Time magazine and Rep. John Murtha (D) Pennsylvania have jointly crusaded to crucify Lance Cpl. Stephan Tatum for actions related to Haditha, Iraqbut last week all charges were dropped against the Marine and Time and Murtha look even worse for it. The pair sparked a legal and media inquisition against eight courageous United States Marines. Both Time and Murtha claimed these Marines committed cold-blooded murder in Haditha in 2005 and conspired to cover it up. $40 million in taxpayer money later all the Marines have been exonerated of murder or war crimes.

Based on Time’s unsubstantiated allegations alone, Murtha publicly charged the Marines had gone on a rampage to avenge the killing of their comrade. Murtha said: “Well there’s no question in my mind, what happened was an IED exploded. It killed one Marine. And then a taxi drives up. When the taxi comes up there’s four of five people in it. And they shoot … shoot those four or five people unarmed. Time and Murtha were dead wrong in their charges. For that both Time and Murtha deserve the Hypocrisy.com H. A. Award. As the mascot for the award symbolizes this bastardy brace produces something from the southern end of a northbound horse.

The recent report by the PEW CENTER FOR THE STATES bemoaned the fact that one in 100 Americans are in jail or prison (1 in 9 blacks) but it failed to mention the benefit that crime is down by 25% because of it. FREAKONOMICS co-author Steven Levitts, and others, have shown that in states where felons are imprisoned crime falls.

Cost studies show that on average criminals commit 12 to 16 crimes a year (exclusive of drug offenses) and those costs far exceed the costs to keep crooks in the hoosegow sparing law abiding citizens the suffering of their acts.

James Q. Wilson, Professor of Public Policy at Pepperdine, and previously of UCLA and Harvard University, knitted together a well argued and researched article in the SUNDAY MARCH 30 LA TIMES describes contradictions and faults the notion that leniency is somehow a solution. Among other things he cites skyrocketing crime rates in Britain for burglary, robbery and assault following its liberalization of prison sentences, and elsewhere when the value of deterrence has been rejected.

Levitts concludes that “But we should not suppose … we imprison too many people.”

There are a lot of questions surrounding the Democratic primaries. But I have two questions that are more fundamental than the current who should stay and who should drop out or how a race is being funded or why did he/she say that. The first goes to the very heart of the Democratic primaries: Are caucus’s legal?

I always thought that one of the greatest foundations of our republic was the ability to vote in private. To choose a candidate without immediate pressure and in secrecy so that no future action could be taken against you based on your vote. So I honestly don’t understand how a caucus could even be legal. First you must declare for a candidate in front of your friends, employers, co-workers and family. Then if your candidate does not have a certain percentage you need to choose another candidate while those candidate’s followers are publicly urging you to choose their candidate. Excuse me? That sounds like something out of the old Soviet Union or even China whereby you are harassed if you don’t pick “the right” candidate. It sure doesn’t sound like the United States.

It also makes the whole Barrack-Clinton race extremely interesting. Strip away the rhetoric and there really isn’t much difference in their ideology. Yet Barrack wins the caucus’s and Hillary wins the voting booth primaries. Imagine if you are standing in a crowded room filled with people you know and are told if you want to vote for Barrack stand in one corner and Hillary supporters are to stand in another corner. Now imagine that one of your neighbors is black and supporting Barrack and happens to glance your way. No matter your politics, anybody will start to feel self conscious and wonder if their neighbor might think you would be racist if you didn’t vote for Barrack. I know that I would feel very uncomfortable in the above situation and would probably end up voting for Barrack even if I was initially planning to vote for Clinton. Yet if given the secrecy of a voting booth I would feel no pressure to change my vote. Hence Barrack wins the caucus’s and Hillary wins the voting booth primaries.

My second question is: Isn’t the idea of super delegates belittling and condescending? I suppose they are legal but I can’t help but wonder why the rank and file allows their party to think that they can’t correctly choose a candidate. It basically says that the party doesn’t trust the rank and file to pick the right candidate so these old time party hacks can step in and make sure the party does the right thing. Wow. Actually that explains the whole philosophy of Democrats. They don’t think the citizens can pick a candidate, or a doctor or a job or take care of themselves and so the superior Democrat politicians must step in and do it for them. Can you imagine the media attacks if the Republican Party had super delegates of long-time conservative politicians? Yet the media is spending all their time counting super delegate votes to even bother to question the viability of super delegates.

If Barrack becomes the Democratic presidential candidate due to his wins in caucus’s and super delegates then in some ways he is negatively handicapped in the general election where people vote in secrecy and without the added super delegates, And if Barrack loses this November, it will be the fault of the Democrat Party for not running the same kind of race in the primaries that their candidate will face in the general election. On second thought, caucuses and super delegates may not be illegal but they sure are incredibly stupid ideas.

On March 25, the California Court of Appeal granted a motion for rehearing in the ‘In re Rachel L.’ case–the controversial decision which purported to ban all homeschooling in that state unless the parents held a teaching license qualifying them to teach in public schools.  The automatic effect of granting this motion is that the prior opinion is vacated and is no longer binding on any one, including the parties in the case.” - Home School Legal Defense Association, 3/26/08

California law requires children between six and 18 to attend a full-time day school. Failure to comply means falling afoul of the state’s truancy laws, which say kids can’t play hooky without an excuse. But kids who are taught at home are less likely to be truants. Their parents choose to spend their time teaching English, math and science precisely because they don’t think the public schools do a good enough job.”…That so many families turn to home schooling is a market solution to a market failure — namely the dismal performance of the local education monopoly. . . . For some parents, the motive for home schooling is religious; others want to protect their kids from gangs and drugs. But the most-cited reason is to ensure a good education.”Home-schooled students are routinely high performers on standardized academic tests, beating their public school peers on average by as much as 30 percentile points, regardless of subject. They perform well on tests like the SAT — and colleges actively recruit them both for their high scores and the diversity they bring to campus.” - Wall Street Journal editorial, 3/22/08

Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley voted against Oregon’s charter school legislation pontificating about fairness in education, what a great job teachers’ unions were doing and other pomposities while grabbing with both hands for teachers’ union money. He lost. Then, he and his wife secretly applied to send two of their kids to a newly forming charter school. The school was late in starting up, so he lost again as the application wasn’t acted on. Merkley denied the report at first but a newspaper produced the application making him look dumber and more hypocritical than usual.

Bankers’ Spouses Deprived Of Luxury Items During Downturn - Business on The Huffington Post

Rich people finally forced to tighten their belts and watch their expenditures:

Milton Pedraza, CEO of research firm Luxury Institute, said he had heard of people putting summer homes on sale right after the Bear Stearns news broke.

But spending on yachts, jets, watches and luxury apparel had been weak for a while, with bankers reluctant to open their wallets in fear of more layoffs and reduced expense accounts, Pedraza said.

This belt-tightening will lead to lost revenue for interior decorator’s and high-end nightclubs and restaurants. Caterers will also feel the pinch.

On an up-note, Luxury car dealers are not seeing their business decline.

Of course, this makes perfect sense. If these rich folks ever lose their McMansions, there is always plenty of room to camp out in their Hummers!

(cross-posted: Dizzy Dayz)

China slouches towards the Olympics with one hand behind its back, fingers crossed. The other hand is busier—fisting the face of tortured Tibet … again.

Darfur was bad enough. Hollywood types and even some athletes were getting queasy about attending China’s coming out party while Darfur bled white—or should I say black, because copping the crude is all the Beijing crowd cares about—and the glorious games were in trouble.

But Darfur was manageable. Hu Jintao and his CPC apparatchiks have all the muscle they need to make sure the world never sees kids from Beijing Polytechnic chanting “No Badminton for Oil!” on NBC’s Olympic feed.

China controls the news like a dominatrix controls her slave; I doubt many Chinese have ever heard the phrase, “genocide Olympics.” And for those few who know how to hack the no-no sites on the Chinese Internet, there are two magic words that keep them quiet as cold death.

“Tiananmen Square.”

But now this. Tibet in flames. And while the Party has locked out the media from that tortured place so effectively we don’t know if the official 22 have died, or the unofficial hundred plus (well, I guess we do know) enough news has leaked out to splash Egg Foo Young on their faces for everyone to see, if anyone cares enough to look.

As all the China experts and stereotyping racists will tell you, “face” is a big deal to the Chinese. That’s why the goon squads are pouring into Tibet by the truckload, squashing dissent—and more to the point, dissenters—as we speak. The Chinese Communist Party can’t afford to lose face; it’s how they keep their chokehold on power. Lose face and lose the Mandate of Heaven, lose face and people start to ask embarrassing questions, lose face and your ass will follow. Face must be maintained at all costs.

Tibet is paying that cost in blood. To save face, faceless Tibetans are being slaughtered by the dozens, or hundreds, or more. If this keeps up—and it will—soon there will be no face of Tibet at all.

This has not gone unnoticed here in the land of the free and the home of the maxed-out Visa. Here and there, when they can get a word in edgewise between the Barack/Hillary death match and the JLo twins, we hear cries of “Oh. The Horror!” from a few admirers of The Lama and a few more bleeding hearts, liberals and conservatives both, who never miss a chance to polish their morality haloes. Nancy Pelosi gushes outrage on the issue with admirable regularity.

Yes, I said admirable—because this time, she’s right, they all are, all the outraged, impotent hearts who bleed for Tibet.

But all the words are, to borrow a phrase, “Dust in the wind.” Because Darfur, Tibet, Falun Gong and the whole witches’ brew of Chinese oppression and callous indifference to the plight of anyone who stands in their way doesn’t amount to a hill of Mungbeans in American-Chinese relations. All that matters is cash. We are in bed with them.. If you don’t believe me, check the “made-in” tag on your pillowcase.

If our outrage was real, if we really meant it, we’d be screaming bloody murder.

“Hey, China! Cut out the crap in Tibet right now or we’ll void all those treasury bonds you hold and send our outsourcing to India.”

I’d love to live long enough to hear those words, but that would take several trips to the Fountain of Youth and I’m short of frequent flier miles. Instead we shed crocodile tears that make us feel noble about our cowardice in the face of brute power and hard cash.

But I can dream, can’t I?. My dream is for NBC to display the Olympic medal count using this graphic, come August.

Gold

Silver

Bronze

Dead Monks

It ought to be China’s dream too. It’s one category they’re sure to win.

Maybe my reasoning is flawed. But why would Americans want to give a third term to the most unpopular administration in American history? While many Americans still envision John McCain as the straight talking, special interest-disdaining maverick candidate of the 2000 election season, the fact is that he’s never really been any of those things. To make it worse, he’s even changed his position on the issue of waterboarding. Why? Now 71 and perhaps sensing his “running” days are coming to an end, he is John McCain, candidate for President of the United States and it is now or never. Be afraid. Be very afraid. A vote for John McCain is a vote for George W. Bush and a McCain win is akin to giving our current imperial president an undeserved third term.

Marching in step with the Bush war doctrine

Mr. Bush recently stated that the GOP will prevail in the 2008 election so that we can continue what he no doubt feels is the good fight in Iraq. If this is the case, then Bush’s worldwide aggression is in good hands. John McCain is a full-fledged “hawk” and a staunch supporter of President Bush’s war effort. Not only is he on record stating that the surge is “working,” but McCain also believes that the Iraq war is winnable and that winning is essential. Citing our long-term occupation of Korea, Mr. McCain has no problem at all seeing U.S. soldiers stationed in Iraq for many years to come. He has acknowledged, however, that he must convince the American people that the war is noble and worthwhile during the campaign’s stretch run. Another notable point is that McCain is in lockstep with George Bush on Iran. There is no question he’d use military force against Iran if he deemed it necessary. This is a dangerous equation, given the milquetoast character of Congress. Would they stand up to John McCain or roll over and play dead as they have for George W. Bush?

America’s reputation has deteriorated under the Bush regime. Regardless of the thought process behind the “Bush Strategy,” his unwarranted invasion of Iraq has reduced America to worldwide bully status. George Bush proudly refers to himself as a “war president,” and he is right. In seven years, George W. Bush has, excuse the term, “pissed away” more than two hundred years of diplomacy, favoring instead the pre-emptive strike position so strongly advocated by the neo-cons. The Bus administration was so intent on attacking Iraq that it managed 935 outright lies to justify American aggression in the lead-up to the invasion.* Make no mistake that John McCain was one of the leading advocates of the Iraq war, he is presently one of the most vocal “cheerleaders” of the Iraq war, and he will no doubt carry on with (or expand) Bush’s Iraq policy. Invading Iran remains on the table now and, unless Mr. Bush twists a few facts and tells a few lies to justify invading Iran before he leaves office, it will remain on the table for the entire term of a John McCain presidency.

Out of touch with reality on reproductive rights

An issue that should be of concern to all American women is that of reproductive rights. On this count, the National Right to Life Committee gives McCain a 72% rating for the years between 1997-2000, while NARAL Pro-Choice America gives him a 1% for the same time frame. Senator McCain is generally out of touch on this subject. When pressed on the issue of contraception during a bus trip between campaign stops, McCain fumbled around for an answer, sounding like anything but presidential material. It was actually painful to read this exchange. Yet, when McCain was asked specifically if grants for sex education should speak to the the use of contraception or if it should adhere to Bush’s “abstinence only” position, he chose abstinence only. McCain’s mentor on all things reproductive is none other than Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), whose name he invoked several times on that bus trip. Coburn is not only a Senator, but also a doctor who has delivered more than 4,000 babies during his career. Senator Coburn believes that life begins at conception and opposes abortion in all cases, except in the rare case where the mother’s life is in danger. It should also be noted that Senator/Doctor Coburn advocates the death penalty for abortion providers, a position that is – at best – disturbing for a doctor to take.

A sudden change of heart on torture

Until recently, Senator McCain has been vocal critic of the President’s use of waterboarding and other extreme (and inhumane) interrogation techniques, having been subject to torture himself as a POW in Viet Nam. When both Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney bowed out of the race, McCain’s nearly DOA campaign was not only given a new life, but also thrust into “frontrunner” status. With Mike Huckabee dropping out after the Texas and Ohio primaries, McCain is officially the GOP candidate for president. Now comes the need to cater to the very vocal and powerful right wing element in the Republican Party. Make no mistake about it, this is one faction of the party that is not enamored with John McCain and the candidate knows it. Suddenly waterboarding isn’t such a problem anymore. In fact, on February 13 of this year, the new John McCain voted against an intelligence bill designed to effectively outlaw torture by making the Army Field Manual the law of the land.

A legend in his own mind

McCain’s outward disdain of special interests and “soft” money donations is as legendary as Bush’s fundraising prowess. In fact, in 2002, Senator McCain and Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wis) teamed up to pass the McCain-Feingold act in an attempt to eliminate large donations from corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals. They even won the Profiles in Courage award for their efforts. Do not be fooled. Here the only difference between McCain and Bush is that McCain quietly straddles the line that he himself draws in the sand.

In spite of his rhetoric to the contrary, McCain has done his share of favors for donors over the years. Few recall that McCain was one of the infamous “Keating Five,” five Senators who sought to influence the investigation into the failed Lincoln Savings & Loan and its chairman, Charles H. Keating, Jr. Mr. Keating was faulted for that failure, which reportedly cost taxpayers anywhere between $2.6 and $3.4 billion. After a reprimand, McCain won re-election as a congressman from Arizona’s first congressional district and was then elected to the Senate in 1986. In spite of his efforts to convince people that he and Keating were not friends, the facts show something different. By the time he entered the Senate in 1987, he had received $112,000 in donations from Keating, his family and his employees.

The New York Times reported that McCain’s association with telecommunications lobbyist Vicki Iseman during his first campaign in 1999 concerned his staff. While he was photographed out and about with Iseman and even used the corporate jet of one of her clients, the issue isn’t whether or not they had an “extramarital affair.” The issue is that Iseman “lobbied” McCain on behalf of Paxson Communications, who had business in front of the Senate Commerce Committee, of which Mr. McCain was the Chairman. In spite of his denials, the paper trail shows that John McCain wrote letters to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Paxson Communications as a result of her influence.

It’s time for a reality on the wisdom of electing John McCain. His 2008 campaign staff is like a role call of those associated with large soft money donations, like A. Jerrold Perenchio, chairman of Univision and presently a McCain national finance co-chairman. Mr. Perenchio has raised a whopping $11.3 million in soft money donations since the 1998 elections. Several of George Bush’s moneymen also litter McCain’s landscape.

Can’t you see the real me?

We cannot see the real John McCain because the mainstream media is enamored with the mythological John McCain persona. They helped to create it and they continue to foster it. The one time a mainstream media outlet dares raise something questionable about Mr. McCain and the repercussions are clear. It appears that the Times has come under fire by its readers because they perceived the story as trashing the candidate by intimating he had an extramarital affair with Ms. Iseman without offering proof of said affair. Know what? Even if the Times had offered proof of an affair, that isn’t the most disturbing thing about their relationship. What is disturbing is that the article shows that McCain “talks the talk” but does not “walk the walk.” (This is another trait he shares with Bush.) He does not steer clear of lobbyists and is keenly aware of what they can do to put him in the White House.

It would be nice if we could have a real picture of the candidate so that people would know they are essentially re-electing George W. Bush, architect of the most unpopular administration in American history. George Bush knows it. He has endorsed McCain

Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, a one-time rising star and Detroit’s youngest elected leader, was charged Monday with perjury and other counts after sexually explicit text messages contradicted his sworn denials of an affair with a top aide.

Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy also charged the popular yet polarizing 37-year-old mayor with obstruction of justice and misconduct in office. Kilpatrick, who was to be arraigned Tuesday afternoon, could face up to 15 years in prison and be expelled from office if convicted.

Sara Jane Olson, 61, is back in prison for at least another year having been rearrested after being released due to an inexplicable “clerical error” by the California Department of Corrections only discovered and admitted after harsh criticism. Olson was a member of the terrorist Symbionese Liberation Army (S.L.A.) that committed two murders, bank robberies, attempted other murders (including of a police officer), attempted bombings and other acts of violence between 1973 and 1975. The group of a dozen middle and upper class college-educated white youth, and a black male prison escapee adopting the slogan “Death to the fascist insect that preys upon the life of the people.”

The S.L.A. formed as a result of the prison visitation programs of the radical left-wing group Venceremos Organization and a group known as the Black Cultural Association in Soledad prison. The group murdered the Oakland School’s Superintendent in 1973 and badly wounded his deputy The hollow-point bullets used to kill Dr. Foster had been packed with cyanide. Thereafter the SLA kidnapped Hearst heiress Patty, supposedly “brainwashed” her and continued its mayhem.Olson was a fugitive for nearly 30-years living openly as a housewife under a new name in Minnesota. “Parole shouldn’t even be an option for terrorists who are convicted of murdering innocent bystanders and attempting to murder police officers,” said a police officer’s association spokesman. There is outrage over her mistaken release and that it was only corrected after media attention and sharp protests.

Senators John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s passport files have all been pilfered by renegade State Department contractors. Two have been fired and one disciplined so-far. Scanned passport and other sensitive files is not uncommon. Obama’s camp initially had a conniption fit but, after it was revealed Clinton and McCain had had their file similarly breached with much less fanfare Barrack appears to be reconsidering his hysterics.

China has purchased advanced anti-ship cruise missiles (SS-27) from Russia, posing a major threat to U.S. aircraft carriers and other warships, the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific said last week. It can be fired from submarines and surface ships. It is a very sophisticated piece of hardware and we are currently not as capable of defending against that missile as I would like,” Pacific Commander Admiral Tim Keating said.

China is the ‘largest provider of small arms to Sudan’ and is responsible for worsening the violence in the tragic Darfur region, a U.S.-based rights group charges.

On the heels of the arrest of 35 terror suspects by Moroccan police – all carrying dual passports from Morroco and Belgium - the Jamestown Foundation says the Al Qaida-aligned insurgency in Morocco has been enhanced by millions of dollars from robberies and other crime. “Not every terrorist group receives $5 million in its bank account overnight,” its report said. The report said the Islamic insurgency network received a transfer of $5 million from Belgium. The disclosure is alarming for several reasons including showing a growing nexus between terrorists and organized crime. The European robberies netted about $24 million and proceeds were split. “That money was later laundered through Moroccan hotels and real estate and was used to finance the terror group,” according to police. How much, if any, found its way to government officials in Europe or North Africa is not yet known – but, that seems a safe bet.