The rampaging, Georgia-invading Russians should not be rewarded with another International love fest. The athletes shouldn’t have to suffer the effects of a boycott. Therefore, the only reasonable and rational think for the IOC to do would be to move the 2014 Winter Olympics from Sochi, Russia to another country.

Help get this done — Sign the petition!

Technorati Tags: 2014 Winter Olympics, Sochi, Russia

I’m not sure how she’s accomplished this over the last six days, but check out The Anchoress’ Online Retreat to calm your self and soothe your soul.

I’ve been way too worked up over the Russian invasion to contemplate something like this, but that’s just me.

Check it out . . .

All those that were “lucky” enough to get some of those “free” tickets for Barack Obama’s acceptance speech got a wake up call when they received their notices. Once again, the what-the-meaning-of-is-is Dems are redefining the meaning of a word, this time it’s — FREE. In the Land o’ Obama, “free” doesn’t mean “free” — it means the recipients have to “work” for those tickets. Here, let’s let Ed Morrissey explain:

Even without the campaign-finance issues, this looks very much like a bait-and-switch by Obama. The entire point of the Invesco address was to welcome everyone for free, perhaps because they wanted to ensure that the place was filled to capacity. Now, with everyone excited about attending this free event, Obama suddenly tells them that they can’t get a seat unless they work for him first.

Like most of Obama’s plans, nothing is free. We’ll pay one way or the other for every supposed giveaway in his policies. And in the end, he wants everyone working for him, while tossing hosannas at his feet and giving him the best optics he can possibly get.

One last thing: Obama didn’t require Germans in Berlin to work for him in order to cheer him at the Tiergarten. Why does Obama treat Germans better than Americans?

Obama’s a pol from Chicago — he’d get the dead to work for him if he could! Makes one wonder how many other words mean something else to good ol’ Barack. If free doesn’t mean free, what does freedom mean? I’m just sayin’ . . .

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama

The Russians are still in Georgia, despite a cease fire agreement and are now within 30 miles of the Georgian capital of Tbilisi. On top of that, Russia’s deputy chief of General Staff Col.-Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn is threatening Poland with nuclear attack for signing the missile-defense agreement with the U.S. The Bush administration is making hard verbal comebacks that either his administration or the next will have to back up, such as the statement by Sect. of State Condoleeza Rice, “With the signing of this accord, all Russian troops, and any paramilitary and irregular troops that entered with them must leave immediately.” Way back on Monday John McCain was making his displeasure with the Russian military excursions known.

Cowabunga! Great form in the wave face Barack!
Too bad he can’t be that decisive about
the Russian aggression and slaughter of innocents!

Now, where in the world is presumed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama?

Dude — He’s on vacation! It’s hard for this ol’ Okie to comprehend how a candidate for the Presidency of the United States can be so obtuse. No, I’m not referring to the age of John McCain — he’s been on this invasion issue like white on rice since the first Russian foot hit Georgian soil.

Can you imagine it — the Barack Obama campaign and the Obamessiah his own self frolicking in the Hawaiian surf, giving photo ops of Michelle and the kids relaxing, while American allies are being chased from their homes and many are being killed by Russian troops? I guess that we should be appeased that he actually issued some written communiques. As Jonah Goldberg wrote in his Sunday LAT column, Obama, after play acting as pres for the last few months, has been given a golden opportunity to showcase whatever Commander-In-Chief chops he might have and has come up woefully inept. Actually, it’s even worse than inept.

During his 8/11 statement where the NYT says “Senator Barack Obama, on vacation on the island of Oahu, emerged today to issue this statement on the situation between Russia and Georgia” the Great ‘O’ uttered these words:

The United States, Europe and all other concerned countries must stand united in condemning this aggression, and seeking a peaceful resolution to this crisis. We should continue to push for a United Nations Security Council Resolution calling for an immediate end to the violence. This is a clear violation of the sovereignty and internationally recognized borders of Georgia – the UN must stand up for the sovereignty of its members, and peace in the world.

NEWBIE ALERT! NEWBIE ALERT! — Someone on the Obama campaign staff should let the Senator from Illinois know that Russia has a VETO on the UN Security Council! HELLO!!!!! Nutter-In-Chief? Maybe he’s just really, really relaxed ’cause — DUDE! HE’S ON VACATION!

And that’s not all. Back here on the mainland his campaign has just lost a major negotiation with the Clinton campaign that now gives Hillary the lion’s share of attention for a good three days of the Democratic Convention. Michael Goodwin’s column in the NY Daily News highlights the weaknesses being shown by Barack and his campaign:

Russia rolls over Georgia, Hillary Clinton does the same to Barack Obama. Now we know who’s boss.

Obama blinked and stands guilty of appeasing Clinton by agreeing to a roll call vote for her nomination. That he might not have had much choice if he wanted peace only proves the point that he’s playing defense at his own convention.

What does he get out of it? Not much and not for long.

The fleeting sense that he is a magnanimous nominee won’t get him a single vote he wouldn’t get anyway. Ditto for the idea that he’s going the extra mile to unify the party. Those who refuse to accept him as the legitimate winner aren’t likely to do so just because he caves into her demands.

It makes him look weak and ratifies Clinton’s sense of entitlement to share party leadership and the convention spotlight.

It won’t make a bit of difference to the Obamatons, they are beyond reach or either reality or reason. Take these comments to the vacation posts linked above.

From Johnny Boyyy: “WOWWW what a BEAUTIFUL first family they will make!!!

My pride is overwhelming for Mr. Obama and I hope soooo much that everyone knows how much good he has already done for our country.”

Abbie Hoffman2 writes: “May God bless this incredible and photogenic man.”

Richmc gets to Obama’s substance, Or, maybe not.: “What a great looking guy. I hope he wins, what a breath of fresh air.”

And, January202009 has a special wish: “I want him to be my dad”

Even at the Huffington Post not every reader is a bleeding heart idiot.

Saul Goodee writes: “Wow…the NYT…even the effing NYT…..today is slamming obammy for playing in the kiddie pool while Mc cain steps up to address the biggest international crisis in years.

Real good time to put these photos out…smart move, obammy”

Sladenyv wraps it up nicely: “Ugh. While Barry bodysurfs, the Caucuses burn, the Clintons hijack the convention and McCain looks like the next Prez”

Mercy!

However, as my wife likes to respond — “None.”

[Update: Michelle Malkin has video! And, a satiric take on the salivating press.]

Ooooh. Who cares about Georgia? There’s video of Barack bodysurfing. And photos. So many Oba-licious photos.

Oooooh.

Omigod. He is so buff. He is so HAWT. Look at his chest. Look at his arms. Ooooooh. Turn this way, Barry. Mmmmm. No, no, turn around again.

You go, girl!

Technorati Tags: Georgia, Condoleeza Rice, Barack Obama, He’s on vacation, John McCain, Hillary Clinton

Fred Thompson does not mince words — He’s not at all impressed with the vacationing Barack Obama’s reponse to the Russian invasion of sovereign, democratic Georgia:

While this [Russia/Georgia] crisis plays out we should also note that these events give evidence of a larger reality: the next American President is going to face an international landscape that is more difficult and treacherous than we have ever faced. By now most Americans appreciate the dangers of international terrorism and the fact that a small number of people can wreck unimaginable havoc upon our country and our people if they get their hands on the right kinds of weaponry. What is less understood is that some of the older, traditional kinds of threats are still very much with us, only heightened because of the increasing availability of nuclear weapons and other weapon technologies.

{…}

This is no time to elect a president whose international experience is limited to speaking to adoring European crowds who want to see the United States retreat from the world … until they require our help in the next crisis that threatens them.

It has been instructive for the country to see the candidates’ reaction to the equivalent of Hillary Clinton’s 3 a.m. phone call. While he was vacationing in Hawaii, Barack Obama’s advisors scrambled into action and initially came up with the expected liberal bromides which equated the actions of Russia and Georgia and only ratcheted up the rhetoric when they began to actually understand what was happening.

It wasn’t that difficult for John McCain. For him Georgia was another little-known part of the world, whose leaders and history he is familiar with. And long before this Georgian crisis, he’s had the correct read on Russia, just as he’s had the right read on what we needed to do in Iraq.

This crisis half a world away confirms what I’ve been saying for a while: This election cycle, the traffic in the world is very heavy …and dangerous; it’s no time to give a kid with barely a learner’s permit the keys to the car.

Go and read it all. Now, who do you really want answering thost 3:00 am calls?

Technorati Tags: Fred Thompson, Barack Obama, Russian invasion, Georgia

Geez, it’s coming to this. According to the latest Rasmussen poll, 47% of Americans want to see the Fairness Doctrine revived for radio and TV, and almost 1/3 of us, 31%, would like to see that being applied to the Internet — impacting those of us that blog about politics.

Nearly half of Americans (47%) believe the government should require all radio and television stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary, but they draw the line at imposing that same requirement on the Internet. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say leave radio and TV alone, too.

At the same time, 71% say it is already possible for just about any political view to be heard in today’s media, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Twenty percent (20%) do not agree.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) say the government should not require websites and blog sites that offer political commentary to present opposing viewpoints. But 31% believe the Internet sites should be forced to balance their commentary[.]

What’s at issue here is freedom of speech — especially freedom of political speech, which is what the 1st Amendment was designed to protect in the first place. With the preponderance of national media (television and major newspapers) run by and staffed with Leftist ideologues, the conservative niche carved out by talk radio since Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine has really stuck in the craw of the Lefties. Those former radicals and crazies for Free Love, Free Speech, Free . . . well, Free almost everything . . . want you to know that you have the right to say and do anything you want, as long as you only say and do what they believe is correct to say and do. Got that? Whew!

There’s lots at stake in November. Now it’s looking like our right to have an opposing viewpoint heard is up for grabs as well. Would ol’ Barack Obama take away your right of free political speech to supposedly benefit the common good?

Yes. He. Would.

Except, that good ol’ Nanny Nancy Pelosi would beat him to it!

Technorati Tags: Fairness Doctrine, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi

I’ve been commenting on the Los Angeles Times less and less as this pathetic excuse for a major metropolitan newspaper becomes an ever more anorexic version of its former self. In the dead-tree edition, there’s almost no there there anymore. Still, in a bid to lose every thinking reader possible and become a LA Basin tabloid throwaway, they insist on running articles that defy explanation as to their truth-bending intent. Take for instance a couple of front page stories on DNA reliability in criminal trials here and here. I remember reading the July 20 one and going WTF? The Jason Felch and Maura Dolan piece makes the assertion that a recent discovery shows that DNA matches are much more common than previously thought and that DNA evidence is not the gold standard in court that it’s made out to be. In a case described in the May article they quote that the odds of a match were not 1 in 1.1 million, but actually 1 in 3.

It sounds so very bizarre, and for me it sure didn’t pass the smell test. However, without a legal-trained mind I didn’t feel qualified to pursue this and blanked it out of my mind as another wild assertion by my favorite cat-box liner, the LA Times. Thank God for Patterico, as Patrick does have the crack-legal chops and the penchant of a pit bull when he sees an LAT blunder this large. He warned that such an irresponsible article would lead to big problems of extremely bad folks being exonerated for their crimes do to jury confusion and mistrust of DNA evidence.

Just as I feared, those misleading L.A. Times articles on DNA, cold hits, and statistics are starting to have an effect in the courtroom.

In May, the L.A. Times ran a front-page DNA article that completely botched the statistics on “cold hit” cases, falsely telling people (on Page One of the Sunday paper) that the odds of a particular convicted defendant being innocent were actually 1 in 3. The paper had absolutely no basis to make this statement the way they phrased it. I called them on it, as did Eugene Volokh. But the reporters and editors stubbornly refused to correct the error.

Then in July, the paper ran another Page One Sunday blockbuster, telling readers on the front page that a researcher had run searches in an Arizona DNA database that revealed “dozens” of matches, “each seeming to defy impossible odds.” Only on page A20 were readers told that most of these Incredibly Unexpected Matches were, in fact, “to be expected statistically” because each sample was matched to every other sample in the database — exponentially increasing the total number of comparisons, and “greatly increasing the odds” of finding a match. (There was a discrepancy between the expected number of matches and the reality, but this discrepancy was not anywhere as stunning as suggested on Page One. According to one researcher, statistics suggested there would be about 100 matches out of the 2 billion comparisons done in the Arizona database. In reality, there were actually 144 matches, instead of the expected 100.)

Even educated people got confused reading these articles. This can be explained, in part, by the fact that statistics is a very complicated subject. But part of the explanation lies in the articles’ overly dramatic presentation, coupled with their often misleading and sometimes flatly false statements concerning the relevant statistics.

I suspected that most educated people who trust the paper came away with only a vague notion of the math involved — but with a firm impression that There Is Something Wrong With DNA and that Jurors Are Being Lied To. I worried that jury verdicts in Los Angeles would be affected.

It’s starting to happen. These irresponsible articles have begun to bear fruit.

And today, he discovers that in an upcoming academic paper one of the main resources that the Times quotes to support their contentions directly refutes the Times’ conclusions.

A statistics expert cited by the L.A. Times has now publicly claimed that the paper “mischaracterized” a central statistic in a Page One article on DNA, statistics, and cold hits.

Prof. David Kaye was recently described by L.A. Times reporters Jason Felch and Maura Dolan as “an expert on science and the law at Arizona State University and former member of a national committee that studied forensic DNA.”

Prof. Kaye is also now on record, in a soon-to-be-published paper, as saying that those same reporters “mischaracterized” a critical probability in a May article about DNA “cold hit” cases.

Remember folks, you can’t believe everything you read in the paper! Unless of course, it’s in The National Enquirer!

Take that, Silky Pony!

Technorati Tags: Los Angeles Times, Patterico, DNA, Arizona DNA database

I guess being a doc on ER and an international movie star gives George Clooney enough chops to advise a potential next president of the United States on matters of war and peace. From the UK’s Daily Mail:

Sources say the actor has tried to hide the pair’s friendship for fear his Left-wing views and playboy image would hurt the Presidential hopeful’s bid for the White House. [No kidding!]

But Democratic Party insiders have revealed that Clooney and Obama regularly send texts and emails to each other and speak by phone at least twice a week. [Now, isn’t that precious?]

One said last night: ‘They are extremely close. A number of members of the Hollywood community, including Brad Pitt, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, offered to help raise funds for Barack but it was with George that he struck up this amazing affinity. [They can each look at the other and say, “Damn, you look good!”]

‘George has been giving him advice on things such as presentation, public speaking and body language and he also emails him constantly about policy, especially the Middle East.

‘George is pushing him to be more “balanced” on issues such as US relations with Israel. [Throw ‘em under the bus, eh George?]

‘George is pro-Palestinian. And he is also urging Barack to withdraw unconditionally from Iraq if he wins. [Yup! It’s bus time for the Israelis if Obama wins!]

‘It’s a very risky relationship. His hope of becoming America’s first black President depends heavily on winning over conservative voters [Bwwwwhaaaaaa!!!!!] and it would be suicidal for him to be perceived as a tool of a Hollywood Leftie, which is how they regard George. [We all know what many cultures do with their ‘left’ hands . . .]

‘But they text and email each other almost every day and speak on the phone at least a couple of times a week, often more.’ [Even more preciousness — ain’t they just too cute?]

The Ocean’s Eleven star is among many Hollywood figures to have endorsed Obama, including Barbra Streisand, Scarlett Johansson, Warren Beatty and Steven Spielberg.

Like we give a big, flipping you-know-what! Especially now that we are seeing a militarily emergent Russia invade a sovereign democratic neighbor with impunity and Obama’s response being an initial wimpy written communique and a promise “to go body surfing at some undisclosed location.”

Hey, dude’s on VACATION! Why should Barack Obama worry? It’s not 3AM and it’s not like he’s president of the U.S.A. yet, no matter what the headrest on his private plane seat says. More on this later.

Technorati Tags: George Clooney, Barack Obama

I guess it was bound to happen, but who thought it would be so soon? I mean, every big MSM resource besides the LAT (well, that one’s gettin’ smaller by the minute!) has been giving the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter love tryst and love child story the total cold shoulder. Kinda makes you wonder what they’ll think of this.

Today, Edwards came clean, sort of, revealing the truth of the affair. However, he denies having fathered the child of the woman that he had sex with.

In 2006, I made a serious error in judgment and conducted myself in a way that was disloyal to my family and to my core beliefs. I recognized my mistake and I told my wife that I had a liaison with another woman, and I asked for her forgiveness. Although I was honest in every painful detail with my family, I did not tell the public. When a supermarket tabloid told a version of the story, I used the fact that the story contained many falsities to deny it. But being 99% honest is no longer enough.

I was and am ashamed of my conduct and choices, and I had hoped that it would never become public. With my family, I took responsibility for my actions in 2006 and today I take full responsibility publicly. But that misconduct took place for a short period in 2006. It ended then. I am and have been willing to take any test necessary to establish the fact that I am not the father of any baby, and I am truly hopeful that a test will be done so this fact can be definitively established. I only know that the apparent father has said publicly that he is the father of the baby. I also have not been engaged in any activity of any description that requested, agreed to or supported payments of any kind to the woman or to the apparent father of the baby.

OK, take the test, dude. Take the test. ‘Cause your gettin’ caught sneakin’ around at 2-in-the-AM last month to see her and the baby keeps on beggin’ that question. Of course, this is all just salacious nonsense, unless you are the mother of the child and need support.

But, if the Dem-wits let him address their convention in Denver one will have to wonder just what they are all smokin’. And then there’s this, you could just mark it up as another bad decision made by the all-knowing, all-seeing Big ‘O’. I think they need to tell ol’ Silky to giddy up along to the barn, bed his own self down and politically disappear. Besides, he’s got a sick wife that needs him more than ol’ Barry Obama ever will . . .

Technorati Tags: John Edwards/Rielle Hunter

[h/t: The Anchoress & Bookworm]