February 9, 2010
The lassitude of John Brennan
In August Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan gave a speech outlining the administration's deep thoughts on combating terrorism. The speech -- "A New Approach for Safeguarding Americans" -- "conveniently outlined the administration's present and future policy mistakes," in the words of Daniel Pipes.
If you seek a handy compilation of the shibboleths that now guide our approach to the phenomenon formerly known as Islamist terrorism, Brennan's speech is must reading. To take one example cited by Pipes, Brennan rejects any connection between "violent extremism" and Islam: "Using the legitimate term jihad, which means to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal, risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve." Any connection between Islam and Islamist terrorism is purely coincidental. While Brennan's take on jihad may be a big hit in Obama's White House, it is not exactly authoritative.
Pipes also captured the tone of Obama worship in which the speech is pitched: "Disturbingly, Brennan ascribes virtually every thought or policy in his speech to the wisdom of the One. This cringe-inducing lecture reminds one of a North Korean functionary paying homage to the Dear Leader." You might say that Obama and Brennan worship at the same shrine.
Pipes concluded with a reasonable prediction: "Implementation of the inept policies outlined by Brennan spells danger for Americans, American interests, and American allies. The bitter consequences of these mistakes soon enough will become apparent."
Some of the consequences became apparent in the administration's handling of Christmas Day bomber Umar Abdulmutallab. After an interrogation lasting some 50 minutes, Abdulmutallab was provided with Miranda warnings and a lawyer, after which Abdulmutallab clammed up. According to Eric Holder, all was well. The administration was following hallowed procedures.
Last week the administration let it be known that all that was well was now even better. Abdulmutallab was talking again. Did he waive his "rights"? The administration has not seen fit to apprise us of all the circumstances leading to Abdulmutallab's widening his circle of love beyond his lawyer.
In January the administration sent Brennan out to defend it on FOX News Sunday. Before his appearance, the Washington Post had reported that "the normally reclusive Brennan is scheduled to appear on several Sunday TV talk shows." Following his appearance, Paul Mirengoff wrote, we now have a pretty good idea of why Brennan is "normally reclusive."
By departing from his norm, Paul observed, Brennan showed himself to be a hack who undermined any lingering confidence that the Obama administration had a clue about how to fight terrorism. Paul was particularly impressed with Brennan's statement, in response to a question about what the downside might be to treating Abdulmutallab as an enemy combatant, that "there are no downsides or upsides in particular cases."
Having established his willingness to say anything on behalf of the administration, Brennan qualified himself to make a return appearance on one of the Sunday shows. Appearing on Meet the Press, Brennan reported that he spoke with senior congressional Republicans regarding Abdulmutallab's apprehension on Christmas day:
I explained to them that [Abdulmutallab] was in FBI custody, that Mr. Abdulmutallab was, in fact, talking, that he was cooperating at that point. They knew that "in FBI custody" means that there's a process then you follow as far as Mirandizing and presenting him in front of a magistrate. None of those individuals raised any concerns with me at that point. They didn't say, "Is he going into military custody?" "Is he going to be Mirandized?" They were very appreciative of the information, we told them we'd keep them informed, and that's what we did. So there's been a--quite a bit of an outcry after the fact where, again, I'm just very concerned on the behalf of the counterterrorism professionals throughout our government that politicians continue to make this a political football and are using it for whatever political or partisan purposes, whether they be Democrats or Republicans.
Brennan implied that his Republican interlocutors should have concluded from his statement that Abdulmutallab was in custody and was cooperating that he would be given a Miranda warning and a lawyer. A reasonable person would not draw any such conclusion, however, and in fact Brennan's interlocutors did not.
Brennan angrily asserted that he was "tiring of politicians using national security issues such as terrorism as a political football. They are going out there, they're, they're unknowing of the facts, and they're making charges and allegations that are not anchored in reality." If Brennan is tired, his lassitude must derive from his own exertions in political football.
UPDATE: Brennan must be exhausted. He has converted his MTP talking points into a USA Today column. Brennan shows how an Obamian philospher king deals with these serious matters, as Byron York notes in "People who criticize us are helping al Qaeda" and as Ed Morrissey notes in "Our critics are helping al Qaeda."
Brennan rests his straw men in part on then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey's September 2008 Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations. Mukasey, however, begs to differ. As one might infer from the title of the guidelines, Mukasey explains that the decision to provide Miranda warnings to the Christmas Day bomber and classify him as a criminal defendant do not follow from them.
Mukasey told Bill McGurn: "First, the guidelines Mr. Brennan refers to involve intelligence gathering. They do not deal with whether someone in custody is to be treated as a criminal defendant or as an intelligence asset. Second, as for gathering intelligence, it begs the whole question about whether he [Abdulmutallab] should have been designated a criminal suspect. And there is nothing--zero, zilch, nada--in those guidelines that makes that choice. It is a decision that ought to be made at the highest level, and the heads of our security agencies have testified that it was made without consulting them."
One more timely column addresses Brennan's remarkable performance as a spin merchant on behalf of the Obama administration. In "Miranda wrongs," Ralph Peters locates the source of Brennan's lassitude in the same place I do.
February 8, 2010
Miss Me Yet?
The big story out of Minnesota these days is a billboard on Interstate Highway 35 in or near Wyoming, which is a little north of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Highway 35 is the main North-South artery in this area, going north to Duluth and south to Des Moines. It was the Highway 35 W bridge across the Mississippi which collapsed, you may recall, a couple of years ago.
Here is the billboard:
NPR confirms that the billboard is real and not "an internet trick." Beyond that, NPR seems baffled:
At first glance, it would seem to be from some person or group who isn't thrilled by President Barack Obama's performance so far -- unless it's a more ironic message from those who didn't think too much of Bush and want to remind voters about him.
Actually, that question and the accompanying photo have been common among some Republicans for a while now. There is no reason to believe the billboard is intended as an "ironic message." It will be interesting to find out who paid for the billboard; if it's someone local, in all likelihood we know him. In any event, the sentiment is one that is more widely shared by Americans every day.
Power Line Bookshelf
Jack Murtha, RIP
I won't speak ill of the departed, and therefore have nothing at all to say about Jack Murtha. Philip Klein, however, notes a potentially important point: if the Republican wins the special election to succeed Murtha in May, the Democrats' government medicine bill could have trouble passing the House. Let's hope so.
Via Hot Air.
A Significant Admission
Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has directed enrichment of a portion of that country's stockpile of uranium to 20 percent. Experts regard this as an important step forward for Iran's nuclear weapons program. The reaction of Defense Secretary Robert Gates seems significant:
At a news conference with French Defense Minister Herve Morin, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates praised President Barack Obama's attempts to engage the Islamic Republic diplomatically and chided Tehran for not reciprocating.
"No U.S. president has reached out more sincerely, and frankly taken more political risk, in an effort to try to create an opening for engagement for Iran," he said. "All these initiatives have been rejected."
So Gates was, evidently, praising Obama for pursuing a policy that has been, by the Secretary's own admission, a complete failure. The stern action now being contemplated by the administration consists of new sanctions. the AP concludes its account in a realistic vein:
Iran has defied five U.N. Security Council resolutions--and three sets of U.N. sanctions--aimed at pressuring it to freeze enrichment, and has instead steadily expanded its program.
Iran's Fars News Agency, independent but closely allied with Ahmadinejad's government, gives a semi-official response to the sanctions threat:
Sanctions against Iran have encouraged Tehran to expand and reinvigorate its nuclear technology, a prominent Iranian legislator said on Monday, warning that those states supporting and imposing sanctions on Iran will have to face grave consequences of their actions in future. ...
"Even some pragmatics who oppose Iran's progress in the nuclear field are now arguing for the recognition of Iran as a nuclear power and start of interaction with Tehran based on this very reality," [Heshmatollah] Falahatpisheh added.
Referring to the US officials' attempts to integrate accusations against Iran in a bid to continue the sanctions policy against the country, he reiterated that Iran's achievements have shown that the country's nuclear program has now reached the point of no return and the western states should accept this reality.
The Iran problem is a knotty one to which there is no attractive solution. But can we at least agree that President Obama's much-ballyhooed policy of "engagement" has been an utter failure?
How Low Can They Go?
The Illinois Democratic Party has taken quite a beating lately. Most recently, it's Scott Cohen, who won last week's Democratic primary for Lieutenant Governor--by 26 points!--but who was forced to drop out of the race yesterday:
Cohen's dream became a nightmare after his surprise win, when reports emerged that he was arrested and charged in 2005 for domestic battery. Cohen was accused of pushing his girlfriend's head against a wall and holding a knife against her throat. The charges were dropped after she failed to appear in court on the date of the hearing.
Moreover, the girlfriend in question had been arrested for prostitution.
No wonder Barack Obama was considered a genius in the Cook County Democratic Party.
Tea Party Majority
Scott Rasmussen finds that 75% of likely voters are either "very angry" or "somewhat angry" about the federal government's current policies. A plurality of 45% are "very angry," up nine points since September. A mere 19% say they are not very or not at all angry about the federal government's policies.
That's a lot of anger for the Democrats to overcome between now and November.
Palin Mocks Liberals
We haven't written about the faux controversy over Sarah Palin's writing a few words on the palm of her hand at the Tea Party convention, apparently as reminders for her speech or the Q & A session that followed. Liberals purported to find the presence of phrases like "tax cuts" significant. It isn't clear why; pretty much everyone who gives a speech uses notes if he doesn't actually read a prepared text, and Barack Obama seemingly can't order a cheeseburger in a restaurant without his Teleprompter. So the Left's huffing and puffing was pointless.
Which didn't stop Palin from getting the last laugh. Campaigning for Governor Rick Perry in Texas yesterday, she wrote "Hi Mom!" on her palm:
It's Palin's secret weapon: she brings out the stupidity in her political opponents.
Via Gateway Pundit.
February 7, 2010
The Associated Press Sees What Isn't There
The Super Bowl isn't over yet, but commentary on the commercials is in full swing. The Associated Press sums them up as "funny," "light-hearted" and "a return to humor." Here is the AP's description of the Tebow ad:
And a commercial by conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, perhaps the most anticipated ad of the night, hinted at a serious subject although it took a humorous tone too. Heisman winner Tim Tebow and his mother talk about her difficult pregnancy with him and how she was advised to end the pregnancy--implying an antiabortion message--but ended with Tebow tackling his mom and saying the family must be "tough."
Only the ad didn't do any such thing. It said nothing about "how [Mrs. Tebow] was advised to end the pregnancy." There was no mention of abortion. Here is the ad, in case you haven't already seen it:
How can anyone misreport on a 30-second commercial? How many people saw it, 150 million? Is there any explanation for the AP's hallucination other than pro-abortion paranoia on the part of the reporter?
Tea Party Post Mortem
What was the significance of the Tea Party convention that wrapped up last night? I'm a big fan of the Tea Party movement but was skeptical of the convention, on the ground that anything that made the movement seem more like a third party is a mistake. With hindsight, though, I'm not sure that happened. Glenn Reynolds was in Nashville, covering the event for PJTV. In the Examiner, Glenn sizes up the convention and, more broadly, the Tea Party movement in a way that some may find extravagant:
I attended this past weekend's National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Tennessee, and I came away feeling that I had seen something important. The Tea Party movement is part of something bigger: America's Third Great Awakening.
America's prior Great Awakenings, in the 18th and 19th Centuries, were religious in nature....
This time, it's different. It's not America's churches and seminaries that are in trouble: It's America's politicians and parties. They've grown corrupt, venal, and out-of-touch with the values, and the people, that they're supposed to represent. So the people, once again, are reasserting themselves.
Read it all, and form your own judgment. One thing seems clear: left to its own devices, there is no way our political class would stave off the financial collapse that surely will result if current budgetary trends continue, and if nothing is done to reform federal entitlements. If there is any hope of avoiding fiscal disaster, it is only because of the Tea Party movement and related grass roots efforts.
Nook Review
My wife bought me a Nook for Christmas. Now that I've been using it for a while, I thought our readers might be interested in a review. The Nook, if you're not aware of it, is an e-reader, equivalent to a Kindle, that is sold by Barnes & Noble.
Briefly, I love it. I do a lot of reading in bed and on airplanes, and the Nook is actually better than a paper book under those conditions. It's light, takes up hardly any space in a briefcase, and can easily be held in one hand. You can turn pages with one hand, too. It is a bit more elegant than the Kindle, with a touch screen below the reading surface rather than the Kindle's typewriter-buttons, and no moving parts. The only mechanical controls are page-forward and page-back arrows on each side of the device. Alternatively, you can turn pages by swiping the touch-screen. The device can hold as many as 1,500 books.
Barnes & Noble claims to have more than 1,000,000 e-books for sale, along with many that are free, as well as magazines and newspapers. Downloading books is easy and remarkably fast. The device's virtues were illustrated when I was away from home on business for a couple of weeks last month. The book I was reading turned out to be rather depressing, and I decided I needed something more upbeat, since reading for a few minutes before bedtime was my only relief from work. So on Saturday night, I downloaded a new book in my hotel room and began reading it, a few minutes later, over dinner.
Like the Kindle, the Nook can also be used as an mp3 player for audio books as well as music. You can read about the device here.
It may be that e-readers as we now know them are a transitional technology. Some think that they will be displaced by Apple's new iPad and similar multi-functional products. Perhaps so; personally, I think the iPad is more likely to replace low-end laptops. The iPad is significantly bigger than the Nook or the Kindle--9.56" by 7.47", compared to the Nook's 7.7" by 4.9". It also weighs 1 1/2 pounds, compared to the Nook's 12 ounces. Those differences are, I think, significant. While I haven't yet handled an iPad, I'm pretty sure it can't be held in one hand as comfortably as the Kindle or the Nook. The iPad's versatility and greater functionality (color, video and so on) are of little significance when it comes to reading books, unless one has a strong preference for the iPad's screen, which allows reading in the dark. My guess is that serious readers will continue to find e-readers like the Nook useful for a considerable time to come.
The Times's Blind Side
Somewhat to my surprise, it turns out that I saw seven of the 10 films nominated for the "Best Picture" Oscar. I loved two of the seven: "The Blind Side," which I wrote about here the weekend it opened, and "The Hurt Locker," which we recruited Pulitzer Prize-winning critic Stephen Hunter to write about here. (I wrote briefly about "Inglorious Basterds" here; I thought it should have been titled "Stupid Bastards.") Ross Douthat saw all 10 of the "Best Picture" nominees and commented on the expansion of the "Best Picture" category from five to 10 nominees.
Yesterday's New York Times carried an interesting article on the commercial success of "The Blind Side." The Times focuses on the film's shrewd marketing. It considers the film's story only as the story is incidental to the film's marketing.
But the film's story is inspirational and family friendly, depicting a Christian family living out its faith in taking Michael Oher into the family's life and making him one of its (their) own. The film is rated PG-13 for one scene involving brief violence, drug and sexual references. The film's themes and the skill (including Sandra Bullock's) in telling the story have as much to do with the film's success as the marketing behind it. The film's success illustrates many of the points Michael Medved has made about Hollywood over the years, preeminently in his book Hollywood vs. America.
Not that "The Blind Side" is going to win "Best Picture." It shouldn't and it won't. But it was the most enjoyable film of the seven I saw that made the "Best Picture" cut. And the award for the least enjoyable, most unpleasant film of the seven I saw goes to...open the envelope, please...the Coen Brothers for "A Serious Man."
UPDATE: What I would have said if I could about "A Serious Man" is said in Professor Maimon Schwarzschild's post "Horror show."
Two Republicans
If you missed Sarah Palin's speech at the tea party convention last night, as I did, here it is:
What is it about Palin that drives liberals so crazy? Maybe it's the fact that she seems so happy. The most fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives tend to be happy people, while liberals tend to be unhappy. There are exceptions to that rule, of course, but then not all liberals hate Palin. Come to think of it, maybe Ronald Reagan's cheerfulness was one of the reasons they couldn't stand him, either.
We've been accused of being insufficiently enthusiastic about Sarah Palin. Actually, I like her a lot. (Paul, on the other hand, would probably plead guilty as charged.) But while Palin is an important figure in the conservative movement, she isn't an intellectual leader. That's not to insult her intelligence; it simply isn't her role. Paul Ryan, on the other hand, is one of the movement's most important thinkers. He has laid out a Roadmap for America's Future that represents the most comprehensive conservative alternative to the Democrats' unsustainable spending spree. Among other things, the Roadmap includes a fundamental restructuring of Medicare that redefines its status as an entitlement and promises to save the federal government from otherwise-inevitable bankruptcy.
The linked web site includes videos, the legislative text of the Roadmap, and more. This is from Ryan's introduction to the proposals:
This plan is not simply a slimmer version of the "progressive" ideology. It is a true alternative, and a complete legislative proposal consisting of specific policies supported by Congressional Budget Office estimates of its fiscal and economic consequences. More important, it is based on a fundamentally different vision from the one now prevailing in Washington. It focuses government on its proper role; it restrains government spending, and thus limits the size of government itself; it rejuvenates the vibrant market economy that made America the envy of the world; and it restores an American character rooted in individual initiative, entrepreneurship, and opportunity - qualities that make each American's pursuit of personal destiny a net contribution to the Nation's common good as well. In short, it is built on the enduring truths from which America's Founders established this great and exceptional Nation.
This proposal does not attempt to abandon commitments Americans established over the past century, or to dismantle government. It recognizes that government has a necessary role in supporting the institutions through which Americans live their lives, and in providing a safety net for those who face financial or other hardships. But it rests on the conviction that government's principal role is to maintain the freedoms through which individuals can pursue their own destinies.
Paul Ryan should be added to the list of candidates for national office in 2012. If, by then, America is ready for something other than an empty suit, it would be hard to do better.
UPDATE: One thing I forgot to mention: Palin wore a lapel pin consisting of American and Israeli flags. Nice.
FURTHER UPDATE: Coincidentally, Sarah Palin was asked about 2012 Presidential contenders on Fox News Sunday this morning:
WALLACE: All right. Handicap the 2012 GOP presidential race for us. Who's the front-runner?
PALIN: No idea. I have no idea.
WALLACE: Well, you're not a very good analyst.
PALIN: Well, fire me, then, Roger. Sorry. I already failed. But listen, no, we have some strong -- some young Turks in this party. Paul Ryan -- I'm very impressed with Paul Ryan.
WALLACE: Congressman from Wisconsin.
PALIN: Yeah. He's good. Man, he is sharp. He is smart, articulate. And he is passionate about these commonsense solutions that America has got to adopt to get us on the right road. I can name a whole lot of people.
Landrieu's lament
Mary Landrieu withheld her support of the Senate's Obamacare bill until the bill was modified to secure some $300 million in Medicaid funding for Louisiana. The arrangement under which the modification made its way into the bill became known instantly as the Louisiana purchase.
ABC News originally reported that the modification had been made to the bill to secure Landrieu's support for the Senate's Obamacare bill. Landrieu denied that the modification represented a deal to secure her support of the bill, but no one was persuaded by it. Dana Milbank, for example, mocked Landrieu at the time in the Washington Post:
On the eve of Saturday's showdown in the Senate over health-care reform, Democratic leaders still hadn't secured the support of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of the 60 votes needed to keep the legislation alive. The wavering lawmaker was offered a sweetener: at least $100 million in extra federal money for her home state.
And so it came to pass that Landrieu walked onto the Senate floor midafternoon Saturday to announce her aye vote -- and to trumpet the financial "fix" she had arranged for Louisiana. "I am not going to be defensive," she declared. "And it's not a $100 million fix. It's a $300 million fix."
Last week Landrieu took to the floor of the Senate to mount a weepy 25-minute defense of the deal. The text of her speech is here; the video is above. Politics Daily provides a good summary quoting its key points:
"The fact that this was secret is a lie," she said. "The fact that this wasn't supported by our delegation is also a lie."
She slammed other members of the Louisiana delegation who have not advocated for the measure publicly since Landrieu came under fire for it.
"Never, never in my life have I ever, or will I ever, throw the people of my state under a bus to save my reputation or my job," she said. "I know what I am inside. I don't need anyone to remind me of the goodness I have inside...I don't need this job badly enough -- maybe some people do, I don't -- to throw the people of my state under the bus to protect myself politically."
She also took what seemed to be a swipe at Jindal, who has spoken of Louisiana's Medicaid formula only once since the Senate health care vote and ensuing firestorm.
"Being in public office takes more than being intelligent, it takes more than a fancy resume, it takes guts," she said. "Some people have more of those than others."
Finally, Landrieu challenged any senator, Democrat or Republican, to go to the Senate floor to publicly voice their objections to the measure rather than criticize her in the press. "If they don't come, then I would hope they will keep their mouths shut about something they know nothing about."
One must review Landrieu's speech in its entirety to understand that it consists from beginning to end of straw men. The charge leveled against her by critics of the Louisiana Purchase is that Landrieu made the deal in exchange for her vote. She denies that she did, but she offers no evidence to support her assertion.
Instead she cites evidence that the substance of the provision had been sought in public by Governor Jindal and the Louisiana congressional delegation over the past year. Has anyone asserted that the Medicaid fix sought by Louisiana was sought in private? Answer: No.
She defends the people of Louisiana. The people of Louisiana deserve a better Senator than Mary Landrieu. Has anyone attacked the people of Louisiana? Answer: No.
She defends the insertion of the provision into the Senate's Obamacare bill on the ground that it was germane to the bill. A grateful nation thanks Senator Landrieu for clearing up that point of procedure.
She attacks Governor Jindal as a coward for not coming to her defense. Why should he? Governor Jindal opposes Obamacare. Did Governor Jindal ask Senator Landrieu to insert the Louisiana Medicaid provision in the Obamacare bill. Answer: No.
She valiantly asserts that she will not throw the people of her state under the bus, but she isn't so chivalrous about the governor of her state. Will she throw him under the bus? Answer: Yes.
She says that she will explain the reason for her vote in favor of the Senate's Obamacare bill. Does she get around to the explanation in the course of her 25-minute speech? Answer: No.
She says that the provision does not just affect the state of Louisiana. When Tennessee gets hit by an earthquake at some time in the indefinite future, it will also serve Tennessee.
She vouches for her own goodness: "I know what I am inside. I don't need anyone to remind me of the goodness that I have inside. My parents do that, my husband does that, my children do that for me every day." What was missing from this little affirmation? Senator Franken must have forgotten to tell her to add: "And doggone it, people like me."
February 6, 2010
Snowball Fight!
As the mid-Atlantic states are blanketed by an epic snow storm, residents are learning what midwesterners have known for a long time--snow is fun! Hundreds of people, prompted by Facebook and similar sites, have turned out at Dupont Circle for a massive snowball fight:
This reminds me of some epic snowball fights during my South Dakota youth, and also of one of my favorite kids' books--The Story of a Bad Boy, by Thomas Bailey Aldrich. It's the story of a 19th-century boyhood in New England, and is, I think, pretty much true. It is by no means free of tragedy, and the protagonist, if not exactly bad, was certainly adventurous. Every boy, the narrator writes, should learn to swim, to box, and to pull an oar--this after a friend died because he could not capably handle a rowboat. The author, Thomas Bailey Aldrich, founded a notable New England family.
My favorite chapter in Story of a Bad Boy was about a snowball fight between the two ends of the town where the author lived--North vs. South, or East vs. West, I forget. The snowball fight was plotted and carried out like a military campaign. Appropriately so, since both sides engaged in such dangerous practices as freezing their snowballs and packing them with marbles. I spent hours poring over this diagram of the field of battle:
I've always loved that line: Nothing on earth could represent the state of things after the first volley. As I recall, "General" Harris led the protagonist's team in the snowball fight and, some years later, fell before a Confederate cannon in the Civil War. The Story of a Bad Boy is great entertainment, and it also reflects a toughness of perspective, about boyhood and the human condition, that is bracing for modern youth. My son, although grown now, still says it is one of his favorite books. Mine, too.
Horror Story
In Turkey, a 16-year-old girl was buried alive by her father and grandfather to punish her for talking to boys:
The informant told the police she had been killed following a family "council" meeting.
Media reports said the father had told relatives he was unhappy that his daughter - one of nine children - had male friends. The grandfather is said to have beaten her for having relations with the opposite sex.
A postmortem examination revealed large amounts of soil in her lungs and stomach, indicating that she had been alive and conscious while being buried. ...
It also emerged that Medine had repeatedly tried to report to police that she had been beaten by her father and grandfather days before she was killed. "She tried to take refuge at the police station three times, and she was sent home three times," her mother, Immihan, said after the body was discovered in December. Medine's father is reported as saying at the time: "She has male friends. We are uneasy about that."
This is the hole in which Medine was buried alive:
There are around 200 "honor" killings annually in Turkey. Amazingly enough, they account for around half of all homicides.
But Enough About Me. What Do You Think About Me?
A rather self-obsessed woman I once knew used to say that, but she meant it as a joke. in this, as in a number of other respects, Barack Obama is beyond parody. No matter the subject, in the end it's always about him. Obama has turned self-reference into a veritable literary genre, but this is ridiculous. A supporter dies of breast cancer, and the punch line is...well, you'll see:
Note the crowd's uneasy reaction. They're Obama fans, but this is too weird even for them.
SCOTT adds: Almost as routine and almost as interesting are Obama's misrepresentations regarding the health insurance angle to the story.
Via Instapundit.
MORE: A reader adds: "This has really become a farce. Can you imagine even a rock star saying something along those lines...'And she was buried in one of our concert tees...' I would only expect to see that in some scene from This Is Spinal Tap."
Is It Over for Global Warming Hysteria?
It seems like a suitable time to ask the question, with the mid-Atlantic states reeling under two feet of snow. This photo was taken in Philadelphia:
In the U.K., faith in the global warming dogma is evaporating, as reflected in BBC poll data reported yesterday. This graphic tells the story; note that the change recorded has taken place in the last three months. Click to enlarge:
Adding up the numbers, it appears that 73 percent of Britons don't buy the anthropogenic global warming theory. I'd guess a poll in this country would generate similar numbers.
Tower of Babble
Abraham Lincoln rarely gave a speech that wasn't laced with quotes from, and references to, the Bible. His listeners, as best we can tell, pretty much always got them. But times have changed; today's reporters and editors don't appear to have the same familiarity with scripture.
From today's New York Times corrections section:
A report in The Caucus column on Friday about President Obama's remarks to lawmakers and religious leaders at the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday rendered incorrectly part of a quotation by Mr. Obama about the current political debate. In noting that "we become absorbed with our abstract arguments, our ideological disputes, our contests for power," he went on to say, "And in this Tower of Babel, we lose the sound of God's voice." He did not say "this tower of babble."
This reminds me of a time, years ago, when an account of a Twins game in the Minneapolis Star Tribune described the home team's lineup "spraying line drives like vintage olives." It was obvious what had happened: the sportswriter referred to "vintage Olivas," and must have been outraged when his editor, apparently never having heard of Tony O. despite living in Minnesota, "corrected" his spelling to the entirely meaningless "vintage olives." In this case, though, it appears that neither the reporter nor the editor had heard of the Tower of Babel. Time for some remedial Sunday School.
