Sigh

WaPo's Richard Cohen jumps the gun by 5 months: unconsciously writes elegy about why Obama lost the general election. It's the racism, natch. link

Jesus Christ framing a 0BR/0BA. They're going to bang this meme every week for 5 months, then bang it monthly till the day we die.

Travelling heh

happened to my cousins during the Lakers-Jazz series.

Danish Embassy bombed

Today, the Danish embassy in Pakistan was bombed. Four innocent Pakistani bystanders were killed. No Danes were killed. Property was destroyed, including: the wall outside the Danish Embassy, windows on the Danish Embassy building, and much property along the street - including a Pakistani "Development Office" across the street. Debris was blown as far as 200 meters.

Everyone knows this was done as retaliation for the 2005 publication of the Danish Muhammad Cartoons (which resulted in the Jan 2006 protests).

Ultimately, though the bombers may or may not have thought things completely through: today's bombing was retaliation against Denmark for allowing freedom for their citizens. In Denmark's case, those freedoms include: freedom of the press, artistic freedom, freedom of speech. The terrorists oppose freedom.

Smart people on the left are infuriated whenever the right say the terrorists fight because they hate our freedom. Today's bombing is objective proof: the terrorists hate our freedom.

The left will say: "Fool! They don't hate our freedom. They hate that we insulted them." The right's response, by necessity, belabors the obvious: Freedom of speech includes freedom to insult. If you hate the freedom to insult, you hate freedom of speech.

Wretchard comments on the current feebleness of radical Islam, and on the irony of the bomb attack:

objectively speaking the entire bombing attack illustrates better than anything else how weak radical Islam has become. Making a lesson of a small European country must have been high on their list of priorities since the cartoons were published. That it has taken this long; that it needed to be mounted in a country that is practically the stronghold of al-Qaeda; and that it failed to be delivered directly into the embassy compound shows that this is the best they can do. Their arm has become very, very weak.

And BTW, was this the image they wanted to prevent people from seeing?

We in the West ought tweak Ben Franklin in a fun way:

We must stand together, or we will surely be blown up separately.

Also this:

We have given you a Republic, if you can keep it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

from Michelle Malkin:

In response to the notion that the West (or Islam) has ever followed the prohibition against depicting Mohammed, Zombie has created the “Mohammed Image Archive,” which contains dozens of Mohammed images from throughout history.

My favorite link from Zombie: Islamic Art Images of Muhammad.

The other Danish Cartoons:

Barack must repent

Left-side commentary:

Barack left his church. Why are the right and the Hillarys not happy?

Because Barack has not:

1. rebuked the church
2. repented from his acceptance of it’s Marxist economics and it’s racist ideology.

Heh 4

Obama spokesman says Obama's decision to leave church was "deeply personal". Of course it was. Had nothing to do with anything else. The spokesman makes a deeply personal verbal choice to repeat "deeply personal" three times in sixty seconds. video link

Heh 2 & 3

Jules Crittendon on Obama:

"It’s only a matter of time before he's forced to distance himself from himself."

Gateway Pundit on Obama:

“It’s getting crowded under that bus.”

Flashback to Heh #1, from Not Barack Obama h/t :

I did not have spiritual relations with that church......Trinity United.

White Priest = harder to play the race card

Karl at Protein Wisdom:

The Obamas leave Trinity [Karl]

Apparently, crazyass, race-baiting, crypto Marxist politics dressed up as religion just got to be too much… when it came out of the mouth of a white priest. Much harder to play the race card as trump.

My bolding. Could this be the case in this instance? It could.

I'm not confident it is the case. I need to let things marinate awhile. But it could be.

That it could be is a commentary on our cultural demurral to this PC argument:

Party A doesn't know enough to criticize Party B.

This PC argument is ruining our country.

I know enough about Islam to criticize Islam. If our nation doesn't know enough about Islam to criticize Islam, then our nation risks being slowly conquered by Islam. If our nation doesn't have the moral confidence to criticize Islam, then we risk dissolving into a puddle of Euro-goo.

I know enough about Black Liberation Theology to criticize it. I know enough about Trinity United Church of Christ to criticize it. I know enough about the "experience of African Americans" to criticize African Americans. To say I do not is either ludicrous fantasy or strategic misdirection. If our nation doesn't have the moral confidence to criticize BLT, TUCC, and fellow human beings whose skin happens to be darker: then we risk watching Barack introduce Jimmy Carter 2.0, and all the stagflation and terror genuflection that implies.

If we don't have moral confidence, we are limp wet noodles.

So true

from neoneocon's comments:

Vince P Says: May 31st, 2008 at 1:54 pm

What I ... really enjoy about the primary is how the Democrats [have] the one side calling the other sexist and the other side calling the other racist and neither denying that their party apparently consists of a lot of sexists and racists.

This is partly why Dems are so desperate for Hillary to concede: Dems are split into halves which are firing "racist" and "sexist" at each other. The national party wants unified Dems firing "racist" at McCain.

Dems have no shame. They have only the desire for self-justifying victory.

Heh

Not Barack Obama h/t :

I did not have spiritual relations with that church......Trinity United.

Kate h/t :

"There goes that historic, transcendent, life-changing, not since the Gettysburg Address, "I have a dream," must-be-taught-in-every-school race speech

Yeah, that speech stood the test of time, didn't it?

Barack and Michelle resign from their church

Update: After writing this, I saw video of Barack making the announcement. He played it as if both he and TUCC have been victims of unfair media. Barack has gall. Playing the victim will not save him with general election voters. He's in crisis, and doesn't seem to know it. If he doesn't campaign as laid out below: he is toast.

Musing: Is it possible Obama wanted out of the church, and had his ally: Rev. Pfleger, make controversial remarks in order to give Barack cover for leaving the church? Could that have happened?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In leaving his church, Barack is admitting he sat for 20 years in a racist church. Many voters who did not believe it before will believe it now. Barack cannot say: "Gosh, TUCC went wrong in the last 12 months." Voters, properly so, would not believe that lie. Barack's only chance is to say:

Because the church did many good things in the community, and because the staff and members were beloved good friends to us: Michelle and I glazed over and ignored the misguided opinions of some persons in the church. We were wrong to have done that. We are humbled. We apologize, and we ask forgiveness.

It's ironic Michelle and I have spoken out about the evils of racism. We may have felt - in some instances - as if we were teachers, and as if we were standing up for principle. However, we now see we are still students. We now see we did not stand up as often as we could have. We are humbled.

Such a statement would help with two of Barack's problems:

1. The perception - fueled by his associations ("White folks' greed runs a world in need" *) - that Barack blames white people, as a race, for some of the ills of our society.

2. The perception that Barack and Michelle are elitist snobs. The "humbled" part of the above message would help here.

Being a member of a Black Liberation Theology church ought disqualify a candidate in the minds of voters. Barack ought be beyond saving - unless he repents.

If a church keeps religion separate from government: theology over here in church; policy out there in the world ... then a candidate ought not answer questions about his church, as such questions are irrelevant to his political principles and his governing principles.

However, Black Liberation Theology overtly mixes religion and politics. BLT openly advocates Marxist economic policies. BLT openly blames white people - as a race - for the problems of black people around the globe. Part of the BLT message, simplified: "When white people gain money and power, they do things which hurt black people." The message is not: "When fallible people or bad people gain power ...." It is: "When white people gain power...."

Barack's only chance is to repent, then lead a parade of condemnation against Black Liberation Theology. Every time he condemns BLT, he needs to say: "Michelle and I have seen the light!" This is his only chance.

It is said less than 10% of black churches believe in BLT. Barack needs to persuade some of that 10% that BLT is the devil sneaking up on them. They, like him, can now see the light and repent.

Some say only persons in power can be racist. Barack needs to boldly speak out against this horse manure. He needs to run around the country saying: "Black people can be just as racist as white people! Racism is always wrong - in all its forms!"

This should be part of Barack's outreach to the Reagan Democrats who voted for Hillary in the primaries. He needs to show he detests what they detest: elitist horse manure theories about victimology. He needs to show he values what they value: self-reliance; "an honest day's work"; good citizenship; love of God and country.

Finally, branching out, Barack needs to return from Iraq and announce he has seen the light: the Iraqi Government is succeeding; it is and will be viable; it is and will be a beacon of freedom and moderation in the Middle East. He has seen the light - just as he saw the light about TUCC - just as he saw the light about the elitist horse manure theory about power and racism. Barack can say he has the nimbleness to change policy when conditions change. He can draw a contrast with Bush' and McCain's stubbornness. The contrast will be illogical, but - with MSM helping him: it will work okay for Barack.

These are radical steps, yet they are Barack's only chance at victory. If he takes these steps, he is more savvy than I suspect, and he may turn a potentially huge November loss into victory.

Ditching his church is crisis. Voters understand this means Barack sat in a racist church for 20 years. Barack cannot blithely shrug this off. If he sees both the crisis and the opportunity; if he acts boldly: he has a chance.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* "White folks' greed runs a world in need." - Rev. Jeremiah Wright

In his book: "Dreams of My Father", Barack cited this as one of the statements which originally drew him to TUCC. Powerline has audio of Barack reading this quote.

Encouraging youth baserunning aggressiveness

I agree with this article about runner reluctance: runners try to take extra bases far less often than they should. When a runner is thrown out, either the runner or the coach who sent him typically receive far more criticism than they deserve.

In youth league coaching, as I moved to new age groups, I intentionally spent the first couple of games testing out when the particular age group was likely and unlikely to throw out runners. At each level, I was shocked at how difficult it was to consistently throw out runners. I was sending runners, and was sorta kinda trying to get them thrown out (just so I could discover the limits of the age group I was coaching in), and my doomed runners were coming in safe time after time. This opened my eyes.

As a consequence: we ran and ran. Running bases was the best thing we did. By my second year of coaching the 11-12 age group, playing on 70 foot bases: we averaged 19 stolen bases and/or extra bases taken (aka aggressively risky bases taken against outfielders and basemen) per game.

Who cares about modesty: we were awesome! We took by far the largest leadoffs in the league. On leadoffs from first, our front feet were a minimum 13 feet off the base (we marked 13' during practice, and demanded it). We were out there probably 4-6 feet further than other teams' baserunners, and still I'm not sure we ever got picked off that season. I tried - purely out of curiosity about what would happen - to get our best baserunners to venture further off of first base. They were already so far out there, and it was already so easy for them to steal second: they just weren't interested in getting further off the base.

And yet: on the occasions we got a runner thrown out while stretching for an extra base, our team's fathers would gather on the cyclone fence and talk bad about me for sending the runner.

The fathers failed to realize the opportunity cost of not being aggressive would've been definite and noticeable. Our team spirit and verve would have lessened. We would've lost some edge. We intimidated opponents with our baserunning, and that would've been lost.

When a kid got thrown out, those fathers would say: "Why couldn't Greg SEE that kid would get thrown out? ANYONE could've seen it!"

What they said was true - insofar as anyone could've seen our runner would get thrown out with a perfect throw and a perfect tag. Our team fathers didn't take time to realize those conditions also existed during a significant proportion of our successful running attempts - it's just that the perfect throw and the perfect tag failed to materialize in those successful instances. Look at the baseman in the photo above: he's likely 13 or 14 years old, yet he's making a suboptimal tag attempt. 11 and 12 year olds usually do no better.*

If a coach is going to send a bunch of runners: he will benefit from understanding he is playing odds, and he will sometimes get burned. Good. It is proper to get burned once in a while. A base coach is not trying to be perfect. Instead: he is trying to play smart odds. This understanding will help a coach stand up under the scorn of the cyclone fence fathers. If a coach never gets anyone thrown out, he is costing his team runs via being too timid. If an 11-12 age group coach goes a couple of weeks without getting a runner thrown out: he needs to consciously coach more aggressively.

Players, at all levels, rarely understand the strategy of playing smart odds, and rarely stand up well to scorn. This is why players, especially, are reluctant to be as aggressive as they ought to be. To encourage aggressiveness, we did these things:

1. All runners had green light at all times. I did not give signals to runners. Get the players' brains thinking about when they can make it and when they cannot. They'll figure it out - and probably better than you would.

2. During every practice, we had players take one rep of leading off against a pitcher who might try to pick them off. We used kids as the pitchers and the basemen. Adults would've given the runners a false read vis a vis kid effectiveness. The runners would continue the exercise until the pitcher made a move towards the plate; then the runners would take their first four or five steps as if stealing the next base.

3. We used a formula (and zero coach input) to determine batting order. The more effective a players' OBP + baserunning (stealing, plus taking extra bases, minus a strong penalty for being thrown out)**: the higher that player got to hit in the batting order. This encouraged players to be focused both on batting success and on baserunning aggressiveness. If a player was not taking extra bases, his formula score and then his batting spot would go lower. I made the call as to when players were credited with aggressively taking extra bases.***

4. If all else fails - for instance: if your runner on second is too scared to try for third ... then: stand in the coaching box, blatantly point at third base, and demand - for God and the pitcher and the catcher and the opposite dugout and all parents to hear: "Steal this base. On the next pitch."

For your runner, this maximizes the pressure and wonderfully focuses the mind. It is the equivalent of Cortez burning his ships upon reaching the new world. It is the equivalent of Jimmy Johnson's "Put it in 3 inch headlines: WE WILL WIN." It eliminates all excuses. EVERYONE heard your demand. Your runner is mortified. Everyone knows! He must steal. He must make it. His adrenaline skyrockets. I love it.

The first time you do this, your own players will believe you are a psycho. I love that, also. You won't need to do this more than 2 or 3 times a season. The players will get the idea.

Players - and human beings in general - can always accomplish more than we believe we can. It's a coach's job to open players' eyes about what they can actually accomplish.

I recommend this overall system. Maybe you shouldn't publicly demand your players steal a base unless you share my particular (peculiar?) personality traits. However, I recommend the rest of it. The cost is the extra effort needed for record keeping. The reward is players who are more focused at bat, and more aggressive on the bases. It eliminates all but the most creative parent anger about batting order. If you hand out player stat sheets in the dugout just before a game: that concentrates players' focus more effectively than anything else you could say or do.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Teach your basemen:
1) tag at ground level (the glove literally brushing the dirt)
2) let your tag softly give with the runner's momentum.

Unless instructed, kids will
a) tag midair
b) try to fight the runner's momentum with the brute force of their fielder's glove.

**We also accounted for extra base hits in our formula. If I coach again, in order to simplify the record keeping: I will count a double as a hit + an extra base taken. A triple = a hit + 2 extra bases taken, etc.

***If your team is truly aggressive at baserunning, situations arise where the runner on second or third doesn't have time to look for the basecoach:

• bobbles by catcher or infielder or outfielder: should the runner try for the extra base? (Also, pitcher bobbles of the catcher's return throw.)
• grounder to pitcher or other infielder: should the runner advance on the batted ball? Should the runner advance on the throw to 1B?

If it's a close decision, there is no time to look to the basecoach. Therefore, the runner needs to make all these decisions - whether close or not. It's part of playing the game; it's part of growing up. Runners should be rewarded for making aggressive and correct decisions. They should be punished for being either passive or over-aggressive.

My pleasant experience is that the runners do far better at decision making than I expected. But, it's my personality to be willing to live with some kid mistakes. You have to be, or doing this will drive you crazy.

If a kid makes a mistake:

1. Neither chastise nor allow disappointment or scorn to creep into your tone. It helps if you actually are not disappointed or scornful in your own mind. There's no reason to be. You knew this would happen when you decided to let kids make their own decisions.

2. Sit with the kid, and allow him to explain how he could've better handled the decision. When he finishes, pat him on the shoulder: "Timmy, you are a smart player. I have confidence in you."

Remember: sometimes a kid will make a proper decision and still get thrown out by a perfect throw and tag. In this instance, be sure the kid understands he made the proper decision, and you stand behind him 100%, and you want him making the same decision again, if it arises.

Welcome Home

Olbermann

at the end of his interview with Scott McClellan:

OLBERMANN: Scott McClellan [...] I think this a primary document of American history and I'm very impressed with it. At some point people will be teaching history based on it.

With his next guest, John Dean, Olbermann wondered if there was still time to use McClellan's book as a basis for Congress to impeach President Bush. h/t

Bulldog zen

Scott McClellan: initial impression

upon watching Scott McClellan's interview with Keith Olbermann:

1) Scott McClellan doesn't understand conservative principles or logic.
2) McClellan doesn't understand the threat posed by fundamentalist Islam.
3) Scott McClellan is a liberal. He was a horrible choice for Press Secretary. President Bush blew the selection; his Administration suffered as a result.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When watching Scott McClellan as White House Press Secretary, I'm not the only person to have thought:

Why does he accept the false premise underlying that question?! And underlying that question? And underlying that question? WHY does he meekly agree with every false premise which is proffered?

And the answer - which was already guessed by most who watched: Scott McClellan doesn't know any better. He doesn't understand conservative principles or logic.

This is why it was a new day when Tony Snow (God Bless him and watch over him) became Press Secretary. Tony Snow understands the logic underlying conservative principle. Tony Snow thus recognized a false premise when he was whacked upside the head with it. Tony Snow did not put up with the same horse manure. The difference with McClellan was night and day.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

McClellan's book seems actually benign. It's only value is as a media sensation. Dick Morris (quoting from memory):

There's nothing there[in the book]. The Bush Administration is crazy to respond as they have, because they make it look as if something is there. What is in this book which is a grave revelation about George Bush?

The answer is: nothing. The book is not about inconvenient facts. The book is about McClellan's political opinions, interpretations, and even suppositions about what happened in meetings he did not attend. McClelland has said the book is "my truth". "My truth" equals "my opinion". "My truth" does not equal either "truth" or "facts".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

McClellan:
I went into this very much believing the President was going to be a bi-partisan leader, and that he was going to reach across the aisle, and he was going to change the way things worked in Washington, D.C.

Greg's comment:
1) How does someone this naive become Press Secretary? Pres. Bush blew it when he chose McClellan.
2) At least in this interview, McClellan ignores the Dems role in any partisan divide. Wha?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

McClellan on Iraq:
The President didn't have to "box himself in" vis a vis invasion.

Greg comments:
Wha?! Details, please. Yet, details are not forthcoming. This is an example of the types of undetailed, unmade arguments which McClellan levels. McClellan says he personally does not believe we should go to war except as a last resort; and that Iraq was not a "great and gathering danger". McClellan and Olberman treat McClellan's personal opinion as proof of Bush' bad intent. Well, I think Iraq, the ME, and fundamentalist Islam were all "great and gathering dangers". I don't think McClellan understands the nature of the threat. So there.

I am baffled and amazed McClellan was chosen to be Press Secretary during a war he did not believe in, and which is fought against a threat he does not understand.

Tony Snow may have saved Iraq via effectively communicating during the Surge. During Snow's time, there were a lot Senate votes taken about ending war funding. If Scott McClellan had been Press Secretary during those months: would McClellan have stood up and effectively communicated in the face of that national and political mood? Of course not. Would additional lack of support have swayed a few Repub Senators to break ranks and side with the Dems to end the war? Tough one. I'm glad we didn't have to find out. Thank God for Tony Snow.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

McClellan on Plame:
I was disillusioned when the President told me that he authorized Libby to leak Plame's name. At that point, I realized I could no longer continue in this administration.

Greg's comment:
McClellan says Libby and Rove lied to him, yet doesn't fully explain how he deduces this. I am suspicious.

McClellan appears not to care that President Bush had legal and moral authority to release any info or any name he deemed relevant. McClellan appears not to care about any White House need to defend against false charges. McClellan appears to agree with media and political opposition premises about Plame/Wilson/Niger. This seems an incredible statement to make, but: I am uncertain if McClellan fully understands what Plame/Wilson was about.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

McClellan on NIE(from a different interview):
Even after we criticized leaks of national security secrets, the President authorized Cheney and Libby to leak parts of the 2006 NIE.

Greg comments:
McClellan's logic is faulty: POTUS is elected to determine what information should be made public; other government employees are not. When POTUS puts out information, it is policy (in this instance it was policy during wartime). When other government employees put out information on their own, it is illegal.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Greg's comments: McClellan appears still bitter over how Cheney handled the accidental shooting of his friend (another Cheney friend broke the news to a local Corpus Christi media outlet). Even though Cheney could've and should've handled the media situation better, it's instructive that an accidental, non-fatal shooting was more than McClellan was able to effectively handle as Press Secretary. McClellan should've been fired over his incompetence and weakness in this situation alone - or McClellan should've resigned over not getting the cooperation he needed from Cheney. Then McClellan could've allowed the shooting incident to make up half his book. His interview with Olberman could've been about "the real story" of the mishandling of the shooting incident.

Scott McClellan was incompetent. I've never felt such lack of confidence in Pres. Bush ... as I do in realizing he chose Scott McClellan to be Press Secretary, then stuck with him for interminable months.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

McClellan on who he will vote for in November:
He is "intrigued" by Obama.

Greg's comment:
Isn't that precious - and ill-informed. It perfectly sums up McClellan.