COUNTERCOLUMN: All Your Bias Are Belong to Us

Ace of Spades, call your office.

Roger Lee Nance, of 1117 Shew Ridge Mission Road, was charged with possession of non-tax paid liquor, possession of non-tax-paid liquor for the purpose of selling, and possession of equipment and ingredients intended for the use in the manufacture of an alcoholic beverage.
“This is one of the biggest seizures of white liquor I’ve seen come out of the mountains in my career,” ALE Director John Ledford said in statement.
The arrest follows a two-month investigation by ALE agents, assisted by the state Highway Patrol. In addition to the liquor, large amounts of sugar and other items were seized during a search of Nance's property, authorities said.

You'd better stay away from Copperhead Road

Labels: Crime, law, Music, Steve Earle

These contracts are abortions, and I'd like to personally adjust the actuarial outlook for any of these Wall Street scumwads trying to push these.

After the mortgage business imploded last year, Wall Street investment banks began searching for another big idea to make money. They think they may have found one.

The bankers plan to buy “life settlements,” life insurance policies that ill and elderly people sell for cash — $400,000 for a $1 million policy, say, depending on the life expectancy of the insured person. Then they plan to “securitize” these policies, in Wall Street jargon, by packaging hundreds or thousands together into bonds. They will then resell those bonds to investors, like big pension funds, who will receive the payouts when people with the insurance die.

Why? Well, we have insurable interest laws for a reason. Do you really want a sociopath like Bernie Madoff owning a substantial interest in wanting you dead?

But let's put aside the obvious perversity in granting Wall Street a windfall when they kill you. Let's just look at the math- the math the New York Times misses:

The primary purpose of life insurance is death benefits. DEATH BENEFITS. Why? To protect widows, orphans, and business partners. That's it.

When an insurance company sets its premiums on a block of business, they have to take into account the expected lapse rate. A certain percentage of all life insurance contracts will never pay a death benefit - because they either lapse or get cashed in well prior to the death benefit. Indeed, term insurance is DESIGNED to lapse without paying a claim. This is part of why term is so cheap... the premiums are well below the expected mortality for any given age group. Because of lapse rates. This is part of why young families and small businesses can afford the protection they need.

When you have third parties buying up life insurance... parties whose primary interest in the insured is identical to that of a corpse-eating zombie - they will keep policies in force that would otherwise have lapsed or surrendered. Lapse rates will fall. Premiums will rise. Life insurance will become less affordable. And families and small business will have to make do with less protection. Dividends fall on par whole life contracts. further raising premiums neccessary for a given level of protection. Seniors will have to pay longer before dividends offset premiums. Some won't be able to. And we will have forgotten why we have life insurance to begin with: To protect future widows, orphans, and dependents of small business owners from unexpected financial catastrophe due to death.

This is one asset class we can definitely do without.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Crime, finance, insurance, investing

According to an oh-so-unscientific Facebook poll, 93% of respondents say YES!!!

I say, BE CAREFUL!!!!!

This is an issue where conservatives should tread carefully. It's very easy to paint yourself into a corner here. For example, are we prepared to let children of casual pot-smokers starve because mom lit up a joint a week ago?

No?

Are we then willing to throw these kids into the foster system the moment mom shows up hot on a piss test to collect her food stamps benefits? Maybe for crack or cocaine, sure. But marijuana? Is breaking up the family ALWAYS going to be the best thing for the children?

No?

Then any conservative - or anyone else for that matter, who votes YES on this poll ought to be ready to give an answer: What are we going to do with food-stamp dependent children of casual pot users?

For drug users with no children? Hell with 'em. But for the ones with? Beware the law of unintended consequences.

Yes, I realize you need to pass a drug test to get a lot of jobs. But if I tested hot on a drug test, my prospective private-sector employer is just gong to deny me the job. Not break up my family.

Go VERY slowly here... and don't let politicians or anyone else demagogue this issue.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: children, Crime, culture, drugs, law

STRATFOR has it, apparently from multiple sources predating the Little Rock shooting, that it did.

Several weeks ago, STRATFOR heard from sources that the FBI and other law enforcement organizations had been ordered to “back off” of counterterrorism investigations into the activities of Black Muslim converts. At this point, it is unclear to us if that guidance was given by the White House or the Department of Justice, or if it was promulgated by the agencies themselves, anticipating the wishes of President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.

Now a Little Rock soldier is dead.

Even though lone wolves operate alone, they are still constrained by the terrorist attack cycle, and because they are working alone, they have to conduct each step of the cycle by themselves. This means that they are vulnerable to detection at several different junctures as they plan their attacks, the most critical of which is the surveillance stage of the operation. Muhammad did not just select that recruiting center at random and attack on the spot. He had cased it prior to the attack just as he had been taught in the militant training camps he attended in Yemen. Law enforcement officials have reported that Muhammad may also have researched potential government and Jewish targets in Little Rock, Philadelphia, Atlanta, New York, Louisville and Memphis.

Had the FBI opened a full-field investigation on Muhammad, and had it conducted surveillance on him, it would have been able to watch him participate in preoperational activities such as conducting surveillance of potential targets and obtaining weapons.

Mission. Accomplished.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Crime, Obama, soldiers' issues, stupid, terrorism, War on Terror

I hate Illinois Federalists.

Illinois has not abolished self-defense and has not expressed a preference for long guns over handguns. But the municipalities can, and do, stress another of the themes in the debate over incorporation of the Bill of Rights: That the Constitution establishes a federal republic where local differences are to be cherished as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to produce a single, nationally applicable rule.

Damn your inalienable, God-given, natural right to life and liberty. We got teh federalism to uphold! (That's the Chicago Way.)

Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon.

Ok... anyone who can write that crap with a straight face has spent entirely too long in law school.

Not only that, but they have their heads up their asses and don't know history.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Althouse, Crime, law

A few quick thoughts about the killing of Tiller, the Kansas abortionist.

--Tiller himself was a childhood friend and neighbor to a professional acquaintance of mine. To draw things into perspective, this acquaintance of mine writes that, whatever anyone thinks about the man's profession, he was always a nice guy, and was a good father to his children.

--The shooting is an attack on and an affront to the rule of law.

--The libtards - drooling imbeciles to a man - are trying to frame the shooting as an act of terrorism. No. Any useful definition of the term terrorism requires the targeting of innocents in order to bring about a change in behavior. If Tiller's shooter were a terrorist, he would have targeted Tiller's family, friends, neighbors, people walking by the clinic, or whatever. Terrorism would have targeted anybody EXCEPT Tiller.

The fact that the killer targeted Tiller himself, and ONLY Tiller makes him not a terrorist, but an assassin.

-- The libtards are also framing the shooting as hypocritical. Again, they're wrong. If any individual who was not a strict Quaker-style pacifist were absolutely convinced that Tiller was a serial murderer of children, then NOT taking action to stop him would be a hypocritical act.



-- The libtards are also trying to hang the shooting on Bill O'Reilly. Yes, these bobble-headed ignoramuses who had nothing to say when Airhead America talk show host Randi Rhodes made reference to assassinating President Bush, who had nothing to say when Airhead America talk show host Matt Malloy referred to Vice President Dick Cheney as "A destroyer," "an eater of human flesh," when artist Richard Serra magazine portrayed an American President as a cannibal eating the head off of a child, all of a sudden these hypocritical bastards are fainting at O'Reilly's overheated rhetoric, when O'Reilly did nothing but accurately state what this cretin did for a living and said what he thought of it, without sugarcoating it.

Labels: Abortion, Crime, ethics, Politics

Some stupid bitch wrote a list of warning signs to alert you to potential rapists.

She doesn't really mean it though.

Labels: Crime, Humor, rape

Family values, Democrat style. Personally, I don't care. And Biden's family has been through enough tragedy without me having to milk it for more.

But if any libtards want to argue that she ought to be off limits, they can shove it.

Labels: Biden, Bush, Crime, Democrats, Politics, The Left

So hedge fund operator and former Nasdaq chief Bernard Madoff somehow bilked investors of $50 billion in a gigantic Ponzi scheme. (If you don't know what a Ponzi scheme is, it's pretty much like Social Security, except in the long run, less destructive.)

The idea that this guy can raise so much money, so easily, just by working the country clubs around Long Island and Palm Beach, doesn't speak too well for the financial acumen of our socialite class, all of whom just heard what they wanted to hear.

The first imperative of investing - the prime directive - is to provide for the return of capital. Anything else is speculation. Establishing a small position in an opaque hedge fund for a low correlation to more standard asset classes is one thing. But anyone who was ruined by this man is a fool.

I don't know what it is about Florida and Boca Raton that makes people so gullible. But speaking as a legit financial services guy myself, it's frustrating as hell to see this kind of thing happening again and again.

Due diligence, and the safe return of capital. Do not risk what you and your family have and need for something you and your family do not have and do not need. No less an investment mind than Warren Buffett said that.

Why these wealthy individuals would be taking stupid risks with someone who can't guarantee their principal back, when it's so easy to do, is beyond me.

How to do due diligence on fund managers? Read my pre-Countercolumn piece for Registered Representative here.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Crime, finance, investing

So I'm sitting in a Borders book store yesterday working on a book editing project, when over the PA system I hear the theme from Schindler's List - a beautiful piece of music, actually - being played as a smooth jazz piece by some damned Kenny G type on a soprano sax.

I don't know who the player was, and I don't want to know.

But if I ever see him standing in a courtyard, and I happen to be standing on the balcony with a high-powered rifle in my hands and I can get a clear shot, I swear to God, I'll be dispensing some poetic justice that day, let me tell you.

Labels: Crime, jazz, justice, Music

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher, the libtard responsible for putting a photoshop of Joe Lieberman in blackface during the 2006 Senate race in Connecticut, has a chat on Bloggingheads with Ann Althouse.

At issue: Should an Obama administration pursue criminal investigations against Bush Administration officials, including Bush and Cheney personally, for crimes allegedly committed while in office.

I was struck by Hamsher's presentation. She appears quite reasonable through most of the dialogue. But when Althouse draws her out on this topic, out comes The Beast.

Hamsher argues that Bush lied in order to get us into a war, and 4,000 soldiers are dead. "That's murder!" she exclaims. And she states that she and her readers will be "out there with torches and pitchforks" to ensure that Bush officials are prosecuted.

Her argument relies on the founding fathers and the Constitution, and she argues that it would set a bad precedent NOT to criminally prosecute Bush officials. Good liberal she is, she states "If Bush has not committed a crime, then he has nothing to fear."

That's right. Scratch a liberal, you'll find a fascist right under the skin.

At any rate, when she mentions the founding fathers, she is evincing a grasp of American history that only a cinematography school could let anyone get away with.

The reason our Republic survived, and France went through several republics, is because the Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians, by and large, settled their differences through elections (Aaron Burr notwithstanding) and not by trying to throw their predecessors in jail.

Had they instead followed Hamsher's advice, the two sides would have become armed camps nearly immediately, and the American democratic experiment would have been strangled in the cradle by Hamsher and her Committees of Public Safety.

Althouse is right: this notion that each succeeding administration should spend time prosecuting the one before it over what are essentially political disagreements is pure poison. It is a dagger pointed straight at the heart of our democracy. (Hamsher, you moron - you can make a better case prosecuting single mothers who have an abortion or their doctors for murder than you can making murder charges stick against Bush for ordering the invasion of Iraq.)

If Hamsher gets her way, then every succeeding administration will 1.) not be able to fill its slots with quality people, because service to the government will then become a legal liability, and 2.) have EVERY incentive to cheat, lie and steal during the following election, since everyone in it will have a personal stake.

If you have an impeachment case, bring it. If not, then try to win the next election.

Hamsher: A pretty face, but an idealistic twit.

Splash, out

Jason

ADDED: It's too bad that the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee is such a blowhard that he can say there will be criminal investigations of Bush officials under an Obama administration, and we can't be sure whether he meant it.

Labels: Althouse, Crime, Hamsher, Politics

The libtards will argue that St. Paul police are running roughshod over the 1st and 4th amendments by being heavy-handed in detaining or arresting convention protesters, all of whom, naturally, are exercising their constitutional freedoms by holding hands, singing old Joan Baez songs, and picking lice out of each others' armpit hair or whatever it is they do. (Curiously, Glenn Greenwald is here posting under his own name).

Conspiracy to kidnap delegates? Meh. It slipped their slippery little minds, I guess.

That's right...left wing radicals are conspiring to respect and uphold democracy by forcibly kidnapping journalists, dropping bags of cement on buses transporting Cub Scouts, stocking up buckets of urine (no doubt for its mellowing properties and for its utility in the storing of crucifixes).

Anyway, here's Greenwald:

Journalists were forcibly detained at gun point. Lawyers on the scene to represent the detainees were handcuffed. Computers, laptops, journals, diaries, and political pamphlets were seized from people's homes. And all of this occurred against U.S. citizens, without a single act of violence having taken place, and nothing more serious than traffic blockage even alleged by authorities to have been planned.

Hmmm. I guess the conspiracy to commit kidnapping kinda puts a hole in that assertion, eh, puppetmaster?

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Crime, Greenwald, The Left

Brian is expected to recover fully from his recent shooting in Washington, D.C. His medical bills, unfortunately, are substantial. If you have a few dollars to spare, Megan McArdle is collecting.

There are multiple relief funds set up, but the more the merrier; if you want to help Brian out, you can PayPal me the money at mmmcardl@gsb.uchicago.edu, or you can send a check to me via the Atlantic, 600 New Hampshire Ave NW, Washington DC 20037. Try to write a note on any PayPal transfers about what it's for, but I don't get that many, so I'll know anyway.

Once again, all my prayers for Brian and his family.

Jason

UPDATE: An uncanny coincidence on Brian's blog (and there ain't no way in Hell I'm gonna jinx myself by uploading that picture directly!

Labels: bloggers, Crime

Blogger Matt Beutler, a DC area blogger, was shot three times during a mugging attempt. He's ok. Losing his spleen.

My prayers are with Matt and his family.

Jason

Labels: bloggers, Crime

I saw that professional agitator in the red pigtails on TV...and I knew he would turn violent. It was only a matter of time.

Unfortunately, this latest tragedy is simply the latest in an ongoing string of Wendy's-related violence.

As for Wendy's itself, this tragic and senseless event http://www.wendys.com/about_us/news/- although a statement on their home page said that Wendy's is passionate about giving people what they deserve.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Crime, Humor, public relations

That's Phil Carter's take on this piece of trash published in the New York Times today.

So, basically, the reporters went trolling on Lexis-Nexis and other databases to find "murder" within the same paragraph as "veteran" or "soldier," and built a front-page story around that research. They compared the pre-war numbers to the post-war numbers and found that, voila!, there's a difference. And then it looks like they cherry-picked the best anecdotes out of that research (including the ones where they could get interviews and photos) to craft a narrative which fit the data.

The article makes no attempt to produce a statistically valid comparison of homicide rates among vets to rates among the general population. Nor does it rely at all on Pentagon data about post-deployment incidents of violence among veterans. It basically just generalizes from this small sample (121 out of 1.7 million Iraq and Afghanistan vets, not including civilians and contractors) to conclude that today's generation of veterans are coming home full of rage and ready to kill.

I've got a one-word verdict on this article and its research: bullshit.

The nut of the Times piece is this:

The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war. In many of those cases, combat trauma and the stress of deployment — along with alcohol abuse, family discord and other attendant problems — appear to have set the stage for a tragedy that was part destruction, part self-destruction.

Three-quarters of these veterans were still in the military at the time of the killing. More than half the killings involved guns, and the rest were stabbings, beatings, strangulations and bathtub drownings. Twenty-five offenders faced murder, manslaughter or homicide charges for fatal car crashes resulting from drunken, reckless or suicidal driving.

Yeah. We're all just itching for a chance to grease someone dead. Well, besides reporters, I mean.

To compile and analyze its list, The Times conducted a search of local news reports, examined police, court and military records and interviewed the defendants, their lawyers and families, the victims’ families and military and law enforcement officials.

Compiled, yes. "Analyze?" No.

For analysis, don't trust the New York Times twits. You have to go to bloggers like Armed Liberal:

From the October 1, 2001 start of the Afghanistan war, that's about 26,000 troops/month. To date (Jan 2008) that would give about 1.99 million.

That means that the NY Times 121 murders represent about a 7.08/100,000 rate.

Now the numbers on deployed troops are probably high - fewer troops from 2001 - 2003; I'd love a better number if someone has it.

But for initial purposes, let's call the rate 10/100,000, about 40% higher than the calculated one.

Now, how does that compare with the population as a whole?

Turning to the DoJ statistics, we see that the US offender rate for homicide in the 18 - 24 yo range is 26.5/100,000.For 25 - 34, it's 13.5/100,000.

See the problem?

Damn, is it that hard for reporters and their editors to provide a little bit of context so we can make sense of the anecdotes? It's not in Part 1 of the article. And I'll bet it won't be in the future articles, either.

Because it's not part of the narrative of how our soldiers are either depraved or damaged.

More useful analysis in the contents section at the link.

Zero useful analysis at the New York Times. Just a long piece slandering veterans.

As a mental exercise, I wonder how comfortable the New York Times would be using similar methodology to research crimes by blacks, Latin-Americans, or gays. Would their methods have passed editorial scrutiny?

Heck no.

But slime Iraq and Aghanistan veterans and all is fair.

Splash, out

Jason

UPDATE: Here's Powerline's analysis:

Now put yourself in the place of a newspaper editor. Suppose you are asked to evaluate whether your paper should run a long article on a nationwide epidemic of murders committed by veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan--a crime wave that, your reporter suggests, constitutes a "cross-country trail of death and heartbreak." Suppose that the reporter who proposes to write the article says it will be a searing indictment of the U.S. military's inadequate attention to post-traumatic stress disorder. Suppose further that you are not a complete idiot.

Given that last assumption, I'm pretty sure your first question will be: "How does the murder rate among veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan compare to the murder rate for young American men generally?" Remarkably, this is a question the New York Times did not think to ask. Or, if the Times asked the question and figured out the answer, the paper preferred not to report it.

As of 2005, the homicide rate for Americans aged 18-24, the cohort into which most soldiers fall, was around 27 per 100,000. (The rate for men in that age range would be much higher, of course, since men commit around 88% of homicides. But since most soldiers are also men, I gave civilians the benefit of the doubt and considered gender a wash.)

Next we need to know how many servicemen have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan. A definitive number is no doubt available, but the only hard figure I've seen is that as of last October, moe than 500,000 U.S. Army personnel had served in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Other sources peg the total number of personnel from all branches of the military who have served in the two theaters much higher, e.g. 750,000, 650,000 as of February 2007, or 1,280,000. For the sake of argument, let's say that 700,000 soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors have returned to the U.S. from service in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Do the math: the 121 alleged instances of homicide identified by the Times, out of a population of 700,000, works out to a rate of 17 per 100,000--quite a bit lower than the overall national rate of around 27.

But wait! The national rate of 27 homicides per 100,000 is an annual rate, whereas the Times' 121 alleged crimes were committed over a period of six years. Which means that, as far as the Times' research shows, the rate of homicides committed by military personnel who have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan is only a fraction of the homicide rate for other Americans aged 18 to 24. Somehow, the Times managed to publish nine pages of anecdotes about the violence wreaked by returning servicemen without ever mentioning this salient fact.

Labels: Crime, New York Times, Psychology, soldiers' issues, The media

... and bullshit at worst.

Do you?

Labels: Crime, Iraq, Media, women

Not kidding:

Early in the morning of March 10, 2003, after a raucous party that lasted into the small hours, a groggy and hungover 20-year-old named Ryan Holle lent his Chevrolet Metro to a friend. That decision, prosecutors later said, was tantamount to murder.

The friend used the car to drive three men to the Pensacola home of a marijuana dealer, aiming to steal a safe. The burglary turned violent, and one of the men killed the dealer’s 18-year-old daughter by beating her head in with a shotgun he found in the home.

Mr. Holle was a mile and a half away, but that did not matter.

He was convicted of murder under a distinctively American legal doctrine that makes accomplices as liable as the actual killer for murders committed during felonies like burglaries, rapes and robberies.

Mr. Holle, who had given the police a series of statements in which he seemed to admit knowing about the burglary, was convicted of first-degree murder. He is serving a sentence of life without the possibility of parole at the Wakulla Correctional Institution here, 20 miles southwest of Tallahassee.

A prosecutor explained the theory to the jury at Mr. Holle’s trial in Pensacola in 2004. “No car, no crime,” said the prosecutor, David Rimmer. “No car, no consequences. No car, no murder.”

Most scholars trace the doctrine, which is an aspect of the felony murder rule, to English common law, but Parliament abolished it in 1957. The felony murder rule, which has many variations, generally broadens murder liability for participants in violent felonies in two ways. An unintended killing during a felony is considered murder under the rule. So is, as Mr. Holle learned, a killing by an accomplice.

India and other common law countries have followed England in abolishing the doctrine. In 1990, the Canadian Supreme Court did away with felony murder liability for accomplices, saying it violated “the principle that punishment must be proportionate to the moral blameworthiness of the offender.”

Countries outside the common law tradition agree. “The view in Europe,” said James Q. Whitman, a professor of comparative law at Yale, “is that we hold people responsible for their own acts and not the acts of others.”

No, Professor Whitman. Quite the contrary.

This particular case seems a little draconian, sure. I think that intent matters. But that's a question for the jury to consider, and they already considered it.

The Times article is one in a series of articles that examines aspects of American justice which are, in the view of the editors of the New York Times, "unique in the world."

The underlying assumption, natch, is that the cretins in Europe who gave us the Holocaust, raped German women by the millions in the aftermath of WWII, and sponsored the Srebrenica massacre, or stood by idly and watched it happen, are somehow more enlightened than us backwards Yanks.

I think it could be an interesting series. But I don't trust the NY Times to do it. Why? Because not until you get to the end of the story do you learn that Holle was actually offered a way out: A plea bargain that would have let him off with perhaps 10 years at most, instead of life. The prosecutor acknowledged that he was "not as culpable as the others."

Holle decided not to take it. Good lawyer you had there, Holle. He didn't tell you you could be charged with the same murder that your buddies were?

Finally, here's another laugh line from the genius editors at the NY Times:

Mr. Holle, who rejected the deal, has spent some time thinking about the felony murder rule.

“The laws that they use to convict people are just — they have to revise them,” he said. “Just because I lent these guys my car, why should I be convicted the same as these people that actually went to the scene of the crime and actually committed the crime?”

Mr. Rimmer sounded ambivalent on this point.

“Whether or not the felony murder rule can result in disproportionate justice is a matter of opinion,” Mr. Rimmer said. “The father of Jessica Snyder does not think so.”

That's "ambivalent?"


I have an idea. Let's worry less about Europe's laws, and worry more about striking the fear of God into people who knowingly aid and abet murderous thugs intent on committing home invasion.


Splash, out

Jason

Via Memeorandum.

Labels: Crime, law, New York Times

We'll see.

[Air America talk show host] Randi Rhodes was mugged on Sunday night on 39th Street and Park Ave, nearby her Manhattan apartment, while she was walking her dog Simon.

According to Air America Radio late night host Jon Elliott, Rhodes was beaten up pretty badly, losing several teeth and will probably be off the air for at least the rest of the week. At of late Monday night we have not able to locate any press accounts of the attack and nothing has been posted on the AAR website.


Several liberal blogs, including the Randi Rhodes Message Board and Democratic Underground have logged numerous posts on the Rhodes mugging with most of the posters expressing concern about the condition of the popular lib talker.

Morning talk host, Lionel filled in for Rhodes on Monday, but did not say anything about why she wasn’t on hand to do her show. The Randi Rhodes board reports that Sam Seder, who does a Sunday afternoon show for AAR, will be filling on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Elliott was extremely agitated when he reported on the incident. He opened his show by saying "it is with sadness that tonight I inform you that my Air America colleague Randi Rhodes was assaulted last night while walking her dog near her New York City home."

Pointing out that Rhodes was wearing a jogging suit and displayed no purse or jewelry, Elliott speculated that "this does not appear to me to be a standard grab the money and run mugging."

"Is this an attempt by the right wing hate machine to silence one of our own," he asked. "Are we threatening them. Are they afraid that we're winning. Are they trying to silence intimidate us."

Some of blog posters also expressed concerns that the attack on Rhodes was hate crime. Other posters warned that we need more facts before any judgements are made.

According to Elliott, Rhodes was resting in her New York City apartment and was not hospitalized.

I blame the Boys and Girls Clubs of America.

At any rate, all my prayers for a speedy recovery for Randi, a sister South Floridian, and and for her quick return to the air waves.

I also hope the creep who attacked her is arrested, prosecuted vigorously, and goes away for a long, long time to come, with scant hope for early release or furloughs.

Which is more than Randi can say for her liberal colleagues and her dozens upon dozens of listeners.

Splash, out

Jason

P.S., in what apparently passes for reasoning among the half-wits at Air America, the morning host simultaneously on the widening gap between rich and poor and a deliberate hit that came as a result of the hate talk coming from "Fox Noise" espousing both contradictory theories within thirty seconds, while at the same time rejecting the need for actual evidence to reach a conclusion. "Call it 'a woman's intuition," she said - no doubt referring to the same innate, instinctive sense that helped Hillary steer universal health care through Congress in 1994, and helped Randi avoid her attacker.

Oh, wait...

Labels: Crime, Media, The Left