Reliving 9.11.01

Editor’s note: It’s with pleasure that I introduce to you an old friend of mine… and a new author here at BitsBlog… Maribeth Achim.

Maribeth has always been a creative sort, and so when I told her about this website and explained it’s thrust… that I consider that our politics should be reflective of our life values,  and she seemed intrigued by the notion,  I  invited her to write some ‘slice of life’ stuff for BitsBlog.. to write about some of the thought processes that happen underneath what you and I consider overtly political,  I’ was most pleased when she accepted the invitation. This is what she came up with as a first effort.

I hope that you are as touched by the  story as I was. Welcome, Maribeth!   -Eric

-1-

It’s a new year, and a new decade. I guess it’s normal to look back at such times, at all the things that have happened in the past decade, and how they’ve impacted my life.

The one day that comes to mind almost immediately is 9/11, a day I will remember well.

I decided to sleep in late that day, only to be awakened by a phone call from my husband, telling me to turn on the news. Stumbling into the living room and scrounging around for the remote, I finally tuned up on CNN.

What I saw horrified me. I sat and watched with tears in my eyes, wondering who could do something like that. Continuing to watch, I saw the second tower hit, and both fall. Reports that the Pentagon had been hit and a stray plane went down in rural Pennsylvania. No one knew if there were more planes or where the next target will be.

My next call was to my daughter’s school to find out what their policy was on situations such as this. I was told they were in the process of deciding on what to do. At that, I said that I was coming to the school and picking her up. No way was I going to sit and worry if there were more planes heading to rural America to wreak havoc.

You can imagine, I made it to the school in record time. Other parents apparently had exactly the same thought in mind because on arrival, there were lines of parents waiting to sign their kids out of school.

Eventually, the school saw the way things were going, and decided to release the students early.

Now, at the time, my daughter was only seven years old. She had some idea of the severity of what was happening, but still couldn’t totally grasp it.

From the school I headed to the closest Red Cross facility to my home, which was about 25 miles or so away. With the amount of people that were involved with this tragedy, I knew they were going to need blood. Since my blood type… A+…. is the most common blood type, I knew I would be welcomed. As we pulled into the Red Cross parking lot and I unloaded my wheelchair, I noticed that as with the parents at the school, many others had the same idea as I… The place was a zoo.

Volunteers were scrambling to get things in order, take names, find out what blood type you were, and if you’ve ever donated before. Needless to say, there were many that had never donated before. At most, they were looking for folks that were O+ and O-, universal donors. All were welcomed, at that time, no one was being turned away. The wait was fairly substantial with all the people, though.

I waited my turn in line to give my name, blood type, and other vital info. As we waited, I tried to explain to my daughter what was going on, and why we were here. When we finally got to the counter and
I gave my name, my daughter piped up that she wanted to make a donation too. They informed her that she was too small to give blood.

Well, she informed them that she didn’t want to give blood, she wanted to donate her heart so that someone else’s Mommy or Daddy would live.

You can well imagine, heads turned at that. The woman in line next to me, gushed tears, as well as a few other folks who heard her comment.  She said that I had raised that child right. How many kids would have thought of something like that?

They had arranged people by numbers. O + and O – were given first priority. Because I was A+, I was higher ranked than some of the other types. As I say, though, the the crowds created waiting lines for donations that were hours long.

Red Cross had TV’s and radios going so that the info everyone had was current.

A local restaurant knew that there were man people waiting in line to donate, and likely wouldn’t get a chance to eat, and decided that they were going to feed all of the donors and the volunteers. What they set out was unbelievable. It wasn’t just slapped together…. It ended up being a virtual feast; all were welcome to help themselves.

A local radio station had set up a remote at the Red Cross to keep people informed. They wanted to interview a few folks, asking how we felt about the current situation, and what we felt should be done. They gathered us in a room, waiting for their prompt to begin the interview.

I was chosen… Possibly because I was the only one in a wheelchair. They were curious as to the reasons I came down. My daughter was excited at the prospect of being on the radio, again, she piped up and stated that she wanted to donate her heart. When explained that if she gave hers up, she wouldn’t live anymore… and at that, came a somewhat disappointed illumination at last.

After several hours of waiting, Red Cross came and told all potential donors, that unless you were either O+ or O-, that we were being told thanks for our time, they needed to focus on universal donors.

It was dark by the time we left, and the drive home was long and somber. My husband was home by the time I got home. I gave him and my daughter a big hug, thankful they were alive and safe from the days events. He sat down and watched the evening news, as I worked on dinner.

Welcome one and all to the most intense nightly read anywhere on the ‘sphere… The BitsBlog Nightly Ramble

• YEAH, I KNOW... Where was yesterday’s Ramble? Sorry about that…I had a last minute schedule change. I warned you guys that would happen as I get closer to the new job.
• BROWN AHEAD IN MASS SENATE RACE: With only four days to go before the election, the polling is universally showing Brown ahead in the Senate race there in Massachusetts.  A Republican is going to take the seat occupied for so long by a Democrat they began long ago to regard the thing as Democrat party property. I say the change in status was eminently predictable. The Boston Herald claims it’s a shocker.  Gee, who do you suppose they’re spinning for?  Byron York at the Washington Examiner meanwhile is reporting that the bottom has dropped out of Coakley’s polling, even according to the Democrat party’s own internal polls.  He also suggests that there is a serious move afoot for the Democrats to explain their defeat, without all bomb a losing in the face.  They are trying desperately to implant the idea that this race and its outcome has absolutely nothing to do with the Democrats and their overall neo- socialist agenda.  They’re going to fail at it.  It’s as I said the other day; there is no way that this race does not turn into a major negative for the Democrats. The remaining question is whether or not the White House will risk showing up in the state to back its candidate.  Obama already has a number of personally accountable net negatives.  Adding one more, particularly with his government takeover of health care online, would be a risky play indeed.  It’s might take, he won’t.  He will instead abandon Coakley to the voters of Massachusetts .
• BUT WHAT”S CAUSING THIS PATTERN? THE HEALTHCARE TAKEOVER ATTEMPT :About that pattern, Brian McGrory at the Boston Globe, observes:
  

  Martha Coakley made a jaw-dropping declaration earlier this week at the only live televised debate in Boston that she has deigned to do. She said, and I quote, “I’ve traveled the state and met tremendous people.”

  If she did, it was under the cover of darkness, with an assumed name.

  

  Brian McGrory

  Because if she had really traveled the state, if she had taken the time to meet voters, Coakley wouldn’t be in the position she finds herself in now, heading into the final weekend of this special election campaign in a perilously close race against a GOP state legislator nobody had heard of a mere six months ago.

  Back in December, Coakley beat her closest opponent by 19 points in a primary in which she got stronger by the day. She strolled into the general election with high name recognition, strong favorability ratings, and as the Democratic candidate in a state that hasn’t elected a Republican to the Senate since 1972. It looked as if it would be impossible to lose.

  So what did she do? Apparently, she’s tried to accomplish the impossible.

  Literally, she all but vanished. She refused to debate on TV unless it was exactly on her terms. She went days without venturing out in public. When she did appear, it was typically to accept endorsements from elected officials or union heads in front of supportive crowds. She may have gone the first month of the campaign without ever meeting an honest-to-goodness rank-and-file undecided resident.

  Campaigns are an opportunity for candidates to hear from the public they want to represent, but Coakley doesn’t seem to believe this is necessary.

  I pull that extended quote from McGrory’s article to make a point.

  I submit to you that one of the reasons why this approach was taken was so that the race did not become a microcosm for the Healthcare debate.  The Democrats who you will recall are desperately trying to pass this monstrosity over the objections of the electorate, apparently figure they can’t withstand the added scrutiny and get the bill passed.  Coakley, if she had more public exposure would most certainly have been forced into the role of defending the Democrat party and their  government neo-socialist takeover plans for health care. That would have been the front and center issue, without a doubt.  Thing is, the  Democrats have been finding out it is indefensible to defend their plan. Which, is precisely why the President has not bothered putting the debate on the current health care bills on C-Span as he promised, and why actual public debate on the issues at hand have surfaced so rarely, and when they do they are usually cloaked in the usual “working families” rhetoric instead of actual dollars and cents, to say nothing about questions on actual freedom and the losses of freedom imposed by their plan.   Being forced into that defensive role would have made Coakley’s position in this special election even more untenable. I point to all of this as an example of how wildly unpopular Democrat Party policy is.  Jonah Goldberg agrees, saying:

  Meanwhile, the liberal press establishment is in near-total denial. Yes, the race is getting a lot of attention, but Coakley’s problems are being chalked up to the fact that she is a bad campaigner and this is a bad “climate” for the Democrats.

  

  Jonah Godberg

  They use “climate” to suggest that things are bad for Democrats for reasons beyond their control (ironically, they don’t talk about the climate that way when it comes to global warming). Orange growers in Florida can’t be blamed for a bad crop if the climate won’t cooperate, and Democrats can’t be held accountable for their crop failure now. It’s the economy! It’s the obstructionism of the Republicans and that satanic whatchamacallit, the filibuster. Jupiter is aligned with Mars, NutraSweet has poisoned the water supply, Lost has been on hiatus too long, Mongo likes candy: It’s the climate, you see, the horrible, horrible climate! Democrats didn’t do anything wrong!

  Except they did.

  The Democrats’ “bad climate” is a direct result of how they’ve governed. The populist backlash is fueled by a sense that Democrats are acting on their preferred agenda and by their own rules. From the shenanigans of the people who write our tax code and collect our taxes to special deals and secret arrangements for big businesses and legislators who play ball, the Democrats have abandoned transparency in favor of transparent arrogance.

  Coakley is a creature of this climate. She hasn’t been running for “Ted Kennedy’s seat,” she’s been strolling to it like someone who knows it’s been reserved for her and all she needs to do is swing by the will-call window to pick it up.

  Well, exactly, and I dare suggest to you once again, there’s no way that this race does not come up a massive net negative for the Democrat party and it’s agenda.

• THE OUTCOME IN MASS? My take on the  end results in voting is at least a fifteen point advantage for Brown.  I reason that the Democrats, and their house organs in the press will invariably gild the lily by several points. This is particularly true where Democrats are going to lose ground on their neo socialist agenda in the overall.    We saw the same thing in the 2000 presidential election for example. And Looky, Looky: Pajamas Media agrees with my take.
• THE LAST DECADE OF LIBERALISM IN QUOTES: John Hawkins has put up “The Last Decade of Liberalism in 40 Quotes.” A few examples:
  

  39) I propose a limitation be put on how many sqares [sic] of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don’t want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required. — Sheryl Crow

  23) The entire country may disagree with me, but I don’t understand the necessity for patriotism. Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don’t see why people care about patriotism. — Natalie Maines

  15) Now I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows: that this war is lost, that the surge is not accomplishing anything. — Democratic Senator Majority Leader, Harry Reid

  2) As to those in the World Trade Center…Let’s get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. …If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it. — Ward Churchill

  Amazing.

The Obama administration has confirmed one of  the most controversial assertions of The Bell Curve.   Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray published TBC in 1994.   From a summary of TBC, by Brian Beatty et al:

Raising Cognitive Ability – If it were possible to significantly, consistently, and affordably raise intelligence, many of the negative consequences of societal low IQ could be mitigated or removed. However, historical attempts to raise IQ using nutritional programs, additional formal schooling, and government preschool programs (such as Head Start) have proven to have little if any lasting impact on intelligence as measured by IQ tests. The one intervention that has consistently worked to raise intelligence is adoption form a bad family environment into a good one. The authors recommend that children born to single mothers with low cognitive ability be voluntarily given up for adoption.

The liberals have been trying to figuratively lynch Murray ever since.    Too late to lynch Herrnstein.  TBC’s bottom line, programs like Head Start do not work.   Now some sixteen years later, from the Heritage Foundation:

After some prodding, yesterday the Obama administration released the long-overdue first grade evaluation of the federal Head Start program. As expected, the results show that the $7 billion per year program provides little benefit to children – and great expense to taxpayers.

The evaluation, which was mandated by Congress during the 1998 reauthorization of the program, found little impact on student well-being. After collecting data on more than 5,000 three and four-year-old children randomly assigned to either a Head Start or a non Head Start control group, the Department of Health and Human Services found “few sustained benefits”. From the report.

Hat tip and more; Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit:

“The evaluation, which was mandated by Congress during the 1998 reauthorization of the program, found little impact on student well-being. After collecting data on more than 5,000 three and four-year-old children randomly assigned to either a Head Start or a non Head Start control group, the Department of Health and Human Services found ‘few sustained benefits’.”

The only benefit of Head Start to make liberals feel good about themselves by protending to care.  End it, don’t mend it.

While I sit in the doctor’s office waiting for my appointmnet, I see Greg Sargent says today:

As you may have heard, a Dem staffer helping the Martha Coakley campaign was caught on video shoving a Weekly Standard reporter, prompting an explosion of outrage from national Republicans and the right-wing media, who alleged bullying and intimidation.

Now the staffer, Michael Meehan, sends over a statement admitting error (though not conceding bullying) and saying he also apologized directly to the Standard reporter, John McCormack:

Last evening I was a little too aggressive in the confusion of trying to help the Attorney General get to her car and catch a flight.

I clearly did not intend to cause John McCormack to trip and fall over that low fence. As the video shows and he confirms in his blog, I stopped to help him up and make sure he was OK.

I talked with Mr. McCormack this afternoon and apologized for my part.

The question now is whether this remains an issue in the closing days of the white hot Massachusetts race. National Republicans have been hammering Dem candidate Martha Coakley today, demanding an apology, and it’s been lighting up talk radio all day today.

So you have to assume that even if McCormack accepts the apology — and I’m told he is going to — the national GOP and right-wing media will continue savaging Coakley over it.

And so they should. Lets think about this. Where are the people of the left who so loudly complained about the press being banned from some of her book signings? Where are the people who complained about Joe Klien getting his biased butt kicked off McCain’s plane? Where are the people who last week were complaining about the decision to keep the press away from the Tea Party convention? They are nowhere to be found.

Telling, that.

Meehan’s statement is just so much BS, which is to be expected.  Clearly, what happened here was that somebody in the press dared to not be in Liberal Lockstep. I do not accept his apology, nor do I accept his explanation.  There’s only one explanation that I will accept, and that is political intimidation.

So what we have here is a Democrat Party that will make fun of anyone who doesn’t subject themselves to the Liberal Lockstep press, but is willing to use intimidation tactics that anyone who dares raise any serious questions of them, their motives, their actions, and the results.

Alas, this is not unlike what we’ve seen with every totalitarian regime in history.  If you think that statement over the top, I suggest you that I’m underplaying it.  I would further suggests that maybe in the comments you could explain to us how what we’re seeing here does not match that pattern.

Somehow, I doubt anyone will take up the challenge.

Welcome, one and all to the most intense nightly read anywhere on the ‘sphere… The BitsBlog Nightly Ramble

• WHO WANTS CLOAKLEY IN THE SENATE? The Washington Examiner‘s Tim Carney says it’s K street.  Only about a week to go before the special action, and it appears as though the thing is going to be earth shaking, either way.  Even a should brown lose this one, the special action ends up being a net negative for the Democrats.  They’ve thrown everything they’ve had at this, pulling out all the stops and this is a seat that’s been held by the far left for as long as anybody alive now can remember.  Yet, the best they can do is a tie?  Explain to me how this isn’t a negative for the left, even assuming she wins. In the end, this special action ends up being a proxy fight on the Democrats and their agenda. However this falls out, the Democrats lose.
• GROWING INDEPENDENCE: The independent voter has been the holy grail of elections for the last several cycles.  It’s also been the biggest pain in the backside for the Democrats.  In what has to be extraordinarily bad news for the democrats, and Obama in particular, that segment of the electorate is growing.
• GROUND SHAKING NEWS: By now, I’m the only one who hasn’t mentioned Haiti and the earthquake there. It’s odd. This is the first time in over 100 years a quake of ANY size has shown up there. Reports are essentially that if it was standing before the quake, it’s not standing now… including the presidential palace and the UN HQ. We’re just starting to get our arms around the scope of this thing.  A call for prayers at least, for those affected would seem appropriate.
• HARRY’S TOAST: John Fund over at The Wall Street Journal says Harry’s not running for re-election.  I tend to agree. After 4 years of Obama and particularly when you add two years with Democrats running Congress, the mood of the electorate will be so anti-Democrat that they’ll do anything, including voting Republican. Reid’s district is no exception. Further, given the toes Harry’s been mashing, the question of him even getting funding should he decide to run is an open question.
• CONAN THE CONTRARIAN: Look, Conan O’Brien will end up at Fox. Any questions?
• ANOTHER OIL FIND? Chris Helman at Forbes says the Gulf of Mexico contains far more oil than we dreamed.
• KINSLEY: UNINTENTIONALLY HILARIOUS….Over at Reason, Tim Cavanaugh comes up with what has to be the funniest thing I’ve seen in a week; Michael Kinsley complaining about boring, long-winded journalism? That’s kinda like Bill Clinton making an argument for chastity, isn’t it?
• MAN DIES IN MIAMI FROM HYPOTHERMIA: I blame global warming. It’s supposed to get better today and for the next several days down there, I see in the forecasts.
• SIMON AND GARFUNKEL AGAIN? I hear they’re supposed to be performing at the New Orleans Jazz fest. Only one link so far.

www.JonesToTheGrindstone.com

I was at my regular hair salon near Robins Air Force Base, GA, secured in my protective cape. Complimentary coffee was flowing and plans for my hair design were in negotiation. The scene was set. As my stylist was held hostage by my verbal diarrhea, she worked her magic.

Next, the free coffee beside her booth ensnared another stylist in our conversation.  After the regular social greetings were over, I decided to tap both stylists for their observations and opinions of their military patrons’ lifestyles.

I received some routine, safe answers like, “They’re cool,” and, “They’re nice.”

Bored with the answers, I continued prodding. It unexpectedly launched into a diatribe on how the United States government backed the September 11th attacks. My frazzled stylist was rescued by her next waiting client, but the other stylist continued to passionately lay out his case for the titillating idea that the Feds planned those devastating attacks.

Without a doubt, his case’s central foundation was the skein of evidence that he had located on the Internet. Some of his cited examples were: hidden footage of the US missile that hit the Pentagon before the plane did, non-descript faces testifying to seeing that missile fired by US fighter jets, and even more arcane  visuals covering the mysterious explosion patterns and ultimate fall of the World Trade Center (WTC). He also implied that the planes that left Boston didn’t really come from Logan Airport—the passenger manifests were fabricated.

Now, I don’t think the US government being involved in unsavory plots is exactly a newsflash; but, I also don’t think the Internet is the best source of infallible information either. The stylist admits to not being completely sold on this conspiracy theory, but he refused to deny all the clandestine digital images.

Being caught off-guard made me feel as if I was grasping at straws to counter his accusation. I offered that Osama Bin Laden was recorded expressing his joy over his successes and that the WTC falling was an added bonus.

Then stylist asked me if I happen to know Arabic and if I truly knew that was what Bin Laden was saying. I told him I didn’t speak Arabic, but I had friends who did. Too, as if not one Arab-American wouldn’t step forward and bust the phony translation splashed all over the networks.

I suggested that the same clever editing tricks used to produce footage of what we are supposed to believe could have also been used to create those Internet documentaries overflowing with covert images. Furthermore, I was living in Boston on September 11, 2001, and that city was mourning the deaths of real people.

To wind down the debate I interjected, “How do you know that I am not a hologram projection beamed in by the government to question your loyalty?!” That silly remark made us both pause and literally stare up into space.

Perhaps being in the government’s fold as a military spouse makes me a little muddy-eyed on believing in such atrocious theories. I’ve seen service members (combatants and non-combatants alike) go to Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Pakistan, return back to their normal duty stations, and changed from the experience. It’s hard to know whether or not my kind is a troop of puppets being manipulated through this unpleasant experience.

Nevertheless, the stylist stated that he “supports the troops,” but not the former administration. I find that it’s hard to separate the two.

I have to admit my first reaction to these reports was one of indifference.  After all, China has been hacking into just about everybody’s computers for as long as anybody can remember.
And yet, in looking at the situation a little more closely, we find out what China was really after was information about who anti communist activists are and what they’re doing.  David Drummond, The senior VP for Corporate Development and the Chief Legal Officer for Google, says this morning, in part:

Google's David Drummond

Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective. Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves.

Third, as part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google, we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties. These accounts have not been accessed through any security breach at Google, but most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on the users’ computers.

Yes, well, after having had some recent experience with the Nigerian scam artists I mentioned a few weeks back, I have to seriously wonder how many of the phishing scams we see aren’t officially government sanctioned, by one government or another, or at least, unofficially tolerated because they produce favorable results for the current regime in whatever country we’re talking about. It’s my guess a large portion of them are.  Certainly, China’s government has been no stranger to such activity.

In this particular case, consider the implications involved; it seems a lead pipe cinch that investigations into the activities of human rights activists aren’t being undertaken by the Chinese people, so the Chinese government is immediately suspect.  After all, they and not the people there, are also the ones most likely to benefit from such activity.  By extension, then, the investigation results that Drummond describes seems to suggest an effort on the part of the Chinese government to involve itself in malware and phishing.  Further, one gets the decided impression reading his corporate speak, that he knows there’s far more going on here than he’s telling us. Given the number of phishing emails I see on my servers,  originating from Chinese IP’s, I don’t doubt it for a millisecond.

Again, none of this is a surprise.  When Google moved into China and particularly when they accepted some of the arcane rules of engagement from the Chinese government, as a condition of their doing business in China, I suggest this was going to come up.  I can’t recall ever being so annoyed at the prospect of being proven correct. Dan Riehl describes that aspect well.

At first blush, the Google/China incident much in the news may appear to have little to do with American politics, Barack Obama, or even the Clintons, with their history of financial dealings involving the Chinese. But it does.

Google approached China with the same combination of greed and naivete the liberal mindset approaches everything. What’s in it for us? And how can we all get along, after we cave a bit? The result? Google got played, just as any realist should have expected would be the case.

Dan is quite correct.  Google’s  involvement with China speaks of an extremely naive attitude, unique to western leftists.   The pattern of attempted engagement by Google, here, is remarkably similar to what the White House is doing with Iran, of late. As Dan says, it amounts to agreement by appeasement….”Let’s see if we can’t get along, by caving in”.     I suggest that they’re going to be similarly unsuccessful, and for the same reason.

Google got played like a fiddle and is now licking it’s wounds and trying to figure out how to get the hell out of there while saving face and not losing too much money. If they do manage to grow a spine, and pull out of China, the next logical question is, what other western businesses are willing to follow suit? I consider the chances of reaching critical mass on this very small indeed.  On the other hand, this is as high that particular needle has been on the scale in quite a while.

CNN Jack Cafferty calls Nancy Pelosi “A horrible woman”,  and means it.      In the mean time, Wolf Blitzer really doesn’t understand it, video:

Hat tip: Allah Pundit, Hot Air.

Roxana Hegeman, writes:

WICHITA, Kan. (AP) – A Kansas judge’s decision to allow a confessed killer to argue that he believes the slaying of one of the nation’s few late-term abortion providers was a justified act aimed at saving unborn children has upended what most expected to be an open-and-shut first-degree murder case.

[…]

“This judge has basically announced a death sentence for all of us who help women,” said Dr. Warren Hern of Boulder, Colo., a longtime friend of Tiller who also performs late-term abortions. “That is the effect of the ruling.”

Some abortion opponents were pleasantly stunned and eager to watch Roeder plead his case. Tiller’s colleagues and abortion rights advocates were outraged and feared the court’s actions give a more than tacit approval to further acts of violence.

Some bloody sense of priorities Ms Hegeman has.    Circa one million unborn Americans die at the hand of abortionists each year, and Ms. Hegeman professes to worried about an increase in abortion related violence.   Earth to Hegemana!   There is a simple way to end abortion related violence.   Stop killing unborn human beings.

The thought that an American citizen might get his rights under his state’s law has poor Ms Hegeman’s knickers in a twist.    This maybe Ms. Hegeman would like to do away with Scott Roeder’s  constitutional rights, like the late aborti0nist George Tiller did with his hundreds of victims?

So question for Ms. Hegeman, if we could get five out of nine black robed justices on the Supreme Court to declare you a fetus, would it  be moral to kill you?(1)

I am not a lawyer  To examine the legal questions go visit, Patterico Pontification.

1.   Actually no.  While our justices in black robes may think of themselves as if they were gods, they but mere mortal human jurists.    They have no power more than any other person to decide what  is moral or not.   It is  not moral to kill innocent human life, even if  five, or more. justices in black robes think otherwise.

I got to give Harold Ford, Jr. potential candidate for Senate from the great state of Tennessee err New York credit.  Taylor Marsh and Katerine Jean-Lopez don’t agree on much, but they seem to agree on Harold Ford, Jr, K-Lo, National Review:

Harold Ford Jr. appears to say different things depending what state he’s running in.

When he was running for Senate in Tennessee, he claimed he was pro-life (And I quote: “I’m pro-life, I’m pro-life . . .  I don’t run from that.”

It was false. And now he’s running from that untruth.

Pitching himself to New Yorkers — “gearing up,” he says, to run in the Democratic primary for Hillary Clinton’s old seat — the former congressman writes today:

Ms Marsh:

Who knows, maybe New York will make Harold Ford, Jr. lean left. But that simply hasn’t been his record, regardless of his protestations in the New York Post, of all papers, today.

Recently, Mr. Ford said he’d “evolved” on gay marriage (“Today” show video), having voted against it in Tennessee, supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, he now supports civil unions and gay marriage.

Lopez is pro-life.   When Ford claimed to be pro-life,  Lopez did not believe  Ford.    On the other hand, Marsh is pro-choice.    The position that Ford now claims.   Marsh does not believe Ford.

It seems that Ford has taken so many politically expedient position that he lacks credibility.    Neither Lopez, nor Marsh know which Ford position to believe.  I can’t see how Harold going to any better with the New York State’s democrats that.

Meanwhile, enjoy the only NARAL video I am ever likely to post:

Aside: We put Mrs. Clinton’s picture on a milk cartoon.  I think Ford’s picture of container of popcorn would be apt.

Welcome, one and all to the most intense nightly read anywhere on the ‘sphere… The BitsBlog Nightly Ramble.

• THROWING MARTHA COAKLEY A LIFE PRESERVER: At the Washington Examiner, Byron York looks at reports from Massachusetts and says:
  

  Frantic over the possibility that a Democrat might lose the race to replace Sen. Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts, the Democratic National Committee has sent its top spinner, Hari Sevugan, to the aid of Democratic candidate Martha Coakley, who appears to be rapidly losing ground to Republican Scott Brown. But what can Sevugan do to shore up Coakley’s struggling campaign? Well, he spent his first day on the job trying to tie Brown to Sarah Palin.

  Yeah, like that’s a real injury. Sevugan’s comments reflect a misunderstanding of reality that is shocking in it’s depth.  The fact is, Palin and her people have far more in the way of support than the Democrats do… which is why his party is having such a problem big problem, even in the long-time Democrat stronghold of Massachusetts. Or, if you prefer Martha Coakley’s spelling, “Massachusettes”.
  I see from Jim Hoft, a bit of the debate that’s been making the news rounds. Even FNC didn’t catch this one.  Coakley claims, incredibly, that

  “I think we have done what we are going to be able to do in Afghanistan. I think that we should plan an exit strategy. Yes. I’m not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists. We supported that. I supported that. They’re gone. They’re not there anymore.”

  Jim has vid, of course. From here, looks like these comments have as much research and credibility to them as Sevugan’s letter writing does. That is… Zero.

• FANNIE AND FREDDIE GOVERNMENT INTENTIONAL FRAUD? Over at Pajamas Media, Tom Blumer says:
  “A new revelation makes their failures look more contrived than incompetent.” and goes on from there:

  If the previous statement seems extreme, consider this shocking revelation carried in the Wall Street Journal last week — a tidbit that also, strangely enough, has barely gotten any notice in the rest of the establishment media:

  New research by Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer for Fannie Mae and a housing expert, has found that from the time Fannie and Freddie began buying risky loans as early as 1993, they routinely misrepresented the mortgages they were acquiring, reporting them as prime when they had characteristics that made them clearly subprime or Alt-A.

  Before Pinto’s bombshell, we knew that Fan and Fred were used as instruments to “encourage” loans to undeserving borrowers. We knew that this “encouragement” was enforced through the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), a law originally passed in the 1970s that was “progressively” given threatening teeth in ensuing years.

  We have known for some time, as described in my September 2008 column, that Fan and Fred lowered the qualifying standards for conventional and subprime loans they would buy from participating lenders roughly as follows (quoting from that column):

  The credit score threshold for conventional mortgages, which had generally been 670 or more, dropped to about 630. In the real world, a score of 630 indicates that you’re having trouble with your debt load, paying your bills on time, or a little of both.

  More ominously, the credit score threshold for subprime mortgages, which had generally been 630 or more, fell to about 590. A score of 590 is the credit scoring equivalent of barely having a pulse.

  We know that in doing this, Fan and Fred, as well as those who underwrote or bought securities backed by these conventional and subprime mortgages, were taking a huge risk by hoping that borrowers with mediocre or poor credit histories would somehow keep up with their mortgage payments.

  As one of the commentariat there points out, this is the Cloward/Piven strategy writ large.  Consider this, from Wikipedia:

  Historian Robert E. Weir argues that the original goal of the strategy was to bring about a crisis in the welfare system that would require radical reforms.^[5] A major article in the New York Times in 1970 investigated the welfare system and discussed the impact of the Cloward-Piven strategy.^[6] Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus, was quoted in 1982 as saying that the strategy could be effective because “Great Society programs ‘had created a vast army of full-time liberal activists whose salaries are paid from the taxes of conservative working people.”.^[7] Robert Chandler claimed, “The socialist test case for using society’s poor and disadvantaged people as sacrificial “shock troops,” in accordance with the Cloward-Piven strategy, was demonstrated in 1975, when new prospective welfare recipients flooded New York City with payment demands, which may have contributed to the bankrupting of the state government.”^[8] Other observers credit the city’s bankruptcy to the mismanagement caused by politics, encouraging “frequently maturing short-term debt that left officials constantly scrambling to pay off loans”^[9]

  In the end, what Cloward/Piven does, and does well, is create a situation of state manufactured crisis, so that the state can come in and solve the problem that it originally created, without ever taking the blame for creating the problem.
  A prime example of that would be passenger railroad service in America.  Between the government and the unions, both controlled by the left, railroads were ultimately forced out of existence in terms of being business entity.  Along comes the government, creating such money sucking government operations as Amtrak and Conrail.
  Fannie and Freddie were created as an independent set of organizations, ostensibly to operate independently of the Federal government.  The radical left now has managed to arrange it so that they are no longer operating as such, but are now directly under the Federal government, supposedly in response to a crisis that was of the leftist-controlled government’s making.  As you do your research on that statement, cross reference the name Barney Frank. With due respect to Tom for the great work he’s done here, it’s not like this is new, gang. Here’s a reminder from last October:
  

  What amazes me is that the bastards that run the place, are still gonna end up making millions off it, off US… the taxpayer gets left holding the bag. And that disciple of Cloward/Piven, Slobhbering Barney, keeps getting re-elected, why, again?

• HAPPY BIRTHDAY wishes go out to John Hawkins of Right Wing News
• PERSONAL NOTE: I go back for my road test the morning of the 19th. I’lll hopefully have some good news for you that night.

The Snark of the Day, video:

Hat tip: Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit.

Now we know why Barack Obama relies on thie teleprmpter.

Sarah Palin has signed with Fox News, from  Jim Rutenberg, New York Times:

Former Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska has signed on as a contributor to the Fox News Channel.

Sarah Palin The network confirmed that Ms. Palin would appear on the network’s programming on a regular basis as part of a multiyear deal. Financial terms were not disclosed.

Sarah Palin

Hat tip and reax,  Ed Morrissey, Hot Air:

Sarah Palin’s supporters have reason to cheer, and perhaps lament, the media news leaked to the New York Times this morning.  The former governor and VP candidate will become a Fox News analyst, signing a multi-year deal for appearances as a political pundit.  That gives Palin an even larger stage, but might mean that she’s looking at a longer game plan than some may want

Teabagging.

Shall I conclude that Jed Lewison, Daily Kos, likes sucking scrotum sacs:

In light of the news that Sarah Palin will join intellectual luminaries such as Karl Rove, Dana Perino, and Mike Huckabee as a Fox News Network contributor, I just want to offer FNC head honcho Roger Ailes a heartfelt “thanks.”

We all know that Fox News is somewhere to the right of the teabagging hordes and even in non-political stories doesn’t have half the journalistic integrity of The Onion. Sure, Fox does its level-best to support the reactionary right, but as the hiring of Sarah Palin demonstrates, Fox is first and foremost a business, and this is a decision that Ailes hopes will make him a billion dollar earner

And is just throwing a hissy fit?   Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Welcome one and all to the most intense nightly read anywhere on the ‘sphere; The BitsBlog Nightly Ramble

• NOW WE”RE BACK TO GLOBAL COOLING: So says the Daily Mail. The amazing thing is the AGW crowd still hasn’t admitted they got it wrong and nobody’s called them out on it.
• CONGRESS’ WASTEFUL SPENDING IN COPENHAGEN: CBS News has made note of it finally.Given the whole thing is a farce anyway, as demonstrated by the first item today, may I suggest that the whole freakin’ thing is a waste?
• SARAH  A AT FOX? According to TV BY THE NUMBERS Sarah Palin will be working at Fox as a contributor.
• OIL NEAR $84/BBL: as of today
• 20 MOST ANNOYTING LIBERALS OF 2009Right Wing News has unleashed The 8th Annual “20 Most Annoying Liberals of 2009?.
  Just to give you a little taste, first off, here are the honorable mentions for the list:
  Joy Behar, Barbara Boxer, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Anderson Cooper, Chris Dodd, Maureen Dowd, Dick Durbin, Thomas Friedman, Glenn Greenwald, Maurice Hinchey, Arianna Huffington, Jesse Jackson, Hank Johnson, John Kerry, Ezra Klein, Paul Krugman, Pat Leahy, Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, Michael Moore, MoveOn, Lawrence O’Donnell, Markos Moulitas, Clarence Page, The New York Times, Ted Rall, Charlie Rangel, Rick Sanchez, Shep Smith, Pete Stark, John Stewart
  Also, here’s a sample entry for #4, Barney Frank.

  Barney Frank: He’s an utterly corrupt, nasty tempered, frighteningly incompetent, toweringly arrogant, prissy little b@stard whose only quasi-redeeming qualities are a gift for lying that would make a professional con man blush and a sort of ugly charm most associated with drunken frat boys picking on hapless underclassmen for the amusement of their friends. Naturally, given that he exemplifies all the worst qualities that people hate about Congress, Frank has been in office since 1980 and will probably remain there until he’s a doddering old codger whose aides have to wave the vultures away to keep him from being mistakenly carried off. Thanks a lot, Massachusetts! First Ted Kennedy, now this creep.
  Defining Quote: On what planet do you spend most of your time? Ma’am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it. —Barney Frank, to one of his constituents at a Town Hall meeting

• DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE: Apparently the Democrats know they’re in trouble with Harry Reid.  They’ve begun circling the wagons.
• DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE II: Ben Smith says they’re calling in the big guns to try and save Kennedy’s Senate Seat.Ya see despite the crowing from The Globe about a 15 point lead, their candidate is losing. Michelle suggests Andy Stern will Tunnel out of the MTA somewhere shortly to bolster that effort.
• A SEX ROBOT? Ok, I guess. Is it just me or is there something terminally geeky about that?
• HITLER IN CONTEXT? One can only wonder what the marvelously addled brain of a Oliver Stone would consider to be the proper context to view Hitler in. On the other hand, he also suggests that he could empathize with Stalin.  How many drugs must one take to arrive at the very special place that Oliver Stone is in today?  For that matter, do I really wanna know the answer that question?

Patterico points out that this most recent incident of what Democrats would unquestionably call racist comments if they were uttered by a Republican, isn’t Dingy Harry’s only offense:

Amidst the brouhaha over Harry Reid’s comments, some people are defending Reid by saying that he told the truth, however . . . awkwardly. See, for example, Robert Stacy McCain, who declares: “Harry Reid is no more a racist than I am.” (Did Reid hit McCain’s tip jar?) And indeed, I fully support the principle that people need to be able to tell the truth, even if doing so might be perceived as politically incorrect.

But I’m not sure why Harry Reid, of all people, should benefit from that principle.  He sure as hell hasn’t given others the benefit of the doubt when it comes to racial matters.

When Bill Bennett made an arguably true but racially controversial statement, Reid rushed to call Bennett a racist:

Washington, DC — The following is a statement by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid on William Bennett’s recent comments:

Yesterday, on his radio call-in show, former Reagan Secretary of Education, William Bennett made the following comment, “… you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.”

“I am appalled by Mr. Bennett’s remarks and call on him to issue an immediate apology not only to African Americans but to the nation. At a time when so many Americans are struggling to recover from two devastating Hurricanes, now is the time to help one another, not feed the fires of racism. America can do better. The Republican Party has recently taken great pains to reach out to the African American community, and I hope that they will be swift in condemning Mr. Bennett’s comments as nothing short of callous and ignorant. They are reminiscent of a time our nation is still struggling to overcome.

Again, I call on him to issue an immediate apology to the nation for his insensitive remarks.”

One could attempt to defend Bennett on the same grounds that Stacy McCain uses to defend Reid: that Bennett was simply telling the truth, albeit in an “insensitive” way that was certain to inflame the crowd that makes a living profiting off racial grievances.

But Sen. Reid really didn’t care whether Bennett was telling the truth, did he? Sen. Reid saw an opportunity to make some political hay, and he took it.

Well, no Duh. And again, I point with more than a little annoyance, at the Trent Lott story I spoke to David about in comments over the weekend. And look, both Jim and Stacy are correct in this; I see no conflict here. Stacy is correct; Reid is no racist by any reasonable definition. But Jim is also correct, however, in that neither were Lott and Bennett. Most times when racism gets charged anymore particularly by Democrats, it’s an utterly bogus charge on it’s face. But we have elevated race to the holiest of leftist dogma, to the point where any mention of it silences any debate on any given issue. The fact is when Democrats pull out the race card, it’s to bludgeon a political opponent with… to use as one would use any other weapon…. against an enemy. I dare suggest this stuff isn’t going to make any sense at all to anyone unless and until we come to grips with that fact.