JILL AND WHAT'S HIS NAME

It was great news yesterday to hear Jill Carroll was released by the thugs who kidnapped her in early January. Far too often, when an American is kidnapped, man or woman, they are released with a few bullets in their head.

All of the articles I have read express her joy at being free and over and over again how she wasn’t harmed. The AP dispatch mentioned it three times:

"It's important people know that I was not harmed," she said.

"I was kept in a very good, small safe place, a safe room, nice furniture," she said, adding that she was given clothing and plenty of food. "I was allowed to take showers, go to the bathroom when I wanted," she said. They "never hit me, never even threatened to hit me.”

“Carroll emphasized that she had not been harmed. "It's important people know that - that I was not harmed."

The Washington Post had this:

“Her captors had treated her well, she said, and she never dared turn down their offers of meals or candy for fear of giving offense.”

This is from Time:

"I was treated very well," Carroll said in an immediate interview for the party's Baghdad television station. "They never hit me; they never even threatened to hit me. I'm just happy to be free, and I want to be with my family."

I want to give Time some well deserved praise for also mentioning what nobody else seems to, the name Allan Enwiyah. Allan is usually referred to as “her interpreter” and if you’re not paying close attention you might miss that he was killed during the kidnapping. These animals who Jill makes sure we all know treated her very well shot Allan twice in the head and dumped his body. I certainly hope these major news outlets will bother to take the time to tell Allen’s story. I doubt it, but we can all read about him at the Christian Science Monitor site.

PS – Check out what Jilly told the Washington Post (last paragraph):

“Party leader Tariq al-Hashimi presented her with an embossed Koran in a plush box. The Koran was for the true followers of Islam, Hashimi said, and he mentioned the Iraqi people. Accepting it, Carroll said her suffering was nothing compared with theirs.”

I’m sure she meant under Saddam.

Yeah, right.

THE FEC AND ME

I must admit I didn’t pay too much attention to the FEC ruling this week exempting the internet from campaign finance laws. Kind of sad, considering what I write about on the internet, but oh, well.

Today I see the New York Times has small, albeit, blame packed and shrill editorial up about it. Here’s the whole thing:

“The Watchdog Awakes

The Federal Election Commission finally did the right thing in ruling that the Internet must not be used as a conduit for unregulated salvos of big-money political advertising. Scolded by a federal judge, the commission reversed its earlier rule that threatened to turn the Web into a giant trough for the six- and seven-figure donations from corporations, unions and fat-cat influence shoppers that Congress banned in the campaign reforms of 2002.

The F.E.C. ruling against such "soft money" corruption is welcome as well for its ringing endorsement of the free-speech rights of political bloggers, who had been concerned that they would be unfairly hobbled by any campaign controls on the Web. To the contrary, bloggers have now been assured of the same wide latitude to opine free of government control as newspapers enjoy, so long as they are not paid by a political campaign.

The commission's action is timely for effectively skewering a brazen attempt in the House this week to make the Internet a soft money cornucopia beyond the reach of campaign law. The measure was peddled in the name of protecting bloggers' free speech, but that veil has been shredded by the F.E.C.'s rule. House Republican leaders wisely pulled the measure from the agenda rather than laying bare the political greed of trying to make the Web a supermarket for influence peddling.”

Typical Times, they just hate the idea of “soft money” because it robs them of the monoply they have in politacl discourse and of course, everything bad is the fault of the right, Republicans and the GOP.

Seeing how much the Times loved the ruling, I decided it must stink somehow. So I Googled it and found an article from USA Today. Here’s some of what it says:

“Individual online political activity will be protected from FEC restriction regardless of whether the individual acts alone or as part of a group, and regardless of whether the individual acts in coordination with a candidate or acts independently," said Commission Chairman Michael E. Toner.

The 2002 campaign finance law requires that ads for or against federal candidates be paid for with money regulated by the law, which limits contributions by individuals to $2,000 and bans union and corporation donations.

In its initial interpretation of the law in 2002, the FEC said no political activity on the Internet was covered. But a federal court judge ruled in 2004 that the commission had to craft a new rule that at the very least covered paid political advertising on the Internet.

The ruling, and the commission's decision not to appeal it, sparked fears among some Internet users that the panel might adopt broader restrictions. But Toner said the new rule gives a "categorical and unqualified" exemption to all individual and group political activity on the Internet, except for paid advertising.”

Here’s what I get out of this: Individuals online can do and say anything they want, even if they are working in conjunction with a campaign. The only regulated thing is paid advertisements. What if someone Like Michelle Malkin, who has to pay for a lot of bandwidth use, gets donations from the RNC or Richard Scaife? Don’t you think the lefties will file suit claiming Scaife is just financing his ads by paying for Michelle to attack Hilary Kerry? You can count on it – this fight has just started.

GUNS AND ZOMBIES

The anti-gun nuts are out in full force after the “rave shooting” in Seattle. After a moron shoots up some place, you can begin to count down until the editorials pop up blaming everything and everybody BUT the shooter for the crime.

Robert Jamieson of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer stepped up to the plate.

“Don't blame the rave scene for the Seattle's worst mass murder in more than two decades.

Blame the guns -- and a culture that celebrates firepower.

Blame the murdering madness on a country that has seen Columbine, Kip Kinkel and bullets at the Tacoma Mall, but lacks the common sense to clamp down on weapons of mass carnage.

Blame the gun lobby on the other Capitol Hill -- not the rave crowd on Seattle's Capitol Hill.

Gun advocates like to say guns don't literally kill, and they're right.

People do.

Problem is, people keep killing people with guns, just as Kyle Huff did over the weekend.”

See, Bobby tries to head off criticism by saying it’s not guns that kill people, people do. Of course, this comes after he blames guns, so I’m sensing some obfuscation instead of conviction.

Bobby mentions the felony charge of criminal mischief Huff faced in Montana that was dropped to a misdemeanor, allowing Huff to keep his guns and buy more.

“In Montana, he faced a felony criminal mischief charge in 2000 for blasting a statue of a moose with gunfire. He later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor.

Had Huff shot up a statue in, say, downtown Seattle -- as opposed to in gun-friendly Montana -- he would have been dealt with more seriously, law enforcement and public-policy officials tell me. Had the felony charge stuck and led to conviction, it would have been illegal for Huff to own firearms.”

You can just feel the disdain he has for those rubes in “gun-friendly Montana”. The “holier than thou” attitude distracts from his point that Huff has a history of misuse of guns and a plea bargain kept him from becoming a felon and therefore unable to own guns. It also proves the point we Second Ammendment-ers always say, “How about ENFORCING the laws on the books instead of adding more?”

Look, the reason these people were murdered was because Kyle Huff shot them. That’s it. If there are enabling factors, like him owning guns, than I don’t think we should be so quick to dismiss the “rave scene”, like Bobby did. The rave he was at, a “zombie rave” I believe it was called, was full of high adrenalin and drugs, illegal and legal, I’m sure. It was this high-tension atmosphere that pushed this obviously unstable man to kill.

Should we ban raves? Or make it illegal to go to one if you are a felon? No. Nor should we push to take guns away.

HIPPIES

Scanning the bubble-gum newspaper of the United States, USA Today, I came across this piece last week. It seems a new concern growing amongst the green segment is new homes along the border of National Parks.

“The development is prompting concerns about "edge effects." The term refers to the idea that residents near parks bring pets that prey on wildlife, lead to urban-type development that increases storm runoff and often drive off-highway vehicles that bring intrusions and noise.”

Not happy with owning 900,270,000 (yes, that’s over 900 MILLION acres), nearly 40 (“Did you just say forty?”), yes, 40% of all the land in the United States, these tree huggers are worried about the 600 feet OUTSIDE of the boundaries.

"We are trying to see if we can have influence outside our boundaries. That has always been a difficult thing for national parks," said Kevin Skerl, an ecologist for Cuyahoga Valley National Park.”

Give a hippie and inch and he wants a mile (not that he can spell it).

To quote Eric Cartman, “I hate hippies”

"TAXES? IT WAS NEVER ABOUT TAXES"

One of the major problems of using tax policy to alter a perceived behavior is it might work. When you hear of a new tax on smoking in an attempt to curb smoking that will go towards pre-K schooling, you have to ask the supporters if the tax works and smoking decreases, will the pre-K spending will decrease at the same rate.

You will not be answered.

Oregon is now having to deal with a similar situation. UPI is reporting that the state is now toying with the idea of taxing miles driven instead of gasoline. It seems the state has been promoting fuel-efficient cars and driving less (like most states) and now has begun to realize that if those goals are met, less gas will be bought and less tax revenue (24 cents/gallon) will be collected.

“Eighty percent of Oregon's highway money comes from its 24-cents-per-gallon gas tax. If the state promotes reducing gasoline consumption and consumers tend to buy the fuel-efficient vehicles, including hybrids, highway revenues would take a hit, The New York Times reported.

The test program uses a global positioning system to track miles driven, using a black box to calculate how many miles are clocked in-state, out of state and during rush hour.

The experiment is designed to increase state revenue for road maintenance without raising gasoline taxes…”

Wouldn’t want to lose that tax revenue now, would we?

ISLAMIC INQUISITION

A favorite theme of Christian bashers is the Spanish Inquisition. As we know, non-Christians were tortured to get them to convert and if they didn't, they were put to death. Now, in Afghanistan, we get the same thing, just Islam is the bad guy this time and it's the Christian being put to death for his religion.

Where are the Christian bashers now?

"RELIGION OF PEACE?"

People tend to roll their eyes when I mock Islam as a "religion of peace". I've often said the actions of Islamists prove my point only to have an apologist to claim it's just some fringe element that cuases all the problems.

Well, tell that to Abdul Rahman, the Christian convert who is being sentanced to death in Afghanistan for his conversion. But, look at this quote from the BBC:

"The Prophet Muhammad has said several times that those who convert from Islam should be killed if they refuse to come back," says Ansarullah Mawlafizada, the trial judge.

"Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, then we will forgive him," he told the BBC News website. "

Did he just say Islam is so peaceful, tolerant and kind that Rahman should be killed for leaving it?

TO A HIGHER STANDARD

I was barely aware that the Washington Post's online division had hired a right-wing blogger, Ben Domenech, when all of a sudden he was gone. I just caught a whiff of the left-wing hatred before I heard he resigned. National Review Online (8:27 PM) was quoting these reviews he had done for NRO and showing other reviews Ben had obviously been plagiarizing from. Then I read Michelle Malkin calling for his resignation. Where was all of this conservative bias I read about? Where were the "fascists" protecting one of there own? Where was the lying we hear that comes from the right? The distortion of the truth?

Oh, yeah...that's what the left does. We expect more from our guys.

STILL NO THANKS

Even the Telegraph of London is starting to notice what Mr. Steyn and yours truly noticed earlier.

There's no figuring some people.

GREAT MINDS, 2

One of my heros, the wonderful Mark Steyn (living in my own New Hampshire, I think) has come out saying (11:48AM) on National Review Online just what I did earlier this morning.

I'm so proud.

"RESCUE ME, YOU FASCIST PIGS!"

Early this morning in Iraq, a coalition team (looks like the Brits were the doing the heavy lifting) freed three hostages. These three, members of Christian Peacemakers Teams, had been kidnapped in November along with a fourth member, Tom Fox, whose body was found a few weeks ago. This is great news and a testament to the coalition forces.

That is, only if you’re not a member of the loony left like Christian Peacemaker Teams. Here’s some excerpts from a statement on their website about the freeing of their members:

“Our hearts are filled with joy today as we heard that Harmeet Singh Sooden, Jim Loney and Norman Kember have been safely released in Baghdad.”

Released?! Like their crazy abductors just sent them on their way with a kiss on the forehead and a box lunch? Never once do they say the dreaded military had anything to do with the freeing of the hostages.

“They knew that their only protection was in the power of the love of God and of their Iraqi and international co-workers.”

Uh, I hope they realize that 100,000 coalition troops were adding just a smidge of protection, too.

Just so we know who the real troublemakers are, we get this:

“We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq. The occupation must end.”

There is only one word for these people and their ilk – ungrateful.

GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE

Jonah Goldberg (my hero, man I'd most like to have lunch with) has a more detailed and well said argument in today's LA Times for what I said yesterday about Saddam and WMD's here.

MORE ASSOCIATED PRESS

You have to love it when the MSM (or as I call them, Big Media) are so sure of themselves that they don’t even try to hide their biases and disdain. Check out this headline from the AP:

Bush Pulls Out the Stops to Save Ratings

Now, I’m not going to deny that Bush is doing that, but I contend that he HAS to do that because the ilk in Big Media have pulled out all stops to sink him whenever and wherever possible. In the article we get this piece of fair and balanced journalism:

“In Wheeling on Wednesday, the fifth day in a row Bush devoted his remarks to Iraq, the president bantered with the locals, his shoulders bouncing up and down as they do when he's pleased with his own jokes.”

I bet Ms. Loven never reported on President Clinton biting his lower lip every time he wanted to look concerned.

Anyway, I’m sure Loven can’t even fathom that the press has been reporting only bad news. To drive home her point, she has this quote about exactly why the President has to do these press conferences:

"It's one of the best chances he has to be effective, to change away from the Pollyanna-ish characterizations of it being all good news," said Bruce Buchanan, a University of Texas political scientist who has long observed Bush.

However, Wayne Fields, a specialist in presidential rhetoric at Washington University in St. Louis, said, "The problem is that clearly he's doing this because of the polls and that adds a level of desperation."

Ah, yes…it’s all out of desperation.

MORE ODDS AND ENDS

File this one under, "No Good News while Cowboy is in Charge". This is the headline from CBS News:

Inflation Plunges - But For How Long?


Peter Schweizer at Canada's National Press eviscerates Noam Chomsky for Chomsky's hypocrisy concerning capitalism and the rich. It warms a Conservative's heart

Noam Chomsky

Charles Hanley has an article in the AP about how frustrated poor Saddam was that he had no WMD's and the world didn't believe him. I wonder why Hanley didn't mention that even though Saddam had no weapon's program (and I now believe he didn't have a CURRENT program) that he kept acting like he did. Remember throwing out the inspectors? Remember hampering the inspectors movements when they were there? That's worth a good story, don't you think?

Documents show Saddam's WMD frustrations

SHORTCUTS

Only in France do people protesting job security burn down businesses. This is a really good article that highlights what happens when people get everything they want from Big Government.

Shortcut #1


Big Media seems taken aback that the moron in the White House ("Who got there by stealing the elections, don't you know?") actually used the word "kerfuffle" and used it correctly.

Shortcut #2


File this under disgusting, but a natural outcroping of our abortion-on-demand society where father's are routinely ignored. If society tells father's they're nothing more than donors (sperm and money), then we were destined to have a case like this. He makes me sick.

Shortcut #3

SPEAK ENGLISH!

The LA Times has a short editorial up about the Latino population in LA falling behind in economic terms. It quotes these statistics:

“Researchers found that Latinos have the lowest per-capita income ($12,464) and highest poverty rate (22%) of any race or ethnic group. More than a third of Latino adults (including documented and undocumented immigrants) have no health insurance — nearly double the general population. Only 40% own their own home.”

Sad. To give the Times credit they also said this about helping the Latino’s out:

“It would be foolish to think simply throwing money at an endless list of social programs will fix the problems facing Latinos (or any other group).”

Gotta’ tell ya’, I didn’t see that coming. What the Times does recommend are some modest programs, like guest-worker programs (open border’s in English) and getting kid’s health insurance. Pretty good for a LA Times editorial.

But, I have an idea. What if the Latino’s spoke English instead of Spanish? If the Latino’s in LA are anything like the one’s in New Hampshire, many refuse to learn and use English, raising their kids to not speak English, either. Then these kids get older, English is a second language, they run into all kinds of learning barriers, do poorly in school, drop out into poverty and start having kids, don’t speak English, their kids get older…

Look, speaking English isn’t going to cure all the Latino economic problems. But, it will start to give them a chance to succeed in our English speaking society and that’s a good thing.

ADDENDUM: After posting this, I go on to find this article in the LA Times. Seems a Latino family couldn't speak english, signed up for Blue Cross insurance and was denied a claim because of a pre-existing condition, a concept the family didn't understand because, "...the company filled out their applications in English, a language they do not understand."

Of course, in the People's Republic of California, it's the insurance companies fault because soon:

"The state Department of Managed Health Care expects to finalize rules this year that would require health plans to put key documents in the consumer's primary language and to pay for interpreters to accompany patients to doctors' offices and hospitals."

Yeah, let's create two seperate societies and then complain one isn't doing as well as the other. We used to call that Segregation.

THE ADVOCATE

Well, let’s hope this time I’m back for good. Molly likes to read the local papers everyday and normally I can’t stand them (except for the Union Leader, a true stalwart in the conservative press). She had finished reading the Concord Monitor when I jumped on the computer. What do I see as the front page article? This:

Concord high grad becomes advocate for single moms

All right, I’ll give it a shot. It turns out to be a fawning piece about a girl, Anne Stevenson, who, against all odds (those being the white, male, corporate power structure) went on to become active in politics (surprise, surprise, Democrat politics) on behalf of all single moms. The article makes it out that she is fighting for better conditions for single moms. In fact, what she is championing for the rest of us to give single moms more of what we work hard for:

"'Are you sick of being on Medicaid and being on waiting lists, and being a second-class citizens?'" she remembered asking them. "'Politicians are not going to change anything unless you tell them to, unless you make your voice heard. And this is how you do it. You show them that you're going to vote, and you're going to make them accountable.'"

The knee-slapper in that quote is, “you're going to make them accountable”. What about YOU? Why aren’t you accountable? In perhaps the saddest thing in this article, she once worked for that very same thing – she worked to be accountable and not feed off the Big Government teat:

“To manage the costs of diapers, food and clothing, Stevenson organized a group of local single mothers she met online and formed a network for baby supplies; clothes and toys would be sent from mother to mother as children outgrew them.”

See, she completely threw her life’s plans out the window by getting knocked up by a Harvard grad student she refused to marry, went on the public dole but tried to do the right thing. She used her ingenuity and brains to get by without falling deeper and deeper into welfare. For that, I say, “Bravo!!” And for abandoning that to squeeze more and more of my money for redistribution I say, “Boo!!”

Check out this little quote:

"Ninety percent of the people on welfare are single mothers," she whispered. "Dads only share 25 percent of their income, yet mothers give 100 percent of their resources."

Really, and how much time do these “quarter-dads” get with there child? Let’s assume it’s generous and they get two weekends a month and one night a week. That’s roughly 144 hours a month out of 720 hours, or about 20%. The “quarter-dad” is being shafted by 5% from what I can see, but I’m just a dumb bean-counter.

Good luck with Teddy Kennedy. Looking at the picture that came with the article, you’re pretty cute and Teddy will love that. Make sure you bring a fifth to the interview and you’ll be a shoe-in.