I've got a reaction to this "controversy" ginned up by the New York Times.

If the conflict in Vietnam was notable for open access given to journalists — too much, many critics said, as the war played out nightly in bloody newscasts — the Iraq war may mark an opposite extreme: after five years and more than 4,000 American combat deaths, searches and interviews turned up fewer than a half-dozen graphic photographs of dead American soldiers.

It is a complex issue, with competing claims often difficult to weigh in an age of instant communication around the globe via the Internet, in which such images can add to the immediate grief of families and the anger of comrades still in the field.

While the Bush administration faced criticism for overt political manipulation in not permitting photos of flag-draped coffins, the issue is more emotional on the battlefield: local military commanders worry about security in publishing images of the American dead as well as an affront to the dignity of fallen comrades. Most newspapers refuse to publish such pictures as a matter of policy.

But opponents of the war, civil liberties advocates and journalists argue that the public portrayal of the war is being sanitized and that Americans who choose to do so have the right to see — in whatever medium — the human cost of a war that polls consistently show is unpopular with Americans.

A story is handed down in my wife's family.

Her mother's cousin was among those who landed on D-Day, and survived that initial onslaught. Five months later, in November, he was killed in battle.

A few weeks later, shortly before Christmas, his mother was glancing through a copy of a magazine at the neighborhood newsstand. Suddenly, she fainted dead away. By awful coincidence, she had turned to a picture of her son (or what appeared to be him -- it could obviously never be confirmed), dead on the field of battle in Europe.

She never recovered from the shock, and joined her son with the Lord much too soon.

You can see why I would prefer that we NEVER see pictures of the mangled bodies of our precious military dead.

For that matter, I recall the trauma of seeing wounded servicemen screaming in pain on television newscasts during Vietnam -- and breaking down in tears because I wasn't sure that the injured man was not my own father, who was serving there at the time.

I respect the notion of "the public's right to know" -- but some in the press adhere to a truly warped version of this doctrine. The reality is that there are some things that we really don't have a right to see, as a matter of public decency.

Did the American public have a "right" to see JFK's autopsy pictures by the day of his funeral?

What about those same shots of MLK, during the first week of April, 1968?

And one of the most tragic stories of the assassination of RFK involves one of his sons, watching the assassination of his father over and over again, alone in his hotel room, seeing his wounded father cradled in the arms of others as he lay dying in that hotel kitchen.

For all we had a right to know in each of these cases, is there a moral limit beyond which our public voyeurism should not be permitted to intrude? And does that not include media self-restraint in the case of those killed in war?

So let me be clear -- if the media will not restrain itself, I've got no problem with the US military refusing all cooperation with a given photographer, reporter, or news organization. For while our free press may be free to cover the war how they see fit -- superficially, seditiously, insensitively -- they are NOT entitled to the assistance and cooperation of the US military to do so.

By the way -- there's a "must-read" at NewsBusters on this same article, which includes additional commentary by one of the soldiers quoted in the article.

Posted by: Greg at 04:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 689 words, total size 4 kb.

I've said it in the past, and I will say it again now -- the current policy on homosexuals in the military is an absurdity that does not serve the best interests of the United States.

Now Congress is considering the issue again -- and maybe, just maybe, sanity and common sense will prevail.

For the first time in 15 years, members of the House are holding hearings about the policy which is aimed at maintaining discipline and unit cohesion in the military. Last year, Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee tried, but were prevented by members of their own party who were not eager to revisit the issue. This year the Military Personnel subcommittee manage to put it back on the calendar.

Now let's consider the views of Rear Admiral Jamie Barnett, a recently retired military professional who served our country for over three decades.

A hearing of a House Armed Services subcommittee yesterday offered a critical opportunity to break the silence surrounding how military preparedness has been hurt by the 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring gay men and lesbians from serving openly. The military has spent more than $363 million since 1994 to throw out gay men and lesbians whose expertise we desperately need, including expensively trained and hard-to-recruit linguists, jet pilots, cyber-warriors, doctors and combat-tested master sergeants. This purging of talent takes place at the same time the military, in order to meet its manpower quotas, feels compelled to increase the number of waivers it grants to people who have had problems with the law -- in some instances almost twice as many as in years past.

* * *

"Don't ask, don't tell" also damages our nation's ability to recruit the best and the brightest. Competing with industry is hard enough already. The military estimates that only three in 10 high school graduates are qualified to serve; the "don't ask, don't tell" policy further reduces the pool of eligible recruits.

And that is a serious reality check for anyone concerned with national security -- we are throwing away qualified volunteers who we need because of their sexual practices. It makes no more sense to disqualify someone for consensual homosexual activity that it does for masturbation or preferring something other than the missionary position.

And add to the above statement the signed letter from 28 retired flag officers, and you start to see a pattern.

“We respectfully urge Congress to repeal the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy,” their communiqué reads. They argue that “As is the case in Britain, Israel,” and other countries where gays may serve truthfully, “our service members are professionals who are able to work together effectively despite differences in race, gender, religion, and sexuality. Such collaboration reflects the strength and the best traditions of our democracy.”

Indeed, as I pointed out some time back,

we have an all volunteer military. Nobody is "forced" to be a part of it. Individuals voluntarily chose to submit themselves to military discipline and military policies.

If anything, [the pro-DADT] argument is much more suited to arguing that the desegregation of the military by Harry Truman was unwise and inappropriate. After all, that happened during the days of the military draft, when there wre thousands of American men involuntarily serving and being forced to live in circumstances not of their choosing. Many of them, especially those born and raised in the segregated South, had no desire to live and work as equals with blacks -- much less find themselves under the command authority of those they had been raised to view as "niggers" who were inferior to any white man. Truman ordered desegregation to happen, and made it clear that those who could not accept the policy should be prepared to leave the military. And it worked.

Now for this to work, there would need to be certain rules in place -- but one's based upon common sense, not fears and biases. Deroy Murdock put it very well in National Review.

Sexual orientation should be irrelevant while inappropriate sexual conduct — gay, straight, or otherwise — should be punished.

I don't know anyone, from the most flaming gay activist to the most prude supporter of DADT who can reasonably argue with that notion. Let's set reasonable boundaries -- no sex in the chain of command, no sexual harassment, no sexual assault, etc -- that apply to every member of the US military. Any one with a normal set of moral values knows roughly what those boundaries ought to be -- we need to make them explicit and enforce them.

But what we don't need is folks like this driving the policy question. And if Elaine Donnelly is correct, that there are religious members of the armed forces who could not serve with homosexuals, then I would submit that they are lacking in their patriotism, unfit for duty, and deserving of a dishonorable discharge -- just like Donnelly's faux national security organization.

Posted by: Greg at 04:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 834 words, total size 6 kb.

But George Bush's contemporaneous announcement of the repeal of an executive order on off-shore drilling didn't have anything to do with the 13.5% drop in oil prices.

Oil prices tumbled more than $3 a barrel Tuesday as Tropical Storm Dolly grew increasingly unlikely to threaten supply, knocking out one more reason traders had to prop up prices.

The sell-off was a throwback to last week's sharp declines, and dragged crude to its lowest level since early June. A stronger dollar helped keep prices in check.

Light, sweet crude for August delivery fell $3.09 to settle at $127.95 a barrel in its last trading day on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Earlier the contract, which will be replaced by September crude Wednesday, dropped as low as $125.63. It was crude's fourth decline in the last five sessions.

So, the notion that drilling here immediately will decrease gas prices is a hoax. Speaker Pelosi? If so, then why is the mere hint of doing so depressing oil prices, as well as strengthening the dollar and the stock market?

Posted by: Greg at 12:57 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.

Who writes these headlines, anyway?

6-legged deer an unusual sight

Yeah -- more than four is definitely an unusual sight.

Found in today's Rome News from Rome, Georgia.

Posted by: Greg at 06:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

No, not for talk radio.

For the pages of the New York Times.

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.

'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'

Oh -- the decision was made by a former White House staffer during the Clinton Administration. He's the same guy who approved Barack Obama's piece to which McCain was responding. Nothing suspicious there -- just move along.

The paper is, of course, continuing to defend itself. And some journalists are supporting them. But others are not.

But it does raise an interesting question -- why doesn't a piece by one candidate rebutting the views of another candidate expressed in your editorial pages constitute an acceptable response?

McCain's piece is below the fold (twice in one day -- and I almost never go below the fold!) -- and in the New York Post.

Others commenting include MVRWC, Patterico, Malkin, Political Radar, Don Surber, Gay Patriot, Wolf Howling, Election HQ, LGF (noting that NYT won't publish McCain, but will publish Hamas), AOSHQ, Hot Air more...

Posted by: Greg at 03:22 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1154 words, total size 9 kb.

Adding more capacity that the aggregate capacity of the next 14 states combined!

Texas officials gave the go-ahead Thursday to the nation's largest wind-power project, a plan to build billions of dollars worth of new transmission lines to bring pollution-free energy from gusty West Texas to urban areas.

Texas is already the national leader in wind power, and wind supporters say Thursday's move by the Public Utility Commission will make the Lone Star State a leader in moving energy to the urban areas that need electricity.

"We will add more wind than the 14 states following Texas combined," said PUC Commissioner Paul Hudson. "I think that's a very extraordinary achievement. Some think we haven't gone far enough, some think we've pushed too far."

Once again, it is up to Texas to lead the way in the search for energy resources for our country -- this has the potential to be the Spindletop of wind energy.

Too bad certain a certain liberal Senator from a very blue state can't accept a little inconvenience in behalf of energy independence. Typical lib-ocrite.

And by the way -- while this is great, it is only one part of the solution.

We need to increase nuclear power.

And tap the oil resources of ANWR and the outer continental shelf.

DRILL HERE!

DRILL NOW!

Posted by: Greg at 07:04 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 232 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, I guess we now understand why the high priests of the Church of Global Warming proposed the imprisonment of those heretics who reject their dogma -- because many of the experts in the field of climate studies don't support the theory! There's no better way to stop dissent than to jail the dissenters.

Well now the cat is out of the bag.

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.  The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science.  The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling.   A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"

So you see, there is considerable disagreement among those who study the issue -- including over the validity of the models put forward by the followers of the Wamingist cult to support their religious beliefs that man is destroying the planet. And now that the Warmingists have tried to claim consensus, those who have a more rational view are beginning to publish materials that disprove the alleged scientific basis of the false dogma around which Warmingists have claimed consensus.

Carbon Sasquatch Al Gore was too busy selling carbon indulgences to comment.

Posted by: Greg at 12:08 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 361 words, total size 3 kb.

Putting every gay marriage in a sort of legal limbo when it passes.

The California Supreme Court has cleared the way for Californians to vote in November on whether to ban same-sex marriages in the state.

The court on Wednesday denied a petition to remove the initiative from the state's general election ballots. The unanimous decision was handed down without elaboration.

Hundreds of marriage licenses have been issued to same-sex couples since mid-June, a month after the court overturned the state's laws against such unions.

However, on June 2, opponents of same-sex marriage filed for a ballot initiative that would ban such marriages in the state's constitution. Such a ban would overturn the court's May ruling.

Interestingly enough, by making it state policy that such marriages are not recognized by the state of California (which is arguably already the law in the state -- California voters passed precisely such a measure several years ago, though the will of the people was ignored by the California Supreme Court in its ruling this spring), the status of marriage entered between June 17 and the passage of this measure is quite tenuous. After all, the effect of the law may well be to derecognize same-sex California marriages entered into during that time, as well as prevent future ones.

Expect some fum litigation to come out of this if it passes.

Posted by: Greg at 12:29 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

The governor of Illinois is talking about deploying troops in the streets of an American city to deal with rising violent crime.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich on Wednesday raised the possibility of bringing in state troopers or even the Illinois National Guard to help Chicago combat a recent increase in violent crime -- an offer that Mayor Richard Daley didn't know was coming.

Appearing at signing ceremony for a bill that toughens the penalty for adults who provide guns to minors, Blagojevich said "violent crime in the city of Chicago is out of control."

"I'm offering resources of the state to the city to work in a constructive way with Mayor Daley to do everything we can possibly do to help ... stop this violence," said the governor.

Blagojevich said Daley had not asked for help and he had not talked to the mayor about offering it, adding he would call Daley after he met later in the day with the state police, National Guard and others.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to submit to you that the city of Chicago is not worth the life of a single member of the US military -- active duty, reserve, or National Guard. Chicago did not attack us on 9/11, and those who flew the planes that day were not Chicagoans. Al-Qaeda is not in Chicago, and deploying troops in a location where it is clear that there exists a state of civil war is foolish and not in the best interests of the United States or the state of Illinois.

I therefore think it is imperative that we find out immediately -- what is Barack Obama's exit strategy from Chicago? What is his timetable for withdrawal of US forces? I realize that such a withdrawal may result in increased violence and perhaps genocide -- but abandoning the city to its own devices is the only proper course of action.

NO WAR FOR DEEP-DISH PIZZA!

Posted by: Greg at 12:13 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.

Especially since I teach high school, I find the notion of an adult wanting to have sex with a teenager to be repulsive. And I certainly don't understand the idea of luring victims via the internet -- both because it is disgusting AND because it is well, known that the cops troll chat rooms looking for pedophiles.

But to show up for your rendezvous wearing this particular item is even sicker.

33-year-old Michigan man is accused of wearing a "World's Greatest Dad" shirt to a meeting for sex with what he thought was a 14-year-old girl.

Daniel Allen Everett of Clarkston was arraigned Tuesday in Novi on charges of child sexual abuse and using the Internet to attempt child sexual abuse.

Here's hoping that this sick puppy spends many years in jail -- where Everett will no doubt spend much of his time answering his cellmate when he asks the question "Who's your daddy?"

Posted by: Greg at 06:55 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, can't St. Vincent's Hospital do its charity work somewhere else? You know -- so that second-rate performers like Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins don't actually have to see or come in contact with such peasants in their daily lives.

"The hospital provides $40 million in care to the indigent every year," one proponent told us. "Robbins dismissed more than 100 people rallying in support of the hospital - low-income, union workers and veterans of the AIDS crisis - as 'those people out there.' " Sarandon said in a statement: "Improving the hospital is a great idea. However, this can be accomplished without compromising the neighborhood. St. Vincent's should consider the proposed alternative solutions."

Seems to me that "those people out there" -- and the rest of us -- need to make sure that we don't spend any money watching these snooty liberals who put buildings and personal convenience above actual human beings in need of medical care.

And I wonder -- since this pair are supporters of Barack Obama who have threatened to leave America if he loses, what does the candidate have to say about their hope that the city will make the hospital change its plans to suit their NIMBYism?

Posted by: Greg at 02:25 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 1 kb.

Because they would be neither practical nor possible without the improvement in the security situation in that country brought by the Surge of a year ago.

The Bush administration is considering the withdrawal of additional combat forces from Iraq beginning in September, according to administration and military officials, raising the prospect of a far more ambitious plan than expected only months ago.

Such a withdrawal would be a striking reversal from the nadir of the war in 2006 and 2007.

* * *

Although no decision has been made, by the time President Bush leaves office on Jan. 20, at least one and as many as 3 of the 15 combat brigades now in Iraq could be withdrawn or at least scheduled for withdrawal, the officials said.

The desire to move more quickly reflects the view of many in the Pentagon who want to ease the strain on the military but also to free more troops for Afghanistan and potentially other missions.

And while that withdrawal would make it possible to draw down troops to next to nothing in the sixteen month time frame set by Barack Obama, it also demonstrates something else -- namely that the withdrawal is possible because of the success of the policies of the Bush Administration, not their failure.

Another sign of the improvement is this tidbit from the Maliki government.

The green zone of Baghdad, a highly fortified slice of American suburbia on the banks of the Tigris river, may soon be handed over to Iraqi control if the increasingly assertive government of Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, gets its way.

A senior Iraqi government official said this weekend the enclave should revert to Iraqi control by the end of the year. “We think that by the end of 2008 all the zones in Baghdad should be integrated into the city,” said Ali Dabbagh, the government’s spokesman.

“The American soldiers should be based in agreed camps outside the cities and population areas.

“By the end of the year, there will be no green zone,” he added. “The separation by huge walls makes people feel angry.” Dabbagh acknowledged that getting rid of the green zone would be a huge undertaking, given the thousands of American soldiers, private contractors and foreign workers who live inside. He said the concrete walls that divide it from the rest of the city would be taken down slowly, “depending on the threat and circumstances”.

Translation: Baghdad is sufficiently pacified and and the terrorists sufficiently crippled for the American-trained Iraqi forces to take over many of the duties that had formerly been handled by Americans -- and to eliminate some of the extreme security measures that had been necessary up to this time.

In other words -- we are winning.

Posted by: Greg at 01:58 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 471 words, total size 3 kb.

Over the course of his decades as a surgeon and researcher, it is hard to argue that any single individual made contributions to the progress of medicine in the twentieth century than Dr. Michael DeBakey, who passed away last night at the age of 99.

Dr. Michael Ellis DeBakey, internationally acclaimed as the father of modern cardiovascular surgery — and considered by many to be the greatest surgeon ever — died Friday night at The Methodist Hospital in Houston. He was 99.

Methodist officials said DeBakey died of natural causes. They gave no additional details.

Medical statesman, chancellor emeritus of Baylor College of Medicine, and a surgeon at The Methodist Hospital since 1949, DeBakey trained thousands of surgeons over several generations, achieving legendary status decades before his death. During his career, he estimated he had performed more than 60,000 operations. His patients included the famous — Russian President Boris Yeltsin and movie actress Marlene Dietrich among them — and the uncelebrated.

"Dr. DeBakey singlehandedly raised the standard of medical care, teaching and research around the world," said Dr. George Noon, a cardiovascular surgeon and longtime partner of DeBakey's. "He was the greatest surgeon of the 20th century, and physicians everywhere are indebted to him for his contributions to medicine."

Living here in the Houston area, one cannot help but be struck by the fact that this man was not merely respected by this community, but truly loved as one of the most important individuals in this community. His work went a long way towards putting Houston on the map as a center of medical excellence, and the people of Houston never forgot that. And may I add that it is no accident that HISD's magnificent magnet school for young people interested in entering the health professions is called the Michael E. DeBakey High School for Health Professions.

Dr. DeBakey's death will leave a void in our community -- and a standard of excellence towards which future generations of medical professionals in this community will strive.

Posted by: Greg at 02:11 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 345 words, total size 2 kb.

For a long time, there were only two individuals who attracted me t to FoxNews -- Brit Hume and Tony Snow.

Sadly, this morning's perusal of the Web brings reports of the death of one of those men -- consummate commentator and former White House press secretary Tony Snow.

Tony Snow, a conservative writer and commentator who cheerfully sparred with reporters in the White House briefing room during a stint as President Bush's press secretary, died Saturday of colon cancer. He was 53.

''America has lost a devoted public servant and a man of character,'' President Bush said in a statement from Camp David, where he was spending the weekend. ''It was a joy to watch Tony at the podium each day. He brought wit, grace, and a great love of country to his work.''

Snow, who served as the first host of the television news program ''Fox News Sunday'' from 1996 to 2003, would later say that in the Bush administration he was enjoying ''the most exciting, intellectually aerobic job I'm ever going to have.''

Snow provided what I believe to be the only effective service by a press secretary during the Bush Administration. His wit, feistiness, and charm, coupled with a command of the facts, made him the standard to which future press secretaries should aspire.

It is sad to see him leave us too young.

May God care for and comfort his family at this time.

Posted by: Greg at 01:49 AM | Comments (67) | Add Comment
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.

And end the scourge of unsanctioned Wiffle ball in their midst!

Seems the kids built their field on overgrown town property, and the neighbors don't like them having healthy, outdoor recreation near their homes.

Vincent Provenzano, 16 years old, experienced his Kevin Costner moment one Sunday afternoon in May after a thrilling day of Wiffle ball in a friend’s backyard. He came home, gazed at a field of weeds, brush and poison ivy in an empty lot off Riverside Lane, turned to his friend Justin Currytto, 17, and proclaimed: “If we build it, they will come.”

After three weeks of clearing brush and poison ivy, scrounging up plywood and green paint, digging holes and pouring concrete, Vincent, Justin and about a dozen friends did manage to build it — a tree-shaded Wiffle ball version of Fenway Park complete with a 12-foot-tall green monster in center field, American flag by the left-field foul pole and colorful signs for Taco Bell Frutista Freezes.

But, alas, they had no idea just who would come — youthful Wiffle ball players, yes, but also angry neighbors and their lawyer, the police, the town nuisance officer and tree warden and other officials in all shapes and sizes. It turns out that one kid’s field of dreams is an adult’s dangerous nuisance, liability nightmare, inappropriate usurpation of green space, unpermitted special use or drag on property values, and their Wiffle-ball Fenway has become the talk of Greenwich and a suburban Rorschach test about youthful summers past and present.

“People can remember how much fun it was to go out in the woods in the summer, build a fort, do something fun and creative, so there’s something pretty cool in what these kids did, especially at a time kids grow up in such an incredibly structured and stressful environment,” said Lin Lavery, one of three Greenwich selectmen, who inherited Wifflegate while the first selectman, Greenwich’s version of mayor, is on vacation.

“But we have a situation that’s escalated,” Ms. Lavery said. “Neighbors are upset that it’s too close to their property; building has been done on town property; there are issues of traffic and drainage. We’re hoping to come up with a compromise, but there are a lot of issues to address.”

Actually, it strikes me that there is only one -- the fact that we as a society have moved so far from the standards that were in place a mere three or four decades ago, when the town's mayor would have patted the kids on their backs for their initiative and improvement of the property. The town would then bring it up to snuff -- having told the neighbors that this was an improvement and an amenity for the city, not a public nuisance.

Alas, we are now in a different, litigious age when NIMBYs with clout are able to strike down things that benefit the public -- whether those are US Senators shutting down wind turbines needed to establish energy independence because they would create a barely discernible smudge on the horizon, or neighbors who are worried that letting the towns young people engage in healthy, wholesome recreational activities might disturb their own serenity.

Posted by: Greg at 01:51 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 545 words, total size 3 kb.

Since the Democrats are nominating a black man, the Democrat convention will be blacked out.

"This is a huge deal for TV One as it is for the White community," said Johnathan Rodgers, president and CEO of TV One, a channel in about 40 million homes. "Whites have fallen in love with John McCainÂ’s family, his candidacy Â… we will be covering the Republican convention all the time."

But Barack Obama shouldnÂ’t expect the same treatment. The network doesnÂ’t plan any coverage of the Democrat convention.

"We are not a news organization," said Rodgers, speaking at the opening session of the semi-annual Television Critics Association press tour in Beverly Hills. "We are a television network designed to celebrate White achievement."

"My audience is 93% White," Rodgers added. "I serve my audience."

It is, of course, shocking that such racism still exists in this country today, and that any cable system will carry this disgusting network espousing racial separatism. Such attitudes are unAmerican -- and I hope that the governing authorities which granted cable franchises to the companies that carry TV One will dump those revoke them for carrying Grand Dragon Rodgers' foul station.

Oh, wait a minute.

it seems that a correction has just come over in when I refreshed my browser. Here's the actual story.

"This is a huge deal for TV One as it is for the African American community," said Johnathan Rodgers, president and CEO of TV One, a channel in about 40 million homes. "African Americans have fallen in love with Barack ObamaÂ’s family, his candidacy Â… we will be covering the democratic convention all the time."

But John McCain shouldnÂ’t expect the same treatment. The network doesnÂ’t plan any coverage of the Republican convention.

"We are not a news organization," said Rodgers, speaking at the opening session of the semi-annual Television Critics Association press tour in Beverly Hills. "We are a television network designed to celebrate African American achievement."

"My audience is 93% black," Rodgers added. "I serve my audience."

Well I guess that makes all the difference in the world. Rogers isn't a malignant racist -- he's just promoting cultural pride. Funny how the mere substitution of white and black takes such actions from "beyond the pale" racism to politically correct, isn't it.

So remember, folks -- black pride good, white pride bad. After all, it is a scientifically proven fact that lack of melanin causes racism.

But I do have a question -- will this wall-to-wall coverage of one convention but not the other be treated as an illegal corporate campaign contribution, since Grand Dragon Rodgers' TV One network is not, by his own admission, a news organization?

H/T Gateway Pundit

Posted by: Greg at 05:09 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 466 words, total size 3 kb.

There was a time when no respectable publisher would touch such a book. There was a time when no respectable retailer would carry such a book. There was a time when no respectable human being would read such a book.

It appears that such days are gone.

A major book publisher is planning to release a sexually provocative, fictionalized novel loosely based on First Lady Laura Bush's life during the first week of September - a date that conveniently coincides with the Republican National Convention.

Radar Magazine said Curtis Sittenfield's latest tome American Wife, to be published by Random House, 'is sure to send the White House into a fury.'

Of course, it is "just fiction" -- but the main character is explicitly based upon the current First Lady. More to the point, an unfortunate interpretation of libel law effectively forbids any legal action to slap down this sort of nonsense casting a woman of high moral values in a most unseemly light.

Seems to me that the time has come to bring back the venerable old practice of a defamed and offended lady's husband thrashing tracking down such a poltroon and thrashing him to within an inch of his life in the street while the public watches justice being served.

UPDATE: Looks like the sluttiest columnist at the New York Times, who publicly expressed her desire to trade places with Monica during the presidency of BJ Billy, thinks that a fictionalized account of incest, lesbianism, and other sexual acts involving the First Lady "a well-researched book that imagines what lies behind that placid facade of the first lady". I'd ask if Dowd had any decency -- but we already know the answer.

Malkin wonders why the standard for Laura Bush is different from teh standard for Michelle Obama

Posted by: Greg at 03:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

About ten years ago, a student from my high school was killed in a robbery. There was outrage over the incident -- especially over the fact that the man who admitted killing the teen was never arrested or prosecuted for the murder.

I'll never forget the anguished words of one of the dead teen's classmates --"I don't know why that man had to shoot him -- he was only trying to rob the gas station!"

Yeah, that's right. Folks were upset because the clerk at the gas station used a legal gun to shoot down an armed robber.

Which brings me to this case.

The family of one of the men who was shot by a retired United States Marine while they attempted to rob a Subway sandwich shop said the customer shouldn't have pulled the trigger.

According to Plantation police, two armed men barged into the Subway at 1949 Pine Island Road shortly after 11 p.m. Wednesday, demanding money from the employee behind the counter. When they tried to force John Lovell into the bathroom, he pulled out a gun and shot both men, police said.

Donicio Arrindell, 22, was shot in the head and later died at the hospital. Fredrick Gadson, 21, was shot in the chest and ran from the Subway, but police found him in hiding in some bushes on the property of a nearby BankAtlantic.

* * *

Gadson's grandparents told Local 10 on Thursday that Lovell was wrong for pulling the trigger.

"He should not have taken the law in his hands," said Rosa Jones, Gadson's grandmother.

Her husband, Ivory Jones, also condemned the media for its portrayal of Lovell's actions.

"I don't condone what they did, (but) I definitely don't condone the news people making him out to seem like they're making a hero out of this man because he shot somebody down," he said

Un-freakin'-believable! These folks are blaming the victim for defending himself from their criminal grandson and his thug-buddy.

Ivory and Rosa Jones are nothing but trash -- low-class, no-account trash, utterly lacking in morals and sense.

But I will agree with their one comment -- John Lovell shouldn't be a hero. What he should be is an example to every single American of how they should respond to crimes committed by punks like Donicio Arrindell and Fredrick Gadson. What he did should be the ordinary response to crime, not an extraordinary one. The fate of Donicio Arrindell and Fredrick Gadson should be the common result of criminal activity, not something that is newsworthy because it is unusual.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, Maggie's Notebook, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog's Weblog, The Amboy Times, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Pet's Garden Blog, third world county, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Rosemary's News and Ideas, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:04 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 511 words, total size 5 kb.