Iran "Crackdown"

Depending on the source, the Ayatollah's crackdown has netted anywhere from a handful to 200+ fatalities. It's hard to tell for sure as most information is coming out through Twitter instead of news organizations, and there isn't much to corroborate claims.

Except this one. Her name was Neda. Apparently her only "crime" was observing a protest with her father.

Blame Canada! (Counter-terror edition)

When I heard that our DHS head said that the 9/11 terrorists were among those who supposedly crossed into the US, the South Park song "Blame Canada" came to mind.

So, I thought I'd share my version of the song. Disclaimer: It's about as PC as the original, so if you thought the original was insensitive, just skip this post.

Times have changed
Terrorists are pouring in
We won't kill them overseas anymore
So how do we hope to win?
Should we blame the government?
For our lack of security?
Or should we blame our open society?

Frack no! Blame Canada!
Blame Canada!
With all their Mounties getting high
Letting terrorists drive right by
Blame Canada! Blame Canada!
It's not a baseless insult
It's Canada's fault!

Don't blame me
For my son Stan
He met someone from Canada
Then left for Afghanistan

And my boy Eric once
Only made fun of Jews
But now he's paying Hamas and Hezbollah dues!

Well, blame Canada!
Blame Canada!
It seems that everything's gone to shit
Since the Pentagon took a hit
Blame Canada!
Blame Canada!
They're too polite to get angry anyways.

My son could have a doctor or a lawyer straight and true
Instead his name is coming up on the suicide bomber cue
Should we blame bad intelligence?
Should we blame the Koran?
Or should we blame the troglodyte running Iran?

Fuck no!
Blame Canada!
Blame Canada!
With all their pacifist hullabaloo
And that bastard Bertuzzi too!
Blame Canada!
Shame on Canada!

We'll make up the facts
About 9/11 attacks
Drug smuggling and guns
Terror Infiltration
So the real problem border won't be closed
Whatever it takes to win the hispanic vote!

Questions About Controlling the Scene of a Hostage Situation at Sea

This post raises questions about the tactics employed in a counter-piracy hostage situation, such as the one ongoing right now. Before I get into the substance, I feel it necessary to express some reservations about going here. I think that uninvolved commenters like myself need to show deference to the people who are involved, both because we don't know the facts and because we don't know what it takes to run a command. That being said, I think the situation as it has unfolded over the last 24 hours warrants some pointed questions being raised.

My understanding is that in a hostage situation, the first order of business of the police is to isolate the hostage takers, and take tactical control of the environment surrounding the area controlled by the hostage takers. For example, police will evacuate all civilians to a safe distance, prevent any non-LEO personnel from entering the area, prevent the hostage-takers from leaving the area, occupy the area, observe with all means any activity within the area under control by the hostage-takers, and be prepared to react.

I don't know what steps the USN did to maintain tactical control over the area surrounding the Maersk lifeboat, but I think when this is over the Navy owes us all an explanation. What we do know is that Captain Phillips was able to temporarily escape his captors, get off the boat, and get into the water. Captain Phillips was taken back into pirate custody after a pirate swam after him, and after shots were fired by the pirates. This outcome suggests, to me, that the Navy did not have tactical control of the surrounding area.

Imagine, for a moment, the situation is on land. A hostage is being held inside a school, surrounded by a SWAT team. The hostage runs outside. But, no SWAT member is there to take the hostage into custody. Worse yet, as the hostage is running towards the police in the distance, one of the hostage-takers appears behind the escaping hostage and begins firing his weapon. And the police do nothing.

Unless there is something about this situation that I don't understand--and I recognize that there may well be--I find this outcome to be appalling. And our government owes us an explanation.

Specifically, I want to know:
(1) What was done to contain the pirates to the lifeboat?
(2) What methods of observation were used to observe the situation on the lifeboat? Was the boat constantly illuminated at night? Were personnel stationed close enough to the boat to observe the situation well?
(3) What plan did the Navy have in case the hostage escaped the boat? What would have been there response time?
(4) What plan did the Navy have in case they observed a weapon being discharged? What would have been their response time?
(5) What prevented the immediate elimination of all pirates on the lifeboat once the hostage was no longer on it?

and also, although it is not implicated yet, but soon may be:
(6) What was done to prevent non-Coalition platforms/personnel from entering the area isolating the lifeboat?

Because I am an uninvolved civilian, I will pose these as questions and will not speculate about the answers nor second-guess the commanders.... at least not until all the facts are known. But I think when this is all over, we are owed these answers.

Update 11 Apr 09:
We have a new fact and a rationale courtesy of the AP:

Sailors on the USS Bainbridge, which has rescue helicopters and lifeboats, were able to see Phillips but at several hundred yards away were too far to help him. The U.S. destroyer is keeping its distance, in part to stay out of the pirates' range of fire.

I am not comfortable with this. If the question is, "why wasn't the Bainbridge close enough to rescue Phillips and suppress/deter/eliminate his pursuers?" then the answer "we didn't want the Bainbridge to get shot at" is impotent. They are 4 guys with rifles; they do not get to push a US Warship (nor its helicopters [if it had any], nor its armed boarding parties) around.

This does raise some interesting questions about littoral warfare, though. Assume for a moment that returning fire is not an option; that the apparent "rule set" here is that the pirates are allowed to take pot shots at USN platforms and personnel but the USN cannot respond for fear of triggering the execution of Capt. Phillips. In the analogous SWAT situation, the police would not retreat to a distance greater than the effective range of a Kalashnikov, they would get behind cover. At sea, the only cover is the ship itself. Thus, this incident may be teaching us that a true littoral combatant needs to have armored gun positions and/or guns fired without exposed crew, and should probably also not have large, expensive, sensitive sensors or other things on deck that "don't react well to bullets." Just like insurgency at land, we are seeing the irregular warfare at sea requires armor, not speed.

U.S. Weapons Being Smuggled to Mexican Cartels?

There's been some back-and-forth going on over the last few weeks over whether the majority of weapons used by Mexican drug cartels came from American dealers or came from South America or the Mexican army itself. Neither side had any meaningful numbers to back up their claims. Until now:

You've heard this shocking "fact" before -- on TV and radio, in newspapers, on the Internet and from the highest politicians in the land: 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States.

{snip}

There's just one problem with the 90 percent "statistic" and it's a big one:

It's just not true.

In fact, it's not even close. The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.

What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, "is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."

But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.

"Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market," Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News.

Video:Click here to watch more.

A Look at the Numbers

In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced -- and of those, 90 percent -- 5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover -- were found to have come from the U.S.

But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.

In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.

Full article here.

Unbelievable!

I've been watching FNC's coverage of the Maersk Alabama incident, and they've got LTG Tom McInerney (ret.) on making recommendations on how to deal with this incident.

His suggestion? Use the F-22.

What would it do against pirates? They'd be on patrol, and since they can fly at Mach 2, they could respond quickly. Respond and do what, you ask? Answer: strafing runs. And the good General doesn't even think the F-22 could hit the pirate skiffs, just put fire in their vicinity.

Unbelievable. How many US commanders would risk a $178 million fighter (and that's not counting "sunk costs") on a strafing run against a pirate skiff that may have SA-14s on board? Are we really so desperate to plug the F-22 in the wake of the Gates recommendation that we're making these claims?

The F-16 has the same gatling gun the F-22 has for strafing runs, and can shoot it just as accurately. You can get 10 $18 million F-16s for the price of 1 F-22. Having 10x more aircraft on patrol will improve response time a hell of a lot better than the extra .2 Mach or so of speed. And if we get unlucky and lose an F-16 to a shoulder-fired SAM, it will be a major loss, but not the fraking disaster losing an F-22 would be.

Apparently, the case for the F-22 is so weak that we need to pretend we need it as an anti-piracy weapon.

Strategy Makes A Comeback

Secretary Gates presented his recommendations for the restructuring of our armed forces to the president today. Overall, it's a sound, bold new plan. The best thing about the plan is that it comes from a strategic view, not politics, ambition, or...whatever the hell it is we base our procurement on these days.

The Big Winner in all of this is the small-wars crowd, while the Cold Warriors take quite a thumping. Gates summarized the strategy that the force will be built on as: "we must rebalance this department's programs in order to institutionalize and enhance our capabilities to fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years ahead, while at the same time providing a hedge against other risks and contingencies." Short and sweet, that means small-wars, crisis repsonse, counterinsurgency and the like is the new "meat and potatoes" of our armed forces. The Cold Warriors who wanted to maintain a high-end force that could hand China's ass to it with 0 casualties are not going to get what they want. Which is as it should be, since major wars are rare and becoming rarer, while our military in constantly invovled in crisis response and small wars.

Last week, in his statement to the HASC, Thomas Barnett aptly described this choice:

It is my professional opinion that the United States defense community currently accepts too much risk AND casualties AND instability on the low end of the combat spectrum while continuing to spend far too much money on building up our combat capabilities for high-end scenarios. In effect, we over-feed our Leviathan force while starving our SysAdmin force, accepting far too many avoidable casualties in the latter while hedging excessively against theoretical future casualties in the former. Personally, I find this risk-management strategy to be both strategically unsound and morally reprehensible.

Gates shares the same sentiment:

But, it is important to remember that every defense dollar spent to over-insure against a remote or diminishing risk – or, in effect, to "run up the score" in a capability where the United States is already dominant – is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in, and improve capabilities in areas where we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable. That is a risk I will not take.

Here are the highlights of the recommendations:
*Army and USMC come out ahead in personnel.
*Moar Choppars for the army, lots more ISR, including UAVs and some turboprops that I'll need to look into. I'm guessing relatively cheap aircraft with modern IR sensors.
*Improved air/sea lift capabilities
*Reaffirmed committment to LCS
*F-35 comes out as a winner
*F-22 to end at 187.
*Land and Sea Based theatre missile defenses reaffirmed (winners: SM-3, THAAD. Losers: Alaska, ABL, Multiple Kill Vehicle)
*Reaffirmed KC-X
*Replacement for Ohio SSBNs
*NO NEW (nuclear?) BOMBERS
*10-carrier Navy
*CG-X delayed
*DDG-1000 ended at 3, DDG-51 class restarted
*Reduced procurement of the surface fleet
*Amphib programs delayed (this surpises me)
*VH-71 Cancelled
*CSAR-X Cancelled
*FCS to be replaced with a new program

ACQUISITION REFORM
*Wants mature technology requirements, realism in anticipating threats, end requirements-creep
*more acquisition staff, greater oversight, stricter contact terms

For the most part, this looks like a very sensible plan. My only major concern is that we over-emphasize air supremacy over what we do when we have that supremacy. Between the F-22 and F-35, it makes some sense that the F-35 comes out the winner, but what we really need are dedicated CAS aircraft (although, to be fair, the plan does call for an increase in Army helicopters) and high-endurance bombers. The report does say no new bombers, but I'm not clear if they mean no bombers at all or no new bombers as part of our nuclear forces. I don't think we need nuclear bombers; SSBNs and ordinary strike aircraft can take care of that. What I don't want, however, are high-end aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 loitering over countries like Afghanistan or Iraq waiting for a call to go drop a JDAM on some insurgents, burning millions of dollars of jet fuel while they wait. I want a cheap aircraft like a dedicated CAS plane or a high-endurance plane like a bomber (more loiter time=less sorties=less operating costs and less wasted fuel) or even a high-endurance armed UAV to do that. The good news on this front: increased ISR, including UAVs and high-endurance turboprops. The bottom line is that once you have air supremacy, you don't need to be flying every mission with superfighters that can handle MiGs, SAMs, jamming at the same time while supporting the troops on the ground. You can fly the support missions with cheap planes designed for the specific missions they're going to be performing. Something like an A-10 or AC-130, even a B-52. Just have a few superfighters flying CAP on the borders to keep the airspace safe for the support aircraft and you're golden.

I'm also having some difficulty reconciling how Gates says his missile defense focus "on the rogue state AND theater missile threats" while funding only the theatre-defense programs but not those designed to protect against long range missiles from, e.g., Iran or the DPRK. I would be OK with focusing the technology on the theatre threat, while leaving the long range threat from the rogues to deterrence/preemption/anti-proliferation, but that's not what Gates said.

Those gripes aside, this is a very welcome change.

AIG: A Joke of a Scandal

This whole thing is stupid.

The Federal government knows how to, and is quite good at, placing conditions on receiving federal funds. Don't tell me that they couldn't have expressly required that the cash they gave to AIG did not go to bonuses, or anything else deemed wasteful. Of course they could have.

They chose not to. It was deliberate.

And now that the funds are being used for that, everyone's pissed at AIG, and it's Congress rousing the rabble.

Does anyone else find that at least a little disconcerting?

Assigned Reading

Here is a very thoughtful analysis of the Palin candidacy, what it meant politically, the reality vs. the perception, and how it went down like it did. It gives a very thorough trashing of all the assumptions made on both sides. Very, very highly recommended. (Hat tip: Conservative Wahoo)

One thing I really liked about the theory behind the article is that it offers a sensible explanation for why Palin was mocked for inexperience but Obama got a free pass, in a way that goes beyond the O'Reilly "in the tank" line.

I'm still trying to figure out the "worldview" part. True, McCain did fail to be more than an "attitude poltician with an appealing biography," and would have benefited from articulating a vision of what "his" America would look like. But if McCain was an "attitude" candidate, Obama was an "emotion" candidate, also without a clear vision articulated. All people really knew about Obama's future America was that it would have Hope and would not have Bush. Well, maybe that's just it, when you're able to run against an unpopular administration, maybe emotion is enough, and the substance of the outgoing Pres is all the substance you need.

But, I think he's absolutely right about the need to tie substance with cultural populism. Cultural populsim was demonstrated to be stronger than people have given it credit for, and it's something that would do us some good if it found a voice in power. Maybe that detached-ness, the senselessness that DC has become could be corrected with a dose of some good old common sense and the wisdom the comes from life experience. So maybe the next candidate needs to be able to tap into that, like Palin did. But, whoever that is also needs to have some intellectual depth to his/her candidacy, if for no other reason than to prevent the "blank slate" effect where everyone just throws their own projections at the candidate.

The Antithesis of Hope

What a depressing week.

As if the stuff from yesterday wasn't bad enough, today I found this bad omen. Pres. Obama decided to become the first President to skip the Salute to Heroes (see below), preferring to rub shoulders with celebrities instead of with veterans and Medal of Honor recipients. It's appalling, and frankly, shocking as well. I was prepared for President Obama to be a bit of an elite snob, but not to this extent. And as much as I want to be part of the "loyal opposition" and stay away from toxic language, I can't help but describe this choice to prioritize celebrities over genuine American heroes as unpatriotic. Yeah, I went there, and I'm sorry, but I can't think of a less-toxic word that describes it.

But the part that really shocks me the most is the blatantness of it all. Now that he's President, he doesn't care to keep up appearances anymore. I expected the performance to continue, but instead, he's decided to stand up in front of the Nation and tell us all that he intends to use the office of the President to enjoy the high life, and that he'll get around to more important matters when he gets around to it. He has so much contempt for us that he insults our intelligence, confident that 50% +1 of us in an electoral majority of states will still be stupid enough to vote for him in four years.

Obama Snubs Nation's Heroes, Becomes the First President to Skip Ball Honoring Medal of Honor Recipients in Over 50 Years

Barack Obama may have stumbled over his words briefly during his inauguration, but he made an even bigger blunder later Tuesday evening. The newly sworn-in President opted not to appear at what should have been one of the most important Balls on his agenda that evening - The Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball.

The Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball was begun in 1953 for President Dwight Eisenhower's inauguration. The event recognized recipients of the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military award. There were 48 Medal of Honor recipients in attendance, who were undoubtedly disappointed by the Commander-in-Chief's failure to show. Over the past 56 years and 14 inaugurations, no President has skipped this event - until now.

The Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball is sponsored by the American Legion, and co-sponsored by 13 other veteran's service organizations, including those such as the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the Military Order of the Purple Heart.

Instead of attending this ball honoring our nation's heroes, Obama was busy making stops at 10 other official balls. Obama and his wife's first stop was at the Neighborhood Ball. From there they went to the Home State Ball for Illinois and Hawaii, the Commander-in-Chief Ball, the Youth Inaugural Ball, and the Home State Ball for Delaware and Pennsylvania. They finished off the night with brief appearances at the Mid-Atlantic, Western, Midwest, Eastern, and Southern regional Balls.

Celebrities were a plenty at the balls, with Stevie Wonder, Shakira, Mary. J. Blige, Faith Hill, Jay-Z, Alicia Keys, Adam Levine, will.i.am, Sting, Mariah Carey, and Leonardo DiCaprio in attendance at the Neighborhood Ball. In addition, the other nine balls also featured a star-studded lineup including Kanye West and Kid Rock at the Youth Ball, Marc Anthony at the Western Ball, and Cheryl Crow at the Western Ball.

It was the party without all of the celebrities that Obama skipped. The very people who he sought to have support him during his candidacy and campaign, who have fought to protect this country, were snubbed in favor of publicity and the opportunity to rub shoulders - yet again - with the out-of-touch Hollywood elite.

Off To a Great Start, Aren't We?

Wow. What a great first week.

First, we got a glimpse of the new politics of civility.


Then, the new President decides to close the Gitmo detention facility. Without having any idea what else to do with them. Great plan! You know someone isn't serious about putting good governance before ideology when they take the ideological action and save the difficult questions for later. Strange.... that reminds me about a certain heavily criticized ex-President who invaded a country without any plan for handling the occupation and insurgency to follow. But, this is what passes for "CHANGE" these days.

Oh, news flash to the new administration: released detainees are popping up again fighting against US troops. Just recently, one was identified as a new AQ leader in Yemen. So you might want to figure this one out, you know, before people start getting killed for your cause.

The pledge for transparency in government lasted all of two days. I can give the snubbing of press reporters/photographers a pass for now--that was likely just a n00b gaffe that will sort itself out (although, between the retaliatory curtailing of access to some networks during the election, the pay-to-play angle to that story has additional credence). But, the new SECSTATE concealing donors is unforgivable. The only way she received any serious consideration was by promising transparency. But no, the Clintons had to renege on their promise and a cloud of corruption already hangs over the executive branch.

Not even a week in.

An Overdue and Indirect Response to "Maurer" School of Law

I found this over at The Stupid Will Be Punished and it just reminded me of the renaming thing. It was originally published last April 1 (obviously, before DDG-1001 had been named the Michael A. Monsoor).

New U.S. Ship Naming Guidelines Announced

In a move long expected, the Secretary of the Navy today announced that the process for determining the names of Navy ships will "finally enter the 21st century":

"In these days of tighter budgets, all government agencies must find creative ways to raise money for operating funds. As a result, I have today directed that naming rights for future naval vessels will be auctioned off to the highest bidder.

"This does not mean we won't continue to honor our heritage. Traditionally, names of all ships within a class have been related. Therefore, naming rights for follow-on Ford-class carriers will be limited to automobile manufacturers. I expect to announce the official naming of USS General Motors (CVN 79) within the next week.

"Bidders for naming rights to major surface ships will be limited to companies listed on the Fortune 500. The second Zumwalt-class destroyer will be christened USS Microsoft (DDG 1001). Amphibious ships will be named for foreign countries; each winning bid comes with a guarantee that the ship will not be used to invade its namesake.

"In another return to tradition, submarines following USS Mississippi (SSN 782) will be named after fish... restaurants. The keel for USS Long John Silver (SNN 783) will be laid early next year."

Linked: Voter Intimidation by Black Panthers Leads to Charges

Recall these videos from election day:





From America's Right:

PHILADELPHIA -- In a nine-page complaint, U.S. Attorney Gen. Michael Mukasey has sued the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, along with four of its members, in response to an Election Day incident at a polling location in Philadelphia, PA, citing the defendants' intimidation of voters, intimidation of poll workers, and attempted intimidation of poll workers.

On November 4, 2008, defendants and Black Panther Party members Jerry Jackson and Samir Shabazz, dressed in military-style uniforms replete with black berets, combat-style boots, bloused battle dress pants, rank and organization insignia, and black jackets, blocked access to a Philadelphia polling place. Shabazz, according to the complaint, "brandished a deadly weapon," appearing on Fox News video (see below) to be a nightstick or baton, and the pair hurled racist comments and racial slurs at voters both black and white. The complaint stated more details:

Throughout the course of this deployment at the polling location, and while the polls were open for voting, Defendant Samir Shabazz pointed the weapon at individuals, menacingly tapped it [in] his other hand, or menacingly tapped it elsewhere. This activity occcurred approximately eight to fifteen feet from the entrance to the polling location. Defendant Samir Shabazz was accompanied by Defendant Jerry Jackson during this activity, and the two men stood side by side, in apparent formation, throughout most of this deployment.

Full Article

Report: Russia's Venezuela Visit Filled With Mishaps

Not the dangerous kind, the funny kind.

Tal Cual, a Venezuelan daily newspaper, described the exercises as a “clash of civilizations” due to the strange and even hilarious events that occurred. To start with, the Cuban officers brought along by the Venezuelan navy as interpreters were not allowed by the Russians, who could not understand why the Venezuelan navy had to rely on Cuban personnel. When Venezuelan strongman Chavez tried to visit the ship “Admiral Chabanenko,” his bodyguards were not allowed to go aboard. A fistfight broke between the Russian sailors and the bodyguards -- one Russian sailor suffering a broken nose.

The Venezuelan participation in the exercises was finally reduced to two frigates, F21 and F24, and the transport ship T81, since the other units were not seaworthy. The access of Chavez to the flagship Russian “Peter the Great” was not allowed. In retaliation, Chavez refused to receive Russian President Medvedev at his arrival, sending his colorless vice president Ramon Carrizales instead. Medvedev was reportedly not amused, but his visit had objectives to fulfill that were more important than his irritation at Chavez’s faulty protocol.

Source.

Insulting: Jim Ryan Calls for Leaders with "Moral Compass"

Jim Ryan--the former IL AG who ran for Governor and lost to Blagojevich--needs to shut the hell up and just fade away.

In response to the corruption charges against Blago, Ryan had this to say:

"I feel bad for the people of Illinois," said Jim Ryan. "They need to rise up and say we need authentic leaders with a moral compass and we haven't had that in a while."

This, coming from a guy who tried to advance his career through entrapment schemes.

Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan is trying to make a name for himself in law enforcement circles by conducting his own sting operation against private-party firearms sales. Ryan has been pushing his agents to violate Illinois law in order to get people to sell them "illegal" firearms over the Internet. Could this "tough-on-crime" charade be a political ploy by Ryan? After all, in Illinois primary elections are in March and 2002 is an election year.

According to the Associated Press, Ryan’s agents were able to procure some firearms: a semi-automatic pistol and two so-called assault weapons. However most of the cases could not be prosecuted either for a lack of evidence, or because Ryan violated an Illinois law prohibiting entrapment operations. The sting, which resulted in only one conviction -- Christopher Tocco of Goodrich, Michigan who pleaded guilty to unlawful use of a machine gun--has been severely criticized by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF)...

Trying to trick innocent people into breaking the law and sending them to prison so your political career might take off. Yeah, some moral compass.

Fuck off.

OI Fails at Reading Comprehension

I really dropped the ball on this one. In the beginning of November, I said the natural born citizenship issue was dead because Hawaii authorities confirmed the validity of the birth certificate.

I'm a fucking moron.

Here is the story in its entirety:

State officials say there's no doubt Barack Obama was born in Hawai'i.

Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said today she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.

Fukino says that no state official, including Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, ever instructed that Obama's certificate be handled differently.

She says state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest.

Some Obama critics claim he was not born in the U.S.

Earlier today, a southwest Ohio magistrate rejected a challenge to Obama's citizenship. Judges in Seattle and Philadelphia recently dismissed similar suits.

Notice the sentence "State officials say there's no doubt Barack Obama was born in Hawai'i" is NOT attributed. The attribued statements are "Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said today she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate," "She says state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest," and "Fukino says that no state official, including Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, ever instructed that Obama's certificate be handled differently." None of these statements answers the question as to the contents of the birth certificate. All we have is an unattributed assertion by the reporter that the contents are in order.

The question of the eligibility of the President-Elect is still live. And it seems that we don't have an effective legal mechanism to get a look at that damn thing to end this issue once and for all. The only thing I can think of right now is that a subordinate of the then sworn-in President would have to replicate the Berg suit. Berg lost on standing of course; standing being satisfied by a subordinate being the plaintiff, the court could not dismiss the case prior to discovery, which would mean that damn elusive little piece of paper could be taken as evidence and the relevant official deposed under oath. Short of that happening, I'm out of ideas.

So yeah. I blew it by sucking at reading comprehension. I guess I just wanted it to be over and I saw what I wanted to see instead of what was actually on the page.

H/T: Conservative Thinker

Sometimes It's Easy to Tell Who the Good Ones Are

081207-M-6159T-144 CAMP BASTION, Afghanistan (Dec. 7, 2008) U.S. Senators John McCain, left, and Joe Lieberman leave the airfield aboard Camp Bastion. U.S. Military service members and British Royal Army personnel briefed U.S. Senators McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham on the progress and status of their area of operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. (Official U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Pete Thibodeau)

I tried Googling this meeting and came up empty--no news coverage, except for this photo taken by a USMC photographer--er, sorry. Joker--combat correspondent. I much prefer the politicians who still Give A Shit when the campaign is over and attention is elsewhere.

I See What You Did There

First, giving credit where credit is due, Conservative Wahoo saw it first.

Here is a story about how the press covered the election. It is amazing in three respects. First, if there was ever any doubt about the widespread perception that the mainstream media has a liberal bias, this should prove it once and for all. Second--and I was surprised by this--it shows that Fox News Channel really is living up to its "Fair and Balanced" motto (I thought they would have had a slight conservative tilt, but the data shows otherwise). Finally, it's remarkable because despite what the raw data shows, the Pew Research Center still managed to present the data in a form that made it appear that FNC was skewed right and that the network news outlets were right in the middle.

Absolutely amazing. The problem with Pew's presentation is that it compares each outlet to the average of all of them, and then decides that if a network is to the left or right of that average, then they are left or right politically. The obvious problem with that is it assumes that the media as a whole is centrist. But it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the media as a whole can be on one side or another--especially when you have a network like MSNBC out there pulling the average way, way out to the left. A better method of analysis is not to assume anything, but to compare the way the networks treated the candidates. No spin, just straight up.

So here is the raw data that the story is based on. The data tells a pretty clear story, when you look at is for what it really is. So, here is what it looks like when you compare how the networks covered the candidates:

FNC
Negative Stories
Obama: 40%
Mcain: 40%
-BALANCED-

Positive Stories
Obama: 25%
McCain: 22%
-BALANCED- (slightly Obama favoring)

MSNBC:
negative stories:
Obama: 14%
McCain 73%
--Tilted against McCain by 5 to 1 ratio--

Positive stories
Obama: 42%
McCain: 10%
--Tilted for Obama by 4 to 1 ratio--

CNN:
Negative Stories
Obama: 39%
McCain: 61%
--Tilted against McCain by 1.7 to 1 ratio--

Positive Stories
Obama: 36%
McCain: 13%
--Tilted for Obama by 2.8 to 1 ratio--

NBC
Negative Stories
Obama: 20%
McCain: 54%
--Tilted against McCain by 2.7 to 1 ratio--

Positive Stories
Obama: 43%
McCain: 17%
--Tilted for Obama by 2.5 to 1 ratio--

CBS
Negative Stories
Obama: 27%
McCain: 57%
--Tilted against McCain by 2.1 to 1 ratio--

Positive Stories
Obama: 21%
McCain: 8%
--Tilted for Obama by 2.6 to 1 ratio--

ABC
Negative Stories
Obama: 27%
McCain: 56%
--Tilted against McCain by 2.1 to 1 ratio--

Positive Stories
Obama: 49%
McCain: 15%
----Tilted for Obama by 3.3 to 1 ratio--

So there you have it. When FNC says "Fair and Balanced", at least in this election, they meant it. CNN, MSNBC, and the old networks favored Obama in their coverage by a 2-5 to 1 margin. The data proves it.

The Cynicism Returns

It's the 2nd half of the video that's worth watching. I don't know what the deal is with that prop sword he had on his back, but the officers clearly have more of a problem with him being there than the object he was carrying at first, because after someone removes it they continue to demand that he leaves, while he insists on being able to exercise his 1st Amendment rights. And he gets arrested for it.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

A Respite from Cynicism

We made history yesterday by electing our first (half-) black President, and whatever else this election means, all Americans should be proud of this accomplishment. Aside for South Africa under apartheid, I can't think of any racial minority heads of state (a few ethnic/nationality minorities according to a quick google search), so we've earned some real progressive cred that few if any of our critics could dream of having.

More importantly, we've turned a page on race relations here in the US. For too long, entire communities have felt like they were not part of the American dream because of their race and that the system was rigged against them. Many believed that the white majority valued whiteness more than ideas. These feelings created bitterness, and sometimes, violence. But now, a post-racial America is within our grasp. To be sure, the racial antagonists will be there to remind everyone of that tiny part of the path to equality that is still in front of us, trying to cultivate the anger they thrive on; but, the reality of a President Obama will illuminate the reality the antagonists don't want America to see. The reality, as shown as clear as can be by a white majority voting without regard to their race, that racism is no longer prevalent. The reality that the American Dream is accessible to anyone who applies him/herself to achieving it. The reality that the culture of victimhood is a dead end.

Radicals on the left, for too long, have told Americans that their country should be despised, and many Americans became corrupted by this expanding culture of toxicity and cynicism. Too many of us were not proud to be Americans.

So, instead of being angry or depressed about the outcome, I think we should enjoy this moment and make the most of it. Let us affirm our values, our optimism, and our faith in each other. We'll need them in the times ahead.

Election day: fraud, intimidation, and other irregularities watch

Black Panthers block polling place doors; possible arrest





GOP pollwatchers thrown out of 12+ polling places in Philly.

100,000 Georgia Voters Also Registered in Either Ohio or Florida

Man Confesses Fraud to CNN; CNN says "that's OK"!