The Death of Honesty… and Hopefully NPR

So I have a confession to make. I am not a bigot. You know the kind of articles I have written here about idiotic Republicans. But I gotta tell you, when I go out into public and I see people with Obama T-shirts or bumper stickers or hats, I think to myself that they are identifying themselves first and foremost as liberals. I get worried, I get nervous. Now I remember listening to Rahm Emanuel talking about this and stating that the rise of a new, more fair, America is just beginning. That 2008 was just the first drop of blood. I don’t think there is any way to get away from these facts. But we have people who want to remind us that liberals are Americans too and this isn’t a war against liberals, it is a war against radical liberalism in the form of socialist or fascist policies. Alrighty then. Now that I have given my comedic version of Juan Williams remarks on O’Reilly’s program last week, we can simply laugh at how ridiculous it is that someone would have too strong a reaction to them. Yet the reaction from NPR was more than strong, it was conclusive and final. Juan Williams lost his job over what he said on Fox News. And that really bothers me. Maybe more than it should.

OK, let’s first get out of the way what was really said so that anyone who may have missed it isn’t lost on this. In discussing O’Reilly’s incident on The View over a muslim comment, Juan Williams offered the following statements:

I think that political correctness can lead to some sort of paralysis where you don’t address reality. I mean, look Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kinds of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on a plane, I gotta tell you that if I see people who are in muslim garb, and I think that they are identifying themselves first and foremost as muslims, I get worried. I get nervous. I remember also that when the Times Square Bomber was at court, I think this was just last week, he said the war with muslims, America’s war with muslims was just beginning, first drop of blood. I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts. I think there are people who somehow want to remind us all, as President Bush did after 9/11, it’s not a war against Islam.

For these comments, Juan Williams was fired from his position as an analyst for National Public Radio. A position that he held for ten years. NPR CEO Vivian Schiller stated that Williams was fired because his remarks were inconsistent with NPR’s editorial standards and practices and undermined his credibility as a news analyst for the NPR network. Allow me to just say up front that her comments were 100% bullshit. I won’t bother to go listing all the comments from other NPR correspondents that show her to be a hypocritical liar (although the ones that Williams pointed out from Nina Totenberg where she said she hoped Jesse Helms and his family contract AIDS and the person who said the world would be better if christians evaporated were pretty heinous). The conservative sites out there have literally come up with scores of comments made ON NPR that were far worse than what Williams said. For Schiller to stand up at a podium and claim that if you want to be a political activist you cannot work at NPR was not only a gigantic lie, it was akin to George Bush claiming that he doesn’t really like all this “war” business.

She later said Juan’s feelings were his own and it isn’t her place to pass judgement on them. She followed that up by saying that his feeling are something that should be discussed between him and his psychiatrist. Not passing judgement? Well I will. Vivian Schiller is a lying piece of trash. NPR has lost any shred of credibility that they had with me personally over this. And Mrs. Weapon, a daily listener to NPR, has decided that she will no longer listen to NPR as well. In our home we have literally lost all respect for the organization. And I really didn’t have a gigantic issue with them prior to this. Perhaps they were more left leaning than I realized. I am sure that some shows are. But what I listened to (which admittedly wasn’t a ton of time, maybe a couple hours a week) didn’t clue me in as over the top partisan like MSNBC. Mrs. Weapon was literally a daily listener for several hours a day. No longer.

But let me clearly state why I will no longer allow NPR to grace my ears. First, Vivian Schiller’s comments were not only bold lies, but they were personally insulting to a person that I respect in Juan Williams. Second, Juan Williams is a liberal, and an honest one, much like Those from the left that frequent SUFA. He is willing to talk honestly and find solutions while still holding to his principles on the left. What he said in no way attacked muslims. In fact he made it clear that we must fight against feelings such as his fear. NPR didn’t fire him for making a statement that was against the liberal principles, they fired him because he was willing to have an honest discussion about how he feels (although we know at least 50% of the reason they fired him was because he was also working for Fox News). That they would fire someone for being honest is as bad a thing as I can imagine for a so called “news organization.”

And that is my primary point to this evening’s article. When was it that America became a place where we are less interested in honest dialogue than we are in pushing an agenda or being politically correct? I know it isn’t new. Many of you ended up on this site as regular visitors for that very reason. What I promised was honest and respectful conversation. When you found it here, it was so different and so refreshing you continued to come back. Obviously, there was a lack of places where honest discussion was both welcomed and returned in kind. And I can’t help but be sad for America that we have really become a place where political correctness and partisan agendas are more important than honesty and open discussions that would help us understand one another.

I read a transcript from another NPR show hosted by Michael Martin called Tell Me More. Martin had a professor on the show named Asra Nomani (Author, “Standing Alone: An American Woman’s Struggle for the Soul of Islam”). Professor Nomani added the following to the discussion:

Asra Nomani

What I believe Juan Williams did was express, unfortunately, the position of many Americans in their distrust of Muslims. I am Muslim. My father’s name has Muhammad in it. We would be profiled if we go through airports because, you know, I buy tickets at the last minute and I fall into the classic profile that you have.

But I got to tell you, when I went to Great Falls Park the other day, and I saw a woman in an full-face veil and her husband had a little leather bag that wasn’t looking like a picnic basket, I felt a little nervous. And there was a park ranger behind me who clearly was on their tail.

What Juan Williams expressed, I believe, is the sentiment of many people and including Muslims. Muslims profile each other all the time. When you walk into a mosque and you see other Muslims, you say, oh look, he looks like a Jihadi. Or, that’s a niqab, a woman who wears a full-face veil. It doesn’t mean, you know, that we need to go to the point of civil liberties, you know, offensive or anything like that.

But Juan Williams was basically, I think, having a commentary that is very true in America today. And I believe, unfortunately, that NPR short circuited a conversation that we really need to be having.

So what we had was a muslim being honest about the anxiety that we feel based on the recent history of fundamentalist muslims attacking innocent people. That is the reality of the world today, whether we like it or we don’t. Now, does that mean that Islam is a “bad” religion or that all muslims are bad people or dangerous people? Of course not. Believing so would be ridiculous. And we absolutely should not be violating people’s civil liberties around this. But to simply refuse to acknowledge that we feel a certain way is simply being dishonest, not only with others, but with ourselves. But the most important thing that Professor Nomani said in that statement was NPR’s action short-circuited a discussion that we really need to be having. And that is why it is so frustrating that partisan agendas and political correctness have become priority over honesty.

I have gotten away from mentioning as often as I used to the reason that I wanted to start this site. I wanted a place where we could have honest discussions, treating other opinions with respect while talking about our differences. I have always believed that if we can begin to understand each other, we can then start to form solutions to our problems that are simply not possible so long as we continue bickering and misrepresenting the truth. I have since dedicated hours and hours over the course of two years into nothing more than creating and maintaining a political site for that very reason. Perhaps you can now understand why I find NPR’s actions so horrible and why I lament the idea that honesty is taking a back seat to political partisanship.

What we have witnessed over the last two years has been especially distressing for me. The Tea Party movement was created around people’s honest feelings and fears. Government growing too big, spending and taxation increasing too fast and far, and a true fear that our economic system, capitalism, was being slowly pushed out of the market. Those are real and honest fears that many people, myself included, have in today’s environment. Yet political correctness and partisan agendas stifled that honest dialogue and denigrated an important discussion that is needed into little more than claim of racism and hate.

Character assassination has become more and more prevalent as a course of action. I don’t care if Christine O’Donnell believed in Wicca 20 years ago. I don’t care if Mitt Romney is a Mormon. And I don’t care if Bob Cesca is a hate-monger. What I care about are the issues and ideas, which is why my attacks on Cesca focus on his “facts”. And we cannot seem to have an open and honest discussion of the issues, problems, and possible solutions in this country any longer. We are too busy coming up with reasons why the person presenting the issues, problems, or solutions isn’t a good enough person and we aren’t spending enough time talking about their ideas. I really wouldn’t care if Juan Williams was a bigot. He brought up and important reality that many of us face. And instead of attacking the problem, they decided to attack Juan. And in the process killed another honest discussion opportunity.

So the real question becomes whether or not there is any hope for open and honest discussion becoming a reality for us in America? Obviously political partisanship and political correctness have become the primary obstacle to honest and open debate on issues and solutions today. How can we get that reversed? After all, we have managed to spend two years having those debates and discussions on this site. How can we make that happen on a much grander scale?

I know we could start by eliminating NPR.


  1. Rules for Radicals backfired this time. Let’s also not forget a major player in this controversy: George Soros.

    The silver lining is that liberals and conservatives have come together to shame NPR on Williams’ firing. That’s a step in the right direction.

  2. NPR has been exposed as the joke it has been for some time. This would be an excellent place to begin to trim the budget…

  3. Good morning, my friend. It is interesting that so many newspapers and radio stations get so much federal aid. NPR being one of them. Perhaps we should cut off ALL funding to all newspapers, publications, and tv and radio and let the market place decide who is open and who is not. I seem to remember (it could have been Reid) that a statement was made in Congress that if funding was cut off only conservative shows would remain. My question is…if main stream America is so liberal and progressive, why does the news media have so much trouble staying open without funding? So…I favor cutting off all funding to all news media, regardless of who it is, and let their advertisers stand on their own. It matters not that thousands would be thrown out of work….perhaps they should be but there is nothing to big or important to fail.

    I really did not like Juan Williams and I did not dislike him. I DID find him fair in his reporting even given his moderate to liberal stance. The way he was treated was abominable. But NPR had the right to do so if they felt he did not toe the NPR line. It would be interesting to see what his contract says. Apparently, NPR feels confident that they are in the right. Juan Williams will be picked up by somebody, probably Fox.

    Now, what he said, does not even come close to Islamophobia…or any other phobia. I have absolutely no problem with changing flights if I see Muslim wear going on the plane or I see a group of young Muslim men praying before boarding the same flight. I would gladly pay the transfer fee. I watch them closely if I go to a mall and if that is stereotyping, then so be it. I just finished a book titled “Inside Islam” written by Reza F. Safa. Safa is a supposedly “reformed” Muslim. (Not sure I believe that) but the book was a loaner. I wanted to rad it because of two reasons. (1) He was a radical Shiite Muslim at one point, and (2) he broke down several passages in the Koran and espoused what is being taught abroad and in the Mosques in American. Three things really stood out in this book. (a)Eternal Life is ONLY attained by sacrifice in holy war. (b) that it is perfectly ok to lie, to cheat, to cajole, to deliberaately mislead to attain the furtherance of Islam, and (c) anyone….ANYONE…especially Imams that do not follow the doctrine of Sharia Law is not a muslim and is, therefore, condemned to eternal fire. He went on to explain that when obtaining employment in the West, it is ok to pretend to be Christian or Catholic in order to attain the confidence of that area and then convert those to Islam. The rest of the book was about his “walk” with Islam and he is now a reformed Christian.

    Now, before anyhone gets their repsective g string in a wad……I do not profess to be Christian and no one on this blog can say otherwise. I have kept my beliefs to myself. What stood out were the three things that I referred to that seem to coincide with the other research that I have done, including talking to Imams and they have said basically the same thing. So…..stereotyping is going to be logical and reasonable and innocent people are going to be hurt in this process but that is life. I have talked to about 10-12 people and they agree with Juan Williams. Right now, given the three reasons that I espoused, Islam does not get the benefit of the doubt. My mind can be changed when I see the Islamic Community disavow Shariah Law, openly disavow the radical Muslim group, which is not a small group as some would try to say, abide my our laws when in the States (most do), and take good firm concrete steps to change those three areas. I want an Imam to look me in the eye and tell me it is NOT OK TO LIE to further the Islamic Movement. Until then…..why trust?

    I am more extreme than Juan Williams because I have fought Muslim and lived with Muslim. Those that I lived with and around were great familiy oriented people and very loving. They were very patriarchal but that is expected but not one of them…not a single one…would look me in the eye and say that it is not ok to lie to non Muslim….and not one of them would disavow Sharia Law….not one….and, 100% would not openly condemn the Radical Muslim for fear of reprisal and the radical are taking over a very fast rate.

    NPR is typical of left wing media… as we say or you are out. That is what happened and it is terrible but within their purview.

    • I think NPR is getting about six percent of its funding from government. I will check and post on that later. I agree we should cut all their funding.
      I think we could do without PBS, period. If it can fund itself, no problem.

      This is just another example of how liberals moved into our area’s of information in the US. They are dominant in education and the media, and still fighting the “cold war”. The fall of the USSR has not changed their agenda view, any more that Stalin killing 20 million did. Greater good.
      We’re saving the planet.

      Others with an agenda….

      22, 2010
      All the News that Fits Soros’s Agenda
      By Ed Lasky
      Are three liberal billionaires trying to control what we think of as news in America?

      Hedge fund billionaire George Soros, the sugar daddy of the Democratic Party, has given NPR an initial grant of $1.8 million to begin a project called Impact of Government that will allow NPR to hire one hundred journalists at NPR member stations in all fifty states. The focus will be covering state governments and how their actions affect people. The New York Times reports the response of Vivian Schiller, NPR’s president and chief executive:

      Ms. Schiller said the journalists would not be part of typical statehouse coverage, but instead would work on enterprise journalism that looks at how state government decisions play out over years, and extend beyond a single state’s borders.

      Ann Beeson, executive director of Soros’s Open Society, stated that “[w]e’re looking for opportunities to support new models to fill the gap in coverage.”

      Of course, Soros has other goals in mind, and this is merely seed money for future donations from himself and his liberal allies. Can anyone doubt that coverage will be tilted even more liberal than it already is and will be used to favor Democrats?

      This is a gimme and obvious. At the same time, Soros sends a million dollars to Media Matters, a leftist “media monitoring” group that sends out barrages of criticism whenever a news outlet (especially Fox News) reports news that does not fit Media Matters’ liberal agenda. Media Matters tries to chill free speech and censor conservatives.

      What has not drawn any attention is that Soros’s political allies, Herb and Marion Sandler (billionaire profiteers from the Savings and Loan crisis — one more thing they have in common with George Soros), founded a group called Pro Publica that has the same purpose as this new effort by George Soros (see How Allies of George Soros helped bring down Wachovia Bank and “The Sandlers, Soros and Marcellus Shale reserves”).

      Cartoon by Erin Bonsteel

      The only difference is that Pro Publica is geared towards providing “investigative” columns for newspapers, websites, and other media outlets. Their stories have been appearing in the Washington Post, Politico, and other media channels.

      Therefore, what is reported as “news” by the government-funded NPR will be tainted (and perhaps influenced) by money provided by the hyper-partisan George Soros and “news” provided by Pro Publica (for free) to other media outlets will also be influenced by the role of Herb and Marion Sandler in funding Pro Publica. These two projects are supposed to fill gaps in coverage due to financial constraints at NPR and privately owned media outlets.

      Some critics may complain that the Associated Press is liberal, but that organization is owned and funded by newspapers that are part of its syndicate — and is independent. The Soros and Sandler effort to provide “news” may very well be corrupted by their hyper-partisan liberal funders and founders. Reporters know who is behind their paychecks. Will they, for instance, investigate how George Soros controls an empire of so-called 527 groups, such as MoveOn.Org, and astroturf groups? Will Pro Publica inquire into the reasons why the Democrats have not investigated the role of the Sandlers in the financial crisis, or why the Department of Justice, that at one time was supposed to be looking into the Sandlers’s actions, has seemingly dropped such an inquiry? Will Pro Publica ask why the Sandlers have not paid a price for their long-running practice of pushing dangerous mortgages on those least able to understand or afford them?

      This is not the only area where Soros and the Sandlers have found common cause.

      The Sandlers and Soros also co-founded the liberal think-tank Center for American Progress (“The Democratic Idea Factory”). The Center for American Progress also has a media agenda: its “experts” are often quoted by newspapers across America as if they were independent, neutral experts; their ties to liberal billionaires are never mentioned. One of the “arms” of the Center for American progress is called “Think Progress,” and this was the source, the Ground Zero, of the agitprop regarding the Chamber of Commerce ads being funded by foreign money. This absurd charge (ridiculed by even the New York Times) was fanned by Barack Obama, Robert Gibbs, and Democrat politicians running for office across America. “The Daily Show” is not the only source of Fake News.

      Beyond this issue, will these two efforts be used to influence politics on the state and federal level? Both Soros and the Sandlers are part of a group called the Democracy Alliance, formed by billionaires and Democratic Party operatives, designed to elect liberal Democrats to office. One of their “projects” is called the Secretary of States Project and was expressly designed to help the campaigns of liberals who were running to become the Secretaries of States throughout the nation. These are the very officials charged with ensuring the integrity of the voting process.

      Will Soros and the Sandlers try to leverage their generosity to journalists in a way to influence reporting on state politics so that Democrats friendly to them and their agenda are elected as Secretaries of State? Will they use their leverage to make sure that the various states endowed with vast reserves of shale gas are prevented from tapping these resources? (This agenda seems to be of particular import to Pro Publica.)

      Will news become just campaign propaganda packaged in camouflage?

      There is a cliché about elites hearing from the rest of Americans: when they want our opinions, they will give them to us. Now it seems the same cliché may apply not just to opinions, but also to news.

      Will that dream of being able to influence even more the public opinion and votes of Americans be that much closer to reality?

      Will the flow of news be determined by rich liberals with a political agenda?

    • Dragonfly says:

      The thing that bothers me the most about Islam is that it seems to me to
      be, first and foremost, a man’s religion. The women, wives and daughters, are under the rule of the husband and or father in the house
      behind closed doors. A muslim man presents a respectful demeanor in the
      society he lives in and is well respected by his colleagues and if he
      happens to be a doctor, his patients
      all love him. This was my experience
      at the time that my daughter was married to a Muslim man who is a doctor. Thankfully, she got out of the marriage early on as he showed signs of disrepect for her and their baby daughter when he could not stand
      to hear their baby cry and admonished
      my daughter to stop that baby crying.
      Previous to that, he showed utmost repect for me and my husband. Was that
      for real? At the time we knew nothing about Islam, had never known
      any Muslims. We were quite ignorant to say the least. Since then, through
      the years, I have come to know that
      Muslim men can beat their wives at will. In some countries, as in Saudi
      Arabia, they have put their wives under the burka. How totally degrading to a human being.

      Now, as to the sharia law, a man can
      legally kill a family member to
      preserve “family honor”. This is evil and criminal in western society.
      Last winter during our stay in Florida, one of the front page stories throughout the winter was about a l7 year Muslim girl from Ohio who ran away from her parents and came to Florida because she feared for
      her life since she had converted to Christianity. She knew in her heart that her parents would kill her
      for “family honor. In Florida, her case ended up in the courts because she was underage. As it turned out,
      the judge ruled against her and she
      was forced to go back to Ohio. The
      last I heard is that she was staying
      with another family. Is anyone here
      familiar with that case?

      Just recently, the news was that a
      Muslim father took his two teen aged
      daughters for a ride and shot them both dead because they were dating
      American boys who were not Muslim. I
      don’t recall what state that was in.
      The father is in hiding, the last I knew. “Family honor” again. I haven’t
      read anything lately about this, so don’t know if the father is being sought by the authorities.

      And then, of course, there is the book, an autobiography by Betty Mahmood called “Not Without My Daughter” which was made into a movie
      and starred Sally Field. This was the
      beginning of my interest in the Muslim life of women. I highly recommend this book. I recently
      Googled and found “Top Ten Reasons Why
      Sharia Is Bad For All Societies”. I
      recommend this also.

  4. Good morning 🙂

    USW posed this question : So the real question becomes whether or not there is any hope for open and honest discussion becoming a reality for us in America?

    My first answer would be NO. Americans have become to brainwashed to understand honesty (not all of them, but most) Between the MSM and our educational system, the brain damage is irreversible. I can explain with a local example of how stupid people have become.

    In a recent conversation about the local deer herd, it’s quantity and quality, I was amazed that the person I was speaking with was claiming that my assessment of the subject was incorrect. Despite the facts that I have hundreds of pictures, have spent hundreds of hours in the local woods and field edges, and the other party hasn’t spent a single hour in the woods this year, he claimed that my assessment was completely wrong. He knows of the low kill rates the last five years, and he knows the hunting pressure is down about 50% compared to 5 years ago, but still, he knows all. The perfect politician, talks alot, but can’t support his words with facts.

    Sadly, if it isn’t political agenda or political correctness, it’s people, who despite their own ignorance, is hell bent on being “right”. This makes honest discussion nearly impossible. Think of the AGW crowd, still clinging to their brainwashed beliefs, which have been proved as a hoax.

    An honest conversation? Outside the virtual world of SUFA, good luck with that idea.



  5. So I have a confession to make. I am not a bigot. You know the kind of articles I have written here about idiotic Republicans. But I gotta tell you, when I go out into public and I see people with Palin T-shirts or bumper stickers or hats, I think to myself that they are identifying themselves first and foremost as conservatives. I get worried, I get nervous. They might have a concealed weapon and that doesn’t make me feel safe when there is a police department that is a phone call and 20 minute drive away. Now I remember listening to USWeapon talking about this and stating that the rise of a new, more better, America is just beginning. That 2010 was just the first drop of blood. I don’t think there is any way to get away from these facts. But we have people who want to remind us that conservatives are Americans too, even if Palin never showed her birth certificate, and this isn’t a war against conservatives, it is a war against radical conservatives because we are right and they are wrong and if we keep pushing the country in the right direction with our agenda in the form of socialist or fascist policies we will show how idiotic conservatives actually are.

    • Hi Nate…..just so you know…I carry just behind the right hip…don’t want you to worry where it is….and, since you brought it up…where can I get a Palin T shirt?

    • Maybe you didn’t notice Naten but in your restatement of USW’s words there was a difference. USW started out calling the republicans idiots and then went on to point out what was bad in his opinion about the liberals and ended with saying basically that not all liberals were extreme. You on the other hand started out calling conservatives idiots, continued to call conservatives idiots and ended with saying all conservatives were idiots.

      • I know, but I thought that it would make it more sarcastic if I made it against one group the whole time. I also threw in Palins name for Ray.

        • Sorry, didn’t realize you were being sarcastic-Guess I’m slow this morning 🙂

        • I was also trying to draw irony to the point of people saying that they are not a bigot, but then through their comment actually are because they refuse to accept or compromise on any topic. Just for clarification I don’t think that USW or Juan Williams comments were a sign of bigots.

’s definition of bigot and racist. Looks like a bigot is a racist by racists third definition.

          Bigot – a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

          Racist – 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
          2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
          3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

          • I think the main problem is that many liberals do not use the dictionary definition for racist. When you watch the NAACP’s big push that the TEA Party is racist because of their signs you have to realize that many people believe a sign saying “We’re gonna take back our country” is racist. When you try to discuss the issue with someone who is using a totally different measure for what is racist-the battle is lost before you start. Take a look at the following video-it’s either that they don’t believe it is racist or maybe they just don’t really care about racism unless it is against them or they can use it as a political tool. Telling the truth on camera also seems to be a problem for these particular people too.


    • The point in all this as far as I’m concerned-I don’t have the right not to be offended. But if the idea is to discuss issues and actually arrive at some answers we need to employ civility. Not be silenced by people employing PC as a weapon to shut people up.

  6. 8)

    • What’s with the sunglasses, Flag? What are you hiding? A 2-7 off-suit?

    • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      I call.

    • Dread, Mathius:

      Flopped the nut straight vs. villian’s KK.

      Turn paired the board.
      River showed a K.

      BF’s wallet shrunk by $2500…. 😦

      • Give me a minute here to stack up these chips… oh boy, there sure are a lot of them…

        Best hand I was ever in:
        Me: 8, 9 Spades (big blind)
        Vs: pocket 10’s


        10 spade, 10 diamond, 7 Spade – he makes quads vs my draw – raise, re-raise, (everyone else folds), call.

        Six hearts (or diamond?) – my straight vs his quad 10’s – raise, re-raise, all-in, call.

        River: six of spades. BWA HA HA HA!

        Alright, chips are stacked.. shuffle up and let’s go

  7. Juan Williams should know that you can only be honest about a group if you belong to it. Unless that group is white men and then you can say anything, as long as it is negative.

    • As it turns out, I am a while male. I’ve frequently wondered why we can have black history month, but no white history month without appearing to be white supremacists (I’m not, but that would certainly be the impression such a thing would give off). Similarly, there are celebrations of women’s accomplishments, but nothing about men’s accomplishments. And so on. I’m not a Christian, but I have seen that the same thing goes on for them – we celebrate Muslim contributions to society but nothing about Christian accomplishments.

      But I do notice this, too: the price you pay for being in power (that people can can bad things about you and get away with it) is far outweighed by the benefits of being in power. I would much rather be a member of the elite who gets picked on than a member of a protected class who gets the short end of every stick, but who you can never say anything bad about.

      I got no special treatment getting into college, nor was I an affirmative action hire. But I got the benefit of being a white male my whole life. Being tall, reasonably well off, and devastatingly handsome doesn’t hurt either. I honestly couldn’t tell you a single specific instance where this helped me, but the statistics don’t like – I’m sure it helped a great deal.

      So if it means that people can pick on my race and call me a cracker, well so be it, it’s a small price to pay.

      • cracker!

      • Excuse me-are you saying that as white people we should lose our freedom of speech and just allow claims of racism to fly because we owe the minorities.

        • Wow, I don’t think I said that.. (re-reads post)..

          I don’t think we owe the minorities. But I do think we get certain advantages over them. I think you’re far more likely to get hired for a job (ceteris paribus) if you’re white. I think you’re likely going to get paid more if you’re male. I think the laws in this country are far more Christian-centric than any other religion.

          And I think, being the dominant force in this country, white / males / Christians get all kinds of special treatment. Politicians bend over backward to match their perceived “values.”

          So if that means we should walk a little more carefully on those who are getting otherwise trampled by our demographics, well then I don’t really think that’s too much of a price to pay.

          Now, note, I said SHOULD. Should because it is ridiculous when PC becomes the de facto law. But, just like there’s no law that you should be considerate of others, it is just a good idea. And if they want to give you a hard time, you should be understanding of the fact that you got all kinds of advantages they might not have – it doesn’t mean you have to accept it, but if it doesn’t hurt you, maybe it makes sense to just rationalize it within that context.

          But that’s just the way I feel.

          • I don’t care if people want to give my race a hard time. But I have a real problem when they want to scream racism in order to shut people up so that they can pass laws to make it a must instead of a should.

            • Well, on that, you have my support.

              And that goes for members of my side of the isle as well. But I think am firmly on record on this matter already.

              But who is trying to pass a law to make this a must? And what is “this” exactly in this context?

              • It isn’t an exact in this context-But the statement Jeannie made was a general one-the point is people are using false claims of racism as a political tool to shut up their opposition -Juan isn’t following the political correct stance of the liberal’s in power so he is marked as a bigot. Might as well be a law-if you are going to get fired for crossing the line that they are trying to impose. The purpose is to make people react emotionally instead of thinking about the real issues. The point is to kill truthful debate.

          • I think you are wrongly assuming that because one group is statistically more likely to go to college or get a good job it is because of some kind of discrimination in their favor. There are many reasons that one group might be more successful than another, but in order to talk about them we would have to have one of those “honest discussions” that might get us in trouble.

            • Well, conveniently, you’re in a judgment free area of the internet (and you’re anonymous anyway), so fire away. I’m honestly all ears.

              Why might one group, say whites, be more likely to go to college than another, say blacks? Are we just smarter? Does our culture emphasize education more than theirs?

              • Mathius

                Because the stupid liberal welfare programs have trapped most black kids in perpetual poverty and despair.

                Sure am glad we are in a judgment free area of the internet, so I can speak freely.

              • If I were really interested in knowing why there is a difference, I would first ask if white students are more likely to get in when they apply or if they are just more likely to apply. If they are less likely to apply then you could try to find out why they don’t apply.

                If I had to guess I would say that culture plays a large role. (I think) you are more likely to go to college if your parents went. This is not because they look at the educational level of you parents when you apply to college.

            • And, side note: Though statistically, there is not a significant difference in the average IQ between (Ashkenazi) Jews and members of other groups, you are three times as likely to have an IQ above 170 if you are a Jew than if you are a non-Jew. You are also likely to have (I can’t remember exactly..) something like 5 times the net worth vs Protestants.

              Just statistics, draw your own conclusions.

              • Mathius,

                It is not biological but quite cultural.

                There is a great deal of cultural focus on education, discipline and work ethics – and the results prove it works.

                • It probably didn’t hurt to have centuries of enhanced Darwinian pressure where all the stupid Jews of Europe couldn’t cut it as money lenders and weren’t allowed to do anything else, so they all died off leaving only the smart ones.

                • It could be cultural and it could be genetic. Prove that it’s one and not the other.

                  • Actually, surprisingly, there is evidence to support genetics over culture.

                    Because of the inbreeding (think like the Amish, not the deep South), there are a number of genetic diseases that are prominent among the Ashkenazim (Tay Sachs and such). But what’s interesting is that they’re almost exclusively nerve based diseases. This suggests that the inbreeding was focused around genetic traits having to do with the nervous system (ie, brain) and not haphazard like the Amish (note that their genetic diseases are varied and affect all different systems within the body).

                    So, while it’s not an exact proof, the evidence does seem to suggest that there might be a genetic basis.

                    The analogy I saw once was that it’s like overclocking a computer to get enhanced performance – you’ll have irregularities only in the parts you tamper with.

                  • Mathius,

                    “Inbreeding” causing “genetic” problems is a VOODOO Science and little basis in fact.

                    There are as many “genetic” diseases between wholly “non” inbreeding as within.

                    It is a case of “looking for your own conclusion”.

                    (And, bluntly, we are all “inbreeding” – if you are a white man, we share some relative between today and the 1700’s….cousin!)


                    I don’t think it is genetic – the “regression to the mean” prevents one part of humanity from “accelerating” past another.

                    • Just having fun with you.. though it is tough to explain the issues the Amish have w/o accepting that there is some plausibility in this explanation..

                    • Mathius,

                      The explaination that there are “genetic” diseases is true.

                      The explanation that inbreeding is the cause is false – it is “searching for your conclusion”.

                      The studies look for a genetic disease in this ‘group’, and see that indeed it is genetic! Ergo, it must be inbreeding.

                      Yet, I can look into the general population and find millions of examples of genetic diseases too, so I can claim that maybe inbreeding prevents it???

                      Neither is true.

                      The truth is: there exists genetic diseases. Period.

                    • I’m not sure that adequately explains their pervasiveness within genetically closed societies..

                    • founder effect

                    • Mathius,

                      Without falling for the “search for your own conclusion”, please provide the biological and genetic theory that explains genetic diseases in a small group that contrasts with different explanation in a large group.

            • Bottom Line says:

              Jennie – “I think you are wrongly assuming that because one group is statistically more likely to go to college or get a good job it is because of some kind of discrimination in their favor.”

              BL – I second that.

              And to add, I am SOOOOO sick of hearing about minorities being disadvantaged simply because they’re minorities.

              It’s BS.

              It may have once been true as early as a couple of decades ago, but in today’s society, it is virtually non-existent or a rarity.

              In fact, in some instances, it is quite the opposite.

              • I’m just having fun stirring the pot.

                Do I really look like a guy with a plan? You know what I am? I’m a dog chasing cars. I wouldn’t know what to do with one if I caught it. You know, I just… do things. The mob has plans, the cops have plans, Gordon’s</strike Black Flag's got plans. You know, they're schemers. Schemers trying to control their little worlds. I'm not a schemer. I try to show the schemers how pathetic their attempts to control things really are.


    Dear Program Colleagues,

    I want to apologize for not doing a better job of handling the termination of our relationship with news analyst Juan Williams. While we stand firmly behind that decision, I regret that we did not take the time to prepare our program partners and provide you with the tools to cope with the fallout from this episode. I know you all felt the reverberations and are on the front lines every day responding to your listeners and talking to the public

    This was a decision of principle, made to protect NPR’s integrity and values as a news organization. Juan Williams’ comments on Fox News last Monday were the latest in a series of deeply troubling incidents over several years. In each of those instances, he was contacted and the incident was discussed with him. He was explicitly and repeatedly asked to respect NPR’s standards and to avoid expressing strong personal opinions on controversial subjects in public settings, as that is inconsistent with his role as an NPR news analyst. After this latest incident, we felt compelled to act. I acknowledge that reasonable people can disagree about timing: whether NPR should have ended its relationship with Juan Williams earlier, on the occasion of other incidents; or whether this final episode warranted immediate termination of his contract.

    In any event, the process that followed the decision was unfortunate – including not meeting with Juan Williams in person – and I take full responsibility for that. We have already begun a thorough review of all aspects of our performance in this instance, a process that will continue in the coming days and weeks. We will also review and re-articulate our written ethics guidelines to make them as clear and relevant as possible for our acquired show partners, our staff, Member stations and the public.

    The news and media world is changing swiftly and radically; traditional standards and practices are under siege. This requires us to redouble our attention to how we interpret and live up to our values and standards. We are confident that NPR’s integrity and dedication to the highest values in journalism and our commitment to serving as a national forum for the respectful discussion of diverse ideas will continue to earn the support of a growing audience.

    I stand by my decision to end NPR’s relationship with Juan Williams, but deeply regret the way I handled and explained it. You have my pledge that the NPR team and I will reflect on all aspects of our actions, and strive to improve them in the future.

    Please feel free to share your concerns and suggestions.


    Vivian Schiller

    • Could someone please explain the difference between a journalist and an analyst. Most analyst I have ever seen are identified as a republican or a democrat. Journalist are supposed to give facts and nothing but facts. What are self proclaimed party affiliated analyst supposed to do? I have never seen one talk where I wasn’t listening to their opinion.

      • “Journalist are supposed to give facts and nothing but facts.” I think most true “journalists” are un-employable by MSM. Their bosses have an agenda first, above the need to make money. Might be why they are loosing viewers and FOX keeps gaining.

        • Common Man says:

          LOF & VH

          A Journalist does provide facts, but those facts are used to report a story as the story unfolded. Journalist don’t (or shouldn’t) allow their bias to factor into the story. An analyst conveys some facts and some opinion, and is usually bias.

          A Journalist validates facts, an analyst just spews them. A journalist uncovers things by using investigative skills, an analyst twists things to strengthen a position

          There are not very many real journalist these days, but there are tons of ANALyst’s.


          • CM,

            I used to listen (very short time period)after a Presidential address, to what the reporters or analysts had to say. Kinda funny listening to the actual speech, then having some talking head read back those words and tell me what they meant. One think that stands out is when they keep repeating the party line. An analysts this am kept bringing up the Repug’s “party of no”.

            ANALyst’s indeed.

            • Hee Hee-I was actually referring more to NPR’s continued claim that Juan was breaking their rules by giving an opinion-which seems in my experience to be the role of an analyst. So I;m rather interested in their actual definition of an analyst and how per them he broke the rule.

    • Two thoughts on her letter.

      1. CYA

      2. Easier to ask for forgiveness than to get permission.

      • CYA ??

        • Cover your a$$

        • Canadian Yachting Association
          California Youth Authority
          Cover Your A**
          Cover Your Assets
          College Year in Athens (Greece; study abroad program)
          Cyclosporine A (immunosuppressant)
          Cyanuric Acid
          Cy Young Award (ML Baseball Award for Pitching)
          Change Your Attitude
          Cumbria Youth Alliance (UK)
          Classic Yacht Association
          Cover Your Answer(s)
          Call Your Attorney
          Canadian Youth Assembly (est. 2008)
          Can You Articulate
          Christian Youth Association
          Challenge Your Assumptions
          Committee of Young Artists (Mississauga Arts Council)
          Company of Young Artists (Youth Musical Theater Group, Fullerton College, CA)


      Years ago NPR tried to stop me from going on “The Factor.” When I refused they insisted that I not identify myself as an NPR journalist. I asked them if they thought people did not know where I appeared on the air as a daily talk show host, national correspondent and news analyst. They refused to budge.

      This self-reverential attitude was on display several years ago when NPR asked me to help them get an interview with President George W. Bush. I have longstanding relationships with some of the key players in his White House due to my years as a political writer at The Washington Post. When I got the interview some in management expressed anger that in the course of the interview I said to the president that Americans pray for him but don’t understand some of his actions. They said it was wrong to say Americans pray for him.

      Later on the 50th anniversary of the Little Rock crisis President Bush offered to do an NPR interview with me about race relations in America. NPR management refused to take the interview on the grounds that the White House offered it to me and not their other correspondents and hosts. One NPR executive implied I was in the administration’s pocket, which is a joke, and there was no other reason to offer me the interview. Gee, I guess NPR news executives never read my bestselling history of the civil rights movement “Eyes on the Prize – America’s Civil Rights Years,” or my highly acclaimed biography “Thurgood Marshall –American Revolutionary.” I guess they never noticed that “ENOUGH,” my last book on the state of black leadership in America, found a place on the New York Times bestseller list.

      This all led to NPR demanding that I either agree to let them control my appearances on Fox News and my writings or sign a new contract that removed me from their staff but allowed me to continue working as a news analyst with an office at NPR. The idea was that they would be insulated against anything I said or wrote outside of NPR because they could say that I was not a staff member. What happened is that they immediately began to cut my salary and diminish my on-air role. This week when I pointed out that they had forced me to sign a contract that gave them distance from my commentary outside of NPR I was cut off, ignored and fired.

      And now they have used an honest statement of feeling as the basis for a charge of bigotry to create a basis for firing me. Well, now that I no longer work for NPR let me give you my opinion. This is an outrageous violation of journalistic standards and ethics by management that has no use for a diversity of opinion, ideas or a diversity of staff (I was the only black male on the air). This is evidence of one-party rule and one sided thinking at NPR that leads to enforced ideology, speech and writing. It leads to people, especially journalists, being sent to the gulag for raising the wrong questions and displaying independence of thought.

    • See… there her lies are again:

      “He was explicitly and repeatedly asked to respect NPR’s standards and to avoid expressing strong personal opinions on controversial subjects in public settings, as that is inconsistent with his role as an NPR news analyst.”

      Yet there are a plethora of examples popping up all over the place of NPR analysts and correspondents making far worse comments than what Williams made. And Williams was making the RIGHT point, that we should not allow feelings like that to cause us to treat people badly. I wonder if Totenberg made that distinction when she wished Helms and his family would contract AIDS?

      These statements from Schiller are little more than rhetoric that is clearly not followed when dealing with other personalities on the NPR network.


  9. Man, this is just to rich to let sit until Tues night.

    Illegal aliens are canvassing for Patty Murry in Washington

    • I had two groups of people knock on my door this weekend to get my vote. I figured out the fastest possible way of getting rid of them.

      I told the Democratic group of old ladies that I’m a registered Democrat and that I’ll be voting Democratic straight down the line. They realized that they were wasting their time and promptly left.

      I told the guy Republican guy that I’m a registered Republican and that I’ll be voting Republican straight down the line. He realized that he was wasting his time and promptly left.

      Now, if they’d come at the same time, I would have let them argue the merits – now that would would have been amusing..

      • Mathius

        That will not stop them. Your name is now included in their data base as a Party Loyalist. They will come back again to make sure you don’t need a ride to the polls.

        I usually just tell them I am a Party Officer of the “other” party. That gets you off their contact list.

      • Mathius

        Speaking of being on a list. I wanted to share an email I recently received with you:

        Friend —

        Two years ago, I met 10 of you.

        Just before I accepted our party’s nomination in front of 80,000 people in Denver, I spoke with 10 grassroots supporters who had won a trip to meet me backstage.

        I still remember the time we spent together — because these are the people, like you, who stood with me in 2008, and got me through the tough fights since.

        But we face another test on November 2nd that will say a lot about our future — and I need you by my side again.

        A Supreme Court decision I strongly disagree with has shifted the balance of power in our elections from folks like you to giant corporations. Their massive spending on attack ads could have a real impact on who represents you at all levels of government. Only supporters like you — and all the work you are doing — are standing in their way.

        This may be our toughest fight yet.

        So next week, just 11 days before the elections, I want to meet three supporters like you backstage at a rally in Las Vegas — one of the last big rallies of this campaign.

        Please make a $3 donation now to be automatically entered to win a trip to be at my side at the rally in Vegas.

        This movement has always been about more than me. It’s about change, and the kind of future we envision for this country.

        The folks I met backstage in Denver told me they wanted health reform, a clean-energy economy, and a resolution to the war in Iraq. They wanted a new kind of politics, and a new kind of leader.

        It was their hope and expectation that together we would move beyond the status quo, that we would counter the special interests and corporate influence in Washington — that we would do what was right and necessary for all Americans.

        With your help, we have made historic progress, but there is much left to do — and it will not happen without your involvement. I need strong allies in Congress who will stand with us in the tough fights ahead, and I need you to give it all you’ve got through November 2nd to make sure they can.

        Your donation today will provide critical support to our Vote 2010 campaign as we reach out to millions of voters who will decide the closest races across the country.

        It will determine if we pass this test, and win our toughest fight yet.

        Please donate $3 or more to be automatically entered to win a trip to Las Vegas to meet me backstage:

        I hope to see you out there,

        President Barack Obama

        P.S. — Making a donation automatically registers you for the sweepstakes. You may also enter the sweepstakes without making a contribution either online or via text message — click here to enter online or here for instructions on how to enter via text message. No minimum contribution is necessary to be registered.

        Two years ago he met 10 of me. Damn, and here I thought I was uniquely JAC.

        • There’s ten of you?! Don’t suppose you have the address for the other nine do you? One is enough. Just let me grab my crossbow and I’ll take care of this little problem…

          • Mathius

            Here is another one I got yesterday:

            Friend —

            We’ve all seen campaigns where one party has all the momentum — races with real enthusiasm gaps. But you’re proving that’s just not the case in this election.

            Just look at the rallies with President Obama: more than 18,000 in Philly, 26,500 in Madison, 35,000 in Columbus. At events across the country, he’s been drawing incredible crowds of people who are fired up for this campaign.

            I’ve read reports about the work you’re already doing to contact voters — it’s unbelievable for an election like this.

            But there are nine days left. Whether you’re one of the folks who’ve already helped reach out to 15 million voters or if you’re one of those who has been waiting for a time to get involved, that moment has come.

            Will you sign up to fill a crucial get-out-the-vote shift in the final four days of our Vote 2010 campaign?

            Let me tell you why this is so important. It’s not just that there are people out there who don’t know what’s at stake in this election.

            It’s not just that there are folks who need one of us to call them and make the case.

            The truth is that there are people in this country who are doing everything they can to make sure our supporters don’t make it out.

            One group even tried to buy television advertising with a message for Latinos telling them explicitly — don’t vote.

            We’re up against more than apathy. What this election demands from us is an effort nothing short of extraordinary.

            But I know we’re all ready to deliver just that.

            Can you commit to pitching in to get out the vote?




            Donna Brazile
            Vice Chair for Voter Registration and Participation

            Matt: Please note how they are trying to use FEAR of the “others” trying to steal an election to motivate their voters. The Hispanic ads she mentions were actually done in the spirit of BF’s theory about voting. But no other examples were used because there is no media coverage to support it.

          • We need 100 million JACs !

      • What will liberals want to ban next? For your own good, of course.

        • Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Stealing your freedom….one energy drink at a time!

            • They would never do that.. Energy drinks are the source of liberalism.. Why would liberals ban them..?

              • For the same reason NPR fired Juan Williams…they really don’t know, it just felt right at the time…

              • Matt,

                It’s that evil fringe. We all know most liberals are moderate, like Williams. The Obama, Pelosi & Reeds
                are driving right now, so, bye, bye RedBull & Juan.

                Disclaimer, the right has it’s own fringe, but they support RedBull.

  10. Bottom Line says:

    1 – Juan Williams wasn’t on NPR when he made those statements. So, unless he was in breach of contract, he could say whatever he wanted to, whenever and wherever he wanted.

    2 – What he said wasn’t bigoted, but rather an honest assessment of how he sees the popular American sentiment of Muslims.

    3 – The fear that most Americans have towards Muslims is primarily due to the propaganda machine making Muslims out to be the enemy and telling us to be scared of them. Over and over and over and over again, we have been told that it’s a Muslim thing, that Muslims hate us and want to kill us because we’re free, that we should somehow be scared of Muslims because planes flew into buildings.

    Mr. Williams and his fear is a manifestation of propaganda.

  11. @ MAtt….by the way, sir, your fermenting process was a little bitter on that last batch of Grog we stole from you. Could you do a little better next time, please? After all, we did leave your RB alone.

    • That’s because it was spiked. Enjoy your wings.

    • D13,

      Afternoon 🙂 !

      mathius Grog has got to be putrid at best. Might I interest you in some sweet apple brandy, homebrewed ofcourse. I also have pear, peach, blueberry, rasberry, grapefruit (pucker effect!), and pineapple. Satisfaction assured, and you will never want that putrid grog again (psst, it’s got liberal poison in it).

      Hope your day is well!


  12. Had a thought (headache begins).

    The NPR logo looks like a flag. America’s National Public Radio uses Red, Black and Blue for their symbol. So similar to the red, white and blue. Is there a message or hidden meaning?

  13. My personal opinion – honest, civil political discourse will not happen in this nation. It’s dead and gone and won’t return. There’s too much emotional pot stirring constantly going on by the fringes of both sides. At the same time both extremes only believe it is the other side that’s wrong in any way.

    • 8 1/2 min, O’Riley & Williams have a civil discussion, making NPR look like @ssclowns.

      • O’Reilly and Williams have been having several good discussions lately. It’s about time. I sure hope this spurs more civil discussion about more topics. But Plainlyspoken is probably least for now.

        I don’t see why, instead of sound bite news shows, the media won’t offer shows that tackle one problem at a time.

        • Civil discussions are boring. If it bleeds, it leads. They will create controversy where it does not exist. Consider the Tea Parties, five percent of the signs displayed were controversial, but those were 95% of what the networks showed.

          • You’re correct on the “if it bleeds, it leads” LOI. The MSM is a big problem when it comes to having an uncivil atmosphere of behavior in society. The claim that the MSM makes that they are impartially reporting the news is the biggest lie in American journalism. They all quietly keep the water boiling while they play the ratings game. A pig has more ethics than a journalist (and I was once *shiver* married to a journalist).

            There are those out there who can, and try to, have calm, civil discussions about the issues. It’s just that it is so small a group of people that they are easily ignored as an anomaly, unless some group needs to show of well mannered the discussions can be, at which time they point to an example like O’Reilly & Williams (I don’t mean to imply that’s what you are doing – I’m speaking of the MSM and major political public figures and commentators).

  14. Ray Hawkins says:

    Bruce Schneier on Profiling:

    July 22, 2005


    There is a great discussion about profiling going on in the comments to the previous post. To help, here is what I wrote on the subject in Beyond Fear (pp. 133-7):

    Good security has people in charge. People are resilient. People can improvise. People can be creative. People can develop on-the-spot solutions. People can detect attackers who cheat, and can attempt to maintain security despite the cheating. People can detect passive failures and attempt to recover. People are the strongest point in a security process. When a security system succeeds in the face of a new or coordinated or devastating attack, it’s usually due to the efforts of people.

    On 14 December 1999, Ahmed Ressam tried to enter the U.S. by ferryboat from Victoria Island, British Columbia. In the trunk of his car, he had a suitcase bomb. His plan was to drive to Los Angeles International Airport, put his suitcase on a luggage cart in the terminal, set the timer, and then leave. The plan would have worked had someone not been vigilant.

    Ressam had to clear customs before boarding the ferry. He had fake ID, in the name of Benni Antoine Noris, and the computer cleared him based on this ID. He was allowed to go through after a routine check of his car’s trunk, even though he was wanted by the Canadian police. On the other side of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, at Port Angeles, Washington, Ressam was approached by U.S. customs agent Diana Dean, who asked some routine questions and then decided that he looked suspicious. He was fidgeting, sweaty, and jittery. He avoided eye contact. In Dean’s own words, he was acting “hinky.” More questioning — there was no one else crossing the border, so two other agents got involved — and more hinky behavior. Ressam’s car was eventually searched, and he was finally discovered and captured. It wasn’t any one thing that tipped Dean off; it was everything encompassed in the slang term “hinky.” But the system worked. The reason there wasn’t a bombing at LAX around Christmas in 1999 was because a knowledgeable person was in charge of security and paying attention.

    There’s a dirty word for what Dean did that chilly afternoon in December, and it’s profiling. Everyone does it all the time. When you see someone lurking in a dark alley and change your direction to avoid him, you’re profiling. When a storeowner sees someone furtively looking around as she fiddles inside her jacket, that storeowner is profiling. People profile based on someone’s dress, mannerisms, tone of voice … and yes, also on their race and ethnicity. When you see someone running toward you on the street with a bloody ax, you don’t know for sure that he’s a crazed ax murderer. Perhaps he’s a butcher who’s actually running after the person next to you to give her the change she forgot. But you’re going to make a guess one way or another. That guess is an example of profiling.

    To profile is to generalize. It’s taking characteristics of a population and applying them to an individual. People naturally have an intuition about other people based on different characteristics. Sometimes that intuition is right and sometimes it’s wrong, but it’s still a person’s first reaction. How good this intuition is as a countermeasure depends on two things: how accurate the intuition is and how effective it is when it becomes institutionalized or when the profile characteristics become commonplace.

    One of the ways profiling becomes institutionalized is through computerization. Instead of Diana Dean looking someone over, a computer looks the profile over and gives it some sort of rating. Generally profiles with high ratings are further evaluated by people, although sometimes countermeasures kick in based on the computerized profile alone. This is, of course, more brittle. The computer can profile based only on simple, easy-to-assign characteristics: age, race, credit history, job history, et cetera. Computers don’t get hinky feelings. Computers also can’t adapt the way people can.

    Profiling works better if the characteristics profiled are accurate. If erratic driving is a good indication that the driver is intoxicated, then that’s a good characteristic for a police officer to use to determine who he’s going to pull over. If furtively looking around a store or wearing a coat on a hot day is a good indication that the person is a shoplifter, then those are good characteristics for a store owner to pay attention to. But if wearing baggy trousers isn’t a good indication that the person is a shoplifter, then the store owner is going to spend a lot of time paying undue attention to honest people with lousy fashion sense.

    In common parlance, the term “profiling” doesn’t refer to these characteristics. It refers to profiling based on characteristics like race and ethnicity, and institutionalized profiling based on those characteristics alone. During World War II, the U.S. rounded up over 100,000 people of Japanese origin who lived on the West Coast and locked them in camps (prisons, really). That was an example of profiling. Israeli border guards spend a lot more time scrutinizing Arab men than Israeli women; that’s another example of profiling. In many U.S. communities, police have been known to stop and question people of color driving around in wealthy white neighborhoods (commonly referred to as “DWB” — Driving While Black). In all of these cases you might possibly be able to argue some security benefit, but the trade-offs are enormous: Honest people who fit the profile can get annoyed, or harassed, or arrested, when they’re assumed to be attackers.

    For democratic governments, this is a major problem. It’s just wrong to segregate people into “more likely to be attackers” and “less likely to be attackers” based on race or ethnicity. It’s wrong for the police to pull a car over just because its black occupants are driving in a rich white neighborhood. It’s discrimination.

    But people make bad security trade-offs when they’re scared, which is why we saw Japanese internment camps during World War II, and why there is so much discrimination against Arabs in the U.S. going on today. That doesn’t make it right, and it doesn’t make it effective security. Writing about the Japanese internment, for example, a 1983 commission reported that the causes of the incarceration were rooted in “race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.” But just because something is wrong doesn’t mean that people won’t continue to do it.

    Ethics aside, institutionalized profiling fails because real attackers are so rare: Active failures will be much more common than passive failures. The great majority of people who fit the profile will be innocent. At the same time, some real attackers are going to deliberately try to sneak past the profile. During World War II, a Japanese American saboteur could try to evade imprisonment by pretending to be Chinese. Similarly, an Arab terrorist could dye his hair blond, practice an American accent, and so on.

    Profiling can also blind you to threats outside the profile. If U.S. border guards stop and search everyone who’s young, Arab, and male, they’re not going to have the time to stop and search all sorts of other people, no matter how hinky they might be acting. On the other hand, if the attackers are of a single race or ethnicity, profiling is more likely to work (although the ethics are still questionable). It makes real security sense for El Al to spend more time investigating young Arab males than it does for them to investigate Israeli families. In Vietnam, American soldiers never knew which local civilians were really combatants; sometimes killing all of them was the security solution they chose.

    If a lot of this discussion is abhorrent, as it probably should be, it’s the trade-offs in your head talking. It’s perfectly reasonable to decide not to implement a countermeasure not because it doesn’t work, but because the trade-offs are too great. Locking up every Arab-looking person will reduce the potential for Muslim terrorism, but no reasonable person would suggest it. (It’s an example of “winning the battle but losing the war.”) In the U.S., there are laws that prohibit police profiling by characteristics like ethnicity, because we believe that such security measures are wrong (and not simply because we believe them to be ineffective).

    Still, no matter how much a government makes it illegal, profiling does occur. It occurs at an individual level, at the level of Diana Dean deciding which cars to wave through and which ones to investigate further. She profiled Ressam based on his mannerisms and his answers to her questions. He was Algerian, and she certainly noticed that. However, this was before 9/11, and the reports of the incident clearly indicate that she thought he was a drug smuggler; ethnicity probably wasn’t a key profiling factor in this case. In fact, this is one of the most interesting aspects of the story. That intuitive sense that something was amiss worked beautifully, even though everybody made a wrong assumption about what was wrong. Human intuition detected a completely unexpected kind of attack. Humans will beat computers at hinkiness-detection for many decades to come.

    And done correctly, this intuition-based sort of profiling can be an excellent security countermeasure. Dean needed to have the training and the experience to profile accurately and properly, without stepping over the line and profiling illegally. The trick here is to make sure perceptions of risk match the actual risks. If those responsible for security profile based on superstition and wrong-headed intuition, or by blindly following a computerized profiling system, profiling won’t work at all. And even worse, it actually can reduce security by blinding people to the real threats. Institutionalized profiling can ossify a mind, and a person’s mind is the most important security countermeasure we have.

    A couple of other points (not from the book):

    Whenever you design a security system with two ways through — an easy way and a hard way — you invite the attacker to take the easy way. Profile for young Arab males, and you’ll get terrorists that are old non-Arab females. This paper looks at the security effectiveness of profiling versus random searching.

    If we are going to increase security against terrorism, the young Arab males living in our country are precisely the people we want on our side. Discriminating against them in the name of security is not going to make them more likely to help.

    Despite what many people think, terrorism is not confined to young Arab males. Shoe-bomber Richard Reid was British. Germaine Lindsay, one of the 7/7 London bombers, was Afro-Caribbean. Here are some more examples:

    In 1986, a 32-year-old Irish woman, pregnant at the time, was about to board an El Al flight from London to Tel Aviv when El Al security agents discovered an explosive device hidden in the false bottom of her bag. The woman’s boyfriend — the father of her unborn child — had hidden the bomb.

    In 1987, a 70-year-old man and a 25-year-old woman — neither of whom were Middle Eastern — posed as father and daughter and brought a bomb aboard a Korean Air flight from Baghdad to Thailand. En route to Bangkok, the bomb exploded, killing all on board.

    In 1999, men dressed as businessmen (and one dressed as a Catholic priest) turned out to be terrorist hijackers, who forced an Avianca flight to divert to an airstrip in Colombia, where some passengers were held as hostages for more than a year-and-half.

    The 2002 Bali terrorists were Indonesian. The Chechnyan terrorists who downed the Russian planes were women. Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber were Americans. The Basque terrorists are Basque, and Irish terrorists are Irish. Tha Tamil Tigers are Sri Lankan.

    And many Muslims are not Arabs. Even worse, almost everyone who is Arab is not a terrorist — many people who look Arab are not even Muslims. So not only are there an large number of false negatives — terrorists who don’t meet the profile — but there an enormous number of false positives: innocents that do meet the profile.

  15. Ray Hawkins says:

    Opening Open Mic?

    Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s admission that his office has taken ‘bags of money’ from Iran are part of an effort to undermine Tehran’s role in negotiations with the Taliban, argues a regional analyst.

    Read the story here:

    Keep your friends close and your enemies closer? Is this guy friend or enemy? Or both?

    • Ray,

      FYI, the NRA says we want Tom Corbett for Penn. Gov., with an “A” rating.

      His opponent, Dan Onorato gets an “F” rating. What say you? Let me know if I’ve swayed you, it’s good for NRA bonus points, can redeem for guns and ammo.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Would I vote for TC because of an NRA rating? Seriously? I’d vote for him if he eats scrapple – how is that for a good reason? 😉 (If you’d vote for him cause he eats scrapple then that is good for some piggie points – oink oink oink LOI)

        • Thought you might like the info, and share your local perspective. I promise not to run up and try to cancel your vote. Don’t like the traffic.:lol:

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            @LOI – I am grossly generalizing – but in PA I would think that for the most part folks take their gun rights pretty damn seriously. I think Corbett will win hands down w/ or w/o the NRA endorse/

  16. Ray Hawkins says:

    Rand Paul Supporters – a kinder, more gentle kind of supporter

    • Gonna need a few details to talk about this-except for that one guy who pushed him with his foot when he was already helpless.

    • Good find Ray, nice, unbiased source. They have some other interesting video’s. So informative.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @LOI – the source has nothing to do with what is presented on the video.

        • Disagree. Your source edits and photoshops, and is a partisan
          attack site. I did view the same video on other sites and will state that I saw no alterations, but see every reason to question and confirm.

          Very interesting, Move-On has created an organization, Republicon, to attack Republicans. And one of their activists has made the “news”.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            @LOI – so you have seen different versions of the video to suggest that the short snippet was somehow doctored? Please send me the link so I can eat my words.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        LOI – I am you. And you are me and we are all together. Goo goo g’joob.

    • Ray,

      I think one of the Rand Paul supporters was out of line, stepping on the guy when he was already being held. Funny, they are holding him and calling for the police, not just beating him. Details would be interesting, did he break a law where he could be legally detained, or did the Paul supporters break the law with battery and false imprisonment?

      I thikn it’s better to deal with Paul’s thugs, than …..

      • SEIU, of course. My mailbox (real mail not email)has been jammed with their propaganda lately. Can’t wait for this election to end.

      • LOI, it was actually a woman. She is a Liberal activist and has been seen in several places with activists…she was in disguise…notice the blonde wig coming off. My question to Ray would be what would the Secret Service do to someone carrying a Tea Party sign that pushed through the crowd to “give” something to the President? This was tame in comparison…IMHO.

        • Terry and all,

          Thanks for the info, I was curious.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @Terry – funny how you cannot be found to condemn what was done. As for your comparison – there is none – we both know what USSS would do – they’d do what we’d expect them to do.

          • Ray,

            After reviewing what I could on this, I think the first guy acted reasonably, fearing a possible attack. The wig and her actions were strange enough to attract notice. Makes me wonder why she did not just calmly walk up to him???

            The second guy, I think was out of line, putting his foot on someone’s shoulder, that slipped to her head. The crowd reacted to his excessive force, he retreated. I think he was too laze to bend over and hold her with his hands.

            It does stand out that the SEIU sent a guy to the hospital for passing out “Don’t Tread On Me” posters. She drove home with a headache, that I agree was uncalled for….

            And what’s the definition of a liberal? Open minded, etc????? Is that what we are seeing?

      • I don’t know what happened, I read on another blog that she was running through the crowd in a fake wig towards Rand Paul and that’s why she was tackled. I don’t know what’s true. Almost all the headlines say supporter stomped woman on head and that she was from It wasn’t what I would call a stomp and it wasn’t on her head but it was still wayyyyyyy wrong. At least someone stepped in an stopped the guy. As far as the rest-I doubt we will ever know for sure what happened.

        • From what I read she was trying to push through the crowd…carrying a MoveOn sign, to “give” Mr. Paul a fake presentation…

          • I’m sure it was a publicity stunt-you can see the Republicon sign in the video. A picture plastered everywhere with Rand being labeled a republicon. Nothing like manufacturing the lead story for your pals at the MSM. Not sure she wanted to be tackled though-although I’m sure the left is loving it right now.

            • Correction-it’s Republicorp-new ads Move-on is doing to get out the vote-tying republicans with the “hated ” corporations. Guess Rand was gonna be part of the news and an aid.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        I think some provocation was involved – but that does not give one license to do what was done.

  17. Ray Hawkins says:

    WikiLeaks should be declared ‘enemy combatants’, says Fox News contributor

    A Fox News contributor and former state department adviser has accused WikiLeaks of conducting “political warfare against the US” and called for those behind the whistleblowing website to be declared “enemy combatants” so they can be subjected to “non-judicial actions”.

    In an opinion piece on the Fox News site, Christian Whiton lambasts Congress and the White House for failing to tackle the leaking of hundreds of thousands of files about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and demands action.

    “First and foremost, it is important to understand that this is a serious challenge to our national security,” he writes. “It’s not about government transparency or free speech, which is the claim WikiLeaks and its leader, a certain Julian Assange, are making. Rather, this is an act of political warfare against the United States.

    “WikiLeaks is a foreign organisation that obtained these documents as a result of espionage and it means to use the information to thwart and alter US policy. Mr Assange said as much himself.”

    Whiton’s demands follow the release by WikiLeaks last week of 391,832 reports dubbed the Iraq war logs, which revealed evidence of the systematic use of torture by the Iraqi government installed by the US.

    The pundit accuses the Obama administration of falling “asleep at the wheel” and offers five courses of action:

    • Indict Assange and his colleagues for espionage.

    • Explore whether they can be declared enemy combatants, “paving the way for non-judicial actions against them”.

    • Freeze WikiLeaks’ assets and impose sanctions on any financial organisation working with them.

    • Allow the US cyber command to “prove its worth by ordering it to electronically assault WikiLeaks”.

    • Hold “meaningful” congressional hearings to discover how such a massive leak could have happened.

    Whiton ends with the following plea: “How much will our information-collection capabilities have to be diminished, and how many of our friends and collaborators around the world must die, before President Obama and his friends on Capitol Hill start caring more about national security?”

    Assange has also been attacked by the Times columnist Hugo Rifkind – albeit in far more moderate terms.

    “I find Julian Assange … a frighteningly amoral figure,” he writes today. “It’s partly the concept of unredacted leaking in itself that makes a mockery of everything journalistic ethics ought to be.

    “Indeed, it does worse: it takes the agonised deliberations that occur in every newsroom over what to publish, and what harm it might cause (which often get it wrong, but do at least occur) and casts them as partisan and Goebbels-ish. Assange himself embodies this. For him, every criticism is a smear, and every critic has an agenda, probably emailed over by the Pentagon. Frankly, it’s insulting.”

    C’mon Whiton – why stop short of calling for Assange’s assassination? Maybe as an enemy combatant we could kidnap him. fly him to Bulgaria or Syria and waterboard his ass for shits and giggles.

    Because the issue isn’t about the egregious shit we’ve done, the issue is we’re soooo busted and found out. (really the issue is both)

  18. Last week, I watched a report where the White House was claiming 50,000 jobs saved/created by it’s 70 wind farm projects.
    Problem #1, 11 of those were done under Bush.
    Problem #2, 19 of them were done before the Stimulus and Obama.
    Solution, blame Bush for the bad things, lie and take credit for the good?

    October 25, 2010
    IG: Treasury ‘uses questionable methods and may be too optimistic’
    Ed Lasky, American Thinker
    Why Inspectors General are worth their weight in gold. From Bloomberg:

    The Treasury Department’s plan to recoup taxpayer funds from the bailout of American International Group Inc. uses questionable methods and may be too optimistic, the Troubled Asset Relief Program’s inspector general said.

    Treasury’s estimate that it will lose $5 billion on its TARP investment in AIG “represents a dramatic shift from the $45 billion loss that Treasury had projected in its AIG investment just six months earlier,” Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for TARP, said in a report today. “While AIG’s fortune may have indeed improved during the course of those six months, there is a serious question over how much of this decrease comes from a change in Treasury’s methodology for calculating the loss as opposed to AIG’s improved prospects.”

    The Obama administration has been changing methodologies so as to burnish their record — all without telling anyone they were changing the rules of the game for political benefit. How does that square with the promise of transparency? Is this stunt reminiscent of the new Obama-created metric of “jobs saved and created”? Or General Motors boasting it had paid back its loans-when in reality it just shuffled papers and accounts?

    Is Timothy Geithner just addicted to such shenanigans? After all, he fudged on his own taxes. So why not try to create a glowing portrait of the TARP program?

    Last week I blogged about these Unsung Heroes. They are heroes. If only the mainstream media would pay heed.

    • “So why not try to create a glowing portrait of the TARP program?”

      Wonderful question-you know they would counter all the stories of the money being totally wasted if they could.

    • “Whether Stewart’s fan base can stay energized and show up at the polls remains to be seen. November 2, after all, marks the return of the McRib sandwich at McDonald’s”

      I have never had a McRib. Is it any good?

  19. Will Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts be Impeached?
    Opinion by The Volokh Conspiracy
    (1 Day Ago) in Politics / Supreme Court

    By Jonathan H. Adler

    The Huffington Post reports that Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Or) is investigating articles of impeachment for Chief Justice John Roberts in response to the Court’s decision in Citizens United.

    “I mean, the Supreme Court has done a tremendous disservice to the United States of America,” Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) told The Huffington Post on Tuesday. “They have done more to undermine our democracy with their Citizens United decision than all of the Republican operatives in the world in this campaign. They’ve opened the floodgates, and personally, I’m investigating articles of impeachment against Justice Roberts for perjuring during his Senate hearings, where he said he wouldn’t be a judicial activist, and he wouldn’t overturn precedents.”

    • Obama goes first dangit!

      Doin a fine job knockin em down today LOI! 🙂

      • Thankee, thankee, kind lady.

      • It’s not Segar, but I like some of his lyrics.

        Lose my breath in waves
        Knowing that every crash
        Is bleeding the hourglass

        • Bad link but I traced it down. Good song! Wish it was that easy..just let the troubles go with the balloons! In my dreams!

          • These Hard Times lyrics
            Songwriters: Cook, Kyle; Doucette, Paul; Thomas, Rob; Yale, Brian;

            Morning falls like rain
            Into the city life
            There goes another night

            Lose my breath in waves
            Knowing that every crash
            Is bleeding the hourglass
            And taking the stride
            From all our lives

            Everyone keeps talking
            They promise you everything(so true)
            They don’t mean anything

            We may lose our focus

            There’s just too many words
            We’re never meant to learn(my excuse)

            And we don’t feel so alive

            Say goodbye, these days are gone
            And we can’t keep holding on
            When all we need is some relief
            Through these hard times
            Through these hard times

            Move your hands in circles
            Keeping me hypnotized
            The power behind your eyes

            Move around your bedroom
            Cursing the naked sky
            You should be here tonight
            But you stay alone and cry

            Say goodbye, these days are gone
            And we can’t keep holding on
            When all we need is some relief
            Through these hard times

            Oh, there’s something missing
            Oh, you never feel it but you
            Oh, you’re gonna feel it
            When it’s gone, when it’s gone

            Say goodbye, these days are gone
            And we can’t keep holding on
            When all we need is some relief
            Through these hard times, yeah
            These hard times, oh no, no
            Hard times, hard times

            Say goodbye, these days are gone
            Say goodbye, these days are gone
            These days are gone

  20. Canine Weapon says:

    Thought for the day:

    The Etymology Of The Word “Politics”

    Politics comes from two parts derived from the ancient Greek, poli and tic.

    Poli (Poly) meaning “many.”

    Tic (Tick) meaning a “blood sucking parasite.”

    Thus Politics roughly translates to “many blood sucking parasites.”

    I hope you found this enlightening


    • Verrrrrry interesting Canine Weapon.

      Tell me, do you know if Hartz or Frontline makes a repellent collar for those blood sucking parasites?

      • It is called a thinking cap. If you can think for yourself, you are just what host they cannot occupy…

      • Canine Weapon says:

        I’m sorry, Plainlyspoken, but if your picture is any indication, you’re a cat. Sadly, Frontline is lethal to cats.

        I guess you’re S.O.L.

        • No, that picture show my nemesis that I have to watch out for. Seems he/she is interested in my small goat herd. And I have a “repellent collar” for that – called a .270 goat defender.

          Otherwise I guess I’ll have to go with Terry’s thought and make sure I keep thinking for myself.

  21. Civil discussions on “The View”.

    Comparing her latest campaign commercial to a “Hitler Youth commercial,” “The View” co-host Joy Behar angrily pronounced that Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R) is a “bitch” who will “go to Hell” for her ad.

    While none of the four co-hosts agreed with the tone of Angle’s ad, Behar was the most vicious in her attack on Angle, calling her a “moron” and insisting she should try out her campaign rhetoric in the south Bronx [Video embedded after the page break]:

    JOY BEHAR: You know what I’d like to see her do? I’d like to see her do this ad in the south Bronx. Come here, bitch! Come to New York and do it.

    [Audience applause]

    SHERRI SHEPHERD: And we’re praying for you. We’re praying for you.

    ELISABETH HASSELBECK: Even Joy is praying for her.

    BEHAR: I am not praying for her. I’m telling you right now. She’s going to Hell.

    SHEPHERD: I’m praying for everybody. No, I’m praying that her heart gets changed.

    BEHAR: She’s going to Hell, this bitch.

    SHEPHERD: I’m praying that Sharron Angle’s heart gets changed. She’s not going to Hell!

    You may recall that in July, when Barack Obama visited the gals of “The View,” Behar told the president that she was dedicated to being his “attack dog” in the campaign season:

    BEHAR: Because, you know, you’ve really done a lot, I think. I mean, you’ve signed 200-plus laws into- since you’re in office. You have financial reform has taken place. You got a health care. I mean, you put two woman on the Supreme Court. I could go on and on about your accomplishments. And yet, the right-wing, through Fox News and other outlets, they seem to be hijacking the narrative. Where, on your side, is the narrative? Where is your attack dog to come out and tell the American people, “Listen, this is what we did?”

    President BARACK OBAMA: Joy, that’s your job.

    BEHAR: I do it! But, I’m only one woman!

    Read more:

  22. Been wondering about France, but could not find any new reports on their riots.
    I thought they have a free press?

    French Senate Passes Retirement Bill

    Published October 26, 2010

    | Associated Press

    PARIS — France’s Senate has given its final approval to a bill to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62, a reform that has sparked weeks of strikes and street protests.

    The Senate approved the final text of the bill 177 to 151 on Tuesday, marking its second-to-last hurdle in parliament. The bill goes before the lower house on Wednesday and is almost certain to pass there, too.

    The finance minister has declared that the slowing protest movement has reached a “turning point.” Garbage collectors in southern France have gone back to work to tackle two weeks’ worth of piled-up trash, and some oil workers have deserted their picket lines.

  23. When did we just totally lose all common sense-it’s unacceptable, it’s totally unacceptable-obviously not.

    • Like to know what happened with the teacher following him on the highway.

    • Bottom Line says:

      Umm…that is totally whack!

      So it’s not okay for the teacher to call a child that, but she can’t NECESSARILY be fired for it, and the superintendent cannot promise the child’s father that the child will be removed from that class depending on the class sizes?

      1 – She should be fired immediately!

      2 – The child is better off in a crowded classroom than to be called names.

      3 – She should be fired immediately!

      4 – She should be fired immediately!

      5 – She should be fired immediately!


  24. Little history-before the election.

  25. My Personal favorite.

  26. Jawdropping!

    • It was bad enough when our country started attacking one of OUR states for following the law. But this is just too “foreshadowing” for my peace of mind. These people must be voted out of office.

    • OMG!!!!!!!!! It’s getting ridiculous!

      Impeach Obama!…Abolish the crazy 9th Circuit!… And I’m sure there’s a place somewhere for Holder and all his cronies besides the DOJ!

    • This is so blatant a disregard for a state of our union, that it totally boggles my mind…It is bad enough that the US has a law suit against one of its 50 member states, but to allow these foreign entities to even have the smallest voice in any matter within our borders, to me is traitorous…

    • Less than a week to election day.

      Watch the Dems run away from this as fast as they can.

      Watch the Reps try to tag them with it as hard as they can.

      This gets more entertaining by the minute.

    • Bottom Line says:

      What else would you expect from a Kenyan?

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      I love how this vein of the SUFA crowd jumps the gun on shit like this. They are asking to join a FRIEND OF THE COURT BRIEF! Do you guys not understand what that means?

      • Bottom Line says:

        It doesn’t matter.

        They have absolutely NO business in our affairs/legal issues.

        The only country other than ourselves that (arguably)should have any involvement regarding this matter is Mexico.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          You’re overplaying it Bottom Line – the brief is not a cornerstone of the case by definition.

          • As a member of this “Vein” of SUFA(which I am proud to be a part of)-let me say that this type of crap is always gradual.

  27. Something to smile about.

  28. Common Man says:

    This one might be one for ‘Open Mic Night’, but I am posting here to get things rolling. If USW believes it to be worthy possibly he could forward it.

    D13, my good friend:

    Could you shed some light on why the Federal Government is not pushing Texas as hard, or at all, like they are Arizona?

    I got to believe that you folks are experiencing as much or more trouble on your boarders as Arizona, so why isn’t the Federal Government fighting your efforts?

    Are the federal authorities assisting your efforts and supporting your laws?

    Why do we only hear tales relative to cartel issues happening in Arizona.

    I am wondering if the current regime has choosen to specifically avoid a confrontation with Texas because of Texas’ political status?

    I am very interested in your thoughts


    • There are a couple of reasons. We have every bit of trouble here as I have been reporting…even more than Arizona. First of all, we are not getting very much Federal Aid at all. We also have the largest Reserve (National Guard) of all the states including California. We have the right to deploy on our border and have done so. The POTUS cannot stop us at all unless he cares to federally activate the Emergency War Powers Act to take control of the guard. Our guard is NOT federally funded. It is funded from State revenues and it is in our budget. Arizona has no such force so it relies on sheriffs and local law enforcement.

      Secondly, we have empowered our ranchers and made them part of our force. They are a great set of eyes and provide great intelligence. They are also bolstered by state law on trespassing and can use deadly force to protect their lands and have no…repeat…no rules of engagement. Our state guard has no such rules of engagement and report directly to the Governor. We have activated 3,000 combat troops and are actively patrolling our own borders with drones, helicopters, tanks, personnel carriers, etc. Our troops are armed with live ammunition. In addition, private lands in Texas run right up to the border and the border is NOT federal land except the Rio itself. In Arizona, most of the border area is Federal. Since the land is private, the Texas Guard has reached agreement with the ranchers that allow the guard to perform “training” on their land. So, instead of training at Fort Hood, our guard now trains on the border in actual situations. We train the ranchers right along with our guard and they become proficient in radio and electronic procedures and we equip the ranchers with same….and done with STATE funds and not Federal. We have equipped our ranchers with up to date and modern weapons and show them how to uase them. When the Cartels engage on our border, they are engaging military now (except the border cities), enaging ranchers that are becoming military trained, and they know we fire back. We have had 24 deadly engagements on the TExas side this year. You will not see it on the radio or tv…there is a news blackout ordered by the WH.

      Third, Texas already had laws on the books. We are simply enforcing our laws. Arizona just passed the same laws that we have had and it is easier to challenge a new law than it is to come into Texas and challenge laws already on the books for decades.

      Fourth, I fully believe with all my heart, that Obama knows that if he pushes Texas, we will and can push back…..economically especially. I also believes that he feels, as do many in Congress, that Texas has the guts and the will to push back to Republic status. Now, there are a lot on this blog that will say Texas cannot do that and that the POTUS will send in Federal troops to stop any such try but I would not bet on it. I would not under estimate Texas at all. Do not think for a minute that our legislature would not vote for it….they will.

      Fifth, the cartels are in the news constantly about Texas but across the border in Mexico. They do not have a foothold in Texas like they do on Federally owned lands in Arizona. Our Big Bend area is leased to the Feds. We are the only state that can do that and we retained the right to our land. Less that 2 percent of the land in Texas is Federal and that pertains to only the military bases. The Cartels are destroying the border ON THE MEXICO SIDE but they are not coming across to the Texas side because of our military. We literally watch executions on a weekly basis on the Mexico side. The cartel members drag people down to the Rio all the time and simply shoot them in the head and throw them in the Rio. AS long as they are on the Mexico side, we do nothing. They simply wave at us. Mexico forbids any interdiction on our part.

      Today…this very day, the cartels now control one half of Nuevo Laredo. They have literally blocked off streets and are openly engaging the Federales. Reynosa, across from McAllen is also controlled and the police are killed all the time. There have been over 3,000 deaths on the Mexico side of the Texas border this year and 48 on the Texas side but we have exacted a very high toll on the cartel so they are going to Arizona and California.

      Gov Perry has basically told the US justice dept to back off and leave us alone. And they are and I fully believe that it has to do with out independent stances and the will to do it.

      • oops….last sentence should read “our” not “out”.

      • I moved this thread over to the open mic for Tuesday night. I already included CM’s initial questions and D13’s initial reply. Seems like a good conversation topic.

  29. As the Series is starting soon I thought you hard core baseball fans would appreciate this.

    I did this once myself, in a championship game. It was televised but on delayed tape. My steal of home was foiled by the batter fouling off the pitch. Strange as it seems, the video tape of the game broke as I started my slide. The TV coverage showed me going and then me walking back to third. The announcers claiming “I think he would have been safe”.

    What is not shown or discussed is the ass chewing I got from the third base coach for going without telling anyone. His brief point……..”you could have got your head caved in”.

    But the pitcher had to go from the stretch after that. The batter got a single as did the next two hitters. We won the championship 6-4. In baseball it is those little things that don’t make the stat sheet that can make a difference in the game.

    In memory of my mother I wish the Giants a great series. But in the end I must pull for the Rangers. While they are a “mideastern” team they do play in the A.L. WEST, with my Mariners.

    • He was safe JAC. The catcher (YOGI?) left the front corner of the plate open.

      Now what’s this about you being in a televised game?

      • Anita

        I agree with your call, although I don’t know how the ump could see the front corner.

        But Yogi was also standing, left foot, in the batters box when he caught the pitch.

        Catcher’s interference is a one base penalty. Robinson would have advanced to home. I often wondered if that is what the ump told Yogi when he started arguing.

        Yes, I played in a Televised baseball game. A few of them in fact. Also a couple of TV football games. These were local TV stations not the Game of the Week if you know what I mean. But it was pretty cool especially in my day for the family and friends to see ya on the tube.

        In the game I mentioned the only break in the tape delay broadcast was my steal of home. It broke right as I started to slide and then the batter swung at the pitch. You could here the announcers but the visuals were broken…and then you see me walking back to third. I always thought it strange that the tape screwed up at just that moment. The only time in the entire series it messed up.

        • Oh yeah, I forgot about catcher’s interference.

          Broken tape? It was a conspiracy! I know the feeling of winning a championship! Been there several times myself. Those were the days 😉

          I have to pull for the Rangers too. Go American League!

          • Anita

            Yes they are great memories. Although I must admit my dreams are usually of the one big one that got away instead of the ones we won.

            Short stop as I recall?

            For me it was a transition from CF to 3B to 1B to catcher.

            • SS to 3rd. Early on I was a better fielder than hitter. In my old age I hit much better than I fielded. Go figure.

%d bloggers like this: