Around The Web

British children are forced to bow to Allah. The two who didn't get detention.

And you thought Republicans were dumb. They have some wimpy competition.

Intelligent design stuff.

Greta Van Susteren smacks down Anderson Cooper. Anderson has a staff of 60. A couple are dedicated to peeling his grapes and fanning him no doubt.

James Lileks smacks down M. Night Shamalayan:

The trailer doesn’t spell out the message, but Gort – played by Keanu Reeves – says “if the earth dies, you die. If you die, the earth lives.” Well, there’s a message we can all get behind. And if the film flops, you get the Malibu beach house. Seems win-win for everyone except, well, the poison-belching peons who will queue up for another sermon. Gentle cautionary tales are one thing; this groveling self-hatred is another. Same with the M. Night film that has the trees emitting pollen that makes us all kill ourselves – apparently the trees took a big wait-and-see attitude towards deforestation in the late 19th century, and finally decided to kill people when we were just starting to get the point.

The taxing work of being rich and finding enlightenment. Sigh. Aimless and dough-filled make for such trying times. Via Alarming News

Barack Obama's pedigree includes forged papers? Is it possible he doesn't really exist?

Speaking of Obama, if he really is an American citizen, which is in question (see above), he's not patriotic. I question, very openly, his patriotism as does Jonah Goldberg. But the true believers question the questioners. It's amusing.

Tigerhawk on loving America....and those who hate it.

Patterico honors Jesse Helms and thanks the Left for their sympathy.

This is what the world is coming to and Rachel Lukas has a solution. She's going soft.

And on that outrageous note, I'm going for a walk, because my blood pressure is up again from watching the video at Rachel's link.

Man Woman Gives Birth, America Is Definitely Home of the Free

He is not a he, he is a she with boobs lopped off and testosterone that would increase the size of the clitoris and make it look more penis-like. Let's be real here. A man cannot carry a baby. She was not born with ambiguous genitalia. This "dude" is not a dude. She is a dudette. She is a mother. She gave birth through her vagina. That's right "he" gave birth naturally.

He is a she. I am sick of the politically correct nonsense around this woman. Just because someone has surgery and names herself a man, doesn't make it so. Might make her delusional. And it makes the news media look more insane than average, too,"The new dad walked easily, although he appeared tired, .... Someone opened the door for him." Oh, and can you imagine how this kid is going to feel about "dad". This is just nuts. (Couldn't resist.)

She is free to call herself whatever she wants. This is America. And so I am free to call her a she and so I will.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Where The Children Are

Ann Althouse wonders where the kids are. Makes me think about the book Where The Wild Things Are. Our neighborhood is full of kids, yet good luck finding evidence of them. Where are they?

Swimming--in public pools or in pools in the back yard. Summer camp. There are camps for everything and since playing stick ball with make-shift bases isn't part of the modern world, a child goes to a camp organized by adults, supervised by teenagers and it kills a couple birds with one stone. Children and teenagers, occupied! Wii--We bought one two weeks ago and I've been beaten in baseball, bowling, boxing, and my Mii has been beaten severely in tennis, though I have yet to play. My children have created a Wii community filled with mutant beings. It's great fun to make your dad bald, short, fat, with strange facial hair, a unibrow, pink cheeks, disco shades and eye shadow. Don't forget the moles. Cartoons. Come on! They are a summer staple. Yes, your children sit like mindless blobs of protoplasm absorbing what little mental nutrition can be extracted from these worthless shows. On the plus side, mom blogs in peace! Trampolines--Nothing says summer like working up a sweat engaging in repetititve bouncing activities. It's therapeutic. Down side--intracranial injuries. Eh, our generation rode bikes without helmets and skateboards without elbow pads, they'll be fine.

Kids are doing lots of stuff, just not the stuff that puts them in the public square or their own backyards much. Have you watched the news? No, most bloggers don't watch the news. Do blog readers watch the news? Well, if you watched Greta VanSusteren, last night, you saw children, young women, young men and families who were bludgeoned to death by a rampaging psycho. Oh, and then there were the three or four young women who were raped and killed 1) by relatives 2) while jogging 3) while taking a bath. My husband and I were talking about implanting a GPS device in my daughter. I kid you not. Evidently, we're not the only ones with this train of thought. For now, it looks we'd have to settle for cell phones.

The point is that parents don't feel free to let their kids roam like we did when we were kids. At five or six, we'd walk a couple streets over to play (walking through yards). At eight or nine, we'd be outside for hours until dinner time. I think my mom locked us out. Not now. Parents must observe children non-stop. What if something happened?

It might not be rational. In fact, upon researching it, it looks like it's not rational:

Research has shown that between 40 and 150 incidents of child abduction murder occur each year, which is less than one half of one percent of the murders committed nationally.

[Katherine M. Brown, Robert D. Keppel, Joseph G. Weis, and Marvin E. Skeen. CASE MANAGEMENT for Missing Children Homicide Investigation. Olympia, Washington: Office of the Attorney General, State of Washington, and U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, May 2006, page 1.]

This is small comfort for the parents of those children, but the threat is not as great as the amplified news makes it seem. Yet, it happens. And parents think, how could I live with myself if something happened? Here's more:
The U.S. Department of Justice reports:

797,500 children (younger than 18) were reported missing in a one-year period of time studied resulting in an average of 2,185 children being reported missing each day.
203,900 children were the victims of family abductions.
58,200 children were the victims of non-family abductions.
115 children were the victims of “stereotypical” kidnapping. (These crimes involve someone the child does not know or someone of slight acquaintance, who holds the child overnight, transports the child 50 miles or more, kills the child, demands ransom, or intends to keep the child permanently.
[Andrea J. Sedlak, David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer, and Dana J. Schultz. U.S. Department of Justice. "National Estimates of Missing Children: An Overview" in National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, October 2002, page 5.]

Still, most people don't read statistics. They watch the news. And the news freaks parents out. Yes, I think we're in that Twilight Zone episode. A nuclear blast didn't decimate the world. A news blast did.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Afghanistan "Like Star Wars Bar"

Harry Smith makes morning talk even smarter.

Who Cares What Don Imus Says?

Does it matter that a talk radio host is racist? I'm serious. Howard Stern has made a good living, um, exploiting sex and weirdos and everything and everyone else. Now, Don Imus has supposedly waded into racist waters again, although it seems that his words were misinterpreted. But let's just say he did say something racist, does it matter?

Mike Nizza asks:

So what is at work here, folks? Have Americans all lost the ability to detect sarcasm (the subject of this excellent science story)? Is Don Imus guilty of racism? Was this episode the calculated controversy-stirring of a veteran shock jock, meant to split the debate in two? Or is his on-air transformation complete, from a voice that was outrageously racially insensitive to one that is quite sensitive indeed?

Bah! Who cares? Don Imus is free to spout his opinions and people are free to listen--or not. That Al Sharpton get's his boxers in a bundle or that Pacman Jones even responds at all gives the talk show host a bigger platform than he deserves.

The bigger concern is that Americans have lost their humor. Every moment in time has taken on the breath-taking gravity of a near-death experience. Life is all so serious. Between the economy, oil prices, race, sex, gender, age, fatness, whales, trees, birds in nests, abuse, flu, weather and all the rest, there is no topic that is safe to laugh at anymore. The lack of laughter demonstrates a distressing loss of perspective.

People can choose to see tragedy or comedy. It's more fun to laugh. If Don Imus makes you laugh, listen. If he gets on your nerves, turn the dial. In the meantime, it would be nice if the hysteria were taken down a notch. Life is pretty good. And even when it sucks, there is something to laugh at.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

More Biased Reporting--UPDATED

Ridiculous:

The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a plea by environmental groups to rein in the Bush administration's power to waive laws and regulations to speed construction of a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.

Update:

James Lileks sums up the modern press:

It is amusing, really – after sticking people’s heads in the muck every day for years, promoting every faddish scare, fluffing the pillow beneath every yuppie worry, swapping the straight-forward adult approach to news with presenters who emote the copy with the sad face of a day-care worker telling the children that Barney is dead – in short, after decades of presenting the world through the peculiar prism that finds in every day more evidence of our rot and our failures, they wonder why people are depressed. Hang the banner, guys: Mission Accomplished.

Whales Lose Supreme Court Case and the NYT Laments and Gnashes Teeth

Check out the first paragraph of David Stout's opinion piece, I mean, hard-hitting New York Time's reportage:

The Supreme Court sided with the White House on Monday in two cases involving national security and worries about the environment, strengthening the Bush administration’s drive, at least for now, for sweeping executive powers in the post-9/11 world.

"At least for now..". Sounds ominous, David. When Democrats run things and put whale-loving justices on the Supreme Court, all will be good. Hold on, Mr. Stout, with Obama it will all be better soon. And here is what has got Mr. Stout so upset:

In the sonar case, the justices said they would review a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which on Feb. 27 upheld most of a lower court ruling that banned high-powered sonar within 12 miles of the coast. Environmental groups had sued to block the use of the sonar because they feared harm to whales and dolphins.

The Bush administration has argued that the sonar training exercises, used to practice tracking of hostile submarines, are vital to national defense, that the possible harm to marine life was being exaggerated and that, in any event, military need should take precedence over the welfare of water creatures.

“This is an issue that is essential to national security, and we welcome the Supreme Court’s decision to review this case,” Lt. Sean Robertson, a Navy spokesman, told The Associated Press.

Southern California’s coastal waters are home to dozens of species of whales, dolphins, seals and sea lions, including nine species that are federally listed as endangered or threatened. Marine biologists have said the sonar in question generates extreme pressure that can disorient and injure the creatures, disrupting their feeding and mating schedules and causing injuries. The Navy has insisted that it takes adequate protective measures, but the Natural Resources Defense Council disagreed, and sued to stop the tests.

The government and military hates children and animals. And the Supreme Court sided with the haters! It's just all too much. In addition, the Supremes said that the government doesn't have to do environmental studies for every portion of the desolate desert that separates the U.S. and Mexico. The administration has unfettered ability to put up that blankety-blank fence. Horrors!

So many things jump out at me from this stupid article. First, the writer doesn't even attempt neutrality. He makes no pretense whatsoever about his bias and just hangs it out there for all to see. This is the New York Times, people, the paper of record. Second, could the outrage be directed at anything sillier? I mean, come on. The Navy shouldn't be able to do sonar maneuvers that would be vital, I should think, should the West-coasters want a decent defense if they're ever attacked. And who would scream the loudest if a fleet of Chinamen stormed Malibu? Third, about the fence and environmental studies. Anyone who has been along the border of Mexico and the U.S. knows it ain't the loveliest terrain. What the hell is there to protect environmentally? Good grief. I get not wanting to hurt whales and dolphins and I'm guessing the Navy doesn't want to. But what is out there in the vast sandy emptiness that needs to be protected?

Soon, though, David Stout will be psyched. Obama will win, put up justices who love babies and animals and the world will be a less mean place. I get weepy thinking about it, but not for the reason Stout does.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

High Gas Prices Are Turning More Consumers Into Criminals

I am not freaking kidding. MSNBC's national news blames oil prices for making people criminals. My brother said, "Next up, unemployment turns more people into armed robbers." And the genius they quoted said, "stolen fuel costs the industry $140 million last year, and I expect it to go up this year." Ya think? I mean gas prices have doubled. If less gas gets stolen this year, and this is a stretch because I was public school educated, it will still cost the industry more money. Sometimes I'm so impressive. I can't help it.

And there isn't a direct link for this stupidity because it's not on their website yet.

AP: Turnabout Is Fair Play

So the AP doesn't want bloggers to use their content without paying. Remember when you were in college and wrote a paper and quoted an AP newspaper article and gave credit? That's called fair use and it's not copyright infringement. It's quoting with attribution. Bloggers do this all the time. AP doesn't like it and want to charge bloggers per word. It's hilarious, but they're serious. Seriously stupid.

Michelle Malkin would like to charge AP for using her material without attribution and no link--a serious violation of blogger ethics. You'll notice, that when I quote someone or appreciate their take, I link it. Major newspapers don't seem to feel bound by this same courtesy. They are above the insignificant bloggers but have no problem lifting material. Michelle says:

Ok, let’s play. Tongue planted firmly in cheek, of course. Unlike the AP, bloggers appreciate getting linked and excerpted. That is how we roll in the 21st century.
But let’s apply AP standards for the hell of it. I have found two recent examples of the AP quoting from this blog without linking to the quoted posts or obtaining my consent for a usage agreement. In April, AP quoted from the comment thread in this post about Absolut’s Aztlan vodka ad:
More than a dozen calls to boycott Absolut were posted on michellemalkin.com, a Web site operated by conservative columnist Michelle Malkin. The ads sparked heated comment on a half-dozen other Internet sites and blogs.
“In an Absolut world, a company that produces vodka fires its entire marketing department in a desperate attempt to win back enraged North American customers after a disastrous ad campaign backfires,” a person using the moniker “SalsaNChips” wrote on Malkin’s Web site.
That’s 42 words. Cha-ching-ching-ching.

The old media is dying and they think this will breath life into them. Ace has a novel solution.

I have a solution: Never again link to the AP, don't read anything from the AP and exclusively read original content on the Web or from writers.

Tim Russert Dead At 58

Wanted to pass along this sad news: Tim Russert collapsed at work and later died from cardiac arrest. I'm so sorry for his family. Life, even a long one, is short. He was 58 years old.

A quick note--Tim Russert always struck me as fair-minded and incisive. He seemed to be one of the few sensible journalists. He will be missed.

Cross posted at Right Wing News

Michelle Obama's Baby's Daddy

There's a big stink because Fox News ran a segment about Michelle Obama and the caption included the words "Barack Obama's Baby Mama". One could argue that the phrase further dumbs down the American language and is a racial epithet unsuitable for prime time. Or, one could argue that the hip hop culture has come to define at least part of the culture at large and embrace the language. Or, one could do either depending on the circumstances.

Michelle Obama used the term "baby daddy" to introduce her husband, so clearly she does not find the language offensive. I'm guessing that increases her cred on the street, yo. Or, maybe it's just a fun, light hearted thing to say. Wait, I think it might be the latter.

However, is it wrong for others to describe Ms. Obama as Barack's "baby Mama"? Is baby Mama like the "N" word, only appropriate in the black man's mouth? (Which I disagree with, by the way--to me the "N" word is offensive no matter who uses it, but anyone who wants to use it can.) Firedog Lake is characteristically hysterical,"2008: She's well-educated, a lawyer, and a black woman -- unleash the hounds!" Is saying "baby Mama" unleashing the hounds?

Now, I'll grant you, that no one is probably going to describe McCain's wife Cindy as a "baby Mama", but I doubt you'll hear Cindy McCain introduce her husband as her "baby's Daddy". She knows how silly it would sound coming from the potential future president's wife's mouth. Oh wait......

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

New York Times: Viva Chavez!

How do these people take themselves seriously? It's like these liberal reporters try to find the stupidest notion that directly opposes common sense and then expound on it for the dull-witted masses. Today, at the scholars feet, we learn about Hugo Chavez's democratic impulses. Here are the words Simon Romero of the New York Times uses to describe Chavez:

• self-reinvention
• incredible political instincts
• gambler

The tone of the article could be described as effusive. In the last paragraph, the effects of Chavez's policies are touched upon:

Indeed, the national temperament is now much less buoyant than in December 2006, when voters re-elected Mr. Chávez to a six-year term, and his handlers may have recognized the shift. Despite record oil prices, economic growth is slowing and inflation is soaring. The nationalization of telephone, electricity, oil and steel companies has scared off foreign investment. While shortages of some items have eased, many basic food items remain in short supply.

Sounds like a socialist paradise. And then, there's the little detail of Chavez's funding and supporting terrorists, which gets skeptical mention in the last paragraphs. The FARC funding is alleged. Right.

The writers must get bored with reporting the facts when the facts don't suit them. Chavez is the most recent example of the failure of the socialist ideology. Don't tell the media types that, it doesn't fit the narrative.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Guantanamo Military Tribunals: Bush Reviving al Qaeda According To Tim Rutten

Here we go. The trials for those accused of plotting 9/11 and other terrorist acts began last week. They are military tribunals and the rat scum who committed the crimes are doing the things one would suspect a terrorist to do--like claim mental illness, decline counsel in hopes that the trial will be null and void, and generally acting persecuted. For all their plots and planning, turns out these jerks rather like life and want to prolong this process. If they can garner sympathy and can make themselves look like a martyr, they'll do it.

Enter liberals. I love this headline "Just as Al Qaeda is falling apart, Bush's terrorist tribunals are reviving it." It goes with the equally inane editorial by Tim Rutten of the LA Times. Consider this:

It's a sad but salutary thing to recall that number and that terrible day. The consolations of legal justice never can be complete, but they're all we as a society have to offer the injured and the grieving. That's why, when it comes to the handling of these cases, the Bush administration's willful overreaching, contempt for fundamental American values and defiance of basic American notions of due process have set the stage for travesty and further tragedy.

Presidents Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt used military tribunals. Did they demonstrate "contempt for fundamental American values?"

The tragedy that the press currently endures is not having complete, unfettered access to the courtroom. Another tragedy: the press isn't being allowed to hear every word of testimony to achieve precisely the ends Rutten claims to want to avoid--inflaming the " fanatic-infested backwaters across the Islamic world." You see, the government knows that the press doesn't mind inflaming the idiots in these backwaters. So, to prevent that happening, they will blank out words and phrases used by the terrorists that would be used to stoke and inflame those who would definitely hear it from guys like Rutten.

Here are some of the ways the press has done it's part to help "calm" those backwaters:

Editing the President's comments about Iraq and "civil war"--May 19

Remember the flushing the Koran story that was totally bogus?

How about the rush to judgment and broadcasting the Haditha marines story? Real story here.

That's just three stories I can think of off the top of my head. Any lie, distortion or piece of sensitive information spouted by one of these bastards would be presented as absolute fact by the likes of Rutten, turning the trial into a big propaganda enterprise for al Qaeda, just what Rutten claims Bush is doing.

This trial will end one of two ways--life in prison or execution. I hope for the latter. Like the hanging of Saddam Hussein, the enemy understands nothing except complete and total domination. What Rutten ignores is the mind of the enemy where everything is "en Shallah" or "God willing". Should these guys end up at the end of a noose, it must be God's will. It will be further demoralizing and humiliating. They will have died helplessly, ignominiously and worthlessly revealing the al Qaeda way for the dead end it is.

As an aside, Rutten ignores the massive resources, also known as tax dollars, that would go into housing these guys in American prisons and pushing them through the American legal system. Americans do not want that. As an American citizen, I don't really care what those in the backwaters think, feel or believe about our legal system and military choices. I rather like the notion that terrorists would worry about being snagged as an enemy. Americans might be nice as prison guards, but American justice needs to be viewed as strong. Part of the reason these yahoos think they have a chance against the "Great Satan" is they think we're weak.

If America is weak, what does that make the terrorist being sent to meet Allah by the American? Super double weak. The message will be uncomfortable for would-be terrorists to receive. Good.

Obama's Mental Problems--UPDATED: A Whitey Tape?

A certain amount of narcissism must be present in order to be a politician; the politician believes his solutions are worthy of your vote. A certain amount of narcissism is healthy. Barack Obama is certainly narcissistic. But more than that, Obama suffers from a pathology of Masochistic Omnipotence that infects Leftist Progressives generally and that's worrying. MaxedOutMama recommended this post by ShrinkWrapped and it is a must read (also, read this). Shrinkwrapped says:

I mention this woman because what Richard Landes describes as Masochistic Omnipotence is ubiquitous on the left. Much of the commentary about the Iraq War, and some of the most egregious commentary post-9/11, suggests that our actions produced the Islamic terror that we are currently fighting. This not only devalues the motives, intelligence, and actual words of our enemies but places us in the position of omnipotence and control over their actions. This is certainly compensatory. It is far less anxiety producing to believe that if you behave nicely to your enemies they will reciprocate in kind, than to believe that there is nothing you can do except fight them with all of the faculties you have, but it also represents unconscious omnipotent fantasies that should be very troubling.

In addition to the arrogance and childish and fanciful notions of control, The Anchoress notes how Barack Obama just isn't that bright. He has made mistake after mistake on the campaign trail and the media has ignored his ignorance. It's breathtaking really. The press so desires this man as president, they willingly overlook a preponderance of evidence of Obama's dull-wittedness after years of hammering Bush and before him, Bush I and Dan Quale and before him Ronald Reagan. Would that the same standards were applied to a Democrat.

Arrogance and ignorance is a worrying combination.

UPDATED: Gateway Pundit reports the potential of a videotape of Michelle Obama using the term "whitey". Ha! Just the idea makes me laugh. One of Jim's commenters TaSSsays:

Republican tactic?
Come now.
The timing is all Hillary.
Someone please, pass the popcorn. The vast right-wing conspiracy is doing nothing more then enjoying the show.

I'd enjoy it more if the stakes weren't so high.

One Tough Son of A .....

The last election cycle here in Texas included incessant "one tough grandma" advertisements by Carol Keyton Strayhorn. She was going to "clean up Texas" and "take on the insiders". Her voice was so grating and her message so superficially disingenuous that I thought to myself that woman is not getting my vote no matter what. From the things I read and from the the things she said, Strayhorn just seemed to be a troublemaker. She seemed to be working to craft a "character". And in fact, she did run for Governor based on her "one tough grandma" persona.

I don't know Texas political history, I've only been here 11 years, but it turns out that the old adage "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree" is true. Scott McClellan is Strayhorn's son. I guess disloyalty and opportunism is a family trait.



Glenn Reynolds quotes Mark Twain regarding McClellan, "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principle difference between a dog and a man." I'm guessing the problem is even worse when the man sees himself as pleasantly plump.

McClellan's Book Published By Soros Company

Little Green Footballs has the details. You know, I tried to not be mean about Scott McClellan yesterday and just light-heartedly joke about his opportunism. Today, I'm not feeling so charitable.

When McClellan worked as Press Secretary, he was so dull-witted and slow on the uptake it was painful to watch. The press was clearly frustrated. The bland dullness and lack of articulate answers didn't look feigned. In fact, I thought it was a case of pure evil Rovian genius to have McClellan as Press Secretary. McClellan was so bad he was good.

Below is a clip around the Plame investigation:



So, McClellan now says he knew what was going on and didn't blow the whistle.

Well, McClellan wasn't some Rovian plot. He just stunk that bad and had to be replaced by Tony Snow, who was fantastic. I don't think this book will make McClellan come off as suddenly smart except to liberals who aren't too bright anyway.

Scott McClellan's Loyalty In Doubt

Scott McClellan joins Dick Morris as a disloyal, self-serving former staffer. Who ever likes a "snitch" as Drudge says? He better enjoy his moment in the sun. Wait, what am I saying? The MSM loves a turncoat. He'll probably get his own TV show.

Scott McClellan will get his own TV show in.....
	a month
	before the election
	within a year
	never, he's done
pollcode.com free polls

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

"Don't take this the wrong way...."

Don't you love the conversations that include phrases like this: "Don't take this the wrong way" or:

"Why are you being so defensive?"

or

"I was just kidding. Man, can't you take a joke?"

or

"I'm sorry if you were offended."

or

"That's a distraction."

or

"You misunderstood."

or

"Sweetie......."

Any one of these phrases comes at you and you just know you're in for it. Politicians are particularly adept at wielding these verbal swords. The point of the slicing and dicing is to end the discussion, circumvent argument and keep control of the dialogue.

Let's just examine the phrase, "don't take this the wrong way" as an example. What, exactly, is the wrong way? The way where the person on the receiving end thinks the person spouting the bilge is a jerk? The way in which the person venting hides behind the phrase because he is saying something hurtful and means it to be hurtful but doesn't want the inconvenience of the recipient actually acting hurt? The way being that the person sharing his perspective is actually avoiding saying what he truly feels and says something shitty but qualifies it so he can attempt to make the other person look weak and lame instead of himself? Is that the way that's "wrong"? This little phrase is verbal Jujitsu that gives the communicator carte blanche to say whatever is rolling around his head. Any response other than, "You're absolutely right and furthermore your rightness is so right that it just highlights my wrongness", is deemed "the wrong way" to take what has been said. How convenient!

It is called passive aggression. It is called controlling. It is bullshit.

Some people, politicians in particular, believe they can say whatever they like. They seem shocked when people actually question them and work very hard employing phrases like those cited above to ensure that the challenging never happens.

So Barack Obama can, with a straight face, claim that any unwanted question is "a distraction". He can bully the press because he doesn't want them questioning his wife's public statements. He wants her to be able to use the press to get her message out, but he doesn't want the press to question her statements so he hides behind the "leave my wife alone" defense.

Hillary and Bill have taken this modus operandi to an art form. This election cycle they are shocked and offended because, well, this questioning is just so new. Back in the day, their magnificence wasn't ever questioned. They received blind adoration. Times have changed. And much to their chagrin, the press isn't in their hip pocket. In fact, the press is in someone else's hip pocket and the only thing standing in the way of what the press wants is Hillary Clinton. So the love fest is over. It' so unfair when unfairness is pointed at her. It's sexism!

Word to the wise: When those phrases are used on you, it feels so shitty because it is shitty. You're being manipulated. And Americans are being manipulated by Obama and the media and would be manipulated by Clinton, too, if anyone was paying attention to her, but of course, they're not.

It's okay, sweetie. You'll get used the manipulation. By the end of Obama's term, you'll come to love it.

About As Accurate As Hurricane Prediction

I've been wanting to link this: The Racial Resentment Index. Kinda like the Heat Index only more racist.

Obama Is One Of The 25 Fittest American Men

If you don't believe there is a media bias, then you must live without electricity and printed paper. Even Men's Fitness joins the media Obasm. I'm laughing as I write this. The press swoons like Elvis fans from the 50s. What a bunch of little girls. Is it Hannah Montana? No, it's Barack Obama! Touch me! Touch me!

Cross-posted at Right Wing News. (I have an exciting announcement about RWN. Tune in tomorrow.)