Wide Awakes Radio

MSNBC Finds Penguins at North Pole… But Penguins Don’t LIVE at North Pole

-By Warner Todd Huston

**Video added below the fold**

**UPDATE AT BOTTOM**

A 15-year-old British girl named Camilla Hempleman-Adams is being hailed as a "hero" for trekking across the ice floes of the North Pole to become one of the youngest women to explore the frozen world of the penguin… well, at least as far as MSNBC is concerned. In their report on the feat of endurance, MSNBC had a shot (about a minute into the video) of penguins on an ice floe. Only one little problem: penguins don’t live at the North Pole. Oopsie.

So, the question remains; if these people can’t even get a simple fact like that correct, how can we believe them that global warming is destroying the world? If they don’t even know where the penguin lives, how can we believe their "science" that states the world is doomed with global warming?

Miss Hempleman-Adams’ goal was to see the supposedly disappearing frozen wilderness before it’s gone the way of the buffalo. So, she and her affluent, famous explorer father trekked across the ice to see the effects of global warming. "I want people to understand that we mustn’t let it be destroyed," she said, "I haven’t thought about breaking a record, it’s much more about climate change for me."

Well, it’s all heartwarming and all, but "hero"? What she did took guts, it was bold and it was not an easy task to accomplish. But, "hero"? I am always seriously annoyed when the word hero is so casually used. Sports people are NOT heroes. Explorers are not heroes. This girl is not a hero. We do not have to elevate her to hero status to celebrate her feat.

Anyway, the silly thing is that MSNBC had to embellish the story of this girl by adding fake footage of penguins even though penguins do not live at the North Pole.

Well, I hope Miss Hempleman-Adams wasn’t too annoyed by the mosquitoes and jungle snakes after she was accosted by those North Pole penguins!

**UPDATE 5PM, 5/6/08**

News flash…. MSNBC edited out the scenes with the penguins in it in their report! Ed Morrissey over at Hot-Air has the story. As Cap’n Ed says, “Something got exposed in this broadcast — scientific illiteracy at MS-NBC.”

McCain Slams Obama on Judges

There is no doubt that mistrust exist among conservatives when it comes to McCain appointing judges. This is one of the most important factors to folks like us, concerned with judicial activism and ACLU sympathetic judges creating laws from the bench. Depsite McCain’s history with the gang of 14, and his strange statement about Alito wearing his conservatism on his sleeve, he is our best bet when it comes to having conservative judges appointed.

All we have to do is consider the alternatives. Do we want the most liberal member of the Senate appointing more Ginsburg types? Can we trust Hillary with this? Unfortunately better conservative choices didn’t get the nomination. We have to look at what we have to work with.

Today McCain gave a speech and slammed his opponents on the issue:

Here, too, Senators Obama and Clinton have very different ideas from my own. They are both lawyers themselves, and don’t seem to mind at all when fundamental questions of social policy are preemptively decided by judges instead of by the people and their elected representatives. Nor have they raised objections to the unfair treatment of judicial nominees.
For both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, it turned out that not even John Roberts was quite good enough for them. Senator Obama in particular likes to talk up his background as a lecturer on law, and also as someone who can work across the aisle to get things done. But when Judge Roberts was nominated, it seemed to bring out more the lecturer in Senator Obama than it did the guy who can get things done. He went right along with the partisan crowd, and was among the 22 senators to vote against this highly qualified nominee. And just where did John Roberts fall short, by the Senator’s measure? Well, a justice of the court, as Senator Obama explained it — and I quote — should share “one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”
These vague words attempt to justify judicial activism — come to think of it, they sound like an activist judge wrote them. And whatever they mean exactly, somehow Senator Obama’s standards proved too lofty a standard for a nominee who was brilliant, fair-minded, and learned in the law, a nominee of clear rectitude who had proved more than the equal of any lawyer on the Judiciary Committee, and who today is respected by all as the Chief Justice of the United States. Somehow, by Senator Obama’s standard, even Judge Roberts didn’t measure up. And neither did Justice Samuel Alito. Apparently, nobody quite fits the bill except for an elite group of activist judges, lawyers, and law professors who think they know wisdom when they see it — and they see it only in each other.
I have my own standards of judicial ability, experience, philosophy, and temperament. And Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito meet those standards in every respect. They would serve as the model for my own nominees if that responsibility falls to me. And yet when President Bill Clinton nominated Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg to serve on the high court, I voted for their confirmation, as did all but a few of my fellow Republicans. Why? For the simple reason that the nominees were qualified, and it would have been petty, and partisan, and disingenuous to insist otherwise. Those nominees represented the considered judgment of the president of the United States. And under our Constitution, it is the president’s call to make.

Obama was one of only 22 votes in opposition to Roberts. Chris Dodd and Patty Murray voted to confirm Roberts, and yet Obama and Hillary Clinton voted against him. Its pretty hard to go left of these two, yet our two democratic candidates did.

Hey, at least he’s reaching towards the right side of aisle this time. It is one of the driving forces that will allow me to pull the lever for McCain.

Fred Thompson is vouching for him.

Ed Morrissey sums up my feelings:

The question, as Michelle notes, is which candidate can we trust to nominate better judges. Given the votes on Samuel Alito and especially on John Roberts, we can see a marked difference between the three candidates still left in the race. If we expect to end judicial activism, then we have to have a President willing to nominate justices in the mold of Roberts and Alito. We can’t even get Obama and Clinton to follow the majority of their Democratic colleagues to confirm such choices, let alone appoint them.

I know who I don’t trust appointing jurists to the federal bench.

Indeed, you have to choose the choices your given. We can all keep our eye on McCain, but I think its obvious he is the safer gamble. The chances we will have a liberal judge retire or even pass on during the next four years is high, and I know I don’t want Obama or Clinton around to replace them.

Also see: Don Surber

Not Funny

Via our friends at Hot Air, Hillary Clinton is not funny, at all, though I do think the "Hillary loves America" bit is back-handed insult to Barack Obama:

Muslim hate-speech is OK — again

We read:

“A political cartoon circulated at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee depicting a prominent national conservative author last week is sparking a free expression debate across the nation. David Horowitz spoke at UWM Thursday evening, drawing supporters and protesters, which resulted in a dialogue over a cartoon he is calling anti-Semitic.

In an interview with The Badger Herald, Horowitz said the depiction of him with a hooked nose by the Muslim Student Association in Milwaukee was inappropriate for a campus organization to circulate, but it was still protected under the First Amendment. “I haven’t asked anybody to be outlawed or put in jail,” Horowitz said. “Sure, it’s free speech. It’s just inappropriate for a campus. I don’t think the university should have banned it from being posted, but had that been a cartoon on blacks or gays, there would have been hell to pay - there should be one standard rule.”

Horowitz said he took more issue with how UWM’s MSA allegedly tore down 2,000 of the posters promoting his event…. Horowitz said universities should have a “zero-tolerance policy for those who disrupt or interrupt invited speakers” since all sides of issues should be able to be discussed in a civil way. He pointed to his October visit to UW-Madison as a model example as opposed to Milwaukee, where 16 individuals were escorted out.

Source

The cartoon looks like something fresh out of Hitler’s propaganda — but we have come to expect that from Muslims, of course. Muslim hate has replaced Nazi hate.

Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don’t forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH

Stephen King Pulls a John Kerry

Copyright © 2008 Big Dog. Visit the original article at http://www.onebigdog.net/stephen-king-pulls-a-john-kerry/.

During the last election cycle John Kerry told students that it was important to get an education or you would end up in Iraq. This was obviously an insult to the troops but Kerry dismissed it as a botched joke. Perhaps he meant to tell a joke but the Freudian slip told his inner feelings. Given his total disregard for the Vietnam vets with whom he served, it is not hard to see why people believe he meant what he said.

Stephen King, the liberal author, has insulted our troops in a manner that is Kerryesque. King told people that it was important to learn to read and that if you could not read then your options were the “Army and Iraq, something like that. It’s not as bright.”

What this maggot said is that the Army is full of people who cannot read. The members of our military (he said Army but he meant all services) are not bright enough to read so they end up in in the military and places like Iraq.

I know a whole lot of people in the military and everyone I know can read. Most of the people I know can read and comprehend as well or better than Mr. king. Some of the people I know in the military have published technical work that required a bit more than for King to write fictional novels. Quite a few of the people I know in the military have written articles for magazines, newspapers and many have blogs. All of these require the ability to read and write. And while King thinks that people do not have to be as bright to get in the military, I would like to see him fly a plane or a helicopter. I would like to see Stephen King operate an M1 tank or a Patriot Missile battery. I would also like to see him perform the miracles our medical folks do.

Stephen King is a half witted liberal who has lived in a protected world where he can run around and discredit those with whom he disagrees. He is an ungrateful twit who has the freedom to say what he wants because of the men and women of the armed forces who protect our country and our way of life. Stephen King is not fit to carry the boots of any member of the military and all of them will always be a cut above him and his kind.

Mr. King, the members of our military are quite capable of reading and I am sure that many of them helped make you rich by buying and reading your books. However, if you believe that they are unable to read perhaps they should stop buying your literature and maybe they should stop selling it in the exchanges.

Interestingly Mr. King, you chose to insult our troops when none of them were around. Maybe we can get a few of them to go to your next book signing and see if you would be as forthright. Considering where you have your head, at least you will be able to read your own book when they get done with you.

Video

Others with interesting items:
Rosemary’s Thoughts, A Blog For All, Right Truth, Kodera’s Korner, DragonLady’s World, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Democrat=Socialist, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

ShareThis

CBS Slights Limbaugh any Credit for ‘Operation Chaos,’ Also Talk of Riots With Obama Loss

-By Warner Todd Huston

It’s amusing how far some people will go not to give someone credit for something they have done especially if that deserving someone happens to be an ostensible political enemy. In this case we find CBS discussing Republican crossover voters in these primaries, the network newser telling us how crossovers will “skew primary results,” and then they tell us who is responsible for egging on these crossovers. Now, for those of you in the know, you’d automatically assume that CBS is talking about radio host Rush Limbaugh who has been carrying on his “operation chaos” program to encourage Republican voters to re-register as Dems to vote for Hillary, right?

Not to CBS. No, CBS has decided that the real story is that what we have here is “right-wing radio commentators” and “the bloggers” are who is responsible for “operation chaos.” But, in truth, few other radio people are pushing their listeners to re-register and no high profile conservative blogger I know of is doing so either. The whole thing is the brainchild of Rush Limbaugh, not “right-wing radio commentators” — commentators as in plural, more than one.

CBS is bending over backwards in order NOT to mention Limbaugh’s name so as not to give him publicity, apparently. But, it simply is not factual to say that “right-wing radio commentators” are responsible for this crossover voting effort when it is basically ONE “right-wing radio commentator.” This spiteful avoidance of naming Limbaugh makes their report factually incorrect.

Let’s be honest even if CBS cannot; this whole crossover voter plan is the effort of Rush Limbaugh and Rush Limbaugh alone. It is not the plan of “the bloggers” and “right-wing radio commentators.”

But on CBS’s Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer, both Douglas Wilder(D-VA) and James Clyburn (D-S.C.) warned that there would be unrest if “young voters” did not get them some Barack at the democrat Party National convention. Additionally, both blammed “the bloggers” and “right-wng radio” without mentioning Limbaugh by name.

Wilder said that the Democrats faced a “riotous” convention if the will of the people - in terms of a candidate with the greatest number of pledged delegates and primary or votes - was usurped by the party’s superdelegates. “People would be tremendously upset,” he said.

Not to be outdone, Representative Clyburn jumped the there-will-be-blood bandwagon.

Clyburn, however, went further, believing that such a decision might inspire violence.

It would certainly breed discontent, he said, especially among younger voters, as he described his visits to historical black colleges and universities in his district: “That is what these young people were saying to me. They were very, very upset with all of this talk about superdelegates overturning their energies and overturning their efforts.

Two high profile black leaders both claiming that violence will occur if the Democrat Party does not pick Obama seems like pretty big news. Yet, not many news outlets are talking about this.

There is also another aspect that the MSM are ignoring about this whole crossover voting drama. In 2000 the MSM was all a flutter over the fact that thousands of Democrats were re-registering as Republicans to vote for John McCain. This was universally reported as an item of interest if not something to be encouraged. The MSM was thrilled that Democrats and moderates were rooting for McCain during the 2000 primaries and they joyfully reported it as a sign that “the maverick” was the man to solve the partisan rancor in Washington DC.

Yet, now that it is Republicans crossing the aisle to vote in the Democrat primaries, suddenly this is something to be alarmed at? Something that might cause riots?

One has to wonder why the different treatment of the same idea? Why was it OK in 2000 but not now? And, there is a substantive difference between what Limbaugh is doing now and what Democrat voters did in 2000. Limbaugh’s aim is to make the Democrat primaries last as long as possible so as to give Barack Obama more time than the media was willing to give him to make mistakes and to reveal himself more fully to the voters. Limbaugh claims not to have an interest in which one, Hillary or Obama, becomes the Democrat Party nominee. On the other hand, in 2000, Democrats were actually trying to pick the candidate who would be running on the GOP ticket.

Yet, here we have CBS and Face the Nation painting Limbaugh as trying to pick Hillary as the Dem candidate and they are reporting on it as if this represents a danger to the process. Apparently, it’s only a “danger” if it is the Democrat Party’s process that is being meddled with because they didn’t care about any meddling in the GOP’s process in 2000. In fact, they thought it was great.

Like I said, one has to wonder why the different treatment of the same idea?

(photo credits: Photo of Wilder:kepplerspeakers.com. Photo of Clyburn:The Center for Congress at Indiana University. Photo of Limbaugh: Lighthouse Patriot Journal.)

Unions Kill Trade Agreement - Real Improvement Unrewarded

-By Warner Todd Huston

The powerful union lobbies in the US have cornered their lapdogs in the Democrat Party and succeeded in killing the free trade agreement that we had brokered with Colombia. The main reason that unions twisted the arms of their Dem representatives is supposed to be because of Colombia’s admittedly horrid history of violence against unions and workers.

John Sweeney, president of the largest US federation of unions, the AFL-CIO, detailed the allegations in a Washington Post op-ed April 14: “In Colombia, joining a union or advocating for workers’ rights can be a de facto death sentence,” he said. “The human-rights atrocities against union activists and supporters are not isolated, rogue events; they are committed largely by the armed forces and paramilitary organizations with ties to elected officials close to President [Alvaro] Uribe.”

Now, who can deny that such a history is lamentable? I, for one, am one of those folks who complains that the US government works so closely with the murderous, inhuman Chinese, for example, so I can very much sympathize with the sentiment that we should not reward criminal nations that perpetrate such murderous and violent actions against their own people.

Michael Fumento, though, effectively demolishes the unions stance by noting the startling improvement in Colombia under Colombia’s president Uribe.

Yes, Colombia has a high murder rate. With much of the country still in the control of vicious leftist narco-terrorists (supported by Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez), you’d expect a high murder rate among any one group - from union members to midgets. That said, last year’s 17,198 homicides (among 45 million people) was a drop of 40 percent from the 28,837 in 2002.

Deaths among Colombia’s union members plummeted even farther - from a high of 275 in 1996 to only 39 last year. That’s a drop of 86 percent in a decade.

And that’s 39 killings (a figure the AFL-CIO itself cited last month) out of about 800,000 union workers - or about five murders per 100,000 union members. How does that constitute “a de facto death sentence” - when the murder rate for the population as a whole is about eight times higher?

Now, wait a minute. Isn’t it “improvement” and “success” and “effort” that leftists always claim to want to see to afford any rewards? How much better does Colombia have to do to show vast improvement than an 86% drop in the sort of murders that the unions here are complaining about?

In the end, it is all a lie by both the unions and their lapdogs in the Dem Party when they say that Colombia doesn’t deserve the free trade agreement because of how unionists are treated there. What American unions and the Democrats want to avoid is any success for the waning Bush Administration.

That is it.

They couldn’t care less about the lives of union members in Colombia. And by killing the trade agreement, the unions here are proving that they don’t care if Colombia’s union members get to keep their jobs, either!

An Australian university leads the way in a lurch Leftward — implementing common but simplistic Leftist ideas

The Ivy League universities of the USA often require “good works” for admission but this refers to what you do AFTER you are admitted

Macquarie University students will be forced to “do good” and “change the world” — but what has that got to do with academic ability or achievement? And what if I think that I “do good” simply by entering one of the professions? The definition of “doing good” is unclear but seems to be very unsophisticated for a university. I am glad that I was able to concentrate on my studies when I was there. And what about all the students who have to work their way through university? How are they going to fit in all this crap?

All students at a leading university will have to undertake volunteer work and study subjects from the arts and sciences under an overhaul of its curriculum designed to provide a broader education and more socially aware graduates. In a first for an Australian university, Macquarie University Vice Chancellor Steven Schwartz today will announce a partnership with Australia Volunteers International that will create a mini peace corps, giving undergraduate students the opportunity to do volunteer work overseas.

Called the Global Futures Program, it will develop programs with local communities throughout Australia, the South Pacific and Southeast Asia. Some form of community work will be compulsory for all undergraduate students at Macquarie under the new curriculum, to start in 2010. In addition, the university will require all undergraduate students to study subjects from the humanities, social sciences and sciences so that arts students must take science subjects and science students must take arts subjects.

The university, in northern Sydney, had also considered making the learning of a foreign language compulsory but it was not feasible at this stage. Professor Schwartz told The Australian that the new curriculum was based on three themes of place, planet and participation, and was designed to provide students with a broader education than one geared solely to a vocation and getting a job. “Universities are more than just narrow vocational schools; they have the opportunity to change the world, to shape society and shape democracy [Is that what the taxpayer is paying for? And what if the student is content with the world as it is and does not WANT to change it -- preferring to concentrate on more personal things? Is there no place for such a person in a university? It would seem gross political bigotry to say so!],” he said. “It’s about education for life not just for a job. We’re trying to infuse the institution with more than just a utilitarian vocational mission as one that also makes difference to a more democratic and inclusive society.”

Professor Schwartz said the new curriculum developed the university’s commitment to social inclusion and equity, and fitted in with programs already in place at the university, such as MULTILIT, a remedial literacy program being used in Queensland’s Cape York, and the Teach for Australia scheme. Macquarie University, in partnership with Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson’s Cape York Institute, is developing the Teach for Australia program. It is based on similar schemes in the US and Britain to recruit the brightest graduates to teach for a short time in disadvantaged schools before they start their professional careers.

Macquarie’s focus on a broader education follows the restructure at Melbourne University, called the Melbourne Model and based on US college degrees, which offers six broad undergraduate degrees followed by a graduate professional degree in specialist areas such as law or medicine.

Professor Schwartz said providing an education based purely on skills was inadequate. “I used to be a dean of medicine and I believe probably a lot of skills we taught students were obsolete before they graduated,” he said. “Our students graduating this year will retire about 2050. We don’t know what the world will look like in 2015, let alone 2050. “At Macquarie, we want to give students the right skills to get ahead in the community and we want to give them employable skills but we also want to make them open to equity issues, to social progress and social justice in terms of equal opportunity.”

Source

(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, DISSECTING LEFTISM, GREENIE WATCH, OBAMA WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, EYE ON BRITAIN, OPTUS and TELSTRA/BIGPOND. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)

The Dude has it right..

NSFW… Unless you are surrounded by people with common sense…. Black & White on the Grey Matters 2 (War) I like this guy…says lots of things I have pondered, yet hadn’t explored well enough to put those thoughts into words….
Read more [The Wide Awakes]

Silliness From Lefties on Dann

Okay...as previously stated, I think the Ohio GOP ought to let the Ohio Dems off themselves on this whole Dann affair, but this nonsense from Jill regarding Kevin DeWine's comments is just whack!

Which just goes to show how mental the lefties in the Ohiosphere have become over this whole thing.

My advice to the lefties is to let Kevin DeWine dig his own holes too...

We can check in with the SOS office, but I'm pretty sure that the "politics as usual" mindset that has gripped Columbus is not affiliated with either party.

But the most irritating thing about the piece is that Jill excoriates DeWine while having nary a word to say on the silence of Chris Redfern. And that speaks volumes to me, man...

UPDATE 1: More silliness -- this time from Modern Esquire, who also can't manage to find a few pixels for Chris Redfern (Has ANYONE seen Chris Redfern???). Speaking from experience here, the hardest part about blogging on a scandal in your own party is avoiding the distraction of getting sidetracked to non-relevant issues. Who cares what Kevin DeWine thinks? If Ohio Democrats were smart, they'd thank Kevin DeWine for leaking their strategy and then counter it by taking aggressive action towards removing Dann. That is exactly what the Ohio GOP failed to do with Bob Taft and Bob Ney. Leave it the Ohio Dems to learn from the Ohio GOP's mistakes...
Read more [Weapons of Mass Discussion]