47 year old Susan Boyle walked onto the stage of the TV talent show "Britain's Got Talent". An unemployed frumpy middle-aged church volunteer from Scotland who admitted that she had "never been kissed", Ms. Boyle told Simon Cowell and the other judges that her dream was to be a singer. The audience quietly snickered at the train wreck they expected to see.
To be fair, it's not just the Brits who are wowed by her. Since her appearance on British television only a mere 3 days ago, the video of her appearance has generated over three four million hits on Youtube, and her instant and unexpected fame has crossed the pond, and she's a media sensation.
NOTE: "Britain's Got Talent" is a talent show which puts talent over image, something American Idol doesn't. Any of you heard/remember of Paul Potts, who won Season One?
Much of the left, Steve Benen serving as a perfect example, are missing an essential point about the tea parties planned around the country. They aren’t about the level of taxation now. Instead, those attending them understand that with the massive spending undertaken by the federal government and the massive amounts of currency pumped into the system by the Federal Reserve, taxes aren’t going to remain anywhere near where they are now, no matter what politicians promise.
Got it. So the tea party protests are about the raising of taxes (by who, we don't know) at some unknown future time (two years? ten years? twenty years?). And whose taxes will be increased? We don't know that either.
Sounds a bit premature, or wonderfully clairvoyent to me.
Actually, it sounds like a crock.
Well, time for this blog to do some investigative reporting. There's a tea party event a few blocks from me tomorrow. I'll try to check it out. Maybe there will be people there chanting:
"What do we not want?"
"Well, it's not necessarily 'we', but 'we' don't want an increase in taxes!!!"
"When do we not want it?"
"At some unspecified theoretical time in the future!!!!"
After a trial spanning nearly three months, Norm Coleman’s attempt to reverse Al Franken’s lead in the recount of the U.S. Senate election was soundly rejected today by a three-judge panel that dismissed the Republican’s lawsuit.
The judges swept away Coleman’s argument that the election and its aftermath were fraught with systemic errors that made the results invalid.
Apparently Coleman has more fruitless appeals to make, so the seating of Al Franken can continue to be delayed.
But honestly… there should be a law where the person who gets the most votes in a Senate election gets to become a Senator.
It all started, as these things often do, with Michelle Malkin:
Yesterday, Roger Hedgecock and the Liberty Papers posted an unclassified DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis report titled:
Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.
Malkin called the DHS report (from “Obama’s” DHS) “a sweeping indictment of conservatives.” She seems to think this report represents some sort of plot by leftists in the Obama administration to target people like herself and her merry band of teabaggers.
Actually, no. The report focuses on rightwing extremism, not conservatism as a whole. [NOTE: As Dave Neiwart points out, the word “conservative” appears nowhere in the report]. There’s a difference.
Rightwing extremist:
Rightwing conservative pundit:
Now, both rightwingers are subjectively reprehensible, but only one was objectively responsible for a terrorist attack which killed 168 people in Oklahoma City in 1995, the largest domestic terrorist bombing in the United States before 9/11.
And I would suggest that the Department of Homeland Security ought to keep their eyes on those like Timothy McVeigh. Or Eric Rudolph. Which is what the report says.
*I* can tell the difference. Why can’t Michelle? (And no, she’s not the only one: see here and here and here and here; [UPDATE: Even Newt Gingrich tweets: “The person who drafted the outrageous homeland security memo smearing veterans and conservatives should be fired”])
Michelle, you’re so vain. You probably think that report is about you. It’s not. It speak volumes about Michelle Malkin that she thinks the report is about her and people who are fed up with Obama policies (i.e., the people attending these tea bag protests).
As the report states, the charged anti-Obama political climate, couple with economic concerns, does serve as a breeding ground for radical homegrown rightwing terrorists. Case in point, from only last month:
BELFAST, Maine — James G. Cummings, who police say was shot to death by his wife two months ago, allegedly had a cache of radioactive materials in his home suitable for building a “dirty bomb.”
***
…[F]our 1-gallon containers of 35 percent hydrogen peroxide, uranium, thorium, lithium metal, thermite, aluminum powder, beryllium, boron, black iron oxide and magnesium ribbon were found in the home.
Also found was literature on how to build “dirty bombs” and information about cesium-137, strontium-90 and cobalt-60, radioactive materials. The FBI report also stated there was evidence linking James Cummings to white supremacist groups…
Cummings’ wife, Amber B. Cummings, 31, told investigators that her husband spoke of “dirty bombs,” according to the report, and mixed chemicals in her kitchen sink. She allegedly told police that Cummings subjected her to years of mental, physical and sexual abuse. She also said that Cummings was “very upset” when Barack Obama was elected president.
Another thing that Malkin et al probably failed to consider is that the research, prepration and authoring of this report was probably started prior to Obama’s inauguration, by some career person at DHS. Pinning it on “Obama’s DHS” is laughable.
But, you ask, doesn’t the report explicitly single out riight wing extremism, as the title suggests? Aren’t the critics right about that?
Well, this report singles out rightwing extremism. But the DHS has issued other reports singling out leftwing extremism. Maybe those didn’t generate that much of a fuss. After all, the last leftwing terrorist attack was probably by the Weather Underground…. in the late 1960’s.
The event, on March 31, was devoted to the Bill of Rights, but Justice Thomas did not embrace the document, and he proposed a couple of alternatives.
‘Today there is much focus on our rights,” Justice Thomas said. “Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights.”
“I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances,” he said. “Shouldn’t there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?”
Truthfully? No. Because there are no Bill of Obligations and Bill of Representions in the U.S. Constitution. Maybe there should be, but there isn't.
Now perhaps Thomas was speaking euphamistically, or speaking to something not law-related. But it is troubling that his mindset seems to be in the "anti-rights" camp. He's a Supreme, after all.
SCENARIO: Some time ago, you and 20 co-workers chipped in to buy 10 lottery tickets. The same numbers run for all lottery drawings over the course of one year. Typically, the lottery pool might win a small amount, but all winnings under $60 are reinvested into the pool to buy more numbers.
After a long spell of nobody winning, the lottery's jackpot has risen to unusually high levels – say $200 million. You notice this one day while getting Skittles at the Quik-E-Mart, and you decide on the spur-of-the-moment to buy a single lottery ticket for yourself that upcoming drawing.
Your lottery ticket wins. You are the sole winner. $200 million is yours.
QUESTION #1: How much, if any, of the $200 million jackpot do you share with your co-workers in the office lottery pool (above and beyond what you might give them as individuals if there was no office pool at all)?
QUESTION #2: Assuming you give the office pool members some part of your winnings, what if the above facts were the same, except the year-long office lottery pool expired one week before the lottery jackpot that you won? Would you still give them a cut? Would it be less, and if so, how much?
QUESTION #3: Assuming you still give them something from your winnings under Question #2 above, how long after the expiration of the office lottery pool (days? weeks? months?) would you feel alright in not giving the office pool anything "above-and-beyond" from your winnings?
One way to get a good sense of the current state of the G.O.P., and also to see how little has really changed, is to look at the “tea parties” that have been held in a number of places already, and will be held across the country on Wednesday. These parties — antitaxation demonstrations that are supposed to evoke the memory of the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution — have been the subject of considerable mockery, and rightly so.
Now, I've been reading about these "tea parties" for several weeks now, and I still don't know what they're protesting. Blogger extraordinaire Glenn Reynolds has been acting like "Tea Party Central", so when he addressed these tea parties today in the New York Post, I thought he might shed light on what they were actually about.
Unfortunately, the only clue he provides is in this early sentence:
AROUND America, taxpayers have had enough. Fed up with excessive spending, planned tax increases and a federal government that first caused the financial bubble through misregulation, and then grabbed power in order to "fix" it, they're hitting the streets to protest.
This seems to be a disjointed message. First of all, the only people who are facing planned tax increases are the wealthiest 10% of Americans, and they're not exactly taking to the streets in grassroots protests.
And to the extent that tea partiers are fed up with a federal government that caused the financial bubble through "misregulation", that was the GOP's fault. After all it was the GOP who led that charge in the last several decades for deregulation. Obama is bringing regulation back. So it doesn't strike me as thought that is what the tea partiers are protesting against.
And that leaves excessive spending. Now, to be sure, that is a legitimate concern, because Obama's economic emergency spending will massively increase the deficit.
But again, it begs the question? Where were these protesters when Bush massively inceased the deficit? Remember, Bush inherited a surplus. Eight years later, he turned that into a massive deficit. And yet, the tea partiers were non-existent.
And when you actually read about what happens at these tea parties, you find none of these things. Instead, you find vague grumblings that Obama is turning America into a socialist country. What does this mean? Well, who knows. It could mean that the tea party protesters are upset that the highest marginal tax rate is being raised from 36% to 39%. But that's not socialism, especially when you consider that throughout most of the 20th century, the highest marginal tax rate was 80-90%. I mean, was Eisenhauer a "socialist"?
And reports and signs at those tea party events show that these tea party protesters also rant about other things:
Then there are the claims made at some recent tea-party events that Mr. Obama wasn’t born in America, which follow on earlier claims that he is a secret Muslim. Crazy stuff — but nowhere near as crazy as the claims, during the last Democratic administration, that the Clintons were murderers, claims that were supported by a campaign of innuendo on the part of big-league conservative media outlets and figures, especially Rush Limbaugh.
Yup…..
Add to that some over the top signage (calling for Obama's impeachment, for example), and you've got a big mass of "WTF?"
Furthermore, despite Reynolds' assertions, the core of the tea party drive does not lie at the grassroots level:
[I]t turns out that the tea parties don’t represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They’re AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires. And the parties are, of course, being promoted heavily by Fox News.
And finally, even the "tea party" historical reference is in appropriate. I mean, the original Boston tea parties railed against "taxation without representation". The modern-day equivalent protests…. well, to paraphrase Jimmy Dean in "Rebel Without A Cause"…. "Whatever you got"
Not that anybody except law geeks like me care, but the national and international laws regarding piracy is remarkably well-developed. Of course, it all stems from the 18th century, but it's still good valid law.
Also, this account of the pirate takedown is kind of, well, movie-like. The setting is the small craft (the main ship's "lifeboat") where three pirates held the cargo ship skipper (Captain Phillips) hostage, floating near the U.S. Naval vessel, the USS Bainbridge:
The on-scene U.S. commander of the USS Bainbridge, which had come to try to negotiate the captain's release, could see the three remaining pirates "were very, very intense. One of them held his AK-47 in the back of the captain. We were always concerned about the imminent danger to the captain."
The pirates had repeatedly threatened to kill Phillips, Gortney said.
A Navy SEAL team had parachuted in and taken up positions on the Bainbridge's back deck.
The military had orders from President Obama authorizing lethal force if there was imminent danger.
"At one point, as uncomfortable as the pirates were, they exposed themselves where there was an opportunity," Gortney said.
He gave details of that "exposure" at a news conference Sunday. He said two of the pirates had their heads and shoulders exposed, while the third was visible in the boat's pilot house, through a window.
"The on-scene commander saw that one of the pirates still held that AK-47, was very, very concerned for the captain's life — and he ordered the shots to be taken," Gortney told CNN on Monday.
Even with the small boat "moving up and down a couple of feet," the SEALs hit their targets. "Remarkable marksmanship," Gortney said.
The moment came at 7:19 p.m. (12:19 p.m. ET) Sunday — after sundown, military officials say.
In the minutes after, a special operations team shimmied along the tow rope to the lifeboat, confirmed that three pirates had been killed, and took Phillips back to the Navy ships that had gathered nearby.
(1) I guess the big news was that the U.S. Navy rescued that skipper from the pirates. Skipper? Pirates? This sounds like a bad episode of "Gilligan's Island".
But no, it happened. Obviously, it is a good thing since (1) Obama's first serious military rescue operation was a success [guess those concerns about the 3 am call were unfounded]; (2) it shows that the Navy (which — let's face it – hasn't had a lot to do with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) has still got game.
Right-wing pundits had spent most of the weeken denouncing Obama for being a wuss about the whole thing….
After the succesful mission, do they credit Obama? Of course not.
This is the first time that the Somalian pirates have taken over a U.S.-flagged vessel, and the outcome (i.e., dead pirates) means that they're going to think hard about doing it again.
Also, these Somalian pirates aren't really "pirates" as we think of them. They really are remore extensions of the al Qaeda arm. So, that's good.
On the other hand, it was 5 guys and a boat against the U.S. Navy. I mean, it would have been embarrassing if it hadn't ended up positively.
(3) Amazon.com came under fire this weekend for removing the sales ranking for adult gay-themed books.
The end result is that certain not-very-racy-nor-very-gay books have been banned from Amazon rankings….
Ellen DeGeneres' autobiography, Heather Has Two Mommies, "Running with Scissors" by Augusten Burroughs, "Rubyfruit Jungle" by Rita Mae Brown, "Fun Home: A Family Tragicomic" by Alison Bechdel, "The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1" by Michel Foucault, "Bastard Out of Carolina" by Dorothy Allison (2005 Plume edition), "Little Birds: Erotica" by Anais Nin, "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" by Jean-Dominque Bauby (1997 Knopf edition), "Maurice" by E.M. Forster (2005 W.W. Norton edition) and "Becoming a Man" by Paul Monette, which won the 1992 National Book Award.
…. while other very racy (but heterosexual) books remaing in the sale ranking pipeline — books such as:
"Naked" by David Sedaris, "Tropic of Cancer" by Henry Miller, "American Psycho" by Bret Easton Ellis, "Wifey" by Judy Blume, "The Kiss" by Kathryn Harrison, the photobooks "Playboy: Helmut Newton" and "Playboy: Six Decades of Centerfolds," "Naked Lunch" by William Burroughs, "Incest: From 'A Journal of Love'" by Anais Nin, "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" by Jean-Dominque Bauby (2007 Vintage International edition), "Maurice" by E.M. Forster (2005 Penguin Classics edition)
Amazon has a serious PR problem on its hands, and they're being a little slow to react.
This all strikes me as odd, as I always assumed that Bebos was gay.
And speaking of teh gay, this is soooo last week, but the anti-gay-marriage ugga bugga scare tactic advertisement has been improved upon:
…in order to make them understandable to "Americans" (thereby implying that Asian-Americans aren't "Americans"):
A North Texas legislator during House testimony on voter identification legislation said Asian-descent voters should adopt names that are “easier for Americans to deal with.”
The comments caused the Texas Democratic Party on Wednesday to demand an apology from state Rep. Betty Brown, R-Terrell. But a spokesman for Brown said her comments were only an attempt to overcome problems with identifying Asian names for voting purposes.
***
“Rather than everyone here having to learn Chinese — I understand it’s a rather difficult language — do you think that it would behoove you and your citizens to adopt a name that we could deal with more readily here?” Brown said.
She asked this question at a hearing being held by the Texas House Elections Committee, on which she serves. The question was placed to Ramey Ko, who was testifying as a representative of the Organization of Chinese Americans.
Let me repeat that. She asked that to an Asian-American named Ko. Pronounced…. "Ko". She asked Ko if it would behoove Asian-Americans to change their names to make it easier for poll workers.
And if that isn't enough irony for you, the Texas House Elections Committee on which Brown serves includes state legislators with names like Hensarling and Neugebauer.
