Why I’d like to find a liberal Instapundit

Instapundit links to Byron York at The Washington Examiner, who gave an overview of who is, and who isn’t, covering the Nasa’s Main Goal is to reach out the Muslims story. 

As I’ve noted before, I don’t trust any one news source for my news, and I try to hit a lot of sources.  But it’s not like I don’t have other responsibilities.   I can catch what Fox and CNN are saying while I’m doing other things around the house (MSNBC has flat out given up in these parts), and check their sites at work, and I love to hit Instapundit and Althouse on my down times, as well as a number of other news and blog sites periodically.  But I always worry that maybe I could be missing some liberal positive story that some bunch of liberal blogs I’ve never gotten to are pointing to as “ignored by Fox.”  Now, granted, I’ve never know that to happen (I’ve never really seen a story that I thought was important that Fox didn’t cover), but I meet a lot of ignorant, uninformed people who aren’t picking up stories like this one, and I don’t want to risk becoming anything like them.  But I can’t handle the big liberal blogs on a regular basis- too negative and nasty.  Give me someone more moderate, like Glen Reynolds, but with a liberal state of mind and huge aggregation, and I’d be really happy.

What’s the liberal spin on the New Black Panthers Voter Intimidation Case?

I”ve been trying to figure that out most of the day, since I noted that former Dept. of Justice employee J. Christian Adams would be testifying before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights today.  That is, I noted it on Fox News’ website.  I regularly check CNN, then Fox (hate their site, plus I want to get as much as I can), during the workday.  CNN had no mention of the case, and a check in their archives indicated that it had not been mentioned at all this year. 

Is what Adams had to say important?  What do you think? 

J. Christian Adams, testifying Tuesday before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, said that “over and over and over again,” the department showed “hostility” toward those cases. He described the Black Panther case as one example of that — he defended the legitimacy of the suit and said his “blood boiled” when he heard a Justice official claim the case wasn’t solid. 

“It is false,” Adams said of the claim. 

“We abetted wrongdoing and abandoned law-abiding citizens,” he later testified. 

The department abandoned the New Black Panther case last year. It stemmed from an incident on Election Day in 2008 in Philadelphia, where members of the party were videotaped in front of a polling place, dressed in military-style uniforms and allegedly hurling racial slurs while one brandished a night stick. 

The Bush Justice Department brought the first case against three members of the group, accusing them in a civil complaint of violating the Voter Rights Act. The Obama administration initially pursued the case, winning a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panther members did not appear in court. But then the administration moved to dismiss the charges the following month after getting one of the New Black Panther members to agree to not carry a “deadly weapon” near a polling place until 2012. 

In a statement Tuesday, a Justice spokesman said the civil rights division determined “the facts and the law did not support pursuing claims” against the two other defendants and denied Adams’ allegations. 

“The department makes enforcement decisions based on the merits, not the race, gender or ethnicity of any party involved. We are committed to comprehensive and vigorous enforcement of both the civil and criminal provisions of the federal laws that prohibit voter intimidation,” the spokesman said. 

The Civil Rights Commission, which subpoenaed Adams, has been probing the incident since last year. Adams said he ignored department directives not to testify and eventually quit after he heard Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez testify that there were concerns the Black Panther case was not supported by the facts.  

Adams has described the case as open-and-shut and said Tuesday that it was a “very low moment” to hear Perez make that claim. 

But he described the department’s hostility toward that and other cases involving black defendants as “pervasive.” Adams cited hostility in the department toward a 2007 voting rights case against a black official in Mississippi who was accused of trying to intimidate voters. Adams said that when the Black Panther case came up, he heard officials in the department say it was “no big deal” and “media-generated” and point to “Fox News ” as the source.  

But as the investigation unfolded, he said he discovered “indications” that the Black Panther Party was doing the “same thing” to supporters of former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary season in early 2008. He urged the commission to pursue testimony from other Justice officials to corroborate his story. 

It’s unclear how far the commission will get. The commissioners want to hear from Christopher Coates, the former chief of the Justice Department’s voting section, but the commission claims the Justice Department is blocking Coates from testifying about why the case was dropped. 

The Bush Justice Department brought the first case against three members of the group, accusing them in a civil complaint of violating the Voter Rights Act. The Obama administration initially pursued the case, winning a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panther members did not appear in court. But then the administration moved to dismiss the charges the following month after getting one of the New Black Panther members to agree to not carry a “deadly weapon” near a polling place until 2012. 

In a statement Tuesday, a Justice spokesman said the civil rights division determined “the facts and the law did not support pursuing claims” against the two other defendants and denied Adams’ allegations. 

“The department makes enforcement decisions based on the merits, not the race, gender or ethnicity of any party involved. We are committed to comprehensive and vigorous enforcement of both the civil and criminal provisions of the federal laws that prohibit voter intimidation,” the spokesman said. 

The Civil Rights Commission, which subpoenaed Adams, has been probing the incident since last year. Adams said he ignored department directives not to testify and eventually quit after he heard Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez testify that there were concerns the Black Panther case was not supported by the facts. 

 

Adams has described the case as open-and-shut and said Tuesday that it was a “very low moment” to hear Perez make that claim. 

But he described the department’s hostility toward that and other cases involving black defendants as “pervasive.” Adams cited hostility in the department toward a 2007 voting rights case against a black official in Mississippi who was accused of trying to intimidate voters. Adams said that when the Black Panther case came up, he heard officials in the department say it was “no big deal” and “media-generated” and point to “Fox News ” as the source. 

 

But as the investigation unfolded, he said he discovered “indications” that the Black Panther Party was doing the “same thing” to supporters of former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary season in early 2008. He urged the commission to pursue testimony from other Justice officials to corroborate his story. 

It’s unclear how far the commission will get. The commissioners want to hear from Christopher Coates, the former chief of the Justice Department’s voting section, but the commission claims the Justice Department is blocking Coates from testifying about why the case was dropped.

I’ve got a few problems with this: First, I make a it a rule to be extremely sceptical when people speak out against former employers.  They almost always have a bias and unresolved issues against the employer.  That doesn’t mean they’re wrong, necessarily; they’re likely to be the only ones who can show problems where they exist, but it means that I’m looking for other support.  Second, I don’t trust Fox News.  Or rather, I’m not any more willing to put my full trust in Fox News any more than I would any other news network.  “Trust, but verify” as Reagan would say.  I know what some people think when they hear “Fox News,” so I want to be sure that I’ve gotten independent support.  I’ve never had a problem before.  Third, I simply don’t think I believe that the Justice Department in my own country could be so blatantly, unabashedly, corrupt and racist.  I realize that Holder hasn’t exactly been politically correct about race in the past, but I still can’t believe that things are this bad.  The voter intimidation case was air tight; the man was video-taped brandishing a weapon.  Why does the Justice Department think that this is OK? 

And yet, I have not heard any explanation from the DOJ.  Adams’ accusations, if there is even a chance they are true, are surely more important than whatever the hell Lindsay Lohan is doing these days (which got three stories today, as well as a breaking news alert) or a basketball player’s Twitter account.  I’d say it’s a lot more important than the World Cup, which has been front paged most of the day.  And yet, nothing, no explanation, no cover up, no counter-story.  I could not find anything about this story on any other non-conservative media sites as well.  I’m willing to consider an explanation, if only one is offered. 

“Yeah, we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, I’d do it again to save lives,”

Thank you, Former President Bush.  I disagree with a lot of what you did, but I don’t regret my vote for you.  I’d do it again to know that people like you are willing to save lives. 

In a question-and-answer session following his speech to the group of local business leaders, the former president also defended his 2003 decision to invade Iraq.

 “Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do and the world is a better place without him,” he said according to the paper.

How some people fail to see this, I do not know.  The time is gone for reasoning about it; it’s all emotion and memory, but I have no regrets. 

Added: In addition to his clarity on this issue, I admire the fact that Mr. Bush refuses to criticize his replacement, while still not equivocating on what is right.  He’s a classy fellow.

CNN wants you to believe that your kid is racist

Even if your kid is black

Nearly 60 years after American schools were desegregated by the landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling, and more than a year after the election of the country’s first black president, white children have an overwhelming white bias, and black children also have a bias toward white, according to a new study commissioned by CNN.

Renowned child psychologist and University of Chicago professor Margaret Beale Spencer, a leading researcher in the field of child development, led the study. She designed the pilot study and led a team of three psychologists: two testers to execute the study and a statistician to help analyze the results.

Her team tested 133 children from schools that met very specific economic and demographic requirements. In total, eight schools participated: four in the greater New York City area and four in Georgia. . . .

In the new study, Spencer’s researchers asked the younger children a series of questions and had them answer by pointing to one of five cartoon pictures that varied in skin color from light to dark. The older children were asked the same questions using the same cartoon pictures, and were then asked a series of questions about a color bar chart that showed light to dark skin tones.

The tests showed that white children, as a whole, responded with a high rate of what researchers call “white bias,” identifying the color of their own skin with positive attributes and darker skin with negative attributes. Spencer said even black children, as a whole, have some bias toward whiteness, but far less than white children.

1) Does anyone else notice that we’re suddenly getting these stories, now that Obama is president?  Remember:

First, we were supposed to eradicate racism and be “post-racial.”  Now, we can’t help ourselves; it’s in our genes and we can’t do anything about it.  Except to sit back and let the president lead us to the promised land, that is. 

2) Both of these studies are really shoddy and tell us nothing.  Cartoon characters?  Really, CNN?  But, even if, on the off chance, they have some value to them, so what?  Kids are stupid in a whole lot of ways; that’s part of the reason they have to have adults around pretty much all of the time.  Does it help anyone, in any way, to nurture a belief that racism is a product of our very nature?  Of course not, it just fans the flames of division and hate. 

We can’t move past race if we keep being obsessed about creating divisions based on it.

What others are eating

As a skinny person who loves food, I’m often faced with cracks, some polite and some not, about how I stay slim.  At the same time, though, I’m often shocked by the things many people who appear to believe that their weight is outside of their control actually eat. 
 
That’s why the “advice to others” in this article, from a woman who lost 102 lbs, drives me batty.  
Her advice to others: Be willing to make some changes, even small changes to your diet will help. If you drink soda, switch to diet soda. If you eat fast food, gradually cut back on the number of times you eat it each week until you cut it out. Cut out excess sugar.
Gradually cut back the number of times you eat fast food each week?  How on earth can someone with weight concerns eat fast food on a “several times a week” basis?  I eat fast food, perhaps six or seven times a year.  It’s a very rare treat.  Since learning how to cook, I don’t even think of it as generally appealing anymore (occasionally it’s agreeable as a sort of slumming, but only rarely).  There are dozens, nay, hundreds, of quick and easy recipes that can be made in less time than it takes to swing by the drive-thru, and they taste better, too. 
 
The same with soda.  Why on earth would you drink it on a regular basis?  That’s an enormous amount of sugar to take in at one time.  Don’t your teeth feel fuzzy afterwards?  Gross.  Other than in the occasional mixed drink, I rarely touch the stuff.  And I didn’t need someone else’s advice to tell me that. 
I waited tables for a few years in college, and in my experience, you had maybe somewhat chunky people who generally ate normally, and could credibly say that their less than perfectly ideal weight was a product of genetics, and then you had the truely fat (I’m talking Precious fat) people who ate exactly like you would expect them to.  Refill after refill on soda, extra extra dressing, fries, extra butter, and so on.  They usually finished their enormously portioned meals before the normal-weighted people had time to taste theirs, too, making me wonder why they even needed the taste enhancers like butter and dressing. 
 
I don’t deprive myself, but I do eat vegetables (and not just the lettuce on a Big Mac!) every day (mostly frozen), fruit on a regular basis, and drink a lot of water and (unsweetened) tea.  And I have a small dessert (often after lunch and dinner) just about every day and a burger and fries when I really want them.  It isn’t that hard, guys. 
 
I’m glad this women lost weight and changed her habits, so I’m not putting her down.  It’s just that I read an article like this, and then I hear fat people shout “Woe is me, I cannot help my weight!” and something doesn’t add up. 
Added: The Advice Goddess took some serious heat (but came out swinging) when she advised a woman that her weight gain was probably why her boyfriend was losing interest. 

Things to know about the Obama budget proposal

Here’s what CNN thinks you need to know.

“CNN should consider banning its anchors from appearing on “Celebrity Jeopardy” after the humiliating defeats of Wolf Blitzer and Soledad O’Brien.”

So says the NY Post.

Wolf was blitzed last month, coming in last with minus-$4,600, behind comic Andy Richter, a past winner who racked up $68,000 for charity. “Desperate Housewives” star Dana Delany came in second. This month, it was O’Brien’s turn against NBA legend Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Michael McKean, of “Spinal Tap,” “Laverne & Shirley” and “Saturday Night Live.” McKean, a previous winner, ended with $24,800, followed by Abdul Jabbar with $8,800 and O’Brien with $6,200. A CNN insider defended the journalists: “They are reporters, not trivia experts. And the buzzer is complicated. It’s not activated until Alex [Trebek] finishes the last syllable of the question. If you hit the button too soon, nothing happens.” 

I love Jeopardy, and I especially love the celebrity ones; they give me a great ego boast since the questions are so easy.  I caught the episode with Wolf, and I told my husband at the beginning that he should absolutely nail it; after all, half of the Jeopardy questions are things that appear in the news, like current events and pop culture.  Even if he did nothing but just get exposed to these things, he should do great.  Boy, was I wrong!  (Andy Richter, however, was almost KenJenningsishly great.)

And I love the excuse at the end: Well, the buzzer is complicated.  I mean, it’s not like any of the other contestants who kicked these folks’ bottoms had to deal with the super-complicated buzzer.