator Joe Biden, specifically tells us contrary to the bodies Al Qaeda is not in Iraq; the thousands of Al Qaeda bodies and the tens of thousands of bodies that succumbed to Al Qaeda torture and killing are ignored either deliberately or through political incompetence and personal ignorance.   These people also claim President Bush lied about pre-war intelligence regarding Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. Well, the CIA investigated Iraq after the war, and they found that there were no stockpiles, but there was indeed a different kind of WMD threat from Saddam. Moreover, the ISG Deulfer report, like a dozen other independent and bi-partisan investigations, all found that the pre-war intelligence regarding WMD was weak, and there was no lying, no manipulation, not fiction.   President Bush was wrong in some of his claims about pre-war Iraq.  So too are these Democrats wrong about Iraq intelligence. Many, like Senator Biden, Senator Edwards, Senator Clinton, and dozens more, stood by the President. They echoed his concerns and assessments. What’s different now is that these same people who were wrong then are wrong again in saying that the war in Iraq is not a war, that it has nothing to do with the fight against Al Qaeda, and that the Al Qaeda in Iraq is not the same as Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda. If they are not wrong, then they are deliberately misleading. In either case, they are still misleading the American people in direct and open view of the reality on the ground, the 20-20 hindsight of history, the reports from detainees, the assessments of 16 different intelligence agencies, millions of captured documents and tapes, reports from the a wide variety of news media outlets, and even in lieu of Bin Laden’s own words on his own video.   Last fall Democrats were told a flat out lie by Chairman Howard Dean and other Democratic Party leaders who were trying to find a way to take power on Capitol Hill. Americans were told that Democrats would provide a New Direction in Iraq, and that it wouldn’t be an immediate rout or “redeployment” or withdrawal.  Americans were told that there was a plan for success; a change in direction. On election night Gov. Dean revealed that there was never even a committee formed to brainstorm ideas on when to hold a meeting to draft such a plan. The people who elected them sought excuses, were given them, but as time passed and as excuses got older and weaker, every person who voted Democrat realized they’d been a mere ballot box pawn. The party deliberately misled Americans to get elected (again). Now, one wonders if those who were lied to in 2002, in 2004, and in 2006 will believe the same old one trick jackass that the New Democratic Party is selling (again)? That trick is simple: deny reality regardless of how certain and widespread it’s recorded and reported, blame others for any and all problems real or not, and make promises without ever having the intention of fulfilling them (see also a comparison of the Democrat’s “do-nothing” Congress to the list of accomplishments by any other Congress in American history).   It’s time to recognize that the Democrat Party’s leadership of professional lawyers has distorted the truth well enough to take a mere reasonable doubt and mold the mindset of millions of great Americans into believing their own campaign promises, and at the same time they’ve fully closed people’s minds to the ideas – the truths – presented by Republicans or anyone who is not a KOSsack, a CODE PINK clown, or an anti-American ANSWER coalition socialist. It’s an ironic thing to watch “open-minded liberals” shout down others for speaking their mind, for asking unpopular questions or for having different opinions in general. One thing is certain above all, the Democratic Party is no longer for liberals. It’s for pretend liberals; people with closed minds (not open, liberal minds) who want others to not only hear their concerns and ideas, but to accept them without question,   I question whether Senator Biden and others who have misled the nation for the past five years are: deliberately misleading people (i.e. liars) or if they’re that ignorant and incapable of even attending intelligence briefings that clearly show their statements are grossly incorrect? In either case, the more important question is, “How long will the people of the Democrat Party and other Americans allow themselves to suck at the tit of propagandists rather than sit at the table with the rest of the grownups, talk freely and without fear of being shouted down, recognize problems and dare to work together to solve them? The first steps are simple:   ▪ Recognize that Al Qaeda is America’s enemy-not American history   ▪ Recognize that there is a worldwide war against misguided Islamic holy warriors who belong to the death cult that IS Al Qaeda   ▪ Recognize that there is a war in Iraq-not a mere situation   ▪ Recognize that Al Qaeda is in Iraq, has been and is being decimated   ▪ Recognize that wars never go as planned, but the war in Iraq is not lost   ▪ Recognize the lies and distortions of truth from politicians, try to see through them, and demand accountability for those who promote, authorize, support, then oppose, then support the war effort ▪ Unite to face a foe. Together, the American people can put men on the moon for fun, and make it look not only easy, but boring. Together this nation has managed to fight in 3 dozen countries at once against 6 different nations even in typhoons and the worst weather imaginable, and won Divided…liberty will collapse.   ▪ Realize that being liberal doesn’t mean playing gotcha politics. It means listening, contemplating and seeking consensus for a greater good.   Who will dare take that challenge? Today, one doubts a Democrat has the character or fortitude.

.

That's pretty damning stuff, isn't it?  But if you care to click on the numerous links that Mr. Malensek offers, you'll see that it is fully and completely referenced - a refreshing change from the charges that are tossed around by so many "experts" without any basis other than their personal opinions. 

Biden is going nowhere in the presidential sweepstakes.  All he is doing is looking more and more dishonest, more and more ridiculous and more and more pathetic. 

With all those more and mores, maybe Senator Biden should try a less and less:  Less talking and less lying.  In his case the two certainly correlate.

Ken Berwitz

Donald Lambro is the chief political correspondent for the Washington Times.  His latest column is a very interesting, mostly (though not completely) optimistic view of where the USA stands right now. 

Although I can't say I fully agree with Lambro's level of optimism, I do agree with a lot of what he says, and find his analysis to be very worthwhile reading.   Maybe you will too, so here it is:.

The Glass is Filling Nicely
By Donald Lambro
Monday, October 29, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Just nine weeks before the 2008 election year begins, the nation's political climate seems to be cooling down a bit from the fiery debates and battles that blackened headlines earlier this year. We can't exactly say everything is fine, but the sky isn't falling, either, as the doom-and-gloomers were predicting it would. A lot of things are getting better.

Media pundits, notably those at The New York Times, were asking last week, what has happened to the Iraq war? It seems to have vanished from the front pages of the nation's newspapers and the top of the nightly news shows, they noted, somewhat unhappily.

To be sure, things seem to have quieted down somewhat in Iraq lately as a result of President Bush's surge plan to crush the terrorist insurgency there. The country still faces a long battle against Al Qaeda in Iraq, but the statistics coming out of Baghdad lately show that there's been a significant decline in violence in the capital and in some of the worst terrorist-infested provinces.

Indeed, the focus has shifted to other trouble spots, such as Iran's march toward nuclear hegemony in the region and its efforts to support terrorism across the Middle East through its deadly Revolutionary Guard Corps and elite Quds Force.

Bush last week turned up the heat against Tehran with his toughest sanctions to date to show them the United States means business. Life is about to get a lot harder for the Iranian regime that has been supplying high-tech bombs and other explosives that have killed our troops in Iraq.

Here at home, the sharp downturn in housing sales and the subprime mortgage market's upheaval have continued to rattle our economy, amid predictions that it is only going to get worse before it gets better. But the economy also continues to show substantial strength, evident last week from a rash of strong, third-quarter corporate-earnings reports.

If the economy is falling headlong into a recession, as the naysayers keep parroting, then corporate earnings and profits should be declining. But, quite the opposite, they were remarkably strong, and, more importantly, reflect sustained consumer buying power that is at the core of a healthy and growing economy. A few examples:

-- Apple's fourth-quarter profit leaped 67 percent on sales of its computers, iPods and iPhones, capping a record-breaking year for the high-tech company.

-- Merck, the pharmaceutical giant that developed a vaccine for cervical cancer and a new pill for diabetes, reported a 62 percent gain in profits in the third quarter.

-- Amazon.com, the country's largest Internet retailer, said its profits had more than quadrupled in the last quarter.

-- Google, the fabulously successful global Internet information system, saw its stock climb to a stunning $676 a share based on record earnings.

America's largest corporations, most of them major players in the global economy, reported similarly strong earnings and profits: from McDonald's and Coca-Cola to top defense-industry leaders, such as Boeing, General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin.

These earnings statements helped to stabilize a jittery stock market last week, at least for a time. But the financial markets remained volatile as a result of troubling evidence that the housing sector was still in decline.

The National Association of Realtors said existing-home sales dropped last month, for the seventh consecutive time, by 8 percent, which sent the closely watched Dow into another steep drop -- though the blue-chip index was still up by nearly 10 percent for the year.

No one knows how much deeper the housing slump has to go or how much longer it will last. Millions of adjustable-rate mortgage holders still face interest resets that many may not be able to handle amid predictions this will trigger a wave of foreclosures that will worsen the credit crunch.

But the good news is that the Fed has been pumping billions of dollars into banking institutions, and lenders have begun to preemptively offer refinancing packages for endangered homeowners that could ease the credit downturn.

The other side of this problem is a positive development for people who want to buy a home but have been effectively priced out of the market by exuberantly irrational real-estate prices of recent years. Housing prices are slowly but surely coming down in a self-correcting adjustment by market forces that at some point, when they get low enough, will lure new buyers into the housing market. I think this is going to happen sooner rather than later.

In the meantime, let's keep the excesses of the housing crunch in perspective. It's one sector of a $14 trillion economy, but by no means the biggest one. We will get through this, because 150 million people are still working and we have full employment, consumer spending remains healthy, 70 percent of Americans still own their own home, half of them outright. .

There is a lot here that makes me stop and think.  Especially the part which mentions how, as the troop surge has taken hold and yielded significant success, Iraq has faded from the front pages.

Funny thing about that;  when we are taking it on the chin, mainstream media can't wait to tell its readers/viewers/listeners about it.  But when we are doing well, it's not a story.

If you didn't know better, you'd think a lot of media people don't like to give us good news about Iraq.  But you do know better.

Don't you?

Ken Berwitz

Last week I blogged about Ellen DeGeneres' maudlin sobfest regarding the dog she took from a rescue group. 

As you may remember, DeGeneres signed an agreeement that, if she did not want the dog, it would go back to the rescue group she got it from.  But DeGeneres broke her signed agreement by giving the dog away to another family -- worse still, a family with children her agreement deemed too young to have the dog.  Not surprisingly, the rescue group took the dog back.

I have always admired Ellen DeGeneres and thought she was a tremendous talent.  But the cry-a-thon she taped and aired about the dog has greatly diminished my admiration.  To me, it was an abuse of the power major celebrities like DeGeneres have.  She used her power to make the rescue group look bad and turn the two women running it into villains.  Suddenly she wasn't wrong, they were.  It stunk.

Now lets contrast this with another situation in which a major celebrity cried over something that happened.  Here, courtesy of the New York Post, is what I'm talking about:.

OPRAH BACK IN TO AFRICA

Post staff writer

October 29, 2007 -- A tearful Oprah Winfrey begged parents to for give her for an alleged abuse scandal at her girls' school in South Africa.

"I've disappointed you. I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry," Oprah told parents at an emergency meeting, South Africa's top news Web site reported yesterday.

It was the talk-show host's second trip to South Africa in recent weeks, according to reports.

The school was hit two weeks ago with allegations that one of the matrons fondled a girl and physically abused other students.

The school's principal - indentified only as Dr Mzimane - and at least one other matron were put on administrative leave following the charges, News24.com, the nation's No. 1 news site reported.

"I trusted [Dr. Mzimane]," the station quoted Oprah as telling parents.

"But, I've been disappointed," she said.

"It's not your fault. We don't blame you.," a father was quoted as saying.

"You have more passion for the school and its existence than anyone else in this country, including us parents."

The talk-show host reportedly gave students her personal phone number and email address if they needed to contact her again, the station reported. .

Oprah Winfrey is one of the most successful personalities in show business today, maybe the single most successful of them all.

I don't know of any other such personality who has contributed more time and money to helping others than Ms. Winfrey.

What she has done in South Africa is wonderful.  It is genuinely inspiring.  Her intentions are absolutely above reproach.

So what are we supposed to think if several personnel at the school she built turn out to be either incompetent or predatory?  Are we supposed to blame Ms. Winfrey?  Are we supposed to see this as a diminution of what she personally is trying to accomplish?  Does this in any way negate the vast amount of time, effort and money Oprah Winfrey has spent on the school or the intended benefits of that school? 

Maybe some people will come to such conclusions.  But I assure you I'm not one of them.  I have no doubt about the honor of Ms. Winfrey's intentions and no doubt that she will do everything she can to transform those honorable intentions into a life-changing reality for youngsters in South Africa. 

If a celebrity wants to cry about something, this is worth the tears.  Even if Oprah didn't tape it for your viewing pleasure.

Ken Berwitz

Ok, ok, this is a political blog and Alex Rodriguez has nothing to do with politics.

But A-Rod is arguably the greatest hitter I have ever seen in over 50 years of watching baseball and among the most publicized - both positively and negatively.  So I want to say something about the fact that he apparently has finished his tenure with the New York Yankees.

Rodriguez was signed to an utterly insane $250 million dollar contract by the Texas Rangers 7 years ago.  The idea was that he would draw so many people that the team would turn that astonishing money outlay into a profit. 

Well, it never happened.  In terms of won-loss record, the team actually did less well with A-Rod than without him.  And attendence didn't increase.  A lose/lose situation if ever there was one.

So the Rangers traded Rodriguez to the New York Yankees.  In order to get the Yankees to bite, Texas agreed to pay one-third of his salary.  Thus the Yankees have been paying under $17 million a year for A-Rod's services;  still enormous but at least somewhere in the general vicinity of reason.

Now here's where it gets real interesting.  Alex Rodriguez's contract allows him the option to leave his team after 7 years.  He has a ten day window to exercise that option after the 2007 world series - the one that ended last night. 

Rodriguez immediately did exercise the option.  He didn't wait the ten days, he didn't wait ten hours.  Now he can negotiate with any team he wants for any amount they are willing to pay him.  This includes the Yankees.

But wait, there's another fascinating little issue to contend with.  Because Rodriguez opted out of his contract, the Texas Rangers are no longer bound by its terms.   That means if they Yankees signed him today for the same amount they were paying him, they would be shelling out over $7 million more per year, because Texas is no longer subsidizing the contract.

The Yankees said they would not negotiate with A-Rod if he did this and it seems pretty clear that they mean it.  

So goodbye Alex Rodriguez.  We'll see if someone else will pay $25 million a year (or appreciably more, as I suspect he hopes) to get an all-time great hitter, an excellent fielder and someone who plays at 100% every time he goes out on the field. 

(Of course the team he winds up with will also be paying for an all-time head case, someone whose playoff production is nothing at all like the regular season and who appears to have a not very wholesome private life.  That comes along for the ride too.)

Thanks for the three years, Alex.  No one can say it hasn't been interesting.  I always appreciated the fact that, with all those millions contractually assured, you never let up for even one game.  A lot of players lose their intensity the day they sign a long-term contract, but not you.  For that reason, I hope you make out well.

Now, what is Mike Lowell's phone number?

Ken Berwitz

The UN condemns Israel.  Far more than any country in the world.  Israel has been condemned at the UN more times in total than every Arab country and every Muslim country in the world combined.  This, despite the fact that, in most wars being waged in the world today, one or both sides are Muslim countries. 

-It may have something to do with anti-semitism.

-It may have something to do with the fact that Arab and Muslim countries supply most of the world's terrorists.

-It may have something to do with the fact that Arab and Muslim states have most of the world's oil supplies.

-It may be a combination of all three.  You decide.

In any event, it seems as if nothing those countries can do will generate any official opprobrium at the UN, and nothing that Israel can do will avoid it.

Weeks ago,  Israel bombed and destroyed what apparently was a Syrian nuclear facility - one that very likely was being built for an attack against Israel. 

It is conveniently forgotten by some that Syria, apart from making war against the Jewish state several times since it came into existence, remains in a state of war with Israel to this day.  But that is a fact. 

Israel, learning of Syria's budding nuclear capability, certainly had every reason in the world to do something before it became operational and was used on, say, Tel Aviv or Haifa.  And it did.

The UN, however, is apparently furious over Israel not going to them first.  It's position is that the organization would have taken care of this matter without Israel doing a thing - presumably with the same results we have seen in Sudan, Zimbabwe, Rwanda and countless other countries it was (and continues to be) absolutely useless in.

Here are the particulars, courtesy of www.ynetnews.com:

.

IAEA chief lashes out over Israeli raid in Syria

Chief UN nuclear watchdog Mohamed ElBaradei Sunday accused Israel of taking "the law into their own hands" with a raid on Syria, and demanded more information about what was hit.

  

Neither Israel nor the United States has furnished "any evidence at all" to prove that the Syrian site bombed last month was a secret nuclear facility, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency told CNN.

Nuclear Threat

Report: Syrian reactor built in 2001 / Ynet Experts examining new satellite images from 2003 estimate construction of Syrian complex bombed by Israel began six years ago Full Story

  

"That, to me, is very distressful because we have a system; if countries have information that the country is working on a nuclear-related program, they should come to us. We have the authority to go out and investigate," he said.

  

"But to bomb first and then ask questions later, I think it undermines the system and it doesn't lead to any solution to any suspicion, because we are the eyes and ears of the international community."

  

Israel has said it bombed a military target inside Syria September 6, but has provided no additional details, amid speculation that the target may have been a site storing nuclear materials from North Korea.

 

ElBaradei said he had been told by Syria that the site was a military facility and "has nothing to do with nuclear."

 

"I would hope if anybody has information, before they take the law into their own hands, to come and pass the information on," he said.

 

Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has acknowledged for the first time that Israeli warplanes may have violated Turkey's airspace during the incursion into Syria, an official said Sunday.

 

 

Olmert apologized to his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan when the two men met in London Tuesday, the Israeli official said.

 

Turkey had demanded an explanation from Israel after it was embarrassed by the discovery of jettisoned fuel tanks on its territory in the aftermath of the raid

.

Let's see;  Syria, which is a country at war with Israel, is building a nuclear facility with the help of North Korea, which starves its people so that something like one third of its entire national product is used on military arms.  And the UN is upset at....Israel.

The UN is a dead organization.  Morally, spiritually and ethically dead.  Its troops are more effective at raping underage girls in third world countries and facilitating the hatred taught to schoolchildren in Gaza, than they are in promoting peace or understanding. 

I commend Israel for taking the action it did.  If Israel waited for the UN to do anything meaningful, the country would have ceased to exist long ago. 

And if Syria or Iran ever vaporized Israel with nuclear weapons, the UN's most likely action would be to pass a resolution condemning Israel for being a good target.

Ken Berwitz

As many readers know, I have blogged a number of times about Genarlow Wilson, the young Georgia man who, as a 17 year old, was jailed for a mandatory ten year sentence because he accepted voluntary oral sex from a 15 year old girl.

Yes, you read that right.  Ten years of mandatory jail time for engaging in a voluntary sex act with a 15 year old (something I would have given my eye teeth for when I was his age).

The original reason for this insane injustice was the law itself, which required the ten year sentence.  But then the law was changed and the charge devolved to misdemeanor status -- which, of course, is where it should have been in the first place.

So what kept Mr.Wilson in jail anyway?  A state Attorney General who apparently saw Inspector Javert of  Les Miserables as some kind of role model, and did everything he could to keep him there.

But finally, I am thrilled to say, the nightmare for Genarlow Wilson is over.  Here are the specifics courtesy of the Associated Press;  please pay special attention to the two paragraphs I have put in bold print:

.

Ga Court: Release Man Jailed in Sex Case

Oct 26 11:58 AM US/Eastern By DANIEL YEE Associated Press Writer

View larger image

ATLANTA (AP) - Georgia's Supreme Court on Friday ordered the release of a young man who has been imprisoned for more than two years for having consensual oral sex with another teenager. The court ruled 4-3 that Genarlow Wilson's 10-year sentence was cruel and unusual punishment. Wilson, 21, was convicted of aggravated child molestation following a 2003 New Year's Eve party at a Douglas County hotel room where he was videotaped having oral sex with a 15-year-old girl. He was 17 at the time. Wilson was acquitted of raping another 17-year-old girl at the party. The 1995 law Wilson violated was changed in 2006 to make oral sex between teens close in age a misdemeanor, similar to the law regarding teen sexual intercourse. But the state Supreme Court later upheld a lower court's ruling which said that the 2006 law could not be applied retroactively. Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears wrote in the majority opinion that the changes in the law "represent a seismic shift in the legislature's view of the gravity of oral sex between two willing teenage participants." Sears wrote that the severe punishment makes "no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment" and that Wilson's crime did not rise to the "level of adults who prey on children." State Attorney General Thurbert Baker said he accepts Friday's ruling. Baker said he hopes the ruling will "put an end to this issue as a matter of contention in the hearts and minds of concerned Georgians and others across the country who have taken such a strong interest in this case." The state Supreme Court had turned down Wilson's appeal of his conviction and sentence, but the justices agreed to hear the state's appeal of a Monroe County judge's decision to reduce Wilson's sentence to 12 months and free him. That judge had called the 10-year sentence a "grave miscarriage of justice." Dissenting justices wrote that the state Legislature expressly stated that the 2006 change in the law was not intended to affect any crime prior to that date. They said Wilson's sentence could not be cruel and unusual because the state Legislature decided that Wilson could not benefit from subsequent laws reducing the severity of the crime from a felony to a misdemeanor. They called the decision an "unprecedented disregard for the General Assembly's constitutional authority." A spokeswoman for Wilson's lawyer said his legal team received no advance notice of the decision.

.

No one can give Genarlow Wilson back the four years he has lost;  over two spent in jail, the rest with jail hanging over him. 

But what could be done - giving him the almost eight years he was still on the hook for - is simple decency and fairness.

I hope Mr. Wilson can overcome the bitterness that would consume most people who are subjected to this severe an injustice, and become the decent, productive human being he could and should have been for the last four years. 

Let's all root for him.

Ken Berwitz

David Horowitz tried to speak at Emory University earlier this week

I say he tried to do so because, as is so often the case when someone outside the leftwing orthodoxy tries to speak at a university, he was disrupted, shouted down and forced to curtail his speech. 

The people who came to hear him, and there were plenty who were there only to do just that, were censored by the facists in residence. 

Here is David's account of what happened, from www.frontpagemag.com.  Read it and weep:.

Posted at 10:18 PM on 10/24/2007 by David Horowitz

-When you say what you think and I say what I think, it is free speech.

-When you say what you think and then shout me down when I try to say what I think, it is fascism.

Ken Berwitz

Ed Morrissey of www.captainsquartersblog.com tells this much better than I can.  So let me let him do it:

.

The New S-CHIP, The Same Ram Job

Ken Berwitz

ted rall is human garbage.

The only way he seems able to make a wave is to be viciously, sickeningly, moronically insulting to the USA, with a special animus aimed at the men and women who protect us. 

If you think this is an exaggeration, then refer to the piece that I found at www.sweetness-light.com, which is shown below.  Then you'll know better..

Ted Rall’s (Who?) Latest Insult To US Troops

October 25th, 2007

Ken Berwitz

One of my favorite quotes is from William Blake, who, paraphrased, said "you never know when you've had enough until you've had more than enough"

Well, Israel has finally discovered what more than enough is.  After years of daily shelling and mayhem from the Gaza territory it handed to Palestinian Arabs on a silver platter***, Israel has finally decided to make it harder for them to do so.

And what is it that they are doing?  Here's your answer, courtesy of the Jerusalem Post and the Associated Press:

Barak okays plan to cut power in Gaza for every rocket fired

jpost staff, yaakov katz, and AP , THE JERUSALEM POST

Oct. 25, 2007

Defense Minister Ehud Barak approved on Thursday a list of civilian sanctions against the Gaza Strip as a means to combat the ongoing Kassam rocket barrages that have been fired at southern Israel since the disengagement from Gaza in August 2005.

The decision was made during a special meeting of security officials in which he discussed the matter with senior military personnel, and it marks the first time Israel has scaled back vital supplies to Gaza since the cabinet defined Gaza as a "hostile entity" last month.

Under the plan, Israel will cut electricity for increasing lengths of time each time a Palestinian rocket is fired into Israel. Officials would not say when Israel plans to begin the cutoffs.

Throughout Wednesday, Palestinians continued to fire rockets into Israeli territory, all of which landed in open areas in the western Negev and caused no damage. In response, IAF planes struck a Kassam rocket cell in northern Gaza moments after its members launched two rockets at Israel. Two of the three cell members were killed.

On Tuesday, Barak ordered Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilna'i to prepare a list of sanctions to be imposed on Gaza. Following a meeting with senior defense officials, Southern Command officers and the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories, the deputy defense minister recommended that Israel begin cutting back the supply of gasoline and electricity to Gaza in the coming days.

"It's clear that we have to cut off ... the supply of electricity and the supply of fuel," Vilna'i told Army Radio Wednesday. "We will dramatically reduce the flow of electricity from Israel over several weeks."

Barak was also advised to shut down one of the five power lines connecting Israel and Gaza for two hours at night.

"We need to show the residents of Gaza that life does not carry on freely when Kassam rockets land in Israel," a senior defense official said. "If rockets are fired, then the Palestinians will pay a price."

Defense officials said the cuts in gasoline supply would be enough to "slightly disrupt" Palestinians' daily lives and cause them to think twice before driving their car.

During Tuesday's meeting, Vilna'i decided to allow the continued supply of diesel fuel, which is used by ambulances and sanitation vehicles.

"We do not want to cause a humanitarian crisis," a defense official said. "But we do want to send a clear message to the Palestinians that the rocket fire will not be tolerated.".

Money is fungible.  So are services. 

If Israel isn't supplying electricity to a population that is committed to its destruction and the death of its Jewish majority - and why SHOULD they supply electricity to that population? - then Palestinian Arabs will have to create their own electricity.  That costs money - money that would then be unavailable for the rockets they delight in attacking Israel with.

I have no doubt that much of the world, via the feckless, useless, stacked-deck UN, will condemn Israel because it has decided to not facilitate its own demise.  For that I have always had two words in answer - words that Israel apparently has just found as well.  The first of the two words is "tough".

-----------------------------------------------------

****NOTE:  For anyone who thinks that Israel gave back Gaza to the people who owned it, they did NOT do so at all.  Gaza never belonged to Palestinian Arabs as a group, Israel won the land from Egypt.  There has never been a country of Palestine. 

Ken Berwitz

Both sides of the political aisle have their kamikazes.  For Republicans it is the Dobsonesque right.  For Democrats it is the LAMBs (Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade).

Want proof?  Read this:.

Stopping Hillary from the left

A newly formed political action committee is aiming to stop Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary by calling into question her progressive credentials.

"We think there are other Democratic presidential candidates who are both more progressive and have a better chance of beating the Republicans than she does," said the president of Democratic Courage, Glenn Hurowitz.

He declined to tip his hand on the group's case against Clinton, but said the PAC plans a paid media campaign in the early primary states to make its position clear.

"We’ll definitely have sufficient resources to make a significant media buy," he said, adding that their campaign against Clinton would be "edgy" enough to get attention. "We don’t need to raise an immense amount of money to make a big difference."

Hurowitz, 29, is a Washington-based writer and activist. (He has written freelance Ideas articles for Politico, including this piece criticizing Clinton's and Obama's energy plans.) The group's two other officers are Sam Goldman and David Lipowicz, both of whom have worked for liberal and environmental groups in Washington.

Hurowitz and Goldman have both contributed to the campaign of former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, but Hurowitz said their effort is independent of any campaign.

"We have no plans right now to back any particular candidate," Hurowitz said.

As a federal political action committee, Democratic Courage is raising money only in contributions of $5,000 or less. This allows the group to politick more directly than the independent groups known as 527s, which can raise money in unlimited quantities but which have limits on their direct support for candidates.

Their effort follows a long line of lackluster "Stop Hillary" campaigns on the right, which began before her election to the Senate in 2000, and have largely failed to raise large sums of money or attract widespread attention. But Hurowitz distinguished his group from those.

"I'm definitely not a Hillary hater — I think there are other candidates who are better for the progressive movement," Hurowitz said. "Most of the people involved in our PAC will be happy to support her if she does become the nominee."

A spokesman for Clinton declined to comment on the effort..

I love that last part.  "Im definitely not a Hillary hater....". 

Translation:  I'd take her over a Republican, but I'm going to make sure that I damage her so badly she'll have trouble beating one. 

This is what happens when you give sorosian nutballs a forum.  Every time they open their mouths Republicans gain ground.

We'll see how much damage they do to Ms. Clinton.  More, I'll bet, than Dobson and his pals could ever do to Rudy Giuliani.

Ken Berwitz

Just when you thought it couldn't possibly get any nuttier..........

Brian Maloney at www.radioequalizer.blogspot.com has been monitoring the sorosian nutcakes on "liberal" (in reality, LAMB-left) radio, along with senate malaise leader harry reid.  And guess who they think is responsible for the out of control fires in California?

Yep, you guessed it.  Here is Brian's report:.

Libtalkers On Wildfire Causes, Randi Rhodes, Harry Reid, Mike Malloy

ORAL CONFLAGRATIONS

In Wildfire Blame Game, Lefties Kick It Up Ten Notches

In their desperate effort to lay political blame for Southern California's wildfires, liberals are resorting to extreme rhetoric, kicked up at least 10 notches from yesterday alone.

The latest oral conflagrations began with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who tried to pin the fires on global warming:

“One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Tuesday, stressing the need to pass the Democrats’ comprehensive energy package.

Moments later, when asked by a reporter if he really believed global warming caused the fires, he appeared to back away from his comments, saying there are many factors that contributed to the disaster.

Next, it was libtalker Randi Rhodes' turn to up the ante and she came through with flying colors. According to Ian Schwartz (who provides a clip here), Rhodes says Blackwater employees may have had a role in the fires themselves:

RHODES: I started just doing Google searches to try and figure out. You know, arson, arson, it was like crazy trying to figure out why is that being downplayed? Why is that, you know, just a small part of the story? And you know, every time I look for it what comes up, believe it or not, is that Blackwater wants to move to San Diego and build this giant complex in San Diego right where most of the evacuations are taking place and you know.

You just know wherever there is fire, this administration will be out there doing what it does best and that is fanning the flames, you know. It just spooks me, I can’t explain to you how creepy this whole thing is that you know, you’ve got these fires. Some of them are thought to be the work of arsonists and in the same breath you’ve got a community that’s on fire that just recently protested Blackwater West.

Just recently said no to Blackwater and apparently you don’t do that. I mean, I don’t even know what to think. You know, nobody is saying Blackwater set the fires, that is nobody that doesn’t want their house burned down. Nobody is saying that, but it is all so bizarre that this is America and you have to sort of sit there and wonder … arson, same place Blackwater West wants to be, people protesting. And then you find out that some of the guys that used to work for Blackwater are now in Schwarzenegger’s administration. It’s all so creepy.

Finally, not to be outdone, our old pal Mike Malloy took his own rhetoric miles above the previous day's, now blaming the "Bush Crime Family" for actually starting the fires (!!) as a way to divert attention away from other matters:

MALLOY (23 October 2007): It's being manipulated, we're all being manipulated, we are being shifted, refocused, not to minimize what's going on in California at all. But you know, the thought hit me today, God help me for this, or somebody help me, but the thought hit me today, um, all those fires, I had a thought, what the hell is causing the fires? They're all over the place, they're 40, 50, 60, 100, 150 fires, boom boom boom boom, what's causing that?!

They're not having electrical storms out there, they're not having any storms at all. What's causing it? But then the answer popped into my head, as easily as the answer about torture. The fires are being set, the fires are being set by elements of the Bush crime family. It's a great distraction, it's a wonderful distraction. And then I thought to myself, Jesus God! Did you really have that thought?! And the answer came back - yeah, loud and 'effing clear."

What's next? We simply can't imagine.

NEWSBUSTERS has much, much more on the blame game

NRO: are conservative bloggers out of touch?

ACE: more Code Pink crapola

JAWA: another blog ranking study

RWN: the case for and against Huckabee

HA: the dream dies

.

This lunacy is de rigeuer for members of the Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade.  We've seen it before.

But what scares me is that someone, somewhere, may be gullible enough to listen.  I would hope not but, sad to say, there's an excellent chance that this is being accepted and believed by some (presumably) otherwise intelligent people.

On the other hand, there is a silver lining:  So far as I'm aware neither the Today show nor network news has blamed President Bush. 

Yet.

Ken Berwitz

Here, courtesy of www.sweetness-light.com, is part of an article from today's Christian Science Monitor (which they link you to), concerning the"Jena 6". 

If all you know about these young men is what you've gotten from mainstream media, you owe it to yourself to read every word of this.

Local Reporter: Media Myths About The Jena 6

October 24th, 2007

So I'm up here in beautiful Vancouver, B.C. 

It really is a lovely city with wonderful people....though wildly expensive (and I'm not just talking about the exchange rate).

It's early in the morning and I just read today's Globe and Mail, which I assume to be the reigning newspaper of the area -- at any rate it's the one they put at my hotel door.  I came across an opinion piece by one of the paper's columnists; John Ibbitson.  In it, he marvels at how America's cities are "back" - i.e. no longer boarded up, graffiti infested and unsafe. 

While I agree with Mr. Ibbitson that this is true of a number of our cities (and thank god for that), I do have a problem with the fact that he does not mention Rudy Giuliani anywhere in his column.  When it comes to cleaning up a major American city, this man deserves more respect.

When Rudy Giuliani edged out David Dinkins to become the Mayor of New York City, it was the prototype of what Ibbitson is talking about.  A horror show.  Misdemeanor criminality was almost second naturedly accepted.  Graffiti was ubiquitous.  After years of devolving into this state, the people were to the point of simply accepting it as the way things are and would be.

Giuliani immediately started turning it around.  He addressed "the little things", like for example the squeegie guys who accosted drivers throughout Manhattan "washing" their car windshields with dirty water and demanding money for it. 

Giuliani told us that if you allow these kinds of quality of life abuses to go on, you raise the "it's ok" bar. Conversely, when you do address the little things, that bar lowers back towards normalcy and decent quality of life.

If this seems like a practical application of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's philospophy on "defining deviancy down", you get the picture.  Giuliani, instead, defined it up.  And the city started improving.  Fast.

I think I'm going to e-mail Mr. Ibbitson and mention this to him.  I hope he makes mention of Mr. Giuliani's contribution in one of his future columns. 

Simply stated, if you think Rudy Giuliani's record of accomplishment started on 9/11, you don't know a thing about Rudy Giuliani.

Ken Berwitz

Just a quick note to tell readers that I will be blogging only sporadically for the next week or so. 

I'll try to put up material when I can but other activities will be taking precedence.

A week from now?  For better or worse I'll be back 100%.

Best,

Ken

Ken Berwitz

So far today I've shown you that the New York Times and ABC News have blatantly and fraudulently spun the facts about harry reid and the DCC's smear letter to Rush Limbaugh.

I apologize. I left out the Today show, which was every bit as blatantly fraudulent as the other two.  Thank you www.newsbusters.org for calling it to our attention:

.

Reid Letter: 'Today' Omits Mention of Rush's $2.1 Million Donation

Do you realize what they are telling you?  They are telling you that you are an idiot. An ignoramus.  That they can report this any way they want to, facts notwithstanding, and you are so dumb and gullible and easily fooled that you'll swallow it hook line and sinker

They are insulting your intelligence.  They are laughing at you.

For god sake, prove them wrong.  Don't let them do it.  Let facts take you where you should be, not someone else's agenda.

Ken Berwitz

This is a terrible story to blog about, but it is an important one too, so here it is.

The Associated Press, to its great credit, has put out a frightening investigative report on sexual abuse in our public schools.  It runs a good deal longer than what I typically post, but its importance is such that I decline to excerpt it -- you should see every word. 

Also, I usually put key paragraphs in bold print - especially in a piece this long.  But not this time:  Every word deserves careful attention.

Let me show you what the the AP uncovered, and then let's talk about it..

AP: Sexual Misconduct Plagues US Schools
Oct 20 12:19 PM US/Eastern By MARTHA IRVINE and ROBERT TANNER AP National Writers

AP Video The young teacher hung his head, avoiding eye contact. Yes, he had touched a fifth-grader's breast during recess. "I guess it was just lust of the flesh," he told his boss. That got Gary C. Lindsey fired from his first teaching job in Oelwein, Iowa. But it didn't end his career. He taught for decades in Illinois and Iowa, fending off at least a half-dozen more abuse accusations. When he finally surrendered his teaching license in 2004—40 years after that first little girl came forward—it wasn't a principal or a state agency that ended his career. It was one persistent victim and her parents. Lindsey's case is just a small example of a widespread problem in American schools: sexual misconduct by the very teachers who are supposed to be nurturing the nation's children. Students in America's schools are groped. They're raped. They're pursued, seduced and think they're in love. An Associated Press investigation found more than 2,500 cases over five years in which educators were punished for actions from bizarre to sadistic. There are 3 million public school teachers nationwide, most devoted to their work. Yet the number of abusive educators—nearly three for every school day—speaks to a much larger problem in a system that is stacked against victims. Most of the abuse never gets reported. Those cases reported often end with no action. Cases investigated sometimes can't be proven, and many abusers have several victims. And no one—not the schools, not the courts, not the state or federal governments—has found a surefire way to keep molesting teachers out of classrooms. Those are the findings of an AP investigation in which reporters sought disciplinary records in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The result is an unprecedented national look at the scope of sex offenses by educators—the very definition of breach of trust. The seven-month investigation found 2,570 educators whose teaching credentials were revoked, denied, surrendered or sanctioned from 2001 through 2005 following allegations of sexual misconduct. Young people were the victims in at least 1,801 of the cases, and more than 80 percent of those were students. At least half the educators who were punished by their states also were convicted of crimes related to their misconduct. The findings draw obvious comparisons to sex abuse scandals in other institutions, among them the Roman Catholic Church. A review by America's Catholic bishops found that about 4,400 of 110,000 priests were accused of molesting minors from 1950 through 2002. Clergy abuse is part of the national consciousness after a string of highly publicized cases. But until now, there's been little sense of the extent of educator abuse. Beyond the horror of individual crimes, the larger shame is that the institutions that govern education have only sporadically addressed a problem that's been apparent for years. "From my own experience—this could get me in trouble—I think every single school district in the nation has at least one perpetrator. At least one," says Mary Jo McGrath, a California lawyer who has spent 30 years investigating abuse and misconduct in schools. "It doesn't matter if it's urban or rural or suburban." One report mandated by Congress estimated that as many as 4.5 million students, out of roughly 50 million in American schools, are subject to sexual misconduct by an employee of a school sometime between kindergarten and 12th grade. That figure includes verbal harassment that's sexual in nature. Jennah Bramow, one of Lindsey's accusers in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, wonders why there isn't more outrage. "You're supposed to be able to send your kids to school knowing that they're going to be safe," says Bramow, now 20. While other victims accepted settlement deals and signed confidentiality agreements, she sued her city's schools for failing to protect her and others from Lindsey—and won. Only then was Lindsey's teaching license finally revoked. As an 8-year-old elementary-school student, Bramow told how Lindsey forced her hand on what she called his "pee-pee." "How did you know it was his pee-pee?" an interviewer at St. Luke's Child Protection Center in Cedar Rapids asked Jennah in a videotape, taken in 1995. "'Cause I felt something?" said Jennah, then a fidgety girl with long, dark hair. "How did it feel?" the investigator asked. "Bumpy," Jennah replied. She drew a picture that showed how Lindsey made her touch him on the zipper area of his pants. Lindsey, now 68, refused multiple requests for an interview. "It never occurs to you people that some people don't want their past opened back up," he said when an AP reporter approached him at his home outside Cedar Rapids and asked questions. That past, according to evidence presented in the Bramow's civil case, included accusations from students and parents along with reprimands from principals that were filed away, explained away and ultimately ignored until 1995, when accusations from Bramow and two other girls forced his early retirement. Even then, he kept his teaching license until the Bramows took the case public and filed a complaint with the state. Like Lindsey, the perpetrators that the AP found are everyday educators—teachers, school psychologists, principals and superintendents among them. They're often popular and recognized for excellence and, in nearly nine out of 10 cases, they're male. While some abused students in school, others were cited for sexual misconduct after hours that didn't necessarily involve a kid from their classes, such as viewing or distributing child pornography. They include: —Joseph E. Hayes, a former principal in East St. Louis, Ill. DNA evidence in a civil case determined that he impregnated a 14-year-old student. Never charged criminally, his license was suspended in 2003. He has ignored an order to surrender it permanently. —Donald M. Landrum, a high school teacher in Polk County, N.C. His bosses warned him not to meet with female students behind closed doors. They put a glass window in his office door, but Landrum papered over it. Police later found pornography and condoms in his office and alleged that he was about to have sex with a female student. His license was revoked in 2005. —Rebecca A. Boicelli, a former teacher in Redwood City, Calif. She conceived a child with a 16-year-old former student then went on maternity leave in 2004 while police investigated. She was hired to teach in a nearby school district; board members said police hadn't told them about the investigation. The overwhelming majority of cases the AP examined involved teachers in public schools. Private school teachers rarely turn up because many are not required to have a teaching license and, even when they have one, disciplinary actions are typically handled within the school. Two of the nation's major teachers unions, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, each denounced sex abuse while emphasizing that educators' rights also must be taken into account. "Students must be protected from sexual predators and abuse, and teachers must be protected from false accusations," said NEA President Reg Weaver, who refused to be interviewed and instead released a two- paragraph statement. Kathy Buzad of the AFT said that "if there's one incident of sexual misconduct between a teacher and a student that's one too many." The United States has grown more sympathetic to victims of sex abuse over recent decades, particularly when it comes to young people. Laws that protect children from abusers bear the names of young victims. Police have made pursuing Internet predators a priority. People convicted of abuse typically face tough sentences and registry as sex offenders. Even so, sexually abusive teachers continue to take advantage, and there are several reasons why. For one, many Americans deny the problem, and even treat the abuse with misplaced fascination. Popular media reports trumpet relationships between attractive female teachers and male students. "It's dealt with in a salacious manner with late-night comedians saying 'What 14-year-old boy wouldn't want to have sex with his teacher?' It trivializes the whole issue," says Robert Shoop, a professor of educational administration at Kansas State University who has written a book aimed at helping school districts identify and deal with sexual misconduct. "In other cases, it's reported as if this is some deviant who crawled into the school district—'and now that they're gone, everything's OK.' But it's much more prevalent than people would think." The AP investigation found efforts to stop individual offenders but, overall, a deeply entrenched resistance toward recognizing and fighting abuse. It starts in school hallways, where fellow teachers look away or feel powerless to help. School administrators make behind-the-scenes deals to avoid lawsuits and other trouble. And in state capitals and Congress, lawmakers shy from tough state punishments or any cohesive national policy for fear of disparaging a vital profession. That only enables rogue teachers, and puts kids who aren't likely to be believed in a tough spot. In case after case the AP examined, accusations of inappropriate behavior were dismissed. One girl in Mansfield, Ohio, complained about a sexual assault by teacher Donald Coots and got expelled. It was only when a second girl, years later, brought a similar complaint against the same teacher that he was punished. And that second girl also was ostracized by the school community and ultimately left town. Unless there's a videotape of a teacher involved with a child, everyone wants to believe the authority figure, says Wayne Promisel, a retired Virginia detective who has investigated many sex abuse cases. He and others who track the problem reiterated one point repeatedly during the AP investigation: Very few abusers get caught. They point to several academic studies estimating that only about one in 10 victimized children report sexual abuse of any kind to someone who can do something about it. Teachers, administrators and even parents frequently don't, or won't, recognize the signs that a crime is taking place. "They can't see what's in front of their face. Not unlike a kid in an alcoholic family, who'll say 'My family is great,'" says McGrath, the California lawyer and investigator who now trains entire school systems how to recognize what she calls the unmistakable "red flags" of misconduct. In Hamburg, Pa., in 2002, those "red flags" should have been clear. A student skipped classes every day to spend time with one teacher. He gave her gifts and rides in his car. She sat on his lap. The bond ran so deep that the student got chastised repeatedly—even suspended once for being late and absent so often. But there were no questions for the teacher. Heather Kline was 12, a girl with a broad smile and blond hair pulled back tight. Teacher Troy Mansfield had cultivated her since she was in his third-grade class. "Kids, like, idolized me because they thought I was, like, cool because he paid more attention to me," says Kline, now 18, sitting at her mother's kitchen table, sorting through a file of old poems and cards from Mansfield. "I was just like really comfortable. I could tell him anything." He never pushed her, just raised the stakes, bit by bit—a comment about how good she looked, a gift, a hug. She was sure she was in love. By winter of seventh grade, he was sneaking her off in his car for an hour of sex, dropping in on her weekly baby-sitting duties, e-mailing about what clothes she should wear, about his sexual fantasies, about marriage and children. Mansfield finally got caught by the girl's mother, and his own words convicted him. At his criminal trial in 2004, Heather read his e-mails and instant messages aloud, from declarations of true love to explicit references to past sex. He's serving up to 31 years in state prison. The growing use of e-mails and text messages is leaving a trail that investigators and prosecutors can use to prove an intimate relationship when other evidence is hard to find. Even then, many in the community find it difficult to accept that a predator is in their midst. When these cases break, defendants often portray the students as seducers or false accusers. However, every investigator questioned said that is largely a misconception. "I've been involved in several hundred investigations," says Martin Bates, an assistant superintendent in a Salt Lake City school district. "I think I've seen that just a couple of times ... where a teacher is being pursued by a student." Too often, problem teachers are allowed to leave quietly. That can mean future abuse for another student and another school district. "They might deal with it internally, suspending the person or having the person move on. So their license is never investigated," says Charol Shakeshaft, a leading expert in teacher sex abuse who heads the educational leadership department at Virginia Commonwealth University. It's a dynamic so common it has its own nicknames—"passing the trash" or the "mobile molester." Laws in several states require that even an allegation of sexual misconduct be reported to the state departments that oversee teacher licenses. But there's no consistent enforcement, so such laws are easy to ignore. School officials fear public embarrassment as much as the perpetrators do, Shakeshaft says. They want to avoid the fallout from going up against a popular teacher. They also don't want to get sued by teachers or victims, and they don't want to face a challenge from a strong union. In the Iowa case, Lindsey agreed to leave without fighting when his bosses kept the reason for his departure confidential. The decades' worth of allegations against him would have stayed secret, if not for Bramow. Across the country, such deals and lack of information-sharing allow abusive teachers to jump state lines, even when one school does put a stop to the abuse. While some schools and states have been aggressive about investigating problem teachers and publicizing it when they're found, others were hesitant to share details of cases with the AP—Alabama and Mississippi among the more resistant. Maine, the only state that gave the AP no disciplinary information, has a law that keeps offending teachers' cases secret. Meanwhile, the reasons given for punishing hundreds of educators, including many in California, were so vague there was no way to tell why they'd been punished, until further investigation by AP reporters revealed it was sexual misconduct. And in Hawaii, no educators were disciplined by the state in the five years the AP examined, even though some teachers there were serving sentences for various sex crimes during that time. They technically remained teachers, even behind bars. Elsewhere, there have been fitful steps toward catching errant teachers that may be having some effect. The AP found the number of state actions against sexually abusive teachers rose steadily, to a high of 649 in 2005. More states now require background checks on teachers, fingerprinting and mandatory reporting of abuse, though there are still loopholes and a lack of coordination among districts and states. U.S. Supreme Court rulings in the last 20 years on civil rights and sex discrimination have opened schools up to potentially huge financial punishments for abuses, which has driven some schools to act. And the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification keeps a list of educators who've been punished for any reason, but only shares the names among state agencies. The uncoordinated system that's developed means some teachers still fall through the cracks. Aaron M. Brevik is a case in point. Brevik was a teacher at an elementary school in Warren, Mich., until he was accused of using a camera hidden in a gym bag to secretly film boys in locker rooms and showers. He also faced charges that he recorded himself molesting a boy while the child slept. Found guilty of criminal sexual conduct, Brevik is now serving a five- to 20-year prison sentence and lost his Michigan license in 2005. What Michigan officials apparently didn't know when they hired him was that Brevik's teaching license in Minnesota had been permanently suspended in 2001 after he allegedly invited two male minors to stay with him in a hotel room. He was principal of an elementary school in southeastern Minnesota at the time. "I tell you what, they never go away. They just blend a little better," says Steve Janosko, a prosecutor in Ocean County, N.J., who handled the case of a former high school teacher and football coach, Nicholas J. Arminio. Arminio surrendered his New Jersey teaching license in 1994 after two female students separately accused him of inappropriate touching. The state of Maryland didn't know that when he applied for teaching credentials and took a job at a high school in Baltimore County. He eventually resigned and lost that license, too. Even so, until this month, he was coaching football at another Baltimore County high school in a job that does not require a teaching license. After the AP started asking questions, he was fired. Victims also face consequences when teachers are punished. In Pennsylvania, after news of teacher Troy Mansfield's arrest hit, girls called Kline, his 12-year-old victim, a "slut" to her face. A teacher called her a "vixen." Friends stopped talking to her. Kids no longer sat with her at lunch. Her abuser, meanwhile, had been a popular teacher and football coach. So, between rumors that she was pregnant or doing drugs and her own panic attacks and depression, Kline bounced between schools. At 16, she ran away to Nashville. "I didn't have my childhood," says Kline, who's back home now, working at a grocery cash register and hoping to get her GED so she can go to nursing school. "He had me so matured at so young. "I remember going from little baby dolls to just being an adult." The courts dealt her a final insult. A federal judge dismissed her civil suit against the school, saying administrators had no obligation to protect her from a predatory teacher since officials were unaware of the abuse, despite what the court called widespread "unsubstantiated rumors" in the school. The family is appealing. In Iowa, the state Supreme Court made the opposite ruling in the Bramow case, deciding she and her parents could sue the Cedar Rapids schools for failing to stop Lindsey. Bramow, now a young mother who waits tables for a living, won a $20,000 judgment. But Lindsey was never criminally charged due to what the former county prosecutor deemed insufficient evidence. Arthur Sensor, the former superintendent in Oelwein, Iowa, who vividly recalls pressuring Lindsey to quit on Feb. 18, 1964, regrets that he didn't do more to stop him back then. Now, he says, he'd call the police. "He promised me he wouldn't do it again—that he had learned. And he was a young man, a beginning teacher, had a young wife, a young child," Sensor, now 86 years old, said during testimony at the Bramows' civil trial. "I wanted to believe him, and I did."

.

The first point to be made is just how pervasive public school sexual abuse is.  The AP makes it very clear that they probably have uncovered only a small percentage of the actual number of incidents.

Another key finding is that there is a system - an insidious, mutual cover-your-ass system - in place that protects sexual offenders in the public schools.  Am I surprised?  No.  Is it horrific?  Yes.

The AP also makes quick reference to the comparison between Catholic priests accused of sexual misconduct and public school teachers.  Fair enough.  What they don't talk about, however, is that the depredations of Catholic priests have been front page news for years and years, but public school sexual misconduct has always been treated as one or another individual cases, not as the pervasive epidemic it clearly is.

Will media pick up this exposé and start talking about what is going on in our public schools?  I would like to think so, but I doubt it.  In our media, it is open season on Catholics in general and Catholic priests in particular.  Public school teachers, however, are perceived in far more exalted terms.  We'll see.........

Let me end by making an extremely important point about presumed innocence.  Not every schoolteacher is a sexual predator and not every accused schoolteacher is guilty.  As a matter of simple decency and fairness, each incident must be determined individually on its own facts. 

Whether we are talking about a priest or a schoolteacher, the last thing we want is someone's life ruined over a false charge.

Ken Berwitz

My previous blog showed how the New York Times completely distorted and misrepresented events regarding the DCC smear letter to Rush Limbaugh and the amount of money it generated for a worthy cause - an educational fund for families of fallen marines and law enforcement officers.

Now, hot on its heels, I have come across another even more egregious revision of history.  This one, from the ABC News blog "political radar" was uncovered by the invaluable site www.newsbusters.org (which is one of the new links on this page).  Please read it and see for yourself:.

ABC Tries To Credit Democrats for Rush's $2 Million Ebay Letter!

Ken Berwitz

Remember those puzzles you used to see when you were a kid?  The ones where you were supposed to find 5 frogs, two telephones, four ice cream cones, 3 cars, etc. hidden in the detail of a picture?

Well, for your reading pleasure (outrage is more like it), I am going to show you the literary equivalent of one of those puzzles.  It is the New York Times' coverage of Rush Limbaugh's E-bay auction, in which he sold idiotic, dishonest "condemnation" letter, signed by instigator harry reid and the other 40 members of the DCC (Democratic Clown College).

Here it is.  I won't use bold print.  You're supposed to spot the BS without my help, so no clues:.

Critical Letter to Limbaugh Fetches $2 Million

A letter from 41 senators, shown on a screengrab from eBay, became a windfall for charity.

Ken Berwitz

I'm not always William Kristol's biggest fan, but he hits a home run with this analysis of the 110th congress --- the remarkably inept, do-nothing, try-to-lose-the-war congress we have just suffered through.

Mr. Kristol provides the superb commentary.  I supply the bold print (there's a lot of it because so many points are worth emphasizing):.

Epitaph for a Congress
In memory of the 110th Congress and the party that led it.
by William Kristol
10/29/2007, Volume 013, Issue 07

Perhaps the Democratic sweep in last November's elections was providential. Consider what might have happened if Republicans had suffered setbacks on November 7, 2006, but had narrowly maintained control of Congress. The political situation facing the Bush administration would have seemed less dire. Those pushing for a new strategy in Iraq and a surge of troops might well have failed to convince the administration to embrace such a radical change. Shaky Republicans in Congress, terrified by the close call, would have been adamant that we begin to draw down in Iraq. The report of the Iraq Study Group would have fallen on the desperately receptive ears of congressional Republicans ("we barely held on and we'd better do something") and on equally receptive disappointed-but-emboldened-Democratic ones. The 110th Congress would then have insisted, with a bipartisan flourish, on an establishment-sanctioned middle way that was, in fact, a disguised path to defeat. Bush would have had a difficult time resisting pressure from a Republican or partly Republican Congress. And we would now be facing an utter debacle in the heart of the Middle East. Instead, the GOP lost both houses. Having little left to lose, Bush defied conventional wisdom, changed commanders and strategy, and went for the surge. He was able to hold Republicans together and beat back a series of partisan assaults from the Democratic Congress, starting in January and continuing into September. He was able to buy time until the new strategy backed by more troops began to work. The most comical evidence of the surge's success was the story on the antiwar McClatchy Newspapers wire last Tuesday, "As violence falls in Iraq, cemetery workers feel the pinch." As the astute observers at the Powerline blog put it, "This is one of those headlines you couldn't make up." Jay Price of the Raleigh News & Observer and Qasim Zein of McClatchy Newspapers (along with McClatchy special correspondents Janab Hussein, Hussein Kadhim, and Sahar Issa--it was a major story!) reported the sad news: At what's believed to be the world's largest cemetery, where Shiite Muslims aspire to be buried and millions already have been, business isn't good. A drop in violence around Iraq has cut burials in the huge Wadi al Salam cemetery here by at least one-third in the past six months, and that's cut the pay of thousands of workers who make their living digging graves, washing corpses or selling burial shrouds. A loss of income for cemetery workers due to a decline in violence! Clearly an injustice for the Democratic Congress to address. But first, on Thursday, they had to try to override President Bush's veto of their cherished middle-class children's insurance bill. Bush's veto was about to be sustained when senior Democratic congressman Pete Stark, from the San Francisco Bay area, took to the floor of the House: You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people, if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement. So U.S. troops in Iraq are just "blow[ing] up innocent people," and the president is sending those troops there "to get their heads blown off" for his "amusement"? Whenever you think congressional Democrats can sink no lower, they prove you wrong. Twenty-four hours later, Democratic leaders had yet to chastise their 18-term colleague. Stark refused to apologize, but he did say he respected the troops. So does Hillary Clinton. But last month, over on the Senate side, she couldn't resist impugning the integrity of General David Petraeus as he testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Clinton said Petraeus's testimony required a "willing suspension of disbelief." That is, contrary to all evidence, Clinton accused the commanding general of U.S. troops in Iraq of misleading the American people. All of this followed by several months the defining statement of the 110th Congress: Harry Reid's assertion, this past April 19, "This war is lost." History may well record that statement as the epitaph for the 110th Congress, and the party that led it. The Democrats engaged in endless efforts to make sure the war really was lost. They failed. Now it looks as if the war, despite the Democratic Congress's best efforts, may well be won. It's the congressional Democrats who are the losers. And so could be the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee. Are the American people likely to elect the candidate of a party that has tried its best to lose a winnable war?

.

Over the months I have referred to harry reid as the senate malaise leader and nancy pelosi as the disparager of the house.  Those descriptions are not just sarcastic puns, they are reality based. 

The ineptitude and counter-productivity of this congress, overseen by reid and pelosi, is breathtaking.

Will voters understand how badly congress has performed and react to it?  Well, the polls show the current, Democrat-controlled congress with the lowest approval ratings in history.  That is according to Gallup, which has been measuring congressional approval for 34 years, and Zogby, which is anything but friendly to Republicans.

I'm no prophet and have no idea what the political landscape will look like after the 2008 election.  But one thing I do know:  there is no lock at all on Democrats retaining control of either house, certainly not if voter sentiment remains where it is now. 

They don't like Bush?  Well he's not running.  They don't like congress?  Well they are. 

And if the Democratic controlled congress performs in 2008 anything like they did in 2007, they should be ousted and then some.

Ken Berwitz

The well respected Harris Poll is out.  Its results are very encouraging if you are rooting for a positive result in Iraq...and very discouraging if you are rooting for bad news, maybe even our defeat.

With that in mind, please read the following article from the Washington Times.  Then wonder why you didn't catch it on the network news last night.  As usual, the bold print is mine:

America's hope for Iraq war up, poll says

October 19, 2007
By Jennifer Harper

Americans have the distinct impression that brighter days could be ahead in Iraq. Positive sentiments about the war are on a slow but steady upswing, according to a Harris Poll released yesterday.

The number of those who say things are getting better for U.S. troops has increased from 13 percent in March and 20 percent in August to 25 percent now.

Negativity has lessened: Those who say things are getting worse for troops fell from 55 percent in January and 51 percent in March to 32 percent now.

"Whether because of the news from Iraq, or the messages from the White House, Americans are less pessimistic than they were about the future prospects in Iraq," the survey said, deeming the findings "moderately good news for the White House."

Although it is not blockbuster in nature, good news indeed ekes out. Extremist attacks on U.S. troops have dropped from 256 in August to 153 in September and 36 so far this month, according to the Defense Department.

Even war-torn Fallujah has improved.

"Municipal governments are starting to stand up. Fallujah now has a city council, has a mayor, has a city council chairman who are all very responsive to the needs of their constituency," Stephen Falkan, the team leader of the provincial reconstruction team in the Anbar province, said at a press conference in Fallujah this week.

Are we buying such claims? A modest number of us give grudging acknowledgment to improvements in Iraq since President Bush sent an additional 20,000 troops in January.

"In May, only 9 percent believed the surge of new troops was working; that has now almost doubled to a [still very modest] 17 percent," the survey said.

About 40 percent of the respondents said the increase has had little effect on the conflict, about the same as it was in May.

The nation still wrestles with ethics. A similar Harris survey two years ago found that 34 percent of us said military action was the "right thing" to do in Iraq, 53 percent said it was wrong and 13 percent were not sure. Now, 37 percent said it was the right thing, compared with 46 percent who said the war is wrong and 18 percent who are undecided.

Mr. Bush gets a tiny bounce. In January, 26 percent said he was doing a good job in Iraq. Now the number stands at 29 percent.

It's a toss-up between Mr. Bush and Congress as far as public trust goes. Overall, an even quarter of the respondents trust the White House to manage the war, compared with 27 percent who preferred Congress and 34 percent who said "neither." Another 14 percent were undecided.

Republicans still stand by their man: 58 percent said they trust the White House while 7 percent trusted Congress. Another 24 percent said they trust neither and 11 percent were not sure.

Among Democrats, half trusted Congress, 5 percent trusted the White House and 30 percent trusted neither. Another 16 percent were undecided.

The survey of 2,565 adults was conducted online Oct. 9 to 15. .

Those data are a testament to the resiliency of our people.  They are faced with a daily barrage from mainstream media assuring them that their president is a an inept fool and the war in Iraq is either lost or should be. 

Good news, such as the dramatic lessening of attacks on our troops which is cited in the article, are either noted in passing or buried altogether.

Can you imagine what people would be saying if media reported good news as strongly and conspicuously as bad news?  Can you imagine what those numbers would be if people were actually given BOTH sides of what is happening?

Well, imagining is all you're going to be able to do.  Because most media are not doing any such thing.  The national disgrace of an agenda-driven media manipulating its readers/viewers continues. 

We can only hope more and more people break free of the assumption that media give them both sides, and see things as they really are.  If this poll is any indication, some may already be doing just that.

Ken Berwitz

Perhaps you know about this fight, because it has been going on for years. But perhaps you don't because it is too embarrassing to Ted Kennedy for much of the media to talk about it.

Anyway, here it is, from Reuters:.

Cape Cod Commission denies Cape Wind application

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Cape Cod Commission in Massachusetts Thursday denied Cape Wind's application to bury electric cables needed to connect its proposed 420-megawatt offshore wind farm in the Nantucket Sound to the state power grid.

Cape Wind said in a release that it would challenge the Commission decision. The Cape Cod Commission is a local organization created by the state in 1990 to manage growth and protect Cape Cod's natural resources.

Sen. Ted Kennedy and many residents who own coastal property from where they could see the wind turbines on a clear day oppose the project along with some environmental groups concerned about disrupting the patterns of migratory birds and the potential effect on local sea life.

The project's supporters, who include other environmental groups, meanwhile claim it would provide renewable energy, improve air quality, lower electricity costs and increase the reliability of the power grid.

Although the wind farm would be located in federal waters, the transmission lines connecting the project to the grid crosses land controlled by state and local authorities.

The Commission said it did not have enough information to make a decision. Local papers said Cape Wind could offer to provide more information to the Commission or appeal to the state to override the local authorities, or both.

"The Commission's denial based, not on the merits but, on claims that Cape Wind provided insufficient information does not square with the record," Jim Gordon, president of Cape Wind, said in a release. .

Well, you can't say Kennedy is not into preservation. He has managed to preserve his view of the water at the cost of environmentally safe, clean, renewable energy for everyone else.  I'm sure his similarly mega-rich neighbors are all toasting him tonight with the finest champagne.

Oh, yeah, he managed to get a few environmental groups (a minority, thank god - most didn't cave in) to barf out something about migratory birds.  If you believe that, look for the toothie fairy among those birds.

Kennedy has spent a lifetime living like a king off of money someone else made.  That, and lecturing us on how we should behave as he gluttonizes his life away on mansions, private jets and myriad other affectations of wealth and privilege people like you and me will never get a sniff of.

This is his latest hypocrisy.  How do you like it?

Ken Berwitz

This has to be nearing critical mass.

Earlier this week the New York Times, one of hillary clinton's most stalwart protectors, did its second major exposé on a money scandal that goes directly to her doorstep.  First Norman Hsu, then Milberg Weiss.

Today, the Los Angeles Times, an equally stalwart defender of Ms. clinton, has exposed another money scandal that goes straight to her. 

Here it is (its long but you should see everything).  As usual the bold print is mine:.

An unlikely treasure-trove of donors for Clinton

By Peter Nicholas and Tom Hamburger
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

October 19, 2007

NEW YORK — Something remarkable happened at 44 Henry St., a grimy Chinatown tenement with peeling walls. It also happened nearby at a dimly lighted apartment building with trash bins clustered by the front door.

And again not too far away, at 88 E. Broadway beneath the Manhattan bridge, where vendors chatter in Mandarin and Fujianese as they hawk rubber sandals and bargain-basement clothes.

All three locations, along with scores of others scattered throughout some of the poorest Chinese neighborhoods in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx, have been swept by an extraordinary impulse to shower money on one particular presidential candidate -- Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury. In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. When Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2004, he received $24,000 from Chinatown.

At this point in the presidential campaign cycle, Clinton has raised more money than any candidate in history. Those dishwashers, waiters and street stall hawkers are part of the reason. And Clinton's success in gathering money from Chinatown's least-affluent residents stems from a two-pronged strategy: mutually beneficial alliances with powerful groups, and appeals to the hopes and dreams of people now consigned to the margins.

Clinton has enlisted the aid of Chinese neighborhood associations, especially those representing recent immigrants from Fujian province. The organizations, at least one of which is a descendant of Chinatown criminal enterprises that engaged in gambling and human trafficking, exert enormous influence over immigrants. The associations help them with everything from protection against crime to obtaining green cards.

Many of Clinton's Chinatown donors said they had contributed because leaders in neighborhood associations told them to. In some cases, donors said they felt pressure to give.

The other piece of the strategy involves holding out hope that, if Clinton becomes president, she will move quickly to reunite families and help illegal residents move toward citizenship. As New York's junior senator, Clinton has expressed support for immigrants and greater family reunification. She is also benefiting from Chinese donors' naive notions of what she could do in the White House.

Campaign concerns

As with other campaigns looking for dollars in unpromising places, the Clinton operation also has accepted what it later conceded were improper donations. At least one reported donor denies making a contribution. Another admitted to lacking the legal-resident status required for giving campaign money.

Clinton aides said they were concerned about some of the Chinatown contributions.

"We have hundreds of thousands of donors. We are proud to have support from across New York and the country from many different communities," campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said. "In this instance, our own compliance process flagged a number of questionable donations and took the appropriate steps to be sure they were legally given. In cases where we couldn't confirm that, the money was returned."

The Times examined the cases of more than 150 donors who provided checks to Clinton after fundraising events geared to the Chinese community. One-third of those donors could not be found using property, telephone or business records. Most have not registered to vote, according to public records.

And several dozen were described in financial reports as holding jobs -- including dishwasher, server or chef -- that would normally make it difficult to donate amounts ranging from $500 to the legal maximum of $2,300 per election.

Of 74 residents of New York's Chinatown, Flushing, the Bronx or Brooklyn that The Times called or visited, only 24 could be reached for comment.

Many said they gave to Clinton because they were instructed to do so by local association leaders. Some said they wanted help on immigration concerns. And several spoke of the pride they felt by being associated with a powerful figure such as Clinton.

New take, old game

Beyond what it reveals about present-day campaign fundraising, Chinatown's newfound role in the 2008 election cycle marks another chapter in the centuries-old American saga of marginalized ethnic groups and newly arrived immigrants turning to politics to improve their lot.

In earlier times, New York politicians from William "Boss" Tweed to Fiorello LaGuardia gained power with the support of immigrants. So did politicians in Philadelphia, Cleveland, Chicago and other big cities.

Like many who traveled this path, most of the Chinese reported as contributing to Clinton's campaign have never voted. Many speak little or no English. Some seem to lead such ephemeral lives that neighbors say they've never heard of them.

"This is a new game," said Peter Kwong, a professor at Hunter College in New York who studies Chinatown communities across the country. Historically, Kwong said, "voting in Chinatown is so weak" that politicians did not go out of their way to court residents.

"Today it is all about money," he said.

The effort is especially pronounced among groups in the Fujianese community. More than a decade ago, Fujianese cultural associations ran gambling operations and, more ominously, at least one was home to a gang that trafficked in illegal Fujian native immigrants.

The human-smuggling problem came to a head in 1993, when a cargo ship, the Golden Venture, ran aground off New York City. As shocked police and immigration officials looked on, hundreds of Fujian natives who had spent weeks below deck struggled to make it to shore. Several died in the attempt.

A crackdown by the FBI's organized-crime task force led to the indictment of more than 20 Fujian native traffickers. Today, the problem has substantially dissipated, says Konrad Motyka of the FBI's New York field office, who participated in the investigation of the Golden Venture.

Although Motyka is wary of the havoc wreaked in the past by Fujianese organized crime, he said: "I welcome signs that the community is participating in politics."

High hopes

At his tiny restaurant in the south Bronx, which has one table and a takeout counter, Chang Jian Lin displays a prized memento: a photo of himself and Clinton. The picture was taken at a fundraising banquet in Chinatown this spring.

Lin and his wife, who also works in the restaurant, said through an interpreter that they believe Clinton, if elected president, will reunite their family. The Lins' two teenage children remain in Fujian, a mountainous coastal province in southeastern China opposite Taiwan.

"If she gets to be the president, we want our children to come home," Chang Jian Lin said.

Campaign officials point out that Clinton has sponsored legislation aimed at family reunification; the proposals failed. And immigration measures being discussed in Congress would assign a lower priority to family reunification, which tends to bring in poor people, and give preference to immigrants with more-lucrative job skills.

Moreover, the Lins appeared to have an exaggerated impression of a president's ability to change such things as immigration laws single-handedly.

Kwong thinks Clinton may be "exploiting the vulnerabilities of recent immigrants."

Nonetheless, Lin is planning to attend another Clinton fundraiser, a birthday bash next week. He said his support rested on more than his hope for reuniting his family. "Besides the immigration issue with my kids, the overall standard of living will improve for the Chinese people" living in the U.S., he said.

He has never before supported a U.S. politician and, not yet a citizen, he is barred from voting. But when Fujianese community leaders asked him to donate to Clinton, he said, he eagerly contributed $1,000. Immigrants who have permanent resident status can legally make campaign contributions.

Coming up with the money was hard, Lin acknowledged, adding: "The restaurant is really small."

Missing persons

The tenement at 44 Henry St. was listed in Clinton's campaign reports as the home of Shu Fang Li, who reportedly gave $1,000.

In a recent visit, a man, apparently drunk, was asleep near the entrance to the neighboring beauty parlor, the Nice Hair Salon.

A tenant living in the apartment listed as Li's address said through a translator that she had not heard of him, although she had lived there for the last 10 years.

A man named Liang Zheng was listed as having contributed $1,000. The address given was a large apartment building on East 194th Street in the Bronx, but no one by that name could be located there.

Census figures for 2000 show the median family income for the area was less than $21,000. About 45% of the population was living below the poverty line, more than double the city average.

In the busy heart of East Broadway, beneath the Manhattan Bridge, is a building that is listed as the home of Sang Cheung Lee, also reported to have given $1,000. Trash was piled in the dimly lighted entrance hall. Neighbors said they knew of no one with Lee's name there; they knocked on one another's doors in a futile effort to find him.

Salespeople at a store on Canal Street were similarly baffled when asked about Shih Kan Chang, listed as working there and having given $1,000. The store sells purses, jewelry and novelty Buddha statues. Employees said they had not heard of Chang.

Another listed donor, Yi Min Liu, said he did not make the $1,000 contribution in April that was reported in his name. He said he attended a banquet for Clinton but did not give her money.

Clinton "has done a lot for the Chinese community," he said.

One New York man who said he enthusiastically donated $2,500 to Clinton doesn't appear to be eligible to do so under federal election law. He said he came to the United States from China about two years ago and didn't have a green card.

Out of the periphery

A key figure helping to secure Asian support for Clinton is a woman named Chung Seto, who came to this country as a child from Canton province and has supported Bill and Hillary Clinton since the 1990s. She called Fujian natives' support for Hillary Clinton the beginning of civic engagement for an immigrant group that had long been on the periphery.

She said she stationed translators at the entrance of one event to try to screen out improper contributions.

Qun Wu, a 37-year-old waiter at a Chinese restaurant in Flushing, saw a reference to a Clinton fundraiser in a Chinese-language newspaper. He took a day off from work to go. Though he only makes $500 a week, he considers his $1,000 donation to be money well-spent. He got his picture taken with Clinton, hung it prominently in his house, then had color reprints made and sent to family in China.

"Every day I go home and see it," he said. "I see my picture with Hillary, and I feel encouraged. It's a great honor."

Many, on the other hand, said they gave for reasons having more to do with the Chinese community than with Clinton. He Duan Zheng, who gave $1,000, said of the Fujianese community: "They informed us to go, so I went.

"Everybody was making a donation, so I did too," he said. "Otherwise I would lose face.".

Is it just me or does this come across as dishonest, even depraved?

The only way hillary clinton can possibly get away with this is if media run interference for her - something they have very willingly done for a long time.

But if the New York Times and Los Angeles Times are any harbinger of what is to come, Clinton's status as a protected species in the media may be coming to an end.

And if it does, what is left? 

Hillary Clinton, who wants to run the country and command our armed forces, has never successfully run anything in her adult life. 

-She became a partner, then a senior partner at a corrupt law firm (The Rose law firm in Little Rock) when her husband became state Attorrney General, then Governor

-Her husband put her in charge of Arkansas education and it stayed exactly where it was in the ratings...49th out of 50 states. 

-When her husband became president he put her in charge of health care and her committee's recommendations were so disastrous that every DEMOCRAT voted against them along with every Republican.  And a federal judge fined the committee $290,000 because of its ethics violations.

In other words, clinton's entire résumé is based on who her husband is, not who she is or what she has done..  And when she is put in charge of something she fails at it.  Miserably.

Simply stated, hillary clinton has no qualifications to be the president of the United States.  In the absence of any qualifications, her two greatest assets have been what her husband can procure for her, and that she has had protected species status from the media.  Now one of those assets - her protected species status - is clearly diminished and may soon be gone altogether.

A good many political pundits keep telling us it is inevitable that hillary clinton will be our next President.  Does this sound like it is inevitable to you?  Not to me it doesn't.

Ken Berwitz

After senate malaise leader harry reid and the 40 other members of the DCC sent their idiotic smear letter, that was based on a lie, to Rush Limbaugh...

... and after they tried to get Mark May, the CEO of Limbaugh's syndicator Clear Channel, to publicly admonish Limbaugh (with no success at all)...

...and after Limbaugh made utter mincement of reid and the rest of the DCC by showing that the basis for their smear letter was false...

...and after Limbaugh put the letter up for auction at E-bay, promising to donate all proceeds to an educational fund for the families of fallen marines and law enforcement officers...

...and after Limbaugh pledged to match the winning bid...

...and after the letter sold for the unbelievable amount of $2,100,100, which means that, with Limbaugh's matching amount, over $4,000,000 will go to this eminently worthwhile cause...

...and after Limbaugh challenged reid and the rest of the DCC to match the bid...

...and after none of them offered a penny towards doing so....

Harry Reid goes to the floor of the senate and tells Limbaugh that...

"Never did we think that this letter would bring money of this nature. And, for the cause, Madam President, it is extremely good. Now, everyone knows that Rush Limbaugh and I don't agree on everything in life and maybe that is kind of an understatement. But without qualification, Mark May -- the owner of the network that has Rush Limbaugh -- and Rush Limbaugh should know that this letter that they're auctioning is going to be something that raises money for a worthwhile cause."

You read this stuff and you don't believe your eyes.  After all that happened, Harry Reid is TELLING Limbaugh and May that they are raising money and it's a worthwhile cause?  He's INFORMING them of this? 

What a guy.  Next thing you know he'll go on tour telling pregnant women they're having babies.  Maybe even telling men who don't shave that they will start to grow a beard.  My god, what would we do without a source of information like this?

If there is a more ridiculous clown in the senate than Harry Reid, I have not seen that person.  And please spare me the pleasure.

Ken Berwitz

It's all over. The bidding at E-bay has ended.

The smear letter which condemned Rush Limbaugh for saying something he did not say, and signed by all 41 members in good standing of the DCC (Democratic Clown College), has been sold in E-bay for......

$2,100,000!

And since Mr. Limbaugh is matching it dollar for dollar, the amount is:

$4,200,000

And now we add in all the pledges of all the DCC members combined and the grand total is....

$4,200,000

Whoops, that didn't change.  Why?  Because, between them, all 41 members of the Democratic Clown College did not match even one thin dime. 

I'm elated that the organization this money is being given to, which provides education to the families of fallen marines and law enforcement officers, can do so much now that it couldn't before the DCCs smear letter. 

Huge thanks' are in order for the bidder (I'm told her name is Betty Casey), Rush Limbaugh for his creativity in taking this idiotic letter and auctioning it off, and Rush Limbaugh again for his superseding philanthropy as he matches the bid and therefore doubles the contribution.

And the DCC?  I guess they felt their contribution ended with signing the smear letter.

Ken Berwitz

FYI - Based on various avenues of advice and input I have done some surgery on the ten right wing links this blog provides.

Gone are Anklebitingpundits, Instapundit and Neal Boortz.  Added are National Review, Newsbusters and Power Line.

There is nothing wrong with the three I removed, it's just that, all things considered, these three are better.

Ken

Ken Berwitz

Unless you read and view different major media than I do (and I read/view a lot of it), it has been a week since we have had any news about the noose that was hung on a Black professor's door at Columbia University Teacher's College.

The last we heard, Columbia U. had 56 hours of tape from 6 different cameras which covered the area around that door.  It stands to reason that those cameras would have seen how the noose got there.

But, without explanation, Columbia refused to hand over the tapes to police.  Then, some time later (you'll pardon my skepticism, but after enough time to edit those tapes) it finally did - again with no explanation of their initial refusal.

Now it is a week later. There is no doubt that the tape has been reviewed.  So police must have knowledge of how the noose got there -- assuming it is still on the tapes, that is.  But not a word from anyone.

This is starting to reek to the high heavens.

Where are our intrepid media on the apparent burying of this story, other than complicitly abetting the burial?

When it looked like a racial incident they couldn't stop reporting it.  Now that there is no doubt that the police either saw what happened or saw that what happened was spliced out?  No interest at all.

You can do the math on this one.  Right now it looks like 2+2.

Ken Berwitz

No one is covering the randi rhodes circus anywhere near as well as Brian Maloney, of www.radioequalizer.blogspot.com.

Here is his latest blog on the subject:.

Randi Rhodes Speaks About Non-Mugging, Raises New Questions

A DEEPER HOLE

Randi's Inconsistent Explanation Defies Credibility

Now that Air America Radio host Randi Rhodes has returned to the airwaves, at least one mystery has been solved: we know why her lawyer was in charge of making press statements.

That's because as soon as Randi opened her mouth on yesterday's show, new questions instantly began to emerge.

In this exclusive, Radio Equalizer- created video, listen as Randi digs a deep, deep hole for herself:

Blaming everyone but herself for the events that transpired, with special venom reserved for the press, Rhodes only deepened the confusion surrounding her accident. Here are questions we'd like answered:


Why did she send an email to Air America staffers claiming to have been mugged if there was no indication one had occurred?


Why has host Jon Elliot been forced to apologize for simply relaying Randi's note to network listeners? Is he the fall guy for her dishonesty?


Since there was never any evidence to support an attack claim, why did she even suggest this possibility in a way she knew would reach the press?


Why won't she tell us how much she'd had to drink before she'd stepped out of the Irish pub?


And perhaps most importantly, why doesn't it bother her that the phony mugging story was quickly turned into a chance to beat up on conservatives, who were actually blamed for the incident?


Sadly, the explanation of events given during a seven-minute opening segment yesterday simply doesn't hold water, especially her reason for initially telling others it was a mugging. Rhodes claims doctors told her she might have been attacked because they couldn't find any evidence she'd fainted.

Without a shred of real evidence to back that up, why make a statement like that? And if she did feel there had been an attack, then why not call the police at once?


Funny enough, in between complaining about the media presence outside her apartment building, Rhodes wonders aloud why her condition didn't generate more sympathy from others. Memo to Randi: try telling the truth next time, it will do wonders for what's left of your credibility. This is at best a weak attempt at cover- your- ass.. 

Ken Berwitz

This one is for the old-timers in the house.  The ones who remember Car 54, Where Are You, the classic TV comedy starring Joe E. Ross and Fred Gwynne.

Pardon my liberty with the lyrics.  But this is a political blog, isn't it?

There's a scandal: Norman Hsu,

And another: Milberg Weiss,

pete stark's loony hateful spew,

Well it wasn't very nice,

You're a legislative bust

With poll numbers in the dust........

Pelosi and Reid, where are, yoooooooooooooooooo

Ken Berwitz

I suppose the title of this blog comes across as an insult to people who view the Today show.  But I don't mean it that way.  I mean it as an insult - a very well earned and well deserved insult - to the Today show itself.

Let me explain.

Today is the most watched morning show on TV.  Millions and millions of people, mostly women I would think, put it on each morning.  And many people, probably millions, rely on Today for their news. 

This puts a special responsibility on the Today show.  If it provides the news fairly and accurately it makes Today viewers knowledgeable.  If it provides the news one-sidedly and inaccurately it makes Today viewers ignorant.

Simply stated, the Today show presents the news one-sidedly and inaccurately.  Very especially the political news.  Let me give you a couple of examples:

-Norman Hsu.  Norman Hsu is the convicted swindler and fugitive from justice who gave millions of dollars in dirty money to the Democratic party - at least some of it (probably a ton of it) by funneling donations illegally through third parties. 

Hillary Clinton appears to be the single biggest beneficiary of this dirty money.  It is estimated that about $850,000 was given to her by Hsu. 

When the Jack Abramoff scandal broke, and it turned out that about 2/3 of the dirty money he dispensed went to Republicans, Today couldn't stop reporting on it.  Weeks of major stories, features, panel discussions, etc.  Names named.  No mercy.

But when Hillary Clinton gets far more money than any individual got from Abramoff, and the source is someone who gave exclusively to Democrats?  Today gave it the "couple of days and out" treatment.  I doubt that many people who rely on Today for news even remember the name Norman Hsu, let alone what he did and how Hillary Clinton benefitted. 

-The law firm of Milberg Weiss.  Milberg Weiss is a law firm neck-deep in charges of fraud and bribery.  It also has contributed over $7,000,000.00. To Democrats.  That's right.  No typo.  SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS.  For their money, Milberg Weiss got favored-nation status from the Democratic party, particularly as relates to the class action suits they ran, the ones that made them so much money they could give truckloads of it to their Democratic benefactors.

According to the New York Times (which ain't exactly an enemy of the Democratic Party):.

Milberg Weiss reaped billions of dollars in legal fees over four decades as the acknowledged king of class action lawsuits, which accused executives of misleading investors with erroneous financial statements or some other fraud. According to the indictment, the New York-based firm ran a “racketeering enterprise” that collected a quarter billion dollars in 250 cases in which people were paid secret kickbacks for serving as plaintiffs. .

The Times continues.....

In addition to the kickback charges in the Milberg Weiss case, federal agents have investigated accusations that the firm funneled campaign contributions through plaintiffs and expert witnesses in the 1990s, said two lawyers familiar with the inquiry. The guilty plea entered by Mr. Lerach hinted at that, but it also specified that prosecutors would not pursue campaign finance violations, in exchange for Mr. Lerach’s admission that he had conspired to obstruct justice by concealing the kickbacks.

Beyond campaign contributions, Milberg Weiss became deeply ingrained in the financial firmament of the Democratic Party in other ways. Members of the firm gave $500,000 toward construction of a new Democratic National Committee headquarters, and some became partners in a private investment venture with several prominent Democrats. They included former Senator Robert G. Torricelli of New Jersey, who is a fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton, and Leonard Barrack, a Philadelphia trial lawyer who was once the national fund-raising chairman for the Democratic Party..

You can read the entire unbelievably scandalous story right here.  Just scroll back to yesterday's blogs, or link to http://partisan.blogs.hopelesslypartisan.com/item_1588.htm. 

Importantly, every major Democratic candidate has taken money, and plenty of it, from these paragons of virtue.  And if you're wondering how a couple of them are reacting to the scandal, here is one more snippet from the Times story:.

A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton said her presidential campaign did not intend to return the contribution from Mr. Weiss. A spokesman for the Obama campaign, whose Milberg Weiss contributions came from lawyers not directly involved in the kickback scandal, declined to comment. .

So tell me, do you think there is a story in here somewhere?  Do you think there is a very big story?  A huge story?  A story that could not possibly be buried by any media venue that provides news about the political campaigns?

Well, guess who has not done a word about this since the story broke in the Times (they've had two days to talk about it now)?

The Today show, that's who.

When people decide which candidate and/or which party they intend to vote for, I hope they make the most informed decision possible.

But the Today show is clearly insuring that its viewers make their decisions from the standpoint of ignorance.  As I have shown you, Today is doing what it can to make sure Democrats get as many votes as possible, and they are doing it by burying negative stories about Democrats.  Plain and simple.

I suppose I should expect this.  The news and commentary arms of NBC and its affiliated station MSNBC are comprised vastly of former Democrats who are supposed to provide neutral reportage.  Like Brian Williams (Jimmy Carter intern), Chris Matthews (Tip O'neill's chief of staff), Tim Russert (he and his father were Democratic operatives in Buffalo NY), and so on and so on and so on.

I'm just blogging here. I can't stop the Today show or a mammoth like NBC from manipulating its viewers.  But I can try to educate my readers that it is happening. 

And I hope I've done this....Today.

Ken Berwitz

The bidding ends at 1:00PM Eastern Time today.  But as of right now?  The idiotic "condemnation" letter against Rush Limbaugh, signed by 41 Democratic senators and members in good standing of the DCC (Democratic Clown College), is bid at.........

$2,100,000 !!!!!! 

As you know by now, Mr. Limbaugh is going to match the total. 

This means over $4,000,000 will be generated for the fund which goes to education expenses for the families of fallen marines and law enforcement officers.

The DCC members who signed their idiotic condemnation have been asked to match this...maybe even toss in a sawbuck or two.  Not a peep out of them.

And the Today show, which we put on each morning?  They have not seen fit to report any of this.  People who count on Today for news don't have a clue that this is happening.

Media bias?  Naaaaaahhhhhhhh

Ken Berwitz

While we're on the subject of hatred, I forgot to mention that, this morning on the Today show, rachel maddow - who hosts a show on what's left of air america radio, called President Bush a psychotic.

Specifically she said that if he thinks Iran is a problem but Pakistan is no problem he is psychotic. 

Now I don't recall President Bush ever saying that, but maybe Ms. maddow doesn't require the actual statement to be made for her to tell us the President is mentally disturbed.

Matt Lauer was the questioner.  And guess what, he didn't ask her about that hateful comment...not one word.  This could mean...

...he didn't notice she said it (pretty hard to believe),

...he thinks this is acceptable commentary (not so hard to believe),

...or that he is sympathetic to her hateful rant (also not so hard to believe)

Left wingers can say hateful things like this with impugnity.  Right wingers cannot. 

Apparently, therefore, when you want to pump out hate - like pete stark and rachel maddow do - it's good to be to the left. 

Ken Berwitz

If you think Nancy Pelosi is the worst congressperson from the Bay Area (San Francisco/Oakland/etc.) you are wrong. 

That's pretty amazing, isn't it, given how godawful Pelosi is.  But pete stark has her beat by a mile.

Stark has threatened a fellow congressperson with physical harm, called him a "fruitcake" (that is a pejorative reference to a gay male), has made numerous hate statements about Israel, hates Bush, hates Republicans, hates religion, hates hates hates. 

Here is stark's latest hate comment.  It is a demonstration of what an embarrassment he is to the congress...and the country.  It comes in the form of a rant on the house floor (the bold print is mine).  If you have a strong enough stomach, the video can be found at http://breitbart.tv/html/6912.html :.

"Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement." .

That, friends, is sheer, naked hatred.  Nothing more, nothing less. 

In a decent political climate, Democratic house members would be falling over each other to disavow, disassociate themselves from and condemn that hate comment.  But, under Nancy Pelosi (remember, I acknowledge she gives stark a run for his money) we are not in a decent political climate.

Let's see if mainstream media report this hate speech and show stark up as the embarrassment he is tonight on the network news or in tomorrow's papers. 

Do you want to take bets?

Ken Berwitz

Here is the latest update on how E-bay bidding is coming along on the DCC*** Smear letter, inspired by senate malaise leader harry reid, that was sent to Rush Limbaugh.

As you remember, the letter was signed by 41 Democratic senators/DCC members, and condemned Limbaugh for being unpatriotic and anti-troops - which has made reid and the DCC into national laughingstocks.

Currently, with 20 hours to go, the bidding is at, so help me, $851,100.  Maybe that's a typo on e-bay's part, but not mine, I assure you.  And it is absolutely flying upward.  I guarantee it will go far higher, probably over a million dollars.

Rush Limbaugh has pledged to match the winning bid, which means at least $1,700,200 will go to an educational fund for the families of fallen marines and law enforcement officers.

Limbaugh has challenged the DCC to match the amount too, as he is personally doing.  They have not responded.  They are apparently too busy cooking up new ways of not getting anything done legislatively to bother with a trifle like this.

---------------------------------------------------

***DCC is the Democratic Clown College

Ken Berwitz

Earlier today I did an R.I.P. for the great Deborah Kerr, who passed away at age 86

I am sorry to say I have two more to do.

Joey Bishop, the comedian, talk show host and "rat pack" member, died today at his home in Newport Beach, California. He was 89 years old.

And Teresa Brewer, the perky young lady with her little-girl voice and a string of hits through the 1950's, died yesterday.

In their very different ways, they made a lot of people happy for a lot of years.  May all three rest in peace.

Ken Berwitz

Sometimes the New York Times surprises me in the positive.  It doesn't happen near often enough, but I'm glad when it does.

Last month the Times was better in covering the Hillary Clinton money scandal than most print or broadcast media.

In case you forgot due to lack of media coverage, Norman Hsu was the guy who gave millions to Democrats and $850,000 to Hillary Clinton in particular. 

The problem?  Hsu is a convicted swindler who should have been serving jail time.  It was dirty money that was illegally given.

Now anyone who honestly looks at Hillary and Bill Clinton's money sources over the years could not be surprised about this.  A mountain of dirty money has come their way from many sources - a number of which I have blogged about on this website.

What has been not so much surprising as exasperating, is the dearth of media coverage this has received.  Hillary Clinton is running for President and, by most accounts is favored to win.  If her hands are all over this much dirty money shouldn't the media be talking about it?  SCREAMING about it?

Well, here is a new money scandal....not new but newly uncovered, to be exact....that goes not only to Ms. Clinton but to every major Democratic candidate for the presidency.  Every one.

And the New York Times, to their credit, is all over it, as you can see in their article which I've posted below.  I've put a lot of it in bold print, but the truth is, every word should be read. 

You want damning?  This is damning:.

Accused Law Firm Continues Giving to Democrats

Ken Berwitz

She danced with Yul Brynner in The King And I;

She embraced Burt Lancaster on the beach in From Here To Eternity;

Now she has gone from here to eternity in real life.

R.I.P. Deborah Kerr, great actress and singer, dead at the age of 86

Ken Berwitz

Brian Maloney, of www.radioequalizer.blogspot.com, has a very, very interesting and thought-provoking take on the Randi Rhodes mugging/non-mugging earlier this week.  It includes the possibility that her fall may have been related to either alcohol or drug impairment...something I had not thought of , but which Mr. Maloney has some information about which I hadn't known. 

Here, take a look:.

Randi Rhodes Non-mugging Incident, Media Response

A PUBLICITY BUMP

What's The Rest Of Randi's Story?

For three years, your Radio Equalizer has covered many bizarre twists and turns at the nation's most eccentric radio network, Air America. But the Randi Rhodes Bumpgate affair is by far the most peculiar.

For one thing, the way the story broke has implications that are broader than merely pondering the weak state of liberal talk radio. How did the tiny blog that relayed AAR talker Jon Elliot's on- air claims of a Rhodes mugging suddenly gain credibility? Why did so many mainstream media outlets fall into this journalistic trap without first checking for suspiciously- absent facts?

Thoughts, questions and updates on where this muddled mess now stands:


First and foremost, if Randi Rhodes does have a substance abuse problem, it's time to confront the issue head-on. Rush Limbaugh did and is a better person today for having done so. While many sites today have wondered aloud whether Rhodes is an alcoholic, rumors of a drug habit have persisted for years. If that's the case, it's time to get help.


Given that, was the mugging story a weak attempt to cover up the truth? How did Air America's Jon Elliot get the story so wrong? Was he trying to help a friend / colleague? Will he take the hit merely for passing along what he was probably told to say? Think about it: how could Elliot be so far off the mark otherwise? He's already been compelled to apologize.


Was this an abortive effort to smear the right that was quickly undone after it became clear the plan was much too half- baked? Since conservative Rhodes enemies were quickly named as the likely "attackers", was this an attempt to create a new Tawana Brawley- like opportunity out of a mere accident?

While conservatives could cut the left some slack on this question, they shouldn't. Consider the timing, coming just after recent dishonest attacks against Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. It fits perfectly: bring down Rush and Bill, prop up Randi as a martyr for the cause.


Why is her attorney making statements on her behalf if this is nothing more than a simple case of stumbling on a sidewalk or bumping into a tree? Doesn't that seem inherently defensive in nature?


Why did Air America compound its PR disaster through an initially vague and evasive approach to media inquiries? It was more reminiscent of the previous managerial regime than the current one.

Interestingly, Air America's prior owners and managers watched over Rhodes much more carefully, supplying a car and driver and other personal assistants. That seemed to go away with the network's bankruptcy and subsequent purchase by billionaire Manhattan landlord Stephen L Green.


The big question, one that is buzzing around the radio industry: was this all a big stunt? Think about it: it's the first time in ages that Air America Radio has generated real publicity. Sure, it was for all the wrong reasons, but ink is ink, right? When you're this desperate, perhaps you'll do what's necessary to remain alive. But the company's muddled, seemingly- disorganized response seems to discount this theory.


Funny enough, the blog that started it all refuses to retract its initial report, instead choosing to attack your Radio Equalizer in a subsequent post:

Oh yes, and then one final shout-out -- to conservative talk radio blogger Brian Maloney who for the first time mentioned Talking Radio in his "no-spin zone." Well, Maloney didn’t actually mention Talking Radio by name, but he did say that the Randi Rhodes mugging story was started by "a tiny blog whose author has been a frequent critic of [his] site."

Tiny! When’s the last time that your blog recorded over a thousand comments?

Hey buddy, here's the link you've always wanted, right here.


Finally, your Radio Equalizer took some flak for making Drudge the issue yesterday, rather than focusing on the real point: that liberals lie. Point taken.


Where does this bizarre mess go from here? It's clear there is much more to this story than a sidewalk accident, the cover-up and attempted smear campaign is the real, ongoing issue now. Something doesn't smell right. .

Ken Berwitz

What is it with the world, including the USA these days and Condoleezza Rice in particular?  Is this their imitation of Charlie Brown with the football that Lucy pulled out from under him at the start of every season?

There is absolutely no doubt about what mahmoud abbas wants, any more than hamas.  It is the end of Israel and the creation of a state of Palestine on all Israeli land.  They may have different avenues of trying to accomplish this, but their goal is exactly the same.

I've shown this over and over again here, but it seems that, for some reason, another proof always seems to be needed. 

Here's one for you, courtesy of www.israelnationalnews.com.  The bold print is mine:

On PA TV, All of Israel to be Replaced by 'Palestine'

(IsraelNN.com) Even as Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas declares his demand for "only" all 6,205 kilometers of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, his official TV station shows a PA flag covering all of Israel.

Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), a media watchdog group that monitors the media in the Palestinian Authority, reports on a clip broadcast by Fatah-controlled Palestinian television this week.  The clip shows a map in which Israel, in its entirety, is painted in the colors of the Palestinian flag - black, white, red and green.  The message is that the PA strives to replace all of Israel, and not just Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

A PA map that "wipes out" the Jewish State
(www.pmw.org.il, Oct. '07)

Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook of PMW write that the broadcast of the map at this particular time renders the matter of even greater concern.  "As preparations for the American peace conference continue," they write, "the leaders of the Palestinian Authority have announced their demands for a future Palestinian state with an area of 6205 square kilometers. This would include the Gaza Strip, the West Bank [Judea and Samaria - ed.] and [eastern] Jerusalem. However, the message they have conveyed to their people for years, and continue to convey on the eve of the conference, is that 'Palestine' exists and it replaces all of Israel."

As documented by PMW for many years, the idea of turning Israel into an Arab-Palestinian state is part of a formal educational approach throughout the Palestinian Authority. "The picture painted for the Palestinian population, both verbally and visually, is of a world without Israel," PMW writes. "This uniform message of a world without Israel is repeated in school books, children's programs, crossword puzzles, video clips, formal symbols, school and street names, etc."

Street names in the PA have been changed to memorialize terrorists, for instance, and PA textbooks regularly include references to the "Israel is Palestine" canard.  For instance, a 12th-grade literature book states, “Palestine’s war ended with a catastrophe that is unprecedented in history, when the Zionist gangs stole Palestine and expelled its people from their cities, their villages, their lands and their houses, and established the State of Israel.” [Arabic Language, Analysis, Literature and Criticism, grade 12, p. 104

Crossword puzzles in the official PA newspaper, Al Hayat al Jadida, have included clues such as “A Palestinian city” - with the proper answer being, in various places, Haifa, Lod, and Ashkelon; all three, of course, are present-day Israeli cities within the pre-1967 borders.  Another clue calls Yad Vashem Holocaust Center a "Jewish Center for eternalizing the Holocaust and the lies."  Other crossword puzzle examples can be seen here..

Palestininan Arabs could not make themselves clearer about this if they took full-page ads in the New York Times and broadcast a battle plan on national TV.  But, still, we pretend we don't know.

Eventually Israel is going to have to do something about this, far more than it has done so far, or it will literally cease to exist. 

Right now, the world can at least try to peacefully facilitate what is necessary.  But that window of opportunity is running out.  At some point Israel must act, with or without the world's support.

If and when that day comes, who will the world blame?  Who will Europe blame?  Who will the UN blame?

Who will Condoleezza Rice blame?

Ken Berwitz

Ok, tell me you ever heard of "Mutts and Moms" until, maybe, a day or two ago.  I dare you.

Unless you happen to live in their immediate area, you'll never convince me.

But now millions of people not only know of the existence of Mutts and Moms, maybe even the names of the women who run it, but they also know that those women are heartless scum who wrenched a dog from a loving family. 

And how do they know this?  Because Ellen DeGeneres told them. 

Oh, did I mention that Ellen DeGeneres has a personal stake in making Marina Batkis and Vanessa Chekroun, the women who run Mutts and Moms, look bad?  And a huge national audience with which to do it?

Please read the Associated Press account below (and please note that the AP tossed in a picture of their for-profit business too, just so you'd know how to hurt them financially).  The bold print is mine:

.

Woman Claims Threats Over DeGeneres' Dog
Oct 17, 9:12 PM (ET)

(AP) Ellen DeGeneres is shown in this, Jan. 9, 2007, file photo in Los Angeles. DeGeneres is in the... Full Image

Ken Berwitz

Over a day to go, and the DCC smear letter to Rush Limbaugh has been bid up to $117,100.  Count on that number going up significantly before this is all over.

And as "Russ" has commented in my previous update, Limbaugh has pledged to personally match whatever the final bid is...which means that a minimum of $234,200 will be contributed to the fund that helps to educate fallen marines and law enforcement officers.

If the 41 DCC members made the same pledge as Rush, that amount would be $234,200.  But they didn't.

They're too busy trying to convince you that Rush Limbaugh is against the troops and they're for them.

Ken Berwitz

I complain a lot about the UN being ineffective (to say the least). 

Well, what about our congress?  Mainstream media, as per usual, are running interference for them, as senate malaise leader harry reid and disparager of the house nancy pelosi get virtually nothing done.

Think I'm exaggerating?  Hey, I MUST be, you didn't read this in the New York Times or see it on the Today show or the network news, did you?  Therefore it can't be true.

Or can it?

If you read Investor's Business Daily, you know all about this sorry lack of performance, complete with specifics.  Here is their editorial on the subject:.

.

Little To Show By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, October 17, 2007 4:20 PM PT Congress: When President Bush wanted to expose congressional Democrats' ineptitude, it wasn't hard. He just had to point to their glaring absence of achievements during the more than nine months they've held power. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Democratic leaders are in the habit of complaining that the Iraqi parliament hasn't yet solved that country's deep-seated ethnic disputes. But the Congress over which they preside can't even pass one single spending bill. Now a new fiscal year is upon us. As the president pointed out during a Wednesday press conference, "major pieces of legislation aren't moving, and those that are, are at a snail's pace." All in all, "Congress has little to show for all the time that has gone by." When the Pelosi-Reid Congress isn't actually paralyzed, it's playing politics: • The FISA law governing the terrorist surveillance programs that have helped foil numerous bomb plots is something this Congress cannot bring itself to authorize on a permanent basis. It expires in February, and Democrats are intent on weakening it. As the president asked: "Why change a good law? The way that law was written works for the security of the country . . . it enables our intelligence experts to . . . find out the intentions of al-Qaida." • On SCHIP, a poor children's medical assistance program, Congress knew its attempt to increase eligibility to $83,000 would fail via a presidential veto. The president called it "an attempt by some in Congress to expand the reach of the federal government in medicine" by encouraging people "to move from private medicine" to government coverage. That could engender more support for socialized health care if a Democrat becomes the next president. • In August, the White House proposed reforms to make it easier to refinance mortgages. "More than six weeks later, Congress has yet to finish work on any of these measures," the president noted. • Trade bills expanding access to markets in South America and Asia are languishing. • Congress has yet to complete the Veterans Affairs appropriations bill funding veterans' benefits. Even in this area on which Democratic congressional leaders and the White House supposedly agree, they cannot get the job done. Yet with all that work unattended to, Congress does find time to try to pass a resolution condemning Turkey for nearly 100-year-old crimes by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenians. The president made note of the fact that "both Republicans and Democrats, including every living former secretary of state, have spoken out against this resolution." (Yes, even Madeleine Albright thinks what Pelosi & Co. are doing is dangerous.) With all the work it has to do, Congress should not be "antagonizing a democratic ally in the Muslim world, especially one that is providing vital support for our military every day," Bush said. In the case of the Turkey resolution, there's little doubt that Speaker Pelosi and the others who are pushing it realize that slapping an invaluable Muslim ally would destabilize the improving situation in Iraq. Turkey's parliament has just approved a military incursion into northern Iraq to move against the bases of the Kurdish guerillas waging an armed campaign for self-rule in Turkey. The Turkish prime minister said such action in Iraq would not take place immediately, but "in proper time on the proper ground." The president stressed that for those serving in government, protecting the American people is "our most solemn duty." But whether it's blocking terrorist surveillance, sabotaging Iraq by affronting a Mideast ally or falsely accusing the White House of depriving poor children of medical care, this Congress sees itself as having a different mission: impairing this presidency every chance it gets.

That sorry enough for you?  What a disgraceful record.  90% show and 10% obstruction.

When do these people start legislating for the needs of our country?  And when do media stop protecting them by not educating voters on how little they are doing?

Or put another way, when do media stop treating them as Democrats?

Ken Berwitz

I believe in racial equality.  I believe that being Black doesn't make you anything but Black.  It doesn't make you smart or dumb, thin or fat, good or bad at math, openminded or closeminded or anything else.  There are Black idiots and Black geniuses.  The blackness of their skin does not make them either of those things or anything in between.

Because of this, it pains me to note that a number of highly visible Black "leaders" are buffoons who reinforce horribly negative racial images, which some people then apply to the entire Black population.

In my opinion, al sharpton is arguably the single most conspicuous example..... and john conyers is close behind.

With this in mind, here is a report in today's Washington Post of al sharpton's testimony at john conyers' hearing...with copious buffoonery from keith ellison and sheila jackson-lee tossed in for good measure:

.

Justice Denied, Sharpton Delayed

By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, October 17, 2007; A02

Twenty-two members of the House Judiciary Committee took their seats for yesterday's hearing into the Jena, La., racial conflagration. Cameras and a standing-room-only crowd jammed the hearing room. But where was the star witness?

"Let me apologize," the Rev. Al Sharpton told the committee after strolling in an unfashionable one hour and 42 minutes late. "I have been on the tarmac in New York for the last two hours, so it was the airlines, not me, that is responsible."

Not exactly, Reverend. True, Sharpton's 8:30 Delta Shuttle flight was canceled, but even if it had been on time, it would have put Sharpton on Capitol Hill well after the hearing's start time. The real reason: Sharpton had to be on the set of NBC's "Today" show in New York yesterday morning.

As it happens, Sharpton may have done the lawmakers a favor. Before his arrival, Democrats, Republicans and the other witnesses managed to have a relatively low-key discussion about the case.

Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, argued that the white students who hung a noose at their high school shouldn't be prosecuted for hate crimes just because black students had been unfairly punished by a nefarious district attorney for beating a white schoolmate. Likewise, Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree urged the committee to focus on failing schools and ways to improve race relations in Jena.

But overshadowing this dialogue was the empty chair at the witness table. "If I were compiling a group of witnesses to encourage the diminishing of racial disharmony, I don't know that Mr. Sharpton would have made my cut," Rep. Howard Coble (R-N.C.) advised Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.).

As if on cue, Sharpton, in a three-piece suit, walked in a few minutes later and, to the tune of hundreds of camera-shutter clicks, took his seat. Conyers asked if he wished to make a belated opening statement, and Sharpton certainly did.

"It is almost like the national government is not in the country while we're watching nooses on the news every night," he said so loudly that microphones were superfluous. "The Justice Department," he continued, poking his fingers in the air, "needs to step into Jena and the Jenas of this country and establish that . . . the states did not win the Civil War."

Conyers, with civil rights credentials of his own, reminded Sharpton that he was "in the federal government right now before the Judiciary Committee, who I think has responded in quite a timely manner." The chairman further advised Sharpton: "I'm not sure if you had the benefit of what I thought was some excellent discussion."

But it was no use. It may have been Sharpton's words, his presence, or merely a coincidence, but after his arrival, the session quickly turned into an attack on the Bush administration and its representative at the hearing, U.S. Attorney Donald Washington of Louisiana, an African American himself.

Cohen, the civil rights lawyer, appealed for "cooler heads" and cautioned that "the wheels of justice grind slowly." But Sharpton demanded immediate action. "I know that the wheels of justice may turn slow, but it seems that it's at a standstill."

Soon after that, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Tex.) exploded with rage at the U.S. attorney. "Tell me why you did not intervene," she shouted at the witness, who clenched his jaw and fiddled with his pen. "These broken lives could have been prevented if you had taken the symbolic responsibility that you have, being the first African American appointed to the Western District," she said, her voice breaking into a shriek at times as the audience cheered. "I am outraged."

Washington, a former oil company lawyer, seemed anguished. "I am a child of the '60s," he replied. "I am, I think, what Dr. King was trying to get us to do, trying to get us to be." But, he argued, "there are only certain things that a United States attorney can do . . . with respect to a state and how it handles its criminal justice system."

Sharpton didn't accept that "disturbing" excuse. "I think that this is tantamount to aiding and abetting people that Dr. King fought against," he determined.

The Republicans fled the room soon after Sharpton's arrival, leaving Sharpton boosters on the dais. "There are people who will criticize you, Reverend, and say that you only go where the cameras are," Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) told Sharpton. "But I'll say that wherever you go, the cameras go."

Whatever the order, Sharpton knew how to play to the cameras. After Cohen repeated that "I don't fault the U.S. attorney for not filing charges," Sharpton came back with the allegation that this is "why we're seeing nooses all over America."

Lawmakers piled on. "Mr. Washington, you used your discretionary latitude to decline the juvenile proceedings for the noose hangers," Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) lectured. When Washington tried to disagree, Ellison told him: "I'm not going to let you waste my time."

"I almost fell off my chair when you invoked the name of Martin Luther King to say that you were somehow the culmination of his work," Ellison continued.

"You hit it on the head," Sharpton encouraged.

"Martin Luther King did not do his work so you could get a nice house," Ellison tag-teamed.

"The height of ingratitude," Sharpton concurred.

The hearing adjourned to audience chants of "Free the Jena Six.".

This, folks is a kkker's delight.  Lying about the reason for being late, screaming, shouting and insults instead of serious discussion, with a rowdy mob cheering it all on, etc. etc. etc. 

These buffoons apparently think they come across as very impressive.  But the reality is that their actions are literally a recruiting device for kkk and aryan nation groups.  This, they will tell potential members, is what you get when you put Black people into power.

The saddest part, of course, is that people like sharpton, conyers, ellison, et al are not in any way representative of the millions upon millions of decent Black people who live their lives, go about their business and, I strongly suspect, cringe at the stereotypes that this bunch are reinforcing.  But they saddle the general Black population with these stereotypes nonetheless.

Aren't there enough White racists out there who negatively stereotype Black people?  Do there have to be Black buffoons to do it as well?

Too bad the next few planes sharpton could have taken weren't cancelled too.

Ken Berwitz

With almost two days left to bid, the DCC's*** smear letter against Rush Limbaugh, signed by 41 of its members, is now bid at $102,300. Obviously this is going to get a lot higher.

Still no word on any DCC member matching any part of that money, all of which is pledged to an educational fund for the families of fallen marines and police officers.

Limbaugh has managed in one fell swoop to turn their idiotic attack on him into a reason for THEM being a national laughingstock and gotten a huge contribution for an eminently worthwhile cause in the bargain.

We're still waiting to see if DCC members are willing to match the bid for their letter.  So far not a peep out of any one of them.

--------------------------------------------------

***Democratic Clown College

Ken Berwitz

Jeff Jacoby is the house non-liberal of the Boston Globe.  He is also a terrific writer who usually is right on target with his ideas and analysis....and today's one of those usual days.

Here is Jeff on the sorry state of our public schools:

BIG BROTHER AT SCHOOL

By Jeff Jacoby

TheBoston Globe

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

"Freedom of education, being an essential of civil and religious liberty . . . must not be interfered with under any pretext whatever," the party's national platform declared. "We are opposed to state interference with parental rights and rights of conscience in the education of children as an infringement of the fundamental . . . doctrine that the largest individual liberty consistent with the rights of others insures the highest type of American citizenship and the best government."

     Now which political party said that? The Libertarians? The Barry Goldwater Republicans of 1964? Some minor party on the right-wing fringe?

     Actually, that ringing endorsement of parental supremacy in education was adopted by the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1892, which just goes to show what was possible before the Democratic Party was taken hostage by the teachers unions. (The same platform also warned that "the tendency to centralize all power at the federal capital has become a menace," blasted barriers to free trade as "robbery of the great majority of the American people for the benefit of the few," and pledged "relentless opposition to the Republican policy of profligate expenditure.")

     Today, on education as on so much else, the Democrats sing from a different hymnal. When the party's presidential candidates debated at Dartmouth College recently, they were asked about a controversial incident in Lexington, Mass. , where a second-grade teacher, to the dismay of several parents, had read her young students a story celebrating same-sex marriage. Were the candidates "comfortable" with that?

     "Yes, absolutely," former senator John Edwards promptly replied. "I want my children . . . to be exposed to all the information . . . even in second grade . . . because I don't want to impose my view. Nobody made me God. I don't get to decide on behalf of my family or my children. . . . I don't get to impose on them what it is that I believe is right." None of the other candidates disagreed, even though most of them say they oppose same-sex marriage.

     Thus in a little over 100 years, the Democratic Party -- and, for that matter, much of the Republican Party -- has been transformed from a champion of "parental rights and rights of conscience in the education of children" to a party whose leaders believe that parents "don't get to impose" their views and values on what their kids are taught in school. Do American parents see anything wrong with that? Apparently not: The overwhelming majority of them dutifully enroll their children in government-operated schools, where the only views and values permitted are the ones prescribed by the state.

     But controversies like the one in Lexington are reminders that Big Brother's ideas about what and how children should be taught are not always those of mom and dad.

     Americans differ on same-sex marriage and evolution, on the importance of sports and the value of phonics, on the right to bear arms and the reverence due the Confederate flag. Some parents are committed secularists; others are devout believers. Some place great emphasis on math and science; others stress history and foreign languages. Americans hold disparate opinions on everything from the truth of the Bible to the meaning of the First Amendment, from the usefulness of rote memorization to the significance of music and art. With parents so often in boisterous disagreement, why should children be locked into a one-size-fits-all, government-knows-best model of education?

     Nobody would want the government to run 90 percent of the nation's entertainment industry. Nobody thinks that 90 percent of all housing should be owned by the state. Nobody believes that health care would be improved if the government operated 90 percent of all hospitals, pharmacies, and doctors’ offices. Yet the government's control of 90 percent of the nation's schools leaves most Americans strangely unconcerned.

     But we should be concerned. Not just because the quality of government schooling is frequently so poor or its costs so high. Not just because public schools are constantly roiled by political storms. Not just because schools backed by the power of the state are not accountable to parents and can ride roughshod over their concerns. And not just because the public-school monopoly, like virtually all monopolies, resists change, innovation, and excellence.

     All of that is true, but a more fundamental truth is this: In a society founded on political and economic liberty, government schools should have no place. Free men and women do not entrust to the state the molding of their children's minds and character. As we wouldn't trust the state to feed our kids, or to clothe them, or to get them to bed on time, neither should we trust the state to teach them.

     What Americans in an earlier era knew in their bones, many in the 21st century need to relearn: Education is too important to be left to the government. .

While unstated in so many words, Jeff  clearly appears to be endorsing the concept of school vouchers. 

At any rate, I hope he is.  Because I strongly support them -- in no small part because they enable people of limited means to extricate their children from the stifling provincialities of the public schools of this country. 

Freedom doesn't end at the schoolroom door.

Ken Berwitz

Here is the latest on Rush Limbaugh's auction of the condemnation letter signed by 41 members of the DCC (Democratic Clown College):

With over two days to go, the bidding for this letter is at $65,100. 

Watch for it to rise appreciably.

And remember, Rush Limbaugh is donating all proceeds to an educational fund for the families of fallen marines and law enforcement members.

Remember, too, that he has challenged senate malaise leader harry reid, and his other 40 signees, to match the amount that will eventually be paid for their smear letter.  So far, not a peep out of them.

I said it days ago and I'll say it again now:  Did they ever eff with the wrong guy.

Ken Berwitz

This comes to us via www.sweetness-light.com.  They say it so well that there's little need to embellish:.

Somalis Take Over United Nations Compound

October 17th, 2007

.

Ken Berwitz

As you probably know, two stories were reported yesterday about Randi Rhodes, the leftward radio show host of Air America.

-The first story was that she was brutally mugged while walking her dog in Manhattan, she lost several teeth in the mugging and would be off the air for several days while she recovered;

-The second was that Ms. Rhodes was not mugged at all.  Her lawyer said (this is verbatim from the Daily News article)...she’s not sure what happened, and only knows that she fell down and is in a lot of pain. The lawyer said Rhodes expects to be back on the air Thursday. He stressed there is no indication she was targeted or that she was the victim of a “hate crime.”

Ok, these things happen.  An early report was wrong.  So it goes.

Except for the fact that this gives us another opportunity to see how the LAMB crowd (the Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade) views the world. 

Michelle Malkin compiled some representative commentary from various right and left wing bloggers, all worth reading.  But she also pulled some representative comments that were posted by readers of the most popular left wing site, www.dailykos.com.  These are LAMBs in good standing and happy to show their true feelings since, within the dailykos, they are among friends.

You can read the LAMB comments at Ms. Malkin's website:  http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/16/randi-rhodes-wasnt-mugged-air-america-credibility-plunges-to-nytimes-stock-level-depths/.   And for god sake don't blame me for the awful language, this is what THEY said, not what I said.

Anyone who wants to see naked hatred as it really is should click on that link and read every comment.

UPDATE:  It is about 2:00PM eastern time, and I just checked the air america website (www.airamerica.com).  Not one word about Randi Rhodes.  Not even to wish her well and hope she comes back soon.  Nothing. As if she didn't exist.

Boy did THIS story die.

Ken Berwitz

New York magazine hates Rudy Giuliani. 

This is hardly surprising, since Giuliani is the antithesis of the dilletantish Manhattan elite crowd it tries to be at the center of.

And New York magazine, like the leftward Democratic elites it sucks up to, especially hates the enormous, larger-than -life contribution of Mr. Giuliani to New York City (and the free world) during and after 9/11.

So it is joining the Democratic party, by trying to make 9/11 a liability for Mr. Giuliani if he wins the Republican presidential nomination.  The idea is that he should be attacked as an exploiter of 9/11 if he so much as mentions it.

Their favorite, Heroine Hillary, has no such problem.  Since she has no accomplishments (Giuliani pointed that out on Hannity & Colmes just last night and is dead-on correct) she certainly can't be in the position of exploiting them.  That would be like me bragging about hitting a home run that won the world series. 

In any event, here is New York's latest attempt to demonize Giuliani over 9/11.  Please take special note of their source, which they link to at the bottom of the piece:.

10/16/07

Giuliani Begins Returning $9.11 Checks

Ken Berwitz

I have written about the horror of Zimbabwe a number of times already.  But, because there is a genocide of its people being conducted by it's own head of state while the world watches and does nothing, I feel it necessary to do so again.

This is the latest news, courtesy of Reuters -- which, disgracefully, does its level best to sanitize what is really happening in this hell on earth:.

Zimbabwe inflation hits record high

Ken Berwitz

Tonight, Hannity & Colmes (9PM Eastern time, Fox News Channel) will air an interview with Rudy Giuliani.  Here is an excerpt in which Mr. Giuliani talks about Hillary Clinton's "experience".  See if you can find even one word that you could dispute:.

R. GIULIANI: "Honestly, in most respects, I don't know Hillary's experience. She's never run a city, she's never run a state. She's never run a business. She has never met a payroll. She has never been responsible for the safety and security of millions of people, much less even hundreds of people.

"So I'm trying to figure out where the experience is here. It would seem to me that in a time of difficult problems and war we don't want on the job training for an executive. The reality is that these areas in which - maybe there are some areas in which she has experience but the areas of having the responsibility of the safety and security of millions of people on your shoulders is not something Hillary has ever had any experience with.".

It should be fun hearing Ms. Clinton's answer to this.  If she can come up with one.

Ken Berwitz

Earlier today I blogged  about Randi Rhodes, the leftward talk show host of Air America, being brutally mugged while walking her dog in Manhattan.  I wished her a speedy recovery and hoped that whoever did it to her was caught and punished to the fullest extent of the law.

I also villified the people who were using Rhodes' mugging as a vehicle for attacking the "right wing"

Well, now I have to backtrack.  A lot.

Here is the latest on this "attack", from the New York Daily News (bold print is mine):.

Air America host Randi Rhodes wasn't mugged

BY DAVID HINCKLEY and TINA MOORE

DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Tuesday, October 16th 2007, 12:28 PM

 There's no truth to the rumors that Air America host Randi Rhodes (above) was mugged near 39th St. and Park Ave. Sunday night. She is scheduled to return to the air on Thursday.

Ken Berwitz

Yes, we've heard and seen countless stories about the thoroughly phony claim that Rush Limbaugh called all troops who don't agree with the war in Iraq "phony soldiers". 

But do you remember that soldier who was filing those horrible stories about US atrocities in Iraq for The New Republic?  Do you even remember that there WAS such an incident?

Well, let me refresh your memory:  Months ago The New Republic started publishing a series of damning eyewitness reports from the Iraq battlefield.  They were supposed to have come from a soldier named "Scott Thomas".  Trouble was, no one could find him.

Finally, it came out that the soldier's actual name was Scott Thomas Beauchamp.  And apparently just about everything he was reporting to The New Republic was either grossly exaggerated or nonexistent.   

Despite this, TNR stood by their reports, and promised to get to the bottom of what was true and what wasn't.

Now, I'll let the invaluable www.powerline.com take over and show you how this has played out after over two months:.

It’s been another week without word from the New Republic on the status of its "investigation" into the columns of TNR Baghdad Diarist Scott Thomas Beauchamp. "The editors" have not spoken on the matter since their August 10 update. At that time "the editors" spoke grandly of their "commitment to the truth" and their efforts to resolve the "legitimate concerns about journalistic accuracy" that had been raised by the critics of Beauchamp's TNR Baghdad Diarist columns. They also said they took those concerns "extremely seriously."

Nine weeks later, however, they have produced no new information and their promises seem empty. Indeed, TNR's August 10 statement and the silence that has followed become increasingly dishonest with each passing day. Then TNR said that the Army was "stonewalling" its investigation and that the Army had "rejected our requests to speak to Beauchamp." We now know that TNR editor Franklin Foer spoke with Scott Beauchamp on September 7. Of course, it wasn't TNR that reported this call, but rather blogger Bob Owens, who learned of the call from an Army spokesman.

Further, "the editors" responded to earlier reports that Beauchamp had recanted and no longer stood by his "Shock troops" column by saying, in TNR's carefully worded formulation, that "it is our understanding that Beauchamp continues to stand by his stories and insists that he has not recanted them." TNR did not deny the report, but neither was it conceding the fact.

Five weeks after speaking with Beauchamp "the editors" have not contradicted the report. And its accuracy has since been confirmed on the record by Beauchamp's commanding officer, Col. Ricky Gibbs. TNR has made no effort to challenge Gibbs's account either.

On August 10, after assuring their readers that they had "not thus far uncovered factual evidence (aside from one key detail) to discount his personal dispatches" (notwithstanding the fact that the mistaken "key detail" made nonsense of Beauchamp's "Shock troops" column), the editors asked the Army to allow them, "or any other media outlet, for that matter," to speak with Beauchamp. This statement is particularly galling in retrospect, as we now know that it is TNR -- not the Army -- that has gagged Beauchamp. On September 7 "the editors" asked their author to cancel interviews he had scheduled with the Washington Post and Newsweek. Given their "commitment to the truth," one wonders why they would make such a request. But do they deny that they did?

TNR editor Franklin Foer and executive editor Peter Scoblic seem to think that they can keep up this charade indefinitely, but it is only the indifference of the MSM that has let them get away with it for this long. "The editors" closed their August 10 update by saying that they “refused to rush to judgment on our writer or ourselves” -- virtually the only honest statement we’ve ever gotten from TNR on this matter. But it should not be the last. At some point they’ll have to say something on the subject, only then the questions won’t be about Beauchamp. They will be about "the editors."

UPDATE: Bob Owens comments here, John Podhoretz here..

Charles Johnson of www.littlegreenfootballs.com makes a terrific point about media's non-interest in this scandal:.

Contrast (media attention to this) with the MSM frenzy over a distorted quote from Rush Limbaugh; here we have a case where false, disgusting stories about soldiers in Iraq by a proven liar were disseminated by a so-called “reputable” source, and the New York Times, Washington Post, and every other mainstream outlet just blinks and moves on..

Does Johnson ever get THAT right!

If you want an example of  blatant media bias - media bias that attempts to manipulate you - this is a classic.  And don't ever forget that there's plenty more where that came from, most of which you're not going to read about in this blog. 

Be skeptical.  Be very skeptical.

Ken Berwitz

Will the Republican party successfully nail Hillary Clinton as someone who spied on her political opponents - much as Richard Nixon's "plumbers" did during the Watergate scandal?

Well, here is an article from www.thehill.com, detailing the allegations Republicans would use to do so.  Please note the source - two long time reporters from, of all places, The New York Times.  As usual, the bold print is mine:.

GOP targeting Clinton on phone-call snooping

By Alexander Bolton

October 16, 2007

Republicans plan to seize on an allegation from the 1992 presidential campaign to tarnish Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) on the red-hot issue of government surveillance. Government surveillance will be at the forefront of the political debate this fall as congressional Democrats and President Bush square off over legislation allowing electronic spying on U.S. soil without a warrant. Republicans are focusing on an allegation in a recent book by two Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters, which suggests Clinton listened to a secretly recorded conversation between political opponents. In their book about Clinton’s rise to power, Her Way, Don Van Natta Jr., an investigative reporter at The New York Times, and Jeff Gerth, who spent 30 years as an investigative reporter at the paper, wrote: “Hillary’s defense activities ranged from the inspirational to the microscopic to the down and dirty. She received memos about the status of various press inquiries; she vetted senior campaign aides; and she listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack. “The tape contained discussions of another woman who might surface with allegations about an affair with Bill,” Gerth and Van Natta wrote in reference to Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton. “Bill’s supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions.” A GOP official said, “Hillary Clinton’s campaign hypocrisy continues to know no bounds. It is rather unbelievable that Clinton would listen in to conversations being conducted by political opponents, but refuse to allow our intelligence agencies to listen in to conversations being conducted by terrorists as they plot and plan to kill us. Team Clinton can expect to see and hear this over and over again over the course of the next year.” Gerth told The Hill that he learned of the incident in 2006 when he interviewed a former campaign aide present at the tape playing. He has not revealed the aide’s identity. Clinton’s campaign has not disputed any facts reported in the final version of his book, which became public this spring, he said. “It hasn’t been challenged,” said Gerth. “There hasn’t been one fact in the book that’s been challenged.” Clinton’s spokesman panned the book but declined to discuss the allegation that Clinton had reviewed secretly recorded calls. “We don’t comment on books that are utter and complete failures,” said Clinton’s press secretary, Philippe Reines.  Her Way’s Amazon.com sales rank is 43,016.  Several legal experts said it was illegal to intercept cell phone conversations in 1992. “It’s been clear that since 1986 it was illegal to intercept an individual cell phone call,” said Barry Steinhardt, the director of the technology and liberty program at the American Civil Liberties Union. In 1986, Congress broadened wiretapping law to prohibit the interception of electronic communications, as well as the use or disclosure of intercepted electronic communications. Two court cases have since cited that action in ruling the interception of cell phone communications illegal: Bartnicki v. Vopper, 2001, and Company v. United States, 2003. Clinton has made privacy an issue on the campaign trail. In July, she discussed her privacy bill of rights in a speech to the American Constitution Society. The proposed rights, ensconced in the Protect Act, include the right to sue when privacy rules have been violated; the right to protect phone records; and the right to freeze credit in the event of identity theft. During the same speech, she addressed the controversy over government surveillance. “Every president should save those powers for limited, critical situations,” said Clinton, according to a copy of the speech posted on her campaign website. “And when it comes to a regular program of searching for information that touches the privacy of ordinary Americans, those programs need to be monitored and reviewed as set out by Congress in cooperation with the judiciary. “That is the essence of the compact we have with each other and with our government, and we cannot ignore it.” In August, Clinton voted against an emergency law that temporarily expanded the government’s power to conduct surveillance on American soil without a warrant. The bill was criticized for being overly broad and sidelining the role of a special court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The Senate’s other Democratic presidential candidates, Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.), Chris Dodd (Conn.), and Joseph Biden (Del.), also voted against the bill. Clinton’s chief political strategist, Mark Penn, became embroiled recently in a controversy over intercepted electronic communications. Mitchell Markel, a former vice president at Penn’s firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland, filed a lawsuit against Penn accusing him of intercepting e-mail. Markel claimed that the firm illegally monitored messages sent from his BlackBerry after he joined another company. Markel dropped the suit in July after reaching a settlement with Penn, Schoen & Berland.

.

Hmmmm.  You read this and come away with the impression that, to Hillary, surveillance is a sometimes thing.  If you're surveilling to protect our national security, forget about it.  If you're surveilling to enhance Hillary Clinton's political ambitions, no problem at all.

Will this come back to bite Senator Clinton during the campaign (this, of course, assumes she will be the nominee - which, as of now, is certainly a great likelihood)?  Well, maybe.  A lot depends on how media handle it. 

If the past is any indication, "heroine Hillary" will be spared most of the brunt of this allegation.  But, who knows?  Maybe media will (gasp!) decide to treat her the way they'd treat other presidential hopefuls under the same circumstances. 

I'll wait and see.  But I can't say I'm optimistic.

Ken Berwitz

Here is the latest update on the DCC (Democratic Clown College) letter condemning Rush Limbaugh, which was signed by 41 Democratic Senators, including the instigator, senate malaise leader harry reid.

As you probably know, Limbaugh put the original letter up for auction on E-bay, with all proceeds pledged for a fund to educate the children of fallen marines and law enforcement officers. 

With three days to go, the current high bid is $50,300.  Count on it ending up appreciably higher.

If Senate Democrats had even the slightest idea of how idiotic Limbaugh is making them look, they would be on TV and radio already, pledging to match the high bid dollar for dollar.  In that way they might - MIGHT - be able to make a few of the more gullible among us see them in a positive light regarding the condemnation letter. 

After all, they would both be laughing at themselves (self-deprecation is great when trying to get out from under a mistake this big) and contributing every bit as much to the organizations Limbaugh is benefitting (i.e. they'd be philanthropists too).

But, at least so far, not a peep out of them. 

This, folks, is political tone-deafness at its finest. 

Ken Berwitz

Randi Rhodes is a talk show host on Air America.  On Sunday night, while walking her dog in Manhattan, she was mugged and hurt badly, as you can see by the account below:

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Ken Berwitz

This morning, the Today show did a feature on Don Imus' impending return to the airwaves.

This is obviously a legitimate story, given the offensive, racist comment Imus made (calling the mostly-Black Rutgers University woman's basketball team "nappy-headed ho's") and well worth the time they gave it.  So far, so good.

But now, however, we get to what they reported -- or, more exactly, what they didn't report.  And then there is this little matter of the guest they chose to discuss Imus' return:

-Today reported that there was a very strong and very negative reaction to Imus' comments, which they supplemented with footage of protest marches. 

What they did not report, however, is that Imus had a 15 year history of making offensive comments like this without a thing happening to him.  And the reason this one comment turned into something more was that it was pushed hard by an entity called mediamatters.org (yes, one of my co-author Barry Sinrod's favorites).

Mediamatters.org is a hard-left activist website funded by the USA hating george soros and run by the conservative-who-eventually-realized-you-make-more-money-as-a-leftist, David Brock. 

With a pedigree like that, it is not surprising that a lot of the mainstream media in this country act like they're salivating at the corners of their collective mouths every time this site gives them directions as to what is and isn't newsworthy.

Mediamatters.org jumped all over Imus.  So mainstream media - which, again, never cared about his similarly racial comments over the years -  jumped all over Imus too, right on cue.  It is as simple, and as Pavlovian, as that. 

-Now we come to the one and only guest Today interviewed about the Imus incident.  No two sides here, just one guy. 

Using basic logic, you would think that if Today had one person on to discuss Imus, he/she would be prepared to present both sides. 

That probably would mean the guest would be a journalist.  It certainly could not be a partisan for one side of the issue, because that wouldn't be journalism at all, that would be explicit support for one side.  Complicity with that side.  Right?

So who is Today's one guest?  It is al sharpton:  a career racist and anti-semite whom media have spent years polishing and trying to sanitize for their viewers/readers. 

That's right, al sharpton.  The man who gave us the tawana brawley fraud, the Freddy's Fashion Mart torching, who called orthodox Jews "diamond merchants", who called Freddy Harari with his decades-long history in Harlem a