The bulletproof hoodie that has so many of you up in arms today is more than likely a cynical fraud by a company that obviously knows how to play up the easily excitable U.K. press, but who doesn't have much of a chance of following through with a product that can do what they claim.

According to the company's web site:

Bladerunner have now created " The Defender Hoodie " which is BULLET PROOF throughout the main body area.

This Hoodie is rugged and tough just like a normal Hoodie but this one has a removable Inner Shell that gives you Balistic Security at Level NIJ STD 0101.04

Number 1: Never trust your "Balistic Security" to a bunch of over-zealous fashion designers that can't spell "ballistic."

Number 2: There is no such thing as "bullet proof," just bullet resistant, a fact that any responsible armor designer will tell you that Bladerunner blows right past in a bit of self-promoting puffery.

Number 3: NIJ STD 0101.04 is not an armor level. It is a testing specification published by the U.S. Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice to determine the classes or types of armor protection.

Type I body armor--which I suspect the "bulletproof hoodie" will be if it meets any NIJ standards at all--will only stop low-velocity ammunition, and is generally regarded as being obsolete for all practice purposes. Types IIA, II, and IIIA provide increasing resistance to penetration from handgun bullets.

Types III and IV are designed to protect against rifle rounds.

Of course, if the edgy fashion designers at Bladerunner want to put their products up for real-world testing, I can easily find some police officers and civilian shooting instructors here in the United States that would enjoy helping test these claims with common .22LR, 9mm, .38 Special, 40 S&W, .45ACP and .357 Magnum ammunition.

My email address is in the right column of this page under "email me." I look forward to hearing from you.

Via Ace, who isn't buying this, either.

Update: I sent Bladerunner an email leading them back to this blog post. Barry Samms of Bladerunner responded via email with a curt "who are you to be calling me a fraud, I suggest you choose your words a bit wiser before emailing us."

I suppose that was meant to be intimidating, but you'll note he didn't refute a single point I made, nor did he seem willing to offer his product up for real-world testing.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:27 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 421 words, total size 3 kb.

Here is the screencap of a link from an extremely misleading link on FoxNews.com this morning.

The link to "U.S. Warplane Launches Massive Airstrike in Basra" goes to the following story where you would presumably expect to read abut a serious escalation in U.S. bombings in Basra against Mahdi Army targets, which would likely prompt attacks by followers of al Sadr against U.S. military targets around Iraq.

What you learn from clicking the link, however, is that just two bombs were dropped in Basra, and they were small munitions that targeted militants hiding in specific houses.

Massive = 2.

It's nice to know.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:31 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't see why Jane Fonda's endorsement of Barack Obama qualifies as being newsworthy:

Jane Fonda, the actress and ardent anti-Vietnam War advocate who visited North Vietnam during those hostilities, has endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president.

Actress and anti-war advocate Jane Fonda at a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft battery in June 1972 singing an anti-war song with soldiers during her visit to North Vietnam in the Vietnam war has just endorsed Democrat Barack Obama of Illinois for president

There were no formal ceremonies for the endorsement. In fact, the Obama campaign may just be learning about the actress's approval now as word spreads like lit gunpowder via the Internet.

Fonda was eating out last night and exited the restaurant, ignoring as celebrities often do the assembled press contingent.

But a video camera was rolling as she approached the street and someone, perhaps just trying to get her to turn around for a picture, shouted out at her back, "Who are you going to vote for?"

There was a moment of silence. Then, the actress did turn around toward the cameras, paused and with a smile said simply, "Obama!" Then she got into a car and drove away.

A radical anti-war activist has decided to vote for a radical anti-war candidate. Why, exactly is this newsworthy?

If Fonda had blurted out "McCain!"— as her candidate of choice, a man who was being brutally beaten by the North Vietnamese as Fonda was doing photo ops for them on anti-aircraft guns being used against McCain's fellow aviators—that would be news.

If Obama's terrorist friend Bill Ayers renounced his involvement in bombings of the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and his group's attempting bombing of a soldiers dance at Fort Dix (the plan went awry when his girlfriend blew herself up by accident, instead of the U.S. Army soldiers and their civilian dates that they were targeting), and then shouted out that he would support McCain after targeting servicemen with bombs throughout the time McCain was being tortured, that would be news.

If Rev. Jeremiah Wright, emerged from his million-dollar mansion to "God D__m Barack" instead of America, or to even simply apologize for exposing his congregation to bigotry and conspiracy theorizing, that would be news.

But none of those things happened.

An aging actress who wanted America to lose one war has announced her support for a candidate who wants America to lose it's current conflict.

It is sad. It is predictable. But it isn't news.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:35 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 424 words, total size 3 kb.

I found Saint Obama's view of pregnancy as a "punishment" quite repulsive when he uttered the words earlier this week, but I was not exceedingly surprised, considering his actual political record (not his empty presidential campaign promises) has typically been that of the left-wing radical.

I did not know how extreme his ideas were regarding abortion, however, until today. Writing in a Washington Post op-ed, Michael Gerson demonstrates that Obama's record borders on quietly favoring infanticide.

Obama has not made abortion rights the shouted refrain of his campaign, as other Democrats have done. He seems to realize that pro-choice enthusiasm is inconsistent with a reputation for post-partisanship.

But Obama's record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion -- a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called "too close to infanticide." Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" because of a crisis pregnancy -- hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.

That Obama opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act—a law, that states, quite simply, that abortionists cannot murder a child that manages to escape the womb alive—is beyond macabre.

It is profoundly disturbing, to think that a man who would be President, a man who is the father of two young children himself, would oppose a law that protects the weakness and most vulnerable members of our society, babies born alive and defenseless.

Sadly, his leanings toward infanticide mesh rather consistently with his plans for a headlong retreat from Iraq that most experts suspect would help trigger a genocide.

As President, Barack Obama won't mind if people die.

They just have to be the right people—infants and Iraqi civilians—instead of terrorists.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:32 AM | Comments (43) | Add Comment
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Yeh, no guns within miles of a school - but adult entertainment just across from it, next to a Planned Parenthood facility... Smart fellow.

Posted by: DirtCrashr at April 02, 2008 12:03 PM (VNM5w)

2 Being inured to death, as long as it doesn't affect your supporters, is a characteristic of the left, and its underlying philosopy of materialism..The NYT, in its editorial urging immediate withdrawl from Iraq, basically said some "genocide" (they used the term) was ok under the circumstances they envisioned. But,if it ever does happen in Iraq on an Obama watch (heaven forbid) he, and they, will first most likely deny "true" genocide occured, by redefining genocide as murder on a scale larger than what actually happened, calling it instead "sectarian violence". Then they will blame Bush for its occurrence, saying it was inevitable given the circumstances he, Obama, had to deal with. The other MSM will cover them, and the American people will have limited interest.

Posted by: mytralman at April 02, 2008 12:14 PM (k+clE)

3 Yuck, thoroughly disgusting human being.

Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at April 02, 2008 12:54 PM (2wI6h)

4 Unfortunately, I've found that baby-killing views of Harvard-educated Obama are shared by many other Ivy Leaguers, particularly scientists and Ph.D. types who are followers of Pete Singer.

Posted by: ER at April 02, 2008 01:28 PM (ZLS30)

5 Gentlemen, I wonder just how long before someone grows tired of the Left and the state of this country and the opening shot of the next Civil War is fired? This Obama will run this country and the lives of many innocents straight to hell. (with a little help from a limp-dick congress) We cant drip some water on Mustafa's head but we can crush an unborn child and suck out his pulverized body?

Posted by: Samuel at April 02, 2008 02:16 PM (Jcu9H)

6 Pro-Torture, pro-capital punishment, pro-war, and pro-life. Solid, guys.

Posted by: Zifnab at April 02, 2008 03:14 PM (Usaah)

7 Pro-infanticide, pro-terrorism, pro-surrender! Solid, Zifnab

Posted by: SShiell at April 02, 2008 03:26 PM (8UXyu)

8 There is an article by Amanda Carpenter which will eventually be a larger part of this campaign... http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647 He did vote for infanticide in the Illinois Senate. His record on abortion is plain radical and that makes me wonder what sorts of judges he would choose. Of course, that is a question that he will likely not be asked anytime soon.

Posted by: Mike Volpe at April 02, 2008 03:39 PM (86F5q)

9 Who says there's no such thing as reincarnation.....Hitler is in the house again

Posted by: quietriot at April 02, 2008 03:49 PM (grFLU)

10 I lived in Chicago until 2005 and this was actually a pretty big deal at the time. Most media tried to cover it up but it got out and it made many people disgusted with the guy. If memory serves me right it came out when Obama was running for Senate against the guy who had to drop out.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 02, 2008 04:21 PM (kNqJV)

11 Much agreed, CY. This loon seems to favor killing innocents and protecting the guilty.... http://sailorette.blogspot.com/2008/03/hey-folks.html

Posted by: Foxfier at April 02, 2008 04:55 PM (s2ydv)

12 Obama also voted against a bill (twice, once on a floor vote, and once on a cloture vote on the conference report) that was designed to stop abortions from being performed on minors who reside in states that first require parental notification but try to get the abortions in states that don't require it. There isn't an abortion this guy won't support.

Posted by: SteveIL at April 02, 2008 06:04 PM (LAf3D)

13 I find it rather humorous that the ones who are the biggest supporters of abortion are also the biggest opponents of capital punishment. Now if capital punishment were called post birth abortion they would be all for it.

Posted by: Nahanni at April 02, 2008 07:58 PM (ziNAi)

14 Lefties think there are too many people so they want death. As long as it is someone else. Lefties think there are too many resources being used so they want conservation. Not they THEY conserve, just us. Lefties think taxes are too low so they want them raised. Just don't mess with Teddy K's trust fund. Don't mess with a lefty's tax professional.

Posted by: Peter at April 02, 2008 08:05 PM (AiJXe)

15 Oh, before some moonbat tries to jump all over me for my comment about capital punishment using that it is "killing the innocent" argument. Tell me exactly what are the children who are killed by the Obama supported partial birth abortion guilty of? Keyword being birth-meaning that they are fully developed children. You can spare me the moonbat semantics on this one.

Posted by: Nahanni at April 02, 2008 08:07 PM (us00P)

16 Wow...just...wow. *Clap clap clap*. This board has truly outdone itself this time, and is awarded an average of 9.9 from the judges for hysteria, 9.8 for shrill baseless invective, and 10.0 for complete absence of critical thought. Do you guys ever get tired of being so thoroughly manipulated as to believe half your country is demon possessed? Chrissakes, guys, abortion and gay marriage and terrorism are just wedge issues used to turn you against the other half for the sake of party politics. Once your GOP vote is cast, no one gives 2 craps about you until the next election unless your name is Bear Stearns, or General Dynamics. There really is only one America, and it's taking on water, so why don't we try to focus on rational discussions on how to get back into the black? But, if the GOP wants to make this a cultural values election, be my guest--it's a sure loser in a down economy. Many/most can't afford to vote based on abortion, and they'll vote for the person who they think will help pull the country out of the crapper. (Hint: it ain't the guy who sung Bomb Iran to the tune of Barbara Ann and says economics isn't his strong suit). Tell me I'm wrong and why.

Posted by: Craig at April 02, 2008 08:22 PM (0MZfd)

17 Craig, your basic concept is wrong. The economy is not down. Unemployment is lower than it was during the last Democratic administration... I don't want to mention the name of that President lest I be accused of "bashing." Anyway, during that Democratic administration, unemployment averaged 5.2%. It is currently 4.8%. The inflation rate is currently 2.7%. Under Clinton, it averaged 2.6%. 0.1% does not a recession make. Speaking of recessions, the economic definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth. We haven't even had one negative quarter yet. The fourth quarter of 2007 had slow growth, but it was still growth... national GDP grew 0.6%. And in the third quarter the GDP increased 4.9%. So, two quarters of growth... no recession. However, it's been proven statistically that the news likes to carry more "negative" economic stories during elections with a Republican incumbent than they do during those when the incumbent is a Democrat, so it's no wonder that they're spinning furiously to convince those, like you, Craig, who don't look closely at the numbers that things are bad. Congrats, you're a perfect Democratic voter... you believe whatever the media tells you, and parrot it whenever possible... nevermind that the facts are far far different.

Posted by: C-C-G at April 02, 2008 08:55 PM (5m1ld)

18 My wife and I found out back around Thanksgiving that our 15 1/2 year old daughter was pregnant. She is a very bright girl who was/is college bound - her two older brothers have already gone to college. She made a wrong choice and now is in a major life altering circumstance. We are very active in our church and community activities. I can personally say that as much as an abortion might "reset" the circumstances to the way it was before she got pregnant, an abortion was NEVER a consideration for any of the three of us. It is going to be very tough for us and for her, but this child will be loved and cherished as a gift from God. Maybe it sounds immature, but when you walk through the situation, the intellectual arguments don't mean much and you react to the situation according to your basic moral views. Either you value life or you don't and all the invective and polemics on either side seem to be just noise and so much posturing. Over the past four weeks, my daughter has felt the baby move and we have seen it move - all arguments to the contrary, it is a life and therefore miraculous and worth preserving, even at great cost.

Posted by: DavidR at April 02, 2008 09:10 PM (zLN21)

19 C-C-G- Actually, I said "down economy," not a recession. Nevertheless, you can go out into the world with your charts and graphs on GDP growth and pedantic explanations of just what constitutes a recession, but you will change very few minds that (1) the economy sucks and the country is headed the wrong way, and (2) it's tougher economically now than 4 years ago. Believe me or don't, but you know who was the last one to get burned by precisely this? George HW Bush. During the last quarter of '92, the economy actually grew by 4+%, but voters went for Bill based largely on pocketbook leanings. The take-away is this: Perception rules at the polls, but it's based in reality to some extent. It IS tougher now for many, many people than it was 4 years ago. The housing crisis and resulting credit squeeze has made it tougher for business and individuals to borrow money, and consequently there is a lot of insecurity. So, yap about wildly exaggerated stories of candidates' abortion stands from now till next year if you want, because it will net you nothing. Again, you're allowing yourself to be completely used, and for what?

Posted by: Craig at April 02, 2008 09:14 PM (0MZfd)

20 From one David to another... my prayers are going out for your family, your daughter, and your new grandbaby.

Posted by: C-C-G at April 02, 2008 09:19 PM (5m1ld)

21 Yeah, yeah, yeah, Craig, I knew that you'd not accept it when I accepted your challenge to prove you wrong. Thanks for confirming my low opinion of Democrat supporters. You ask for us to prove you wrong, and when we do, you spin it furiously. To quote a famous movie, "you can't handle the truth!"

Posted by: C-C-G at April 02, 2008 09:22 PM (5m1ld)

22 Thanks C-C-G!! - Your prayers are appreciated and much needed.

Posted by: DavidR at April 02, 2008 09:25 PM (zLN21)

23 I see no inconsistency in being Anti Abortion and Pro Death Penalty. It has something to do with a little words called " Innocent". You cannot be more innocent than an unborn baby.

Posted by: Dennis D at April 02, 2008 10:22 PM (EbvWp)

24 Well it all makes perfect sense, don't you see. He doesn't want his daughter(s) to be "punished" with a baby, so if said baby/punishment happens to survive the, um, medical procedure, it CAN be punished with the death penalty. Only in the mind of a liberal democrat -- Craig -- is a live baby a punishment, but killing one not. And, one thing that libs never seem to think about is the effect that having killed their child does have on the girl/woman for the rest of her life. I have first hand experience of it with a young friend of mine.

Posted by: Bill Smith at April 02, 2008 10:30 PM (bJ9FB)

25 Bill Smith - you are exactly right - the psychological and emotional aftermath would destroy my daughter - that is another major reason we would not even begin to consider an abortion for her.

Posted by: DavidR at April 02, 2008 10:35 PM (zLN21)

26 Sadly, I know a bit about the subject as well. Female friends have had a total of four abortions. Every single one of them was psychologically scarred to some degree by the experience, and one, frankly, snapped. She hasn't been right since. Two women I know got pregnant early, one at 15, the other at 25. Both considered abortions briefly, and both decided to keep their children. Both are thankful they kept their children. Come to think of it, I don't know of anyone who regrets bringing a child into this world, and most I know who decided not to, regretted the decision later.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 02, 2008 10:48 PM (HcgFD)

27 DavidR - Thank you very much for making the right choice. I have friends and dearly loved relatives who "should" have been aborted, either because they were caused by a rape, the mother was too young, they were at the "wrong time." (twin children of my mom's first cousin, their mom found out she was preggers the day after the divorce, and she is-- sadly-- an utter loser. Her parents adopted them; the girl figured it out at about 15; the guy had to be told at 18....)

Posted by: Foxfier at April 02, 2008 11:08 PM (s2ydv)

28 The effects of having an abortion on women are devastating. From my personal experience file: My ex-wife had an abortion before we met. In fact, I was the 'next' relationship she had. We dated seriously for 4 years before getting married. During that time, I told her all of my secrets. It wasn't until late in year 3 she told me about the abortion. And, she was very ashamed of having it. She rationalized and rationalized it to a point she could believe she did the right thing. Her mother was her rock in making the decision to have the abortion. What her mother never told her, until just about 3 or 4 years ago, is that she too had gotten pregnant as a teenager. She carried the baby to term and gave it up for adoption. When ex-mother-in-law told her daughter about this baby it was because the baby had grown up and was looking for her real mother. Not that she didn't love her adoptive parents, but that she just wanted to know where she came from. My ex now has a loving 'older' sister and has had several break-downs over her abortion - 17+ years ago. All because she never truly came to grips with, again in her words, "killing her baby". The interesting thing (maybe scary is a better word) is she is a staunch abortion supporter to this day.

Posted by: Mark at April 02, 2008 11:19 PM (KDHro)

29 Fox, I've mentioned before that I have a hidden disability... I often wonder, if I'd been conceived in these days, when they can test for things like that, if my mother would be "counseled" to abort me. That's a thought that will send a cold chill down your spine.

Posted by: C-C-G at April 02, 2008 11:20 PM (5m1ld)

30 CCG- my sister's baby has club feet. It's easily treatable-- one small surgery that won't even leave a visible scar, and wearing booties on a bar for a year or so. She was "counseled" as you suggest. She's much sweeter than I am, but her response...well, was what you'd expect from a mother when someone suggests they kill their child. Mark-- and Our Host-- do you know if they've looked into the Abortion Recovery groups? Many of them are staffed by people who know exactly where the women are coming from; I've been told it's very effective.

Posted by: Foxfier at April 02, 2008 11:30 PM (s2ydv)

31 Well, after a child is born, it ceases to be an "abortion" topic. I don't know quite how I feel about abortion, but I sure know how I feel about killing babies after they are born. After a person is born, it ceases to be gray in anyone's eyes. That's flat-out murder. Literally. By anyone's measuring stick. I knew that liberals were crazy, but I had never heard they were advocating this. I gotta read this bill.

Posted by: brando at April 02, 2008 11:36 PM (rDQC9)

32 Foxfier - my ex refuses to. Much in the way an alcoholic refuses to admit "I have a problem". This problem she has - and, believe me, I have/had been supportive of her before, during and after our marriage (we are still very good friends) - she simply tries to 'get over it' but it keeps coming back. Each and everytime I suggest counseling, support groups, etc she goes off on just how "horrible they'll make me feel". You see, I'm anti-abortion in almost every instance and made my beliefs very well known to her. The reason she waited so long was because she thought I'd kick her to the curb after I found out. My response was along the line of "that's something you will have to deal with and I'm here to help you". She has always been rabidly pro-abortion even though having had one makes her a basketcase on occasion. I simply don't understand it myself. Maybe it's the 'female mind' thing or simply someone who has lied to herself so convincingly there's absolutely no chance of fixing it. I simply do not know 'why', but I see and have seen the effects on her for 16 + years.

Posted by: Mark at April 02, 2008 11:43 PM (KDHro)

33 I understand it; it's a defensive thing. I've been known to do similar things when I know I messed up big time, but *technically* didn't break "the rules." She's using the legality of the act as a mental defense-- I don't know if it's more common among women or what, but I know a LOT of women who react to abortion in that way. Good luck to you both.

Posted by: Foxfier at April 03, 2008 12:32 AM (s2ydv)

34 Mark - You are exactly right, she will never heal from it unless she quits the rationalizing and faces what she has done. We as humans are all so good at trying to rationalize our wrong choices and bad behavior and we get so locked into them and so defensive that it is a major emotional event to truly face them and admit we were wrong. In the "Magician's Nephew" by C. S. Lewis, Aslan the Lion says, "Oh, Adam's sons, how cleverly you defend yourself against all that might do you good!" It is true - we defend ourselves against the very things, truth and real forgiveness, that would heal us and do us good. I am very sorry for your ex-wife and hope she eventually will go see someone about the issue and get healed. My daughter did not want to have an abortion, but if she had, there is no way I could have let her go through with it and then have to face that kind of emotional devastation the rest of her life.

Posted by: DavidR at April 03, 2008 06:42 AM (zLN21)

35 Whenever anyone uses the word "abortionist," I stop reading. In my experience, use of this word indicates an unwillingness to dispassionately listen to the other side of the debate. It's like when someone drops the word "imperialism" in a discussion of the Iraq War. As soon as you hear that word come out someone's mouth, you know that they're unwilling to change their position or listen to the other side. Just a thought...

Posted by: Juan Manuel de Rosas at April 03, 2008 08:00 AM (ozyeq)

36 Juan: Nice way of showing that you've not been paying the slightest attention to the conversation. David: I forget where I read it, but one of my favorite quotes has always been, "Man is a rationalizing creature, and needs training to become a rational one." Indeed, we spend a lot more effort rationalizing what we do than engaging in truly rational thought about what to do... and I include myself in that, though I am trying to change.

Posted by: C-C-G at April 03, 2008 08:28 AM (5m1ld)

37 Juan: You are a classic case. Here's what you said: "Whenever anyone uses the word "abortionist, "I stop reading." THEN you said: "In my experience, use of this word indicates an unwillingness to dispassionately listen to the other side of the debate." I don't expect that you'll get that, so how about your faulty logic. You pretend that it's OK to dismiss calling an abortionist by his/her proper name on the incorrect premise that this is equivalent to someone else calling our motive in Iraq by a dishonest, incorrect name. It's all about lying, Juan. In your case, you lie to yourself. Try this. There are many things we have the ABILITY to do, like murder. Some of these things we have a legal RIGHT to do, like being an abortionist, Juan. But having the ability, and the legal right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do. Does it? The nazis thought it did, Juan. Were they right? Were we closed minded in fighting them? Liberals have raised always, and constantly having an "open mind" to some sort of golden, exalted status it doesn't begin to deserve. Juan, you have the right to say that two plus two is twenty two, but I am not morally deficient in lacking an open mind if I decline to listen to you. What's funny is that you, having declared not listening a crime, feel yourself entitled to stop listening to what you don't like to hear -- an abortionist being called by his right name. Seems your open mindedness is quite situationally labile. Why, if abortion is OK, Juan, do you have a problem with its name? Why do you need to call it something else? That is, why do you need to lie to yourself? We seek no empire in Iraq, but abortionists do perform abortions, Juan. It's because you know it's wrong, but you don't want to know it, so you play these mental games with yourself. Like David's ex does. It's kind of like the massive denial that goes on in an alcoholic household: "There's NOTHING wrong here, and don't you DARE tell anyone!!" David's ex is wracked with...... problems (she won't call it guilt), because she is a basically decent person. The minds of decent people are hardwired to accept only truth. When their owners keep cramming them with falsehoods, the mind becomes dysfunctional. It has to do awkward, painful, nutty things to keep holding on to this indigestible, unviable thought mass, to just keep hobbling along, making do. Or, it just rebels, and goes on strike. It's just like the bus driver who had terrible back problems for years until a new doctor noticed that his wallet, which the driver kept in his back pocket, and sat on all day driving, was almost 3 inches thick!! And, think about this. Adults can rationalize abortion, but kids know it's a baby. "Mommy's going to have a baby. The baby is kicking! The baby is getting so big! The baby's coming in June." Kids know it's a baby because adults tell them it is -- until adults tell them it isn't. The adults somehow convince themselves that it isn't a baby, and also convince themselves that they've also convinced the kids that it isn't. And we wonder why so many kids kill; why they value life so cheap; why they don't value their own lives. We taught them well, Juan, including you, apparently.

Posted by: Bill Smith at April 03, 2008 10:06 AM (bJ9FB)

38 And what was the nazi's greatest crime, Juan? Doing to adults, and children what you have convinced yourself is OK to do to a being just like the one your mother called a baby from the first moment she knew you existed.

Posted by: Bill Smith at April 03, 2008 10:11 AM (bJ9FB)

39 Ugh. Sorry David. I meant Mark's ex.

Posted by: Bill Smith at April 03, 2008 10:34 AM (bJ9FB)

40 Maybe to Juan and Craig, the only diference between a murderer and an abortionist is timing. Susan Smith killed her two small boys by drowning - but was she guilty of murder? Not by their standards. She was just guilty of poor timing. Had she aborted both of those children during her pregnancy, there would not have even been any charges made against her. So those guilty of murder should not be threatened by the threat of capital punishment, they should just be charged with improper time management. Simple!

Posted by: SShiell at April 03, 2008 10:44 AM (8UXyu)

41 Now as to Improper Time Management - would that be a misdemeanor or felony?

Posted by: SShiell at April 03, 2008 10:46 AM (8UXyu)

42 Foxfier - That's how I think it works for her. "Because it's legal" is her fall-back position. She has other 'reasons' to support abortion, but it all basically falls back to that. Thanks for the wish of luck. DavidR - Thanks for your hopes for her...I'm not going to hold my breath though . The subject came up just the other night again and you wouldn't really believe her new rationalization. Also, since your daughter is NOT an adult yet, you have the right to tell her what she's going to do, IMO. The courts, however, don't think very highly of parental responsibility/rights anymore. Thank you for being willing/able/supportive of your daughter and her child. I hope your futures are only filled with joy and happiness. Bill - slight correction for you: DavidR and his wife are still married and, I hope, happily. The 'ex' you are referring to is mine Other than that, you are correct. Perhaps Juan has a problem utilizing specific or technical terminology? Perhaps he would prefer to call medical professionals who perform abortions "Freedom from motherhood practitioners" or "Ball-of-cells-ectomists" or "Personal-responsibility-absolvers"? At least Juan read CY's post until the 3rd paragraph (5th if you count the block-quote portion) - that's where the word (abortionists) that causes his attention to wander appears. CCG – good quote.

Posted by: Mark at April 03, 2008 10:54 AM (4od5C)

43 Bill - you got your correction up before I got done . Thanks from both DavidR and myself for catching it.

Posted by: Mark at April 03, 2008 10:56 AM (4od5C)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

No detail at all in the report, but I think it logical to assume that if the news was that "there's nothing going on," then China would not have bothered to contact the IAEA. The assumption must be that Iran is progressing with their nuclear weapons program, and that China is growing uncomfortable with that progress.

It will be interesting to see what slips out about the details of the Iranian program provided by China to the IAEA. Have the Chinese now determined that Iran has become a threat to their national security as well?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:46 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

Writing in the Guardian, Alice Walker claims that Barack Obama is America's Nelson Mandela, and if you are a white woman who can't see that, you're a racist.

Or something like that:

I am a supporter of Barack Obama because I believe he is the right person to lead the United States at this time. He offers a rare opportunity for the country and the world to do better. It is a deep sadness to me that many of my feminist white women friends cannot see him, cannot hear the fresh choices toward movement he offers. That they can believe that millions of Americans choose Obama over Clinton only because he is a man, and black, feels tragic to me.

When I have supported white people, it was because I thought them the best to do the job. If Obama were in any sense mediocre, he would be forgotten by now. He is, in fact, a remarkable human being, not perfect but humanly stunning, like King was and like Mandela is. He is the change America has been trying desperately and for centuries to hide, ignore, kill. The change it must have if we are to convince the rest of the world that we care about people other than our (white) selves.

Like other Obama cultists, Walker finds it impossible to detail why Obama is remarkable for anything outside of his race. His rhetorical skills, while impressive, are not unique. His legislative accomplishments on the state level in Illinois were exceedingly modest, and his accomplishments as a U.S. Senator are not only uninspiring but troubling; his voting record there so extremist that no other sitting U.S. Senator has as radical or one-sided a liberal voting record, or as poor a record of bipartisanship.

Barack Obama is, in every meaningful way, a quite mediocre candidate except for his ability to deliver a speech, and the biological fact he is half-black.

Walker, however, has stars in her eyes:

I can easily imagine Obama sitting down and talking to any leader - or any person - in the world, with no baggage of past servitude or race supremacy to mar their talks. I cannot see the same scenario with Clinton, who would drag into 21st-century US leadership the same image of white privilege and distance from others' lives that has so marred the country's contacts with the rest of the world. But because Clinton is a woman and may be very good at what she does, many people (some in my own family) originally favoured her. I understand this, almost. It is because there is little memory, apparently, of the foundational inequities that still plague people of colour and poor whites.

Barack Obama: Merciful Healer.

Except, of course, for the fact that Obama is half-white himself, meaning that he has the baggage (to use Walker's language; I do not buy into this argument at all and just wish to take the comparison to it's mind-numbingly illogical conclusion) of both past servitude on his father's side for being African, and race supremacy on his mother's side for the crime of being white. Doesn't this mean that according to Walker's logic, Obama is precisely the worst person to lead America?

Walker exists in a fantasy land, where America has "marred contacts" with the rest of the world because of some "image of white privilege and distance from others' lives".

Yes, we're fought wars to liberate countries from tyranny, sough the establish and support democracies around the globe, spend billions every year in foreign aid to help developing countries, provided massive amounts of aid for treating AIDS/HIV in Africa, raised hundreds of millions of dollars for tsunami victims ($950 million in government funds, more than $515 million in private funds), and Walker actually thinks that an image of "white privilege" exists, and it is this image hindering our relationships with the rest of the world, a world that exists in her fantasy as blameless, with no history of oppression, bigotry, tribalism, or despotism prior to July 4, 1776.

That both Barack and Michelle Obama are the Ivy-League-educated, self-absorbed, mansion-living poster children for privilege never seems to flitter through Walker's misfiring nuerons.

I've rarely seen a feminist unashamedly prostrate herself in front of a politician as Walker has here, fawning over a very pretty man of very little substance like a blubbering schoolgirl, seeking to infuse in him qualities in which she so fervently desires, qualities that he so obviously lacks.

I feel ashamed for her, the author of The Color Purple reduced to florid, empty, unsupportable ejaculations of "hope" and "change" based on nothing more than heartache and desire... Just words, and empty words at that.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:19 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 794 words, total size 5 kb.

Over at Patterico's, Mary Mapes rips into the L.A. Times for falling for forged documents.

Yikes.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:36 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.