Welcome to visitors from The Other McCain!  This post is just one of my (sort of) weekly summaries of great links.  Please browse around the other recent posts or categories and see if this spot is to your liking (or disliking).

Great fact-filled piece by Ann Coulter about the Professor Gates affair

Senate drops “death panel” provision — you know, the death panel that didn’t exist.

Barack, I know Abe Lincoln, and you ain’t Abe Lincoln

Another one of President Obama’s deceptions about his plans for abortion funding.  Here’s part of what he said two years ago:

Obama responded quite clearly he planned for abortion not only to be part of taxpayer-funded health care but also forcibly covered by private insurers. He added he thought it “important” for the United States’ largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, to be part of his plan.

“Well, look, in my mind reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care. And so it is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose. Essentially … we’re gonna set up a public plan … that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services.We also will subsidize those who prefer to stay in the private insurance market – except the insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care.”

William Dembski answers the top 3 objections to intelligent design

The MP3 file is here.

Here are the objections he addressed:

  1. Just because something is unlikely doesn’t mean that it was designed because improbable things occur all the time.
  2. You can’t infer design if the object is sub-optimally designed, or exhibits evil
  3. But intelligent design is just re-packaged creationism

0 thoughts on “Roundup”

  1. You know Neal, I think Gates was just being a pompous jerk and the cop was being a jerk with “I have power” issues, so I don’t think race was the primary agitator in this whole thing.

    BUT, one of the reasons I cannot identify as a conservative is the right’s general apathy for racial issues. Sure, we have come a long way from Selma, but I have dealt with profiling from police officers (white and black) so it isn’t about the officer being White it is about the culture of law enforcement and their lack of respect for African American men in general (not in all cases).

    The denial that such profiling exists within law enforcement is a primary reason I don’t identify with the right no matter how many conservative views I may have.


    1. I have to say, DJ, that I don’t have any problem whatsoever with profiling in principle. Cops are given the task of law enforcement and the plain fact of the matter is that in any given situation, there is a group of people responsible for most of the crime in a given department’s jurisdiction. I think part of the problem when that group is black is that some of the “non-criminal” element models the criminal element at least in terms of dress and speech and it is not unreasonable to see how they could get caught up and profiled incorrectly. There’s a simple remedy for that and it involves being “less hip” in one’s dress and speech. I think this accounts for much of the problems today’s black young men face.

      In other areas, the group might be Hispanic. At one time, the groups were Italian or Irish. For a law enforcement group to ignore the obvious is foolish and dangerous for the people they are charged with protecting.

      As I white guy, I have actually been on the receiving end of such profiling. In my youth, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, I was often questioned because I “looked” like someone the cops were seeking. I think it’s because I “looked” like a drug dealer of the time (long hair, “hippy-like” attire). It’s a wonder I never got arrested when I WAS doing something wrong. I got stopped and questioned that often. It sucked for sure. But once I changed my look, I also changed my fortune and now I lead a life of crime free of police intervention (just kidding about that last part).


      1. @Marshal:

        You wrote: “I think part of the problem when that group is black is that some of the “non-criminal” element models the criminal element at least in terms of dress and speech and it is not unreasonable to see how they could get caught up and profiled incorrectly.”

        O.K. Marshall, let me break this down to you. I live in a predominantly White suburb of Chicago, I am in my late 30’s and I generally am dressed like a banker (because I am a banker) when a cop pulls me over and ends up saying something like: “I thought I didn’t see your seat belt on” . Happens ayt least 3 times a year.

        So in other words, I am not hearing what you are saying because my day to day experience has been very different than what you are talking about.

        And lets look at this if all young black men dress the same, then perhaps then obviously profiling is a bad way to find the ones out of that large group who are actually criminals?

        I understand law enforcement has a hard job, however; they are to serve and protec tthe public not abuse their authority.


      2. I know that playing Switzerland, on the internet, usually results in me getting nuked by both sides, but here goes: there is a fundamental difference between profiling on inherent characteristics (race, age, weight, religion, etc) and profiling based on behaviour (of which dressing like a drug-addicted hippie free-love person is but one example).

        You can change your behaviour and part of being an adult is understanding that other people will judge you based on your behaviour. If cops want to profile based on behaviour, let ’em (so long as the behaviour is strongly correlated with the crime in question).

        Profiling based on other characteristics – those which one cannot change – is just b.s.. That’s not about doing police work; that’s about being too lazy to do police work.


      3. I don’t disagree with the distinction, but I disagree with the notion of barring any factor that might contribute to good solid police work. Inherent characteristics might be a real aspect of the situation. And yeah, it can be abused easily. But whether or not it is ruled out as a matter of policy, there’s NO ONE that would disregard inherent characteristics in their personal vigilance. I don’t even believe it’s totally possible.

        Let’s put it this way: Women are being victimized by a tall Mexican man of about twenty years of age. Which should the police disregard as they watch for the perpetrator? His height? His nationality? His sex? His age? Anyone fitting that description is suspect.

        If the women are accosted by multiple Mexicans, darn near any Hispanic man is suspect.

        Each agency deals from their own experiences. They must be allowed to work based upon those experiences even if one specific group is scrutinized more often than others. It sucks to resemble or be a part of that group, I would not begin to ignore. But the alternative is more crime.

        I would also say that this isn’t exactly assuming guilt until proven innocent, though it toes the line. It is simply keeping a wary eye.


      4. Say what you say Marshal, I don’t trust the police, I avoid the police as much as possible, and I am not a criminal, I just know that some of those charged with my protection will always treat me like an enemy. Unfortunatley I can’t tell the good ones from the bad, which is essentially their excuse for treating me like a common criminal, when they start giving me the benefit of the doubt, I’ll do the same.


      5. Let’s put it this way: Women are being victimized by a tall Mexican man of about twenty years of age. Which should the police disregard as they watch for the perpetrator? His height? His nationality? His sex? His age? Anyone fitting that description is suspect.

        Um, not sure how to explain this to you.. but that isn’t profiling. That is looking for a suspect.

        “Profiling” is when you don’t know if there is a crime, but think there might be, so you check out certain people. In a free society, we don’t have to justify ourselves to the police: we are assumed to not have committed a crime.

        Profiling undoes that.


      6. It’s a different degree of the same thing. In one case, the perpetrator may be one specific person. In another, it might be a specific group of people. If a particular type of crime seems to be the result of the actions of a particular group, then of course the cops need to pay closer attention to anyone matching the description of the group.

        I am not, however, saying that the cops should be suspicious of every black man due to the prevalence of crimes by black gangs, or every hispanic because of latin gangs. Yet, race may indeed be a factor in their watch and likely should be.

        What DJ speaks of is the absolute wrong thing that could be done. I don’t blame him for his mistrust. But he’s being profiled ONLY because of his race.


      7. DJ, I think you made a good argument against seat belt laws and other somewhat invasive laws in general, at the risk of sounding like the ACLU, because of stuff like that ( I don’t know if that’s what you meant to do). The more power you give to police officers, the easier it is to abuse that power.


      8. Wow Marshall did you read over this before you hit submit?

        This is the type of ‘blind racism’ is also the reason why I cannot vibe on conservative issues either. This literally made me sick, especially since I know it wasn’t meant to offend. It is though…so offensive it ain’t even funny.

        Yes you can probably relate on some level being an ex-hippie Marshall, but the simple fact is there is and always will be someone to ‘vouch’ for you. We don’t have that luxury.

        Your mother, father, or any family member could show up to ‘explain’ and you would be sent home. We often spend more time than you do proving ourselves and in the end we still lose. The above incident described by DJBlackAdam happened to one of my employees, and he wasn’t so lucky.

        A victim of Hurricane Katrina, he was pulled over for expired tags, expired out of state driver’s license and an illegal (broken) headlight. Did the officer take the time to listen? No. Was he given a ticket and explained he was in a new state and there were rules he had to abide by? No. My employee was taken to jail and had to use his one phone call to let me know he wasn’t going to make it to work the next day.

        A judge listened though….the next day. The story of how this man was stranded in a strange state, no family, no friends to speak of, and a glimmer of hope that he could go home. No, this employee was forced to establish residence here to stay out of jail and save money (he didn’t have) on fines for an ‘illegal’ vehicle.

        The employee lost his part-time job, because his other employer only heard that he missed work because he was in jail. All because he took a wrong turn into an affluent neighborhood in a beat-up car.

        Was he casing the neighborhood for a heist or do you think maybe he was lost because this place looks nothing like New Orleans?


      9. Mizclark,

        Dig yourself. You’re doing to me exactly what you’re accusing me of doing. “Blind racism”? What an incredible generalization.

        And could you find a more unreasonable anecdote? I was hauled in for driving on a ticket for a noisey muffler less than 24 hours after getting the ticket in the first place. Did the cop listen to my story? No. Did I have to miss work (a new job, I might add)? Yes. Did I have to miss work for TWO court appearances? Yes. Boo-freakin-hoo. No one vouched for me, either, lady. Your friend was driving on expired tags with an expired license and a broken headlight and he expected what, exactly? Cops, you might want to know, are enforcers of the law, not judges and juries. We all hope the cop won’t start writing up that ticket until he knows we truly deserve it, but that’s not their job.

        Here’s a sad fact of life you might want to understand: racism will never go away on this earth. It might go hiding, it might stay quiet, but jerks live and jerks will be jerks. Don’t go being a jerk yourself and seeing racism under every rock.

        I don’t give a flyin’ rat’s ass what color anybody is. I couldn’t care less. There’s not a microscope in the world that can find such a care in me. That’s not the same as paying attention and facing realities and sometimes, those realities might include people of a certain color or class in a certain area being the cause of the lion’s share of the problems in that area and as a result, anyone who resembles them might raise suspicion of those sick to death of being victimized by the people they resemble.

        If I know you, I’D vouch for you in a heartbeat if I knew your character to be good. And if I don’t know you, I’d defend you against the type of racism DJ speaks of experiencing.


      10. I think there are indeed serious issues here.

        One of those issues, I would argue, is the over-empowerment of law enforcement and a whole host of arbitrary laws that are mostly designed to give law enforcement more power than is appropriate.

        Some may argue the over-empowered law enforcement is needed to deal with social problems. I might agree. Which is why the root causes of those social problems must be addressed– many of which are government programs and government interference.

        A certain group of people of a certain political persuasion created the problems through government interference, and then proposed as the solution more and new government interference. Of course, in the face of the new problems created by over-empowered law enforcement what do we need? More government interference.

        The solution is broadbased scaling back of the role, power, and authority of government. This will naturally de-empower law enforcement.

        And at the core of this would rest a broad de-criminalization of many currently illegal drugs, which represents a massive over-reach of the government.


      11. Agree with LCB’s point about the over-empowerment of law enforcement, the State, etc.

        This stuff starts because you can throw someone in jai for driving on expired tags. There’s no reason for that to be punishable by a prison term.

        Some brain trust decided to run every minute aspect of our lives via the regulatory state; then, some other brain trust decided to make criminals of those who do not comply. One of many end results: giving the state the power to make some people’s lives really, really miserable.


      12. But you still have your job…see you just had to miss work.

        He lost his job! Yes I accused you of “blind” racism, but I can see its not so blind.


      13. Again, your friend got a truly raw deal. But his circumstances were extenuating. He was just about looking for trouble, what with all the violations. He took a chance and it went south.


      14. Sorry, DJ, but your experience isn’t profiling. It’s racism. I can see that as clearly as you mean it to be seen. You might want to start taking names and badge numbers and advising the same to others you know experiencing the same trouble.

        But that doesn’t mean profiling isn’t sound procedure. I’d say that the best response is that members of that same group get to those who are causing the problems and get in their faces. A tough job to be sure, especially if we’re talking really nasty punks. For example, after 9/11, there was the fear of police rounding up every Arab-looking person in the nation. But the authorities, as they were considering profiling before the whiners started whining, had a much narrower idea in mind.

        I can assure you that I have no inherent fear of anyone who dresses well (i.e. like a banker). But those who dress like they’re gang-bangers give me pause. The same goes for those who dress like bikers, or skin-heads, or heavily tatted up. Am I judging by appearances? Of course I am. But not by race. This is what I’m talking about when I speak of profiling.


      15. Yup there it is confirmed…..sorry for ever accusing you of “blind” anything!

        Oh and by the way this is the same police department that denied a certain football player a final goodbye with his mother in law!


      16. At this point Mizclark, I have no idea either of what you think of me (racist-blind or otherwise?), or what the hell you’re talking about regarding some football player.


    1. There you are, folks. Pro-Darwinian evolution reasoning at its finest, and plenty of evidence as to why the commenter is a smart piece of s*** and should be relied upon.

      Perhaps future comments about Dembski should be posted at the linked site and not here.


      1. Sorry, Ryan, I really meant it about posting the Dembski comments elsewhere. Any correlation between evolutionists’ opinions of him and reality would be purely coincidental.


      2. If you don’t want comments about your Roundups, don’t post them. My comment was about the objections above, and they were respectfully worded. I took the time to read up on Dembski, and found some very good things about him, specifically his honesty about faith-healing.


  2. On to other matters: it seems rather strange to call abortion “reproductive care,” since the whole point is to, um, not reproduce.

    Given that there are already mandates (either state or federal or both, can’t quite remember) for health care parity – i.e. covering labour and delivery (or having a rider for it), the Pill, gynaecologist exams, etc – the only thing that could ever be meant by “reproductive care” is “ripping your unborn child to shreds.”

    If Obama actually wanted to cover reproductive care, maybe he would start to fund crisis pregnancy centres, make colleges that get federal money provide housing and support for pregnant and parenting students, and require that fathers – either themselves or via their insurance companies – be jointly and severally liable for the cost of prenatal care and delivery. (Currently, in most states, those costs are born entirely by the mother; she has no legal recourse to get the father to pay for any of it.)


  3. I’m not sure I understand what the blogger is saying concerning Obama and Abe Lincolin. You guys claim we cannot afford Obama or his plans, but a lot of people said the same thing about Abe Lincolin and his plans to abolish slavery.

    There was no way you could free the slaves and afford to now pay them for the labor you were recieving. I’m not too sure I agree with a lot of Obama’s plans either, but this fear mongering is ridiculous!


    1. Ehhem, Abraham Lincoln did not initially plan to abolish slavery. He originally implemented a program of returning blacks to Africa (the origins of Liberia are in this). Later on the emancipation proclamation was issued and it applied only to Confederate states. Union states (like Maryland) were permitted to continue slave holding.

      It was not until the 13th amendment that slavery was ended in the Union.

      Obama has worked hard to portray himself as the next Lincoln, ending divides in America, leading through tough times, bringing unity, etc.

      In reality most of Obama’s views and policies are in tremendous opposition to the views and policies of Lincoln, both in the concrete and the abstract. At his very core, Lincoln was a pragmatist who was seeking to do whatever necessary to hold the Union together. At his core, Obama is an ideolog who seeks to do whatever necessary to impose his socialism on the Union.

      Obama has worked hard to portray himself as the next Lincoln, but he is no Lincoln.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s