Mona Charen on National Review Online: “My own theory, FWIW, is that Obama acquired his far left views at least in part to make himself as authentically black as he could to compensate for having a white mother. His mother, of course, was very left herself. But looking the way he does, and having been raised among only white people (mother and maternal grandparents) he felt the need to better identify with his black heritage.”

And so Charen’s explanation for all the non-black far leftists is ….? (personally I don’t consider Obama “far left” at all but I’ll let that slide).

A Miami Herald article on the bill to allow teachers and students to present “scientific information” critical of evolution shows the supporters — Ben Stein, the “Intelligent Design” advocates of the Discovery Institute, state legislators — has the supporters insisting that no, no, no, this bill obviously doesn’t allow intelligent design to be taught in schools. The Discovery Institute’s Casey Luskin, for instance, asserts that since critics of “ID” say that it isn’t science, how can they possibly suggest that the bill would allow intelligent design to be taught?

Would anyone care to bet that if this bill passes, the Discovery Institute won’t immediately start insisting that ID is so science and therefore must be taught? Along with all the other supposedly scientific theories such as all the dinosaur fossils having been caught in Noah’s flood (Leonardo daVinci demolished that one several centuries ago, but it still circulates)? Or the endless cries of “Well, I don’t think that could have evolved naturally, so it must have been designed!” as if one person’s incomprehension was scientific proof?

Luskin is perfectly right that critics of ID, myself included, don’t consider it science (and we’re right), but that hasn’t to date stopped the Discovery Institute from insisting otherwise. If the bill passes, why should they change?

And let’s not forget House Speaker Marco Rubio, who said last month that teaching evolution is equivalent to the propaganda tactics of Castro’s Cuba because it consists of the state undermining what parents may be telling their kids at home: “Of course, I’m not equating the evolution people with Fidel Castro (but) in order to impose their totalitarian regime, they destroyed the family; they destroyed the faith links that existed in that society.”

So if the parents are flat earthers, would Rubio object to their learning geography?

A couple of articles I read recently—here’s the one I have a link to — say that despite all the furor the recording industry has raised over file sharing, downloads and now YouTube playing music without paying royalties, the artists aren’t seeing a dime.
According to the link above, managers for several artists say their clients haven’t seen a dime out of the YouTube settlements made a year and a half ago. Explanations offered by the industry are that YouTub isn’t generating much money, or it’s slow in paying, but since the record companies refuse to divulge any details of what the royalties are or how the deal is structured, it’s hard to tell.
Another article said the same problem has cropped up with the legal settlements over the various file-sharing programs: The program-makers coughed up money, but it’s not reaching the creators.
Or here’s something that happened last year that took my breath away: The Recording Industry Association of America established that anyone playing digital music, even if it’s on your own personal internet station, has to pay a royalty to RIAA. Of course, if you’re playing your own royalty, you get the money back … but RIAA won’t pay unless you sign up, fork over a fee and join the group first.

Remember the huge 600,000 collection of Iraqi documents gathered after the war? The ones some right-wingers predicted would vindicate Bush’s decision to invade by showing the al-Qaida/Saddam link?

The Pentagon concludes there was no such link (as reported this week by the McClatchy Newspapers). None. Whatsoever. Saddam supported some Middle Eastern terrorists (which isn’t news, of course), but not al-Qaida (and one of the groups, the Iranian terrorists in exile MKE, were supported by the USA as well).

According to one blogger–the McClatchy article doesn’t say so–there’s nothing that indicates Saddam ever tried to have the elder Bush assassinated either.

Of course, it will be no surprise to most of America that there is no Saddam/al-Qaida link, just as most Americans probably know that “al-Qaida in Iraq” has nothing to do with al-Qaida, contrary to John McCain’s recent statements.

To the minority that still supports Bush’s war, on the other hand, any statements that Saddam wasn’t hand in glove with al-Qaida and didn’t have a vast stockpile of superweapons now hidden in Syria (or wherever) is just part of the liberal media coverup.

So if everyone either knows what I just said or refuses to believe it, was there any point to posting it?

From the “astute blogger” site:

“THINK ABOUT IT. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JUNIOR - IS HALF KENYAN AND HALF AMERICAN.

HE IS NOT AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN.
OBAMA SURE HAS FOOLED THE AFRICAN-AMERICANS ONTO THINKING HE’S ONE OF THEM.”

And how cunnng of Obama to have all the map makers fake the illusion of Kenya being part of Africa!

•On New York Governor Elliot Spitzer hiring prostitutes, Dr. Laura Schlessinger weighs in — and blames the wife: “When the wife does not focus in on the needs and the feelings — sexually, personally — to make him feel like a man, to make him feel like a success, to make him feel like her hero, he’s very susceptible to the charm of some other woman. … The cheating was his decision to repair what’s damaged and to feed himself where he’s starving. But yes, I hold women accountable for tossing out perfectly good men by not treating them with the love and kindness and respect and attention they need.”

Quite aside from the general ridiculousness, I don’t think hiring a prostitute constitutes succumbing to “charm.”

•Monsignor Gianfranco Giotti of the Catholic Church on sexual abuse by priests and its coverups by the hierarchy: While admitting the “objective gravity” of abuse, he also stated that media coverage should be denounced because it “discredits the church.”
Because as we all know, doing bad things is not as big a problem as someone telling people when you’ve done bad things.

•Keith John Sampson, a student and janitor at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis was seen reading a book called “Notre Dame vs. the Klan” — about Notre Dame University’s clash with the antiCatholic KKK — by a black coworker who complained to the school authorities that reading a book about the KKK was a form of racial harassment. Unfortunately, the university sided with the complainant, telling Sampson not to read the book at work again, though officials generously decided not to initiate any punishment.
I could understand the coworker jumping to conclusions and complaining about Sampson, but for the university to agree with the complaint? Unless some hidden dimension comes up to the story, that’s amazingly idiotic.
•Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern on homosexuality: “Studies show, no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted for more than, you know, a few decades. . .
I honestly think it’s the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam.”
What can one say except no, it isn’t? But bonus stupid points to Kern for identifying Islam, not just terrorism, as a threat to America.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on the show 24 and Jack Bauer’s use of torture: “Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. … He saved hundreds of thousands of lives …Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?” Scalia subsequently goes on to say how pleased he was with one sequence where Bauer convinces a terrorist that unless he talks, his family will be executed.

This wouldn’t be worthy of discussion if Scalia hadn’t told the BBC last month that he not only thinks torture acceptable when lives are in imminent danger–the “ticking bomb” scenario–but once you accept that, you have to consider it valid to use torture on people for general information (I’ll be discussing this further in Saturday’s column).

Actually, no we don’t. As someone once put it, it’s possible to come up with a situation in which you have to kill a child to save hundreds of lives—let’s say because a terrorist with a nuclear bomb is using the kid as a shield while he presses the detonator. It does not therefore follow that this makes shooting children in other situations (or like Jack Bauer, threatening to shoot them) an alternative that should be considered.

And then we have Homeland Secretary Michael Chertoff saying “I thought that there was one element of the shows that at least I found very thought-provoking, and I suspect, from talking to people, others do as well… I think when people watch the show, it provokes a lot of thinking about what would you do if you were faced with this set of unpalatable alternatives, and what do you do when you make a choice and it turns out to be a mistake … It’s very easy in hindsight to go back after a decision and inspect it and examine why the decision should have been taken in the other direction. But when you are in the middle of the event, as the characters in ‘24′ are, with very imperfect information and with very little time to make a decision, and with the consequences very high on a wrong decision, you have to be willing to make a decision recognizing that there is a risk of mistake.”

In other words, we can’t wait to prove all those enemy combatants are innocent because if they’re guilty and if there’s a bomb out there and if we don’t torture them to find out what they know then something bad might happen so anyone who objects to Bush authorizing the torture of innocent people obviously hates America and loves bin Laden. So there.

I watch 24, I like 24. But I don’t watch it because it makes me think about the ethics and legality of the use of torture in real life, any more than people who watch The Punisher are intrigued by the ethics of when to resort to vigilante justice. I watch it because it’s entertaining and well-made enough and fictional, none of which is the case with real torture. And for all the pretense it confronts us with serious issues about torture, it’s pointedly avoided many of them: Nobody has ever given a false confession to stop the pain or made up information, for instance.

As for the “Would you prosecute Jack Bauer?” question, I think if a CIA agent actually did save LA from a nuclear bomb by the use of torture, no jury in the country would convict him. But Chertoff to the contrary, we’re not dealing with ticking-bomb cases under the current administration, we’re dealing with the Maybe there’s a bomb, Maybe they know something, Maybe the consequences of not torturing will be bad.

That’s not good enough. Not for America.

But this quote in an article in this weekend’s Daily News really offended me. An unnamed Defense Department official, objecting to Sen. Jim Webb’s bill to boost veteran’s educational benefits, asked “Why would anybody stay for another deployment when they can go out on a four-year free ride?”

It’s fair to debate or disagree about the level of benefits veterans receive, but “free ride?” I think military veterans have pretty much paid for what they receive.

No wonder this guy wanted stay anonymous.

“Jekyll and Hyde, the musical” is an entertaining show. I’m not a fan of the script (neither the songs nor the story really grab me) but the performance makes up for it: It has energy, looks great, and has some terrific voices, particularly Jekyll/Hyde and Lucy, the fallen woman who falls for Jekyll.

So if you have time this coming weekend, check it out.