Duke case - again

Fox News is reporting that the woman who accused (falsely) three Duke Lacrosse players of raping her is writing a memoir.

The story quotes from the official release:

The press release for the memoir says that Crystal Gail Mangum has been "called an exotic dancer and a prostitute, and the public was led to believe she wanted to frame some 'good college students' from Duke and put them in jail. ...

Uhh - didn't she accuse three innocent students of rape? What was her intention? Wasn't she an exotic dancer (the reason she was at the Duke Lacrosse party to begin with)? This really takes gall to come out now and tell this story.

The press release (that you can see up at Free Republic) states that 'she never spoke publicly, that is until now. ' and why is that? Why would someone stand on the sidelines and let three innocent students get pilloried in the press, get attacked by professors at Duke and forced to defend themselves against bogus charges?

The press release notes that "Crystal Magnum is donating one dollar from the purchase of each book to help battered women. " How about donating the money she makes to the three students who suffered because of her? Too harsh? How about donating the money she makes to the police who had to handle her bogus claims rather than pursue real crime? Again, too harsh? How about donating the money to Duke University so it could run a seminar on how not to "pre-judge" just because the accuser is black and the defendants are white. I suppose I am beating a dead horse here.

The real crime of this issue is that it is off the front page but we have learned nothing from it.

OS

Swiftboating Obama?

Jerome Corsi has a new book that is doing quite well in book sales called "The Obama Nation". Corsi was the author of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry for which our culture got the term "swiftboating".

Well the Obama campaign has issued a 40-page rebuttal to Corsi's book "arguing the author is a fringe bigot peddling rehashed lies." Ok, that is fair. But in reading the AP story I saw this quote:

The book is a compilation of all the innuendo and false rumors against Obama — that he was raised a Muslim, attended a radical, black church and secretly has a "black rage" hidden beneath the surface.

So, why does Obama need to release a rebuttal? The Associated Press has already pronounced the book false. Isn't that good enough? I like the unbiased reporting (i.e. commentary) in a news story. Note the sarcasm there. The AP story also takes a swipe at WorldNetDaily.com that publishes Corsi's column noting :

Corsi writes for World Net Daily, a conservative Web site whose lead headline Thursday was "Astonishing photo claims: Dead Bigfoot stored on ice."

So a indirect (or direct) link to Corsi's "false rumors" and a report of Bigfoot on ice. Hmm - no bias there either. For the record, Worldnetdaily is a great site that offers a range of diverse opinions and impactful and at times "off beat" news. What site doesn't - Yahoo offers an Odd News section that has these nifty stories:

King penguin receives Norwegian knighthood
Man banned from girlfriend's home after noisy sex
Winnie-the-Pooh held for robbery?

Also there is a link to ABC News story entitled "Legend of Bigfoot: Discovery? Try Hoax." I guess the AP needs to ensure that anyone who writes for ABC News gets the same type of derision that Corsi has gotten.

Final question for the AP - why is "The Obama Nation" a best seller? Maybe the AP should try reporting the news rather than telling us their opinion of it. Obama is lucky to have such willing accomplices in the media to do hit pieces like this one on authors and commentators who are not in line with Obama's ascension. Next time you hear someone on the left talk about how great diversity is, take a right-wing position (even for "kicks") to see a reaction that is not in line with their supposed appreciation for diversity. AP should be ashamed of this "report".

OS

What is the standard in religion these days?

Although I am not an Anglican I can sympathize somewhat with the current Arch Bishop of Canterbury. The AP reports Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, struggling to hold together the troubled world Anglican family, urged church leaders gathered Sunday in England not to consecrate another gay bishop, saying the fellowship will be in "grave peril" without a moratorium." He has got that right. Not only is this denomination in "peril" but so many of the other religions are facing the exact same challenge and usually choosing the "wrong" one in my opinion.

The story also states that "The 77 million-member Anglican Communion has been splintering since 2003, when the U.S. Episcopal Church consecrated the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire." That is worth noting - a 77 million member community is breaking up due a gay man was consecrated as a Episcopalian Bishop. So this community is being fractured due to the dictates and desires of one man. Can we get any more selfish? This new bishop by forcing his defining characteristic (his sexual orientation) to the forefront of the church community has actually threatened the faith that he has been sworn in to serve.

What is more telling is that what is the standard now? I have always maintained that for religious folks, the church and the teachings of God is the standard which they measure themselves and their religion against. The Church is the standard that society meets (again for religious folks) not the other way around (Society is the standard (cultural mores) and the Church changes with the winds of society). So a religion has a certain belief about homosexuality and instead of the congregation and potential bishop abiding by the teachings of the church a change is forced to 'adjust the church' the personal opinions. I have a problem with this not because I feel one way or the other about sexual orientation but because I believe in some guardrails and standards that are a little bit bigger than someone's personal proclivities.

My feeling is that a person joins a religion because he or she wants to answer some of the questions that we all deal with - questions larger than ourselves. I am sure Catholics find specific affinities for Church teachings and dictates of the Pope. If a person is out of step with the religion, why should the religion conform to that person instead of the person conforming to the Church teachings? Did Moses distill the Word of God to conform to his personal beliefs or did it begin and end (Alpha and Omega) with God?

To expect a church to dilute or change their teachings on specific instances of cultural issues due to a small minority is at a minimum suspect (so the church appears more "in tune" with society) and in grander scale, actually a potential death knell of the religion. Which is not far off from what I would suspect, many cultural elites who sound off about the anachronistic teachings of one religion or the other would desire (the end of religion in general that dare "judges" someone's personal behavior). Religion is changing and trying to be more culturally hip and with that move, becoming something different than what drew so many people to its pews to begin with?

I wonder if Radical Islam is having these discussions within its congregations?

OS

Is the country on the wrong track?

More politics coming at you. Yahoo has a story courtesy of the AP that reports that at a recent campaign stop Obama criticized McCain for thinking the country is on the right track.

"These anxieties seem to be growing with each passing day," Obama said on a campaign trip in this economically ailing battleground state. "We can either choose a new direction for our economy or we can keep doing what we've been doing. My opponent, John McCain, thinks we're on the right track."

The audience booed and hissed at such nonsense but thank goodness we have Obama offering up "something new". Like middle class tax cuts (that almost every politician including Bill Clinton was for). Obama is also for the ever popular "change" which is always a crowd pleaser. It worked for Bill Clinton against Bush playing on the country's need for change from the status quo (Republican Presidents for 12 years) and Obama is using the same ploy, hoping for similar results.

The Yahoo Story also noted that when asked (based on an AP-Ipsos poll) "77 percent said they thought the country was on the wrong track. The same poll set President Bush's approval rating at 28 percent." So of course Obama is also linking McCain to President Bush and the President's low approval numbers. But heads up Obama. You may want to check your own party's approval numbers for its leadership. A similar AP-Ipsos poll has Congress' approval rating at 18%, actually better than the current President. Seems like the "public" wants change also in Congress. I didn't find that mentioned in the AP Story. So the question is, will Obama make a break with the current Democrat leadership like Speaker Pelosi?

Seems like McCain may have at least a nice rebuttal as opposed to a good political platform.

OS

McCain does not offer much originality but then neither does Obama

Ok, so here we are in full swing of the campaign season. I don't understand the fascination with Barack Obama - what are Obama's credentials for President? Is the fascination with Obama that he is something new and fresh? Or is it something a little more "on the surface". Something to explore in the upcoming months.

So thanks to Yahoo News we get a story that McCain is promising to cut Government spending. Wow - how original. I think even John Kerry mentioned something about cutting out the waste in Government. I think he was thinking of focusing on the non essentials like the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies but maybe I have that wrong (sarcasm...).

So does the story think this is a good thing? Well news is supposed to be unbiased right - (there is no liberal bias according to Helen Thomas). Well Yahoo states:

"In just about any election, candidates promise to save money by cutting waste. It’s a pledge line in a speech that draws cheers from conservatives, but can become white noise to voters who’ve seen too many elected officials pledge fiscal responsibility, only to fail to deliver. Indeed, the path is so strewn with broken promises, there is little risk for candidates making the pledge because expectations are so low that they’ll make good on it."

So McCain is probably lying about this right? And more so, since expectations are so low there is little risk to McCain for such a pledge. I wonder if Yahoo and other news stories will remember this if McCain is elected or will they dodge him at every step asking how he has reduced the size of Government. I will leave it up to the reader to draw their own conclusion.

Second thing I would like to highlight is this quote:"It’s a pledge line in a speech that draws cheers from conservatives,...". Let me get this straight...liberals don't want to cut waste? Why does a line like this draw conservative praise only? I just checked Obama's website and saw at least two major sections under his "Fiscal" Issues.

1. Make Government Spending More Accountable and Efficient
2. End Wasteful Government Spending

And as far as I know Obama's rhetoric is not only intended for conservatives. Oh, and one more thing. Part of Obama's platform is to "Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington". I seem to have read something similar in John McCain's platform. Yep, I did.

So color me confused. John McCain is not the conservative candidate, he is the candidate that the Boston Globe and the New York Times wanted because of that exact reason. McCain has a lot more to worry about then his urge for fixed-price contracts (which aren't always a good thing). But I find it funny that the Yahoo Story is telling the reader how difficult it may be for McCain to sell this plan since he admits that economic issues are not his "strong suit".

So noted Senator McCain. You have plenty of other issues that you are "strong" in. It was nice for the Yahoo story to point that out. Just what issues are not in Obama's strong suit? Where is he weak? I am sure that will be part of the next glowing portrayal of the Democratic contender.

OS

McCain is right about something

Not too jazzed about the race for the White House as the differences between the candidates are not as distinct as I would like them to be - but no one is listening to me anyway.

McCain is reported (at ABC News' Political Radar Blog) as suggesting:

"...Sen. Barack Obama may alter his promise to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months after meeting with US. General David Petraeus, the commander of US forces in Iraq.

"I'm glad that he [Obama] is, for the first time, asking for a sit down briefing with Gen. Petraeus and I'll be very interested in what his position on Iraq is when he returns," McCain said during a satellite interview with ABC News' Charlie Gibson Wednesday from Pittsburgh."

As I noted in my previous post Obama cannot (IMHO) hold to his current timetable to withdraw from Iraq in 16 months or less. Welcome to the party Senator McCain. Here is another softball for you - USA Today (and others) are reporting that Obama said "that the nation's chief priority should not be for immigrants to learn English, but for American children to learn Spanish". Any chance you want to chime in on this asinine statement? This is an easy one. Sure he said "immigrants should learn English" but my question is what policies is he putting in place to support that? Stick up for America Senator McCain - recapture some of your conservative credentials that so far in this campaign have been lacking.

YouTube video is here.


Outspoken Roman

Obama begins to get real on Iraq

I wrote previously on a story that came out of CNN back in September 2007 about the Dem candidates not willing to vow a pullout of Iraq by 2013. My feeling is that cold realism would hit the new president in the face come Jan 2009 and he (or she) would realize that this issue is a lot more complex than the right or the left thinks it is (like the lefties who think a President Obama will sign a withdraw order the first day he is in office).

So MSNBC has a story (this is also all over the news) that Obama has opened the door to potentially changing his Iraq Policy. So what is his policy - well if I can trust Obama's own website I get this info:

"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq."

So I think that is a load of crap but at least it seems clear to understand. So the MSNBC story had this quote from Obama when asked about his upcoming trip to Iraq. When asked Obama stated "“I am going to do a thorough assessment when I’m there,” he said. “I’m sure I’ll have more information and continue to refine my policy.” So his policy may be refined? Does this imply that he fully didn't grasp the issues before he chose to criticize Clinton and the President? Probably.

The MSNBC story also states:

"But later in the session, he said it is possible the 16-month timeline could slip if the pace of withdrawal needs to be slowed some months to ensure troop safety. “I have always said ... I would always reserve the right to do what’s best,” Obama said."

Nice to give yourself a back door isn't it Obama? Yahoo News, following up on the probably shift in Obama's policy stated why Obama is different than President Bush:

"I'm not somebody who, like George Bush, is willing to ignore facts on the basis of my preconceived notions. I want to pay attention to what is happening on the ground."

That is rich!! In my opinion it is the left's preconceived notions about Iraq that has driven Obama to strike his course to the extreme left on this issue and to garner their support he has been unwilling to examine the issue himself (he has not even been to Iraq - something McCain has called him on). I can see the front page when/if he gets elected - "To do the best for the troops and because President Bush's inability to plan I am extending the Miltary action in Iraq". You left wingers are actually trusting this guy.....?

We will see.

OS