Proof of Bias at the Associated Press

An horrific shooting at a Jewish center in Seattle and the AP covers up important details about the perp. If it was a white redneck shooting up anything, do even liberals believe that the AP would have left that detail out?

First the AP story in full:

SEATTLE - At least five people were shot, one of them fatally, Friday afternoon at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, and one person was arrested, authorities said.

Five or six people were wounded, assistant police chief Jim Pugel said. One person died, fire department spokeswoman Helen Fitzpatrick said. One wounded woman was shot in the abdomen and another woman was hit in the arm, according to news accounts. Information on the others wounded was not immediately available.

A SWAT team searched the federation building, looking for any other victims, anyone hiding or any other possible shooters, police spokesman Rich Pruitt said.

Pruitt said he had no information on a motive. "Hopefully we can figure that out as this goes on," he said.

Police cordoned off several city blocks to investigate.

Several witnesses said they saw a man walk up and shoot a woman in the leg on a sidewalk near the building.

"We heard this horrible screaming on the floor above us and shots," Patti Simon said in a phone interview, her voice shaking. "We didn't know what was happening."

Simon, who sells advertising for the federation's newspaper, was working on the first floor when she heard screaming, shots and what sounded like furniture crashing on the floor above.

Simon called up to her co-workers on the second floor, but got no answer, so she called the police and fled the building. Associated Press

Now here is the story from KOMO (abbreviated):

...Several witnesses said they saw the man walk up and shoot a woman in the leg on a sidewalk near the building. One witness, who refused to give his name, said that shooting was just outside a nearby Starbucks. There was a small pool of blood outside that coffee shop.

Amy Wasser-Simpson, vice president for planning and community services at the Jewish Federation told The Seattle Times the man then got through security at the building and told staff members: "I'm Muslim-American. I'm angry at Israel," then began shooting.

"A number of staff people heard some popping sounds, then they heard a scream," Wasser-Simpson said. "They escaped out the back door...."

One staff member who was shot twice escaped through the back door, Wasser-Simpson said. KOMO

The Top Five Reasons You Can't Blame Exxon for High Gas...and One You Can

With $10 billion in profits in the 2nd quarter, and $3/gallon gas, there are many people complaining about Exxon Mobil. It might even assume the title of Evil Empire from Halliburton. Who Knows!? However, before Exxon is completely condemed there are some points you should all consider:

1. First, if the big oil companies are colluding to raise prices, did they just suddenly realize that they could do this? So when gas was $1-$1.5/gallon did no one in the oil industry think of colluding? All these guys were sitting around a room in 2004 and lamented "Why did we think of it before!?" After nearly a century of sales, the oil companies finally realized that they could just raise prices?

2. Big Oil (Exxon, Chevron, Conoco, Shell, BP, etc) really only controls a small minority of oil reserves....probably 20-25% at most. Many socialist governments' national oil companies, like Sonatrach in Algeria, PDVSA in Venezula, or Aramco in Arabia control the rest.

3. The profit levels already include taxes. Exxon made $36 billion last year, after paying $22 billion in taxes. If Exxon Mobil made no profit and paid no taxes, then the approximately 100 million tax payers in the US would each have to pay $220 extra in order to compensate. (Of course, it could be also argued that if that corporations pass those taxes onto the consumer, so if Exxon had no taxes, the price would be lower).

4. If a bank invests money in a company (in the form of loans), it collects interest on the loan, an expense no one complains about. However, if people (shareholders) invest money in a company, they should also expect a return, in the form of income (profit). If you compare net income (profit) to the shareholder's equity (total assets- total liabilities) you get what's called the return on equity....how much your money is making for you. So if Exxon only made $5 billion in 2005, it's not that much in comparison to the amount of shareholder's equity and people would actually be better off investing in a treasury bonds or a money market account.

5. Finally, even if Exxon decided to be uber generous and reduce gas prices below market value, you would really save that much. In 2005, Exxon had $370 billion in revenue and $59 billion in pre-tax income. Assuming all their revenue came from gas sales (which is doesn't), what could they reduce the cost of gas to, so they would break even?....after doing some basic calculations... $3 gas would become $2.52.

I don't like $3 gas any more than you and it isn't good for the economy. If you have budget of $100/week and gas used to cost $10/week, and now it costs $30, you have only $70 to spend elsewhere, instead of $90. Thus you cut back on clothes shopping or going out to eat... hurting the economy. Cheap energy = good economy.

My advice is for the US to really start to be more independent....REALLY try. That might mean drilling small areas of Alaska (using proper care), or drilling off California or Florida. It's either stopping the "Not in My Backyard" syndrome or accept $3 gas.

So what's the one reason to blame Big Oil? The consistency in pricing changes. If something happens to spike the price of crude oil, the price of gasoline immediately jumps. However, the gas coming out of the pump that day was made from crude purchased a few weeks ago at a cost of say $40, not $70. Now, if something happens to make the price of crude drops from $70 to $40, the price of gasoline wouldn't drop until the crude oil pulled from the ground that day make its way overseas, through the refinery, and to the pump... a process which could take a few weeks. They get the best of both worlds. So the difference between when the price at the pump jumps to when the actual higher priced crude reaches the pump is pure profit.

The WSJ Loves Them Illegals

The Wall Street Journal, for all its insightful editorials is constantly arguing for illegal immigrants... and pulls some dishonest arguing tactics for you to get convinced otherwise. For the hundredth time, most conservatives and I are NOT anti-immigration. We are anti-ILLEGAL immigration. If the government wants to double or triple the amount of visas to supply labor where needed, fine! If the government wants to reduce bureacratic red tape, fine.

The WSJ sets up a straw man argument by claiming people with anti-illegal stance are really anti-immigrant.

The article also implies that Pete Wilson's immigration stance let California become Democratic is the biggest red herring fallacy that I've seen in a while. Pete Wilson got re-elected as governor in 1994 and 59% of Californians supported Prop 187! California is a staunchly liberal Democratic state and there are many reasons why Wilson's successor was a Democrat. Two of the Senate's most liberal Democrat members, Boxer and Feinstein, are from California. Is Pete Wilson to blame for their
election in 1992 as well?

As for the false dilemna fallacy between reducing big government and securing our borders ... a person can support both! This article is purely complimation of logical fallacies.

As a final side note, it was also pointed out to me that Spc. Lito Santos-Dilone is a legal immigrant, another sleight-of-hand.

Earlier this year President Bush was shaking hands at the national Hispanic Prayer Breakfast in Washington when Spc. Lito Santos-Dilone, an American soldier who lost his left leg in Iraq, grabbed his hand. "I'm not a citizen of the United States, and I want to be one," he told the president....

There is no disputing that illegal aliens are a tempting political target. If there is one issue that inflames the right more than 12 million people in this country illegally, it is that many of them are also on the public dole. Illegal aliens cashing in on government-provided health care, education and even food stamps has done more to drive the immigration debate toward increasing border security and away from increasing the number of legal immigrants than perhaps any other single issue. In the age of the welfare state, there is little appetite among the taxpaying public to bring in more people at the bottom of the income scale.

The temptation is to capitalize on this voter anger with anti-illegal-immigration policies. This is the route California Republicans took in the 1990s. In 1994 Gov. Pete Wilson considered reforming welfare too difficult and instead set about enacting policies to deny illegal immigrants government benefits--not an unpopular thing to do. But the results were disastrous for his party. By the end of the decade Democrats controlled every statewide elected office as well as both houses of the Legislature. In addition to being turned out of power, the GOP also saw the centerpiece to the Wilson reform agenda--Proposition 187--ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge--a decision Mr. Wilson's successor, Democrat Gray Davis, decided not to appeal.

Regardless of where one stands on the get-tough approach to immigration reform, it's clear that the 1990s was a squandered opportunity for Republicans in California. The GOP ended the decade without enacting much in the way of meaningful and lasting reforms in the largest and arguably most influential state in the union. And with the implosion of the GOP, big-spending Democrats led the state to near bankruptcy. No wonder Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is unable to find a political consensus to rein in the power of the state. For much of the 1990s, the California GOP wasn't the party of limited government, it was the party of limited government for some.

California aside, Republicans have a more positive example from the 1990s. While Gov. Wilson went down the anti-illegal-alien road, Republicans won control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years by promising to reduce the overall size of government. Just over a year after the stunning 1994 election victory, Republicans cornered a Democratic president into mouthing the words "the era of big government is over." Soon he signed into law sweeping welfare reforms. These reforms, though once controversial, have become so embedded in the political culture in Washington that renewing and even expanding them this year has drawn little if any objection from Democrats.

Today the Republican Party again confronts the choice of whether to cut the overall size of the welfare state--by reforming Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other entitlements--or going after illegal aliens. And so far it appears the GOP is heading down the same road California Republicans took a decade ago. Faced with a tough re-election cycle this year, congressional Republicans opted to make immigration reform a central issue. Rather than lasting reform, however, what the party is getting so far is gridlock, or, worse, reforms that would strengthen the GOP's political opposition....

This isn't a position Republicans had to put themselves in. Voters angry over the cost of illegal immigration are also angry over the steep price they pay through taxes for generous government benefits. Getting big government off the back of taxpayers once united the party and handed it the confidence of the voting public.
Wall St Journal

Profiles in Jihad

Oh those darn Israelis. Always having to respond to terror attacks. Hezbollah is only desiring, the return of Gaza to them....no wait, they live in Lebanon. They want their own state....no wait, they have one. The typical justifications for crazy jihad executed by Hamas and the PLO are lacking with Hezbollah. So what will our liberal apologists come up with next? In the meantime, I'd like to remind Americans that Hezbollah has been responsible for the deaths of many Americans.

Today we will profile Imad Mugniyah:

A young lad, he began his jihad career by sniping at Christian civilians in Lebanon. He moved up to assisting in the bombing of the US embassy (which killed 63) and the US Marine barracks which killed 299. In the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 he killed passenger and Navy diver Robert Stethem. He also kidnapped, tortured nad killed US Army Col William Francis Buckley (after outsourcing him to Tehran). He also travelled through France in 1986. The French refused to detain him (Our Allies!!!). He also has been linked to the Khobar Towers bombing, the Embassy bombing in Tanzania & Kenya, the Cole bombing.

President's Stock Rises

The President decisively vetod the Embryonic Stem Cell Research bill. If the President's performance was judged by an index, I would say his stock rose sharply today. Embryonic stem cell experients to date have not produced the results that Adult Stem Cells have. Adult Stem Cell also do not involve growing and kill embryos.

"President Bush cast the first veto of his presidency Wednesday, saying legislation easing limits on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research "crosses a moral boundary."

"This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," Bush said at a White House event where he was surrounded by 18 families who "adopted" frozen embryos not used by other couples, and then used those leftover embryos to have children.

"Each of these children was still adopted while still an embryo and has been blessed with a chance to grow, to grow up in a loving family. These boys and girls are not spare parts," he said.

The veto came a day after the Senate defied Bush and approved the legislation, 63-37, four votes short of the two-thirds margin needed to override. White House officials and Republican congressional leaders claimed it was unlikely that Congress could override the veto....

"We will go back and sustain his veto this afternoon," veto supporter Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., told reporters at the White House after the event. "We had 52 votes to spare when it passed and I predict the House will sustain that veto."

...At the same time, Bush announced he had signed another bill, passed unanimously in the House and Senate, that would pre-emptively ban "fetal farming," the prospect of raising and aborting fetuses for scientific research...

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., was quick to criticize the president's veto.

"I am pro-life, but I disagree with the president's decision to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act," said Frist. "Given the potential of this research and the limitations of the existing lines eligible for federally funded research, I think additional lines should be made available." ... Disappointed lawmakers said they intended to keep pushing to lift the restrictions. Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah said in advance that the veto "sets back embryonic stem cell research another year or so."

The Senate voted 63-37 on Tuesday, four votes short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override a veto. The House last year fell 50 votes short of a veto-proof margin when it passed the same bill, 238-194..... AP"

Democrats Want Voter Fraud

Why would Democrats object to voters needing to present ID at the voting booths? It's common sense? After all, you need to present ID to check out books from a library? You need ID to use a credit card? If you can receive an non-drivers license for free, than the ACLU has no reasonable objection. The real reason is plainly obvious and almost sad how ridiculous they sound in their protests. Democrats and their minions in the ACLU want to keep dead people voting.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - Officials in Missouri's two largest cities filed a lawsuit Monday to block a new state law requiring voters to show photo identification.

Under the law, voters starting this November will need a photo ID issued by either the state of federal government, such as a driver's license, to cast a regular ballot. Those lacking IDs can cast provisional ballots, which would count if their signatures matched those on file with election authorities.

Republican Gov. Matt Blunt has praised the new law as a way to build public trust in elections.

But the Democratic leaders in St. Louis and Kansas City who sued say the law violates a state constitutional provision against imposing costs on local governments without providing state funding. Their lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction blocking the law from being enforced and class-action status.

"Our overall concern is that the new law is going to leave people out who want to vote, who deserve to vote and who are qualified to vote," said Anthony Rothert, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri, whose group announced the lawsuit.

The lawsuit says implementing the new law would cost the Kansas City area's Jackson County alone $470,000 to mail notices to voters and add the extra equipment and Election Day staffing and training.

Republican state Sen. Delbert Scott, who sponsored the legislation, said election officials already send out voter cards and the law provides for free photo IDs that voters can obtain before Election Day.

"We anticipated a lawsuit. I think they're struggling for an issue," he said.

A federal judge last week blocked the state of Georgia from enforcing its new voter ID law this year. U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy said the Georgia photo ID requirement discriminated against people who don't have driver's licenses, passports or other government identification.

The militant arm of Hamas

I got a chuckle out of Bush’s use of the phrase “the militant arm of Hamas.” What is there some grand distinction? Is Hamas fighting an internal civil war between two factions? No. It’s just Hamas.

Leave it to Europe to have lunatic ideas that wars must be fought in “proportional”
Russia, France, Britian, and Italy have all buy into the theory. What they really mean though is that it’s Israel’s fault to begin with and they wish the Jews would abandon Israel and move to somewhere that is not their country.

If a man broke into your house and threatened your wife with a knife and you were smart enough to own a gun, would you A) shoot the robber or B) goto the kitchen and get a knife?

So what exactly would the Europeans have in mind as a proportional response? Should Israel launch rocket attacks on civilian populations in Lebanon? Should they kidnap people?

PARIS (AFP) - World powers have pleaded for restraint to stop the fiercest Israeli-Lebanese clashes in a decade slipping into all-out war.
President George W. Bush blamed "terrorists who want to stop the advance of peace", while fellow UN Security Council members Russia and France condemned
Israel's "disproportionate" use of force.
"Hezbollah doesn't want there to be peace, the militant arm of Hamas doesn't want there to be peace, and those of us who do want peace will continue to work together to encourage peace," Bush said.....
Russia, France, Britain and Italy criticised Israel for its "disproportionate" use of force....In Paris, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy described the Israeli army strikes on Lebanon as a "disproportionate act of war", ...

British Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman, when asked specifically about Israel's military response to the abductions, said: "The British government hopes that actions will be proportionate." ...
Greece called on Israel to avoid the use of "inordinate" and "pointless" violence in Lebanon, and on the Lebanese movement Hezbollah to release two Israeli soldiers.

The Militant Wing of the Salvation Army

I got a chuckle out of Bush’s use of the phrase “the militant arm of Hamas.” What is there some grand distinction? Is Hamas fighting an internal civil war between two factions? No. It’s just Hamas.

Leave it to Europe to have lunatic ideas that wars must be fought in “proportional”
Russia, France, Britian, and Italy have all buy into the theory. What they really mean though is that it’s Israel’s fault to begin with and they wish the Jews would abandon Israel and move to somewhere that is not their country.

If a man broke into your house and threatened your wife with a knife and you were smart enough to own a gun, would you A) shoot the robber or B) goto the kitchen and get a knife?

So what exactly would the Europeans have in mind as a proportional response? Should Israel launch rocket attacks on civilian populations in Lebanon? Should they kidnap people?

PARIS (AFP) - World powers have pleaded for restraint to stop the fiercest Israeli-Lebanese clashes in a decade slipping into all-out war.
President George W. Bush blamed "terrorists who want to stop the advance of peace", while fellow UN Security Council members Russia and France condemned
Israel's "disproportionate" use of force.
"Hezbollah doesn't want there to be peace, the militant arm of Hamas doesn't want there to be peace, and those of us who do want peace will continue to work together to encourage peace," Bush said.
Israeli war planes carried out at least 50 raids across Lebanon on Thursday, including on Beirut airport, a day after the killing of eight Israeli soldiers and the capture of two by Hezbollah guerrillas.
Bush, speaking on a visit to Germany, also urged Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad to help pressure Hezbollah to release the Israeli soldiers, adding: "Syria needs to be held to account."
In the Gaza Strip, Israeli jets bombed the Palestinian foreign ministry, wounding 10 children and increasing pressure on the Hamas government over another soldier abducted last month.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, at a joint press conference with Bush, called for a "de-escalation", stressing the starting point had been the capture of the Israeli soldiers.
"The attacks did not start from the Israeli side, but from Hezbollah's side," she said.
At least 39 civilians have been killed since Israel began pounding Lebanon from the land, sea and air. Hezbollah retaliated by firing off a barrage of rockets. One Israeli woman was killed.
Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas has warned of the risk of a "regional war" in the Middle East amid the twin Israeli offensives on southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.
Russia, France, Britain and Italy criticised Israel for its "disproportionate" use of force.
Moscow, a member of the diplomatic quartet on Middle East peace, also warned against the region slipping back into war.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was quoted by the Interfax news agency as warning of a "very dramatic and tragic" outcome to the Middle East violence.
Moscow condemned the abduction of Israeli soldiers by Palestinian militants and Lebanon's Hezbollah. "All forms of terrorism are completely unacceptable," a foreign ministry statement said, calling for the "immediate and unconditional release" of the soldiers.
"All sides involved in the current events should take rapid measures to stop the region sliding into open conflict."
But Moscow also turned its criticism on Israeli action in Gaza.
"One cannot justify the continued destruction by Israel of the civilian infrastructure in Lebanon and in Palestinian territory, involving the disproportionate use of force in which the civilian population suffers," the Russian foreign ministry said.
In Paris, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy described the Israeli army strikes on Lebanon as a "disproportionate act of war", warning one consequence could be to plunge Lebanon "back into the worst years of war".
France's defence minister also stressed that the situation could have repercussions at both the local level and for the world. "That goes much further since what happens in the Middle East serves as a pretext for terrorism too," Michele Alliot-Marie said on France Inter.
British Prime Minister

Tony Blair's spokesman, when asked specifically about Israel's military response to the abductions, said: "The British government hopes that actions will be proportionate."
"We call for restraint on all sides," he added, "because in the end, this (the broader Middle East question) is going to have to be solved by negotiations."
Also Thursday, Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema said Rome had "the impression that this is a disproportionate and dangerous reaction in view of the consequences it could have," ANSA reported.
Greece called on Israel to avoid the use of "inordinate" and "pointless" violence in Lebanon, and on the Lebanese movement Hezbollah to release two Israeli soldiers.

Truth on Sports

The World Cup finale came down to Italy and France. I followed the general progression of the tournament but missed a lot of the games. I watch the whole final though, and was definitely supporting Italy. Actually, France doesn’t even have French players, many of their players are Moroccan and Algerian. The big shocker was when world renown, and retiring, French player Zindane head-butted an Italian player in overtime and got thrown out. It’s like Mickey Mantle charging the mound in his last at bat of game 7 of the World Series in extra innings.

Americans in general don’t like soccer. Soccer is considered boring. After living it Scotland, I think it has its pros and cons. On the up side, I like the format. The game is 90 minutes with one break for halftime. There are no timeouts, TV breaks, etc. This also makes the athletes be in top shape as they have to run up and down the field constantly. Watching the game in person is much better than on TV, though being in a crowded bar is not bad. There is a lot of atmosphere at a soccer match. There are lots of chanting and songs, whereas many American spectator sports are more reserved. (Of course, this bravado carries over into riots at time.) On the downside, the game itself is slow. Not only is scoring is very low, there are very few shots on goal. For much of the game, the ball remains in the middle 60% of the field. Actual scoring often comes down to corner kicks, free kicks, and penalty kicks. The latter two result from penalties of some kind. Hence, players tend to become actors in their ability to exaggerate falling down and clutching their knees in order to draw a penalty. Sometimes it is even comical about the delayed reaction from someone getting hit, to them limping around in pain.

Whilst I’m discussing sports, I better throw my two cents into a couple of others.

Basketball: I like basketball and it’s not even bad to watch on TV, but I hate the last 2 minutes of a basketball game. This is where the losing team starts to intentionally foul the winning team in order to stop the clock, allow the winning team to take 2 foul shots and let the losing team hope they miss and then get the ball back with little loss of time. In no other sport, is fouling (committing a violation), is a benefit of a strategy of the losing team. Penalties don’t stop the clock in football (either kind).

NASCAR: A mainly Southern sport, but living in Texas there are many fans. Although racing could be fun, NASCAR really isn’t. Why? Because there are 200 laps and for 195 of those laps, each racer is desperately trying NOT to be first. (The car that is first bears the main brunt of air drag). So if the race boils down to the last five laps anyway, why not just make the race ten laps.