When Political Correctness Distorts the Story (Update X4: lots of interesting updates, just scroll down)

So by now you probably know about Meg Whitman having an illegal alien as a maid.  Mind you, no one has credibly proven that she knew she was an illegal alien.  And in fact if you listen to the maid’s story, instead of her lawyer, Gloria Allred the complete fame whore, you realize that she is only saying that when Whitman was told she was illegal, she first sought legal advice seeking to find a way to make her into a legal resident.  And when that failed, she then fired her.  So Whitman was as compassionate as she could be, and then when it was clear she couldn’t legally employ her by any means, she fired her.

But I want to point out to you this hilarious blog entry from the LA times: “Union ad to highlight Whitman’s undocumented former employee.”  Of course we all know that the left has taken to calling an illegal immigrant as an “undocumented immigrant” because it sounds better.  Only there is a problem.  As Whitman has shown, her maid was very well documented.  She had a social security card, and a driver’s license.  The problem was these documents were fraudulent.

So by using the euphemism “undocumented” they are implying that Whitman hired her without proof that she was here legally and eligible to work.  That is simply not true.  I am sure this implication is an oversight, but it shows you just what happens when you start using bullshit euphemisms, instead of just telling it like it is.  She is an illegal immigrant.  You might not like the laws that declare her to be one, but she broke the law by coming and working here.  And it is actually dishonest to call her anything else.

As Michelle Malkin has pointed out, these supposedly undocumented immigrants actually very often have tons of documents, only fraudulent.

And to get to the merits of the discussion, why exactly would anyone believe either this woman or Gloria Allred?

The Devil and Daniel Webster*

Imao once said that Alan Grayson (D-unce) “really is what would happen if you grabbed a random internet troll and made him a Congressman.”  And my gosh he has been living up to this.  His latest ad was so dishonest that he was challenged on MSNBC for making it.  Yes, MSNBC.  No, that is not a typo.  And it feels as weird to write it as I am sure you think it is to read it.  Hot Air has the video and links to why Grayson is being a lying shit.

The short version is this.  Once his opponent, Daniel Webster, said in a prayer meeting that the married men in attendance should pick out verses from the bible to contemplate.  He said “Don’t pick the ones that say, ‘She should submit to me.’”

Grayson then took that clip and cut out the part that says “Don’t pick the ones that say” and left in “She should submit to me.”  And based on that, called this man “Taliban Dan.”  Why do I suspect that Kos is coaching him?

I appreciate the media calling him out on this, but I will add that the correct thing to say is that Grayson is lying.  He is stating that the man said X, when in fact he said “not X.”  This would almost certainly be considered defamation in a court of law.

Of course this follows another ad that basically picked on the man for having a disability.  As Factcheck reports, Grayson had a previous ad claiming Webster was a draft dodger, and had the narrator claim that Webster didn’t love America like he did.  Gee, I thought Democrats didn’t like it when you questioned their patriotism?

Palate Cleanser

A very special engagement has been announced.  Check out their names.

Okay, I am calling bullshit on that one.  I do not believe that is their real names.  But hey kids, you made me laugh.

Yep, it Was a Circus; and Yep it Distracted from the Real Story

So Stephen Colbert testified, not as Colbert the regular guy who has a few thoughts on illegal immigrant workers and just wants to share them but as “Stephen Colbert” who is so buried in parody it’s sometimes hard to figure out where the joke ends and the man begins.  And it was as bad as I suspected it would be.

Going by the Daily Caller’s rush transcript “highlights” we get this string of thoughts:

America’s farms are presently far too dependent on immigrant labor to pick our fruits and vegetables. Now the obvious answer is for all of us to stop eating fruits and vegetables....

Unfortunately, my gastroenterologist Dr. Ikener has informed me in no uncertain terms that there are [consequences]....

As evidence, I would like to insert a video of my colonoscopy into the congressional record.

Now I admit that last line is kind of funny.  But its wildly inappropriate.

Stephen Colbert should have had enough class and respect for the institution of Congress to drop his act and speak in serious tones.  I am not saying there is no room for joking, but this display was just disrespectful.  But then the committee disrespected itself first by calling him.

And of course all of this distracted us from the real story, which was the testimony about the Black Panther voting rights case.  I already linked to the apparent prepared remarks.  You will see an Ike Brown case being mentioned, here is a link to that.  Having read it, my big takeaway, besides the direct contradiction of prior testimony, is that this problem of the voting rights act being enforced in a racially discriminatory fashion predates the obama administration and often the career officials are as much a part of the problem as political appointees.  I joked the other day that “the Democrats do not judge whether you are a racist by the content of your character, but by the color of your skin.”  The Civil Rights Division judges whether racial discrimination has occurred by a similar standard.  The ideas that any of our laws should be enforced according to race is an anathema.

The irony is that by doing so, they threaten the very law they wish to enforce.  If it is found that the Voting Rights Act has the effect of violating the 15th Amendment, then that presents a very real danger that the law will be actually struck down.  So if only out of self-interest, organizations like the NAACP should insist on colorblind enforcement of that law.

Scattered News Around the Web

So today was the big day for Stephen Colbert to testify today on Capital Hill on immigration, in character.  Personally I find Colbert only bearable in small doses, but whatever I think of his routine, appearing as a fictional character is, well, idiotic.

So he shows up and a Democrat tried and failed to be the voice of reason:

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, tried to pull the plug on the Colbert's testimony in an effort "to get to the bottom" of the issue. 

"I would like to recommend that now we got all this attention that you excuse yourself and you let us get on with the three witnesses and all the other members there," he said. "I'm asking you to leave the committee room completely, and submit your statement."

Well, good for Mr. Conyers, but ultimately he didn’t prevail and presumably this circus is going forward, right now.

Meanwhile, pajamas media presents the testimony of Christopher Coates on the black panther case.  I suspect the correct characterization is that these are just the prepared remarks and the full testimony will come out later.  Whatever you call it, you can read it here.

Meanwhile some Muslims have come out in support of Molly Norris.  Good for them.

And Atlas Shrugs has a pretty horrifying account of female peace activists going to “Palestine” only to be raped and forced into marriage against their will, and the liberal activists who cover it up.  If the liberals don’t watch out, republicans are going to become the flag bearers of the real feminist movement.

More From the Party of Racial Enlightenment

Hat tip to The Campaign Spot (remember when it was called The Kerry Spot?  Those were the days) there is apparently a close race in California between Loretta Sanchez and Van Tran, a Vietnamese American.  Sanchez is the Democrat, and Tran is the Republican.  So Sanchez goes on Spanish TV and thinking that only the left would be watching or translating, and says, “the Vietnamese and the Republicans are--with an intensity... (emphasis hers)--trying to take away this seat[.]”

I guess when she loses the election she will be going, “He tuk mah jarb!”  (Riffing off of South Park's intonation of "They took our jobs!")

So I am sure all those people who claimed that the Tea Party needs to purge itself of every single racist will then shun this woman and run her out of the Democratic party, right?  Right?

Yeah, I don’t think so, either.  The same party that didn’t blink when we learned that Sotomayor believed that a wise latina was better than a wise white dude is not going to care.  Remember, the Democrats do not judge whether you are a racist by the content of your character, but by the color of your skin.

Well, Now This Sounds Like an Awesome Movie

Remember the Wachowski Brothers?  They made the movie The Matrix and we thought they were going to be genius of cinema for the next 30 years.  And then around the release of Speed Racer, we realized that something went horribly wrong.

And now they plan to give us a movie about a forbidden gay affair.  And wow, doesn’t this sound like quality?  (yes, spoilers are coming.  Oh well.):

[P]art of the film takes place in the future all right — nearly a hundred from now. But its main story is told in Cloverfield-esque flashbacks by digital archeologists sorting through “found footage” from CNN and chips from old digital cameras from the U.S. occupation of Iraq. The heroes are indeed a gay American soldier named (with little irony) "Butch" and an Iraqi soldier turned militant. Butch is endearing, young, and a ravishingly handsome Marine. Our spies tell us that he "just wants to fuck and kill everything" in Iraq — until, that is, he falls in love with the Iraqi.

The two meet while Butch is on a combat patrol in Iraq during the second Gulf War, and soon enough, the two are engaged in graphically described sex (actual line from the script: "They rut like animals behind this fence") albeit while disguised in burqas. The two soldiers’ relationship blossoms, and Butch begins to get to know his lover's family. But after he inadvertently draws attention to their ancestral home, disaster strikes. This tragedy radicalizes the pair and they become convinced that the only way to rid the world of evil is to kill the architect of the invasion, the then-president of the United States, George W. Bush. And so, during one of the president’s secret sorties to Iraq, they attempt to assassinate him.

Wow, that sounds so aweful it might actually be entertaining in a Mystery Science Theater 3000 sort of way.  And I find the message to be a bit confused.  So a gay soldier decides to start having sex with the enemy and that affair leads him to want to kill the President.  Okay.  So is that pro- or anti- gays-in-the-military?

I am being facetious of course.  We know it is pro-gays-in-the-military but what a strange way to advance their cause.  And its good to know that wet dreams about assassinating Bush never go out of style, even if Bush is no longer the president.

Also the cognitive dissonance on display couldn’t be greater.  So the American and the terrorist believe that they should help...  the terrorists.

You know, because the terrorists are so tolerant of homosexuality.  *rolls eyes*

Fuller Context of the “Absorb” Comment

Yesterday I vented about the quote, yes wondering about the context but still being baffled that the president didn’t seem to understand that the terrorists wanted to do worse than just 9-11 to us.

With the context supplied, I have to eat a little crow and say that my understanding was incorrect.  Mind you, the president frankly stated it badly, but in context he absolutely acknowledges that yes, we have to worry about nuclear terrorism and the like.  And on this point I am very glad I can say I was wrong.  My feeling is more relief than anything.  Via the plumb line, here is more of the missing context, starting right in the middle of a quoted statement from the President:

"I said very early on, as a Senator and continue to believe, as a presidential candidate and now as president, that we can absorb a terrorist attack. We will do everything we can to prevent it. but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever, that ever took place on our soil, we absorbed it, and we are stronger. This is a strong, powerful country that we live in, and our people are incredibly resilient."

Then he addressed his big concern. "A potential game changer would be a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists, blowing up a major American city. Or a weapon of mass destruction in a major American city. and so when I go down on the list of things I have to worry about all the time, that is at the top, because that's one area where you can't afford any mistakes. And so right away, coming in, we said, how are we going to start ramping up and putting that at the center of a lot of our national security discussion? Making sure that that occurrence, even if remote, never happens."

(emphasis removed).

I think it is accurate to say the statement is incomplete because there is no mention of retaliation, but I won’t fault Obama for that.  Call it more like constructive criticism.  He is talking about it in the abstract and it can be hard to remember every piece of the puzzle.  Indeed the honest threat of retaliation is arguably part of “preventing” it.

A more substantive criticism is that he seems to think this is an “either or” kind of thing, like our intelligence and national security apparatus can’t walk and chew gum, stopping both non-WMD and WMD-based-terrorism.  Indeed, I would suspect it would be hard to segregate that kind of thing.  If you hear the terrorists chattering about an “operation” in America, how are you going to know if they plan to set off a nuke or a regular truck bomb?  It seems that if you want to prevent the WMD-based terror, you can’t discriminate based on whether you think it is WMD related or not.

Oh, and if you are going to try to do that, then you really shouldn’t tell Bob Woodward.  Then the terrorists will know that the best way to reduce the heat is to make us think its not a WMD threat.

And finally a number of people have said the whole thing seemed very cold about the prospect of another 9-11.  But sometimes you have to talk coldly about it.  On the other hand, I have no doubt that if any of the debates in 2008 he has said anything like that, he would not be president today.

And besides, guys, you are figuring out that our president is non-emotive now?

Anyway, as for my commentary yesterday, I happily take it back.  Really, seriously it is a major fucking relief to say he is not that clueless on national security.

Obama’s September 10th Mentality on Display (updated)

From Bob Woodward’s new book on the subject, we have the President saying this:

"We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger."

Now an appropriate sense of caution should be applied here.  Maybe there is some missing context but...  seriously, what the fuck?

Mr. President, are you under the impression that 9-11 is as bad as it possibly could get?  I mean 9-11 itself wasn’t as bad as it could have been.  If flight 93 hadn’t crashed in Pennsylvania, if the Pentagon was hit in a different place, it could have been much worse.

And then what if our enemies get weapons of mass destruction.  What if Iran gets a nuke and gives it to their friends in Hamas to attack the U.S.?  What if it goes off in downtown D.C.?

If this quote is accurate and not out of context, I can only conclude that you, Mr. President, have no fucking idea what we are faced with.  I said a long time ago, that September 11 might prove a blessing in disguise.  Because as awful as it is, it could have been much, much worse.  But now we are awakened to the danger, I said, we can prevent what might have instead been a biochemical or nuclear slaughter that would have made 9-11 look like nothing.

But I might have been wrong.  It seems that we have a president who didn’t learn that lesson.

Imagine if Washington D.C. suddenly disappeared.  Our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, all gone.  Our military command decapitated.  I know some might genuinely wonder if on balance that would be a bad thing, but it would be.  As badly as things are run now, having nothing, suddenly, would be worse.  I believe that this country could recover, but I would never be so flippant about that nightmare scenario.

Seriously, what the fuck, Mr. President?  What...  the…  fuck?!

Update: Via Patterico, we get this explanation, anonymously, from “an administration official familiar with the interview.”  This official is characterized as saying (this is not even quoting the actual official):

Objectively, the president said, you would want to be able to stop every attack, but a president has to prioritize. So what does the president put at the top of the danger list? A nuclear weapon or a weapon of mass destruction. Why? Because—and here's where the quote in question comes in—as bad as 9/11 was, the United States was not crippled. A nuclear attack or weapon of mass destruction, however, would be a "game changer," to use a popular cliché.

Well that does in a sense address my concern.  The problem is it doesn’t fit the president’s words very well.  I mean the president said we can absorb a terrorist attack.  That doesn’t, in ordinary parlance, exclude the use of nuclear weapons.

And it is fair to say I hold the president to a higher standard.  He is a lawyer.  He knows, or should know, how to be precise.  So I am more likely to take him as meaning what he said.  Still let me put myself into the category of waiting for context.  I believe at this point Woodward has a journalistic duty to provide enough context to explain the president’s remarks and either refute of verify the implication I drew from it—that the President didn’t know just how bad it could get.

Liberal Fascism at Joe My God

Okay so the other day there was a cloture vote on a bill that would end don’t ask, don’t tell.  At a blog called Joe My God, a blog which appears to be pro-gay-rights, a commenteridentifying himself as “Jimmy” writes simply: “All Faggots must die.”

Sorry for the ugly language, but I don't think I should sugarcoat it.

That comment is ugly, of course, and was correctly put down by everyone.  But I mean, that is all he wrote and then apparently disappeared.  So first, am I the only one to smell a Moby?*

But Joe manages to out-douche the guy, which when you think about it is quite an achievement.  He was so incensed he decided he need to track down who this commenter was.  How dare you say something ugly on my blog!  Now I will investigate you!

That is right, he put up the commenter’s IP address in an effort to discover who the real culprit is.  Now as a computer geek, let’s just say I am a pretty good lawyer.  So I can’t really check their work, but they said it definitely came from the building at 3625 Cumberland Boulevard, in Altanta, Georgia.  And OMG, that is where Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss’s office is!  So now Joe My God and the Atlanta Constitution are trying to find out if someone on his staff wrote it.

Bear in mind, there is no good reason to think that anyone in the office did.  I mean if you run a reverse address lookup on the building, you find there are over 100 matches in the White pages.  There are probably hundreds of people who work there, including a Democratic Senator.  Indeed, if you knew enough to know how the IP would work, if you were a liberal in the same building you might think that posting a comment like that would be a great way to discredit Chambliss.  In short, again, I smell Moby.

But in the end over what?  A comment on a blog.  Oh, you said something we don’t like on a blog.  So let’s track you down and make sure your life is ruined!

On his blog, Joe doesn’t give his last name as far as I can tell.  But I am guessing it is McCarthy.

-------------

* If you don’t know, a Moby is a person who pretends to be a conservative and then says something so outrageous that it discredits other conservatives.  It is named after the performer Moby, because he suggested doing that sort of thing.  I suspect if a person does the same thing to liberals, the term would also apply.

And don’t be embarrassed not to know that.  I didn’t until pretty recently.

Holy Crap! Shapeshifters!

As usual the majority of this cracked list of animals imitating other things is wild and cool, but the real mind blower is the octopus, that changes from shape to shape.

Yes, that is right, shapeshifters are real and among us.

Remember Folks We Must Not Ever Let the Poor or Middle Class Get Vouchers and Allow Them to Escape our Fine Pubic Education System

A real billboard in South Bend, Indiana:

If you are not seeing the problem, look close at the word “Pubic.”

Jammie Wearing Fool has related video.  Amazing.

And by the way, I am wondering if this is really a typo...

Facepalm Time

You know, I was the first person I know of, way back in February, who pointed out that if Judge Walker of the Proposition 8 trial was gay, this would be a problem.  And Patterico did, too.  And we thought we raised it in a serious, respectful fashion.  So when I went to Law.com in my daily reads and saw an article mentioning that a party seeking to fi    le an amicus had raised the issue, I was like “finally!”

Then I read the thing.  Go ahead read it for yourself.  We’ll let Jesus express my feelings as you do.

Wow, that is literally so bad that it actually hurts the cause.  It distracts from the serious issue.  I said way back in February that I was tempted to file a complaint on my own.  Consider that a looming possibility.

Another Liberal who Calls Tea Partiers Racist, Proves to be a Racist

Of course this time we are talking about Bill Maher.  Yeah, color me shocked that this professional asshole is a racist.  I mean I admit sometimes he is a funny asshole, but still an asshole.

First mediaite gives us this charming commentary:

But the biggest fireworks came when Maher was asked if there are racist overtones to Obama hate. His answer (“Yes, Larry, it’s extremely racist”) should surprise no one, and his follow-up zing was classic Maher:

“It’s funny, ’cause the teabaggers – the one thing they hate: when you call them racist. The other thing they hate is black people.

And actually they hate massive debt and democratic totalitarianism.  But you wouldn’t understand that.  So, let me explain it in terms you can understand, Bill.  If Obamacare is upheld then the government would have every right to ban the orgies you allegedly* have at the playboy mansion on a regular basis because it would drive up health care costs for the rest of us when you and the playmates catch the clap.

Patterico is Moving

Not sure what the final address will be (I think it might be the same), but obviously the site won’t work right until he is on his new servers.  But of course Murphy’s Law says that this is exactly when a story will break that Patterico will feel the need to comment on and then won’t be able to.  And I was wondering, what would count as a perfect Patterico story?

Well, how is this for a headline?  “L.A. Times suppresses story about Roman Polanskiy raping Christine O’Donnell when she was a teenager!”

Anyway, for once, I will open up comments and if my stalker shows up, I will just boot him.  Have at it.  Come up with your own creative Patterico “perfect storm” headline.

Quote of the Day

I think James Taranto has just the right response to the breathless concern that Christine O’Donnell once spoke out against masturbation:

Don Surber ... notes that O'Donnell's victory has driven the left to "lunacy." New York magazine complains that she's "not a big fan of evolution." TalkingPointsMemo.com accuses her of being "anti-masturbation." Seriously, anti-masturbation! These liberals really have a government program for everything. There's nothing they think Americans can do for themselves.

Hey, look I very profoundly disagree with her level of extreme chastity.  And I doubt she can actually be that chaste.  But, really, what does this have to do with being a Senator?

At Least He Didn’t Call him his “Bitch”

So Harry Reid decides to tell the world how much he likes Chris Coons, the Democratic nominee for Senate in Delaware.  I guess the theory is that O’Donnell is such a bad candidate, he can afford to say really stupid crap.  You know, like calling him his “pet.”

I’m going to be very honest with you — Chris Coons, everybody knows him in the Democratic caucus. He’s my pet. He’s my favorite candidate[.]

Yike.

Scattered Idiocy Related to the GZM

So it turns out that one of the guys who has been preaching at the GZM and is a close associate of the Imam is a Truther.  You know, a while back someone said that America was becoming the Jews of the world.  And wouldn’t that be a prime example.  The anti-semites are always saying 1) the holocaust didn’t happen, and 2) the Jews deserved it.  Well, Faiz Khan says 9-11 was an inside job, and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf says we were an accomplice to it.

Meanwhile Michael Moore just loves this.  He wants the GZM actually where the towers stood.  Yeah, that is too be expected.  But then he adds this lovely coda: "There is a McDonald's two blocks from Ground Zero. Trust me, McDonald's has killed far more people than the terrorists.”  Yeah, the fat ass is telling us that.

And isn’t that just typical?  He blames America for everything bad that happens to it, but when he goes to figure out why he is a massive fat ass that is likely to die of a heart attack, he figures someone else to blame.  He pretends to be self-critical when he attacks this country, but in truth he is flogging something he doesn’t identify with.  Because in the end this fat ass cannot take responsibility even for the fatty food he shoves down his fat throat.

Mind you, I am not a slender man myself.  I could get in better shape and for reasons I would rather not share, I will probably be forced to very soon.  But I don’t blame anyone else for it.  I know that when it comes to blame I just need to look no further than the mirror.

(P.S.: No I am not linking to the fat ass’s site.)

Sebelius Turns on the Chilling Effect

Today my advice to any person in the health care industry is something I never thought I would say in a free republic.  If you value your business, you might consider shutting up.  As you know, I am corporate counsel for a health care company.  People who understand the business know that this is going to be a disaster—doubly so if the mandate is struck down, but not the rest of the law.

But Sebelius recently put out a warning:

It has come to my attention that several health insurer carriers are sending letters to their enrollees falsely blaming premium increases for 2011 on the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act.  I urge you to inform your members that there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases.

And by zero tolerance, the WSJ explains, she means that she will lock you out of the insurance exchanges when they become the only monopoly in charge.

Oh, but don’t worry, the liberals will tell you, she will only apply that to people who are engaged in misinformation and unjustified rate increases.  But in First Amendment law, we have what is called the Chilling Effect.  It is the idea that those who speak do not want to fear even getting close to the line between permissible and impermissible expression.  It is the idea that some will be silent not because they wish to engage in unprotected speech, but because they are afraid their protected speech will be mistaken for the unprotected kind.  How far would you go, if you are afraid of losing your business?

Anyway, Ms. Sebelius, I will point out that before you can jackboot any insurance company out of business that if your monstrosity of a law survives judicial review (highly unlikely), you will discover that the courts will not let you do that sort of thing without due process of law.

But there is no better illustration of the principle, after Citizen’s United, that corporate speech must be protected speech, too.  We must stop treating it as second class.

There is no better argument before the Supreme Court that this monstrosity must be struck down.

And there is no better illustration of the observation of Gerald Ford: “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”

Of Rabbis and Gay Soldiers...

I touched on this in my last post discussing the opinion striking down Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT), but one case that is particularly on point is Goldman v. Weinberger.  In that case, Goldman, an orthodox Rabbi ran afoul of regulations that would prohibit him from wearing a yarmulke.  As you may know, many Jews consider it a command from God to always keep one on, and so he was literally being asked to choose between obeying God or Uncle Sam.  We should be loathe as a society to force that kind of choice on anyone, as a matter of policy rather than law.  He sued to prevent enforcement of those regulations and took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, where he lost.

I have already highlighted Stevens’ extremely deferential approach, but many on the left are claiming that in fact the judge was deferential in the DADT case as well.  Now there is no doubt she said she was, but that assertion does not withstand scrutiny.  It was lip service.  How do I know this?  Because all of the arguments she arrayed against DADT applied equally to the rule in Goldman.  Now you can read through it all and hear in excruciating detail how awful she thinks this is as a matter of police, but fortunately starting on page 74 she summarizes her points.  So let’s look at each and see how well they apply to Rabbi Goldman’s plight all those years ago.  She states that the Petitioners (the Log Cabin Republicans et. al.) have shown the following bulleted points to be true:

• by impeding the efforts to recruit and retain an all-volunteer military force, the Act contributes to critical troop shortages and thus harms rather than furthers the Government's interest in military readiness;

 Which applies applies to both orthodox jews and gay soldiers.  Check.

“Permission to Speak Freely” or “Full Metal Idiocy on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

So yesterday a Federal Judge, Virginia Phillips, struck down the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) statute for military service.  Do I have to tell you this was in California?  Yeah it’s the fucking Ninth Circuit, again.  The decision is so awful it is frankly hard to know where to begin.  But let’s start with the political issue, first.  This decision can and should be laid right at the feet of Barrack Obama if this passage in the opinion is correct: “Finally, it again must be noted that Defendants called no witnesses, put on no affirmative case, and only entered into evidence the legislative history of the Act.”

You get that?  What it implies is that the Obama administration’s lawyers took a dive.  Now I am a little cautious about believing the judge on this point, after the shenanigans Judge Walker pulled in the Proposition 8 case.  I am once bitten, twice shy, now.  But if the judge is telling the truth, once again we are seeing government officials who are charged with a duty to defend the constitutionality of any law, even laws they disagree with, making only a cursory effort to comply with that duty.

Indeed, it quotes statements of opinion by the President and Admiral Mike Mullen and treats it like an “admission” of the defendants, which strikes me as dubious.

But let’s get to the meat of the issue.

Big Update to the Koran Burning Story

Okay now this is getting murky and maybe confused.  Apparently the Paster Jones is saying that he spoke with one of the Imams connected to the Ground Zero Mosque projected and they struck a deal that he wouldn’t burn the Korans if they moved the Mosque.  But the Imam wasn’t our good friend Feisel, so...  its really unclear whether they will honor that deal.  And if they don’t, then is the flambé on?

All this, by the way, goes straight into the column of this Pastor maybe being a sly genius.  Indeed, he might even be sowing dissention in the ranks of the people behind the Ground Zero Mosque.

Anyway, the blow-by-blow is covered, in detail, at Hot Air.  I feel like I am watching ping pong.

Obama and Imam Feisal Prove to be Hypocrites (sort of) on Burning the Koran (update: the burning has been called off))

Big Update:  Cnn’s breaking news email reveals that the pastor has called off the burning.  Now when are they going to call off the Ground Zero Mosque? 

Now first, I am very heavily medicated, on benedryl dealing with hives caused by pain medication I needed after having my appendix removed.  You are very likely to see more grammatical mistakes than usual.  For that I apologize.  But despite all of that I believe my thinking is clear, at least on this subject..

Anyway, I am beginning to think that this Koran burning Reverend is some kind of genius, in terms of political theater as performance art.  Or he is just an idiot and just blundered into it.  Its really hard to decide, but whether intentionally or not, he made both the President and the founding Imam of the Ground Zero Mosque (GZM) look like complete hypocrites.  Which if intentional, was nicely done.

First up, let’s remember what the President said on the GZM.  First he stood up for it, saying this:

President Hendrix

Via Patterico we see the President is complaining that his critics “talk about me like a dog.”  Which is a strange turn of phrase for the constitutional-professor-in-chief if only because it is shitty grammar.  I mean I am not a stickler for these things, but well, he seems to be if memory serves.  But if you have not learned yet, I am a wealth of useless information and a master of trivia.  So I immediately recognized the line from the Jimmi Hendrix classic Stone Free.  Sing along kiddies.  I would suggest playing along, but its my understanding that Hendrix was so good with that guitar about half of you will get carpal tunnel if you try.  But let’s sing together:

everyday in the week I'm in a different city

if i stay too long people try to pull me down

they talk about me like a dog

talkin' about the clothes i wear

but they don't realize they're the ones who's square

hey!

and that's why

you can't hold me down

i don't want to be down i gotta move

hey

stone free do what i please

stone free to ride the breeze

stone free i can't stay

i got to got to got to get away

So our president is stone free, that is all.  And you don’t realize you’re the one who’s square.

No word on whether he has purple haze running through his brain.  But it would explain a lot.  As Dylan said, “everybody’s gotta get stoned.”  (yeah I know he didn’t mean it THAT way, except maybe as a double entendre of the non-dirty variety).

“Appendibloging,” or: “Why I was Gone”

Okay so suddenly Tuesday I disappeared from the web completely.  And my concerned reader (notice the self-deprecating use of the singular) might wonder what happened.

Well, last Tuesday my appendix went defcon 2 and they removed it.  I believe it was intact.  I don’t want to downplay it too much, but I mean they are taken out of the time.  It’s as routine as surgery to remove an organ can be.  Since then I have been in “rotating hell” with severe abdominal pain every time I use my stomach muscles.  It hurt when I stood, I hurts when I sat, it hurt to laugh.  Yeah, I couldn’t even enjoy a good comedy, because my stomach muscles were wounded by the whole thing.  When I could finally laugh it felt so good.  Thank you “The Soup.”

And fuck, when I coughed, I felt like someone stabbed me in the stomach.  Oh, and the first medicine, um, well, constipation is a side effect.  Try dealing with that with weakened abdomen muscles.  When things finally, well, passed, I was like a little kid, calling my wife, “I made something.”  “You pooped!  I’m so proud of you!”  Mind you she is a CNA so this kind of thing doesn’t gross her out.  Between that background and the “food with faces” culture she has, let’s be honest: I am the squeamish one.  So I had enough of that by Friday and switched to Codine.  Which, it turns out, I am allergic to.  So now I have hives all over and on drugs to counteract that, and drugs to counteract the side effects of those drugs.  Yike.  My joke is if I start seeing locusts, I am going to run the fuck out of here, because officially I would have Job-like bad luck.  Actually I have had that for a while, although on the good luck side, I have a wonderful wife to help me through all this shit and recognize when I actually need to go to the doctor.

Oh, and don’t even get me started with my HMO.  For work reasons I won’t even name who they are, but every time I deal with them, they are complete idiots.  Tonight, a Pharmacist told me wrongly that ibuprofen was contraindicated for the steroid I was using for the hives (and to make me a stud, you know?).  He specifically said I should wait until the steroid was done before taking it again. Which was wrong.  And then when I raised high holy hell, because if true that would mean my doctor left me unable to take any pain medication that is likely to help, he tries to sell a story that he only meant that he thought maybe I should have something stronger.  That’s the giveaway that his answer was bullshit.  Then he claims also he was concerned the two would make me sick to my stomach.  Which you know, typically medicines don’t have that problem with me, including ibuprofen, and if he asked me I would have told him.

And that was only the latest fuck up with that HMO.  Before then I had a month long cough.  And talking to a advice nurse, as they call them, she says, gee, this is worrysome, you should go see a specialist.  Well, great, I said, so let’s set up an appointment.  When is the soonest available?

A month.

Yeah, no shit, a month.  They are concerned, but not so concerned that they will actually take a look at me in a reasonable time..  I mean at that point I was scared it was cancer or some shit (it wasn’t, but I didn’t know).  And they wanted me to wait a month.

And they alleged that I could go outside of the HMO to anyone who accepts their cards.  Except that they were such dicks about payment outside of their providers, non one accepted their cards.  So there were people who could see me the next week, but I would have to pay the several thousand dollars out of pocket.

Now you might rationally wonder, why the fuck are you telling us all this, especially since you are not giving us the highly useful information as to their actual name?  Well, the reason why is this.  Apparently the health care bill they passed, was significantly inspired by how “well” this company did the job.  No shit.  But remember, if you oppose this boondoggle, you are a racist.  Even if you are black, you know.  And probably homophobic, too.

Anyway, while you will get a nice light piece shortly, blogging will still be light.  I use mainly a laptop computer, and bluntly it hurts to pick the damn thing up and put it on top of my lap.  But the pain had been diminished enough that I felt I could jot these things down real fast.

And if you ever feel severe abdominal pain, I happily endorse web md as a source of information.  I had though I just ate something retched last Tuesday at 4 am when I woke up in pain.  I thought it was something my body was struggling to eject, and after throwing up like 4 times, and maybe some going out the other end, I would be fine.  Web MD didn’t tell me specifically it was appendicitis, but it told me enough to get me to realize I needed to go to the doctor and who knows?  But for all that, I might not be here.  Which might have really pleased the entire nation of Pakistan, heh.