TailOverTeaKettle.com

In today’s AJC, Cynthia Tucker offers the opinion that the results in the Democratic Primary in South Carolina show that black voters, especially southern black voters, are often misunderstood (Blacks’ ballots are colorblind). She describes that black voters voted in higher percentage for Kerry and Edwards rather than Al Sharpton - in contrast with various prognosticators who predicted a much bigger Sharpton influence.

While this is true, it is interesting that Sharpton, a ‘candidate’ who really has made no pretenses to actually try to win the nomination from the beginning of the campaign still managed to win ten percent of the vote in South Carolina. You can bet where these votes came from. Since he is a publicity hound rather than a serious candidate, I’m surprised that he gets a single vote, regardless of race.

But Cynthia took a left turn at the end of her piece:

While black voters are often caricatured as blindly loyal to the Democratic Party, their allegiance is hardly blind. It is knowing. African-Americans tend to be conservative on many social issues — they often support the death penalty and prayer in schools, for example — but they are suspicious of the Republican Party for an obvious reason: Many Republican politicians are too cozy with interests that still resent the civil rights movement. Gov. Sonny Perdue’s decision to campaign as defender of the old Georgia flag, with its Confederate insignia, is just one example.

Now, I don’t think that even Cynthia can keep a straight face when she calls this a ‘caricature’. Just a look at the federal election in 2000 show pretty decisive ‘trend’. From the Black Republican Network:

On November 7, 2000, over 10.2 million blacks voter went to the polls in the first presidential contest of the new millennium. One (1) million more blacks cast ballots in 2000 than in 1996, as black voter participation rates jumped from 49% in 96, to 51% of all registered black voters in 2000. The NAACP launched an unprecedented $10 million voter education and registration project, and additional millions were pumped into black communities by Democrats and unions in “get out the vote” operations. Exceeding all expectations, Al Gore garnered 90% of the Black vote, more than Clinton in 92 and 96. And yet, the result of the most intense effort ever to turn out Black voters resulted in a sweep of the White House and Congress by Republicans.

              

I know that there have been many victims of racism, both overt and subtle, through the years. But can someone please explain to me why skin color has anything to do with control of elements of the gambling industry? According to the Washington Times (Black Caucus offers Ehrlich slots support), members of the Maryland Legislative Black Caucus says that it will lend support to the Governor’s plan to create two stand-alone slot machine casinos as long as blacks are guaranteed ownership of the venture.

"He will get slots if black folks get ownership," Senate Majority Leader Nathaniel J. McFadden, Baltimore Democrat, told The Washington Times. House Deputy Majority Whip Obie Patterson, chairman of the 42-member Black Caucus, yesterday said black ownership is essential to winning the approval of the caucus. "It has been our position all along that we look at ownership and not just participation,” said Mr. Patterson, a Prince George’s County Democrat.

This is not the first time black lawmakers have played a prominent role in the slots legislation. Last year, they supported efforts by black entrepreneurs and black athletes to earn some of the estimated $800 million in slots revenue. Black church leaders responded by saying the lawmakers were forgetting poor blacks who live around the racetracks but would not benefit from the revenue and who account for a disproportionate amount of lottery sales.

Without getting into a discussion about whether the states should resort to gambling profits in order to boost revenues, I can not understand the merits of their proposal. Why should skin color determine the ownership of the slot casinos? I think it’s wonderful if some "black entrepeneur and black athletes" get to earn some money, but why not call it what it is - bribery in order to help friends … nothing to do otherwise with skin color.

              

So, it seems that the United Nations is reaching out to find support in the Hollywood elites. The beautiful people will cement their commitment with the international organization (if they can tear themselves away from Castro tributes) in a new way. According to the latest entertainment news (Actress Drew Barrymore Named ‘Friend of the U.N.’), it seems that there’s now a way to be a ‘friend’ to the UN:

Actress Drew Barrymore became on Thursday the first person to be named "A Friend of the U.N." by a new organization called "Artists for the U.N."
"We wake up every morning thinking, like, what more can we do in this world to make it a better, happier, more peaceful and beautiful place," Barrymore told a standing-room-only crowd at a U.N. news conference. Artists for the U.N., a partnership between the United Nations and Global Vision for Peace, hopes to encourage artists "to support the ideals, vision and mandate of the United Nations" in seeking global solutions to world problems, according to its organizers.

Like, I don’t know Drew. I don’t know anything about ‘Artists for the U.N.’, but then again, neither does Google (and if Google doesn’t know you, then you don’t exist).

Global Vision for Peace and Drew got some press last year at the 2003 Oscars when celebrities were encouraged to attend the ceremonies and express their anti-war messages. From the story Oscars feel war pressure: "As the debate about the fate of the 2003 Oscars hung in the balance, a string of stars gathered at a ‘peace party’ in the Los Angeles hills on Thursday to support a new movement, Global Vision For Peace. Actress Drew Barrymore read a statement from the Dalai Lama while many guests sported the movement’s dove-shaped peace pins, which stars including Streep, Kidman and Day-Lewis have pledged to wear at the ceremony. Global Vision For Peace co-founders Xorin Balbes and Cliff Rothman said the ceremony should not be cancelled because it could be used to spread the message of peace. ‘The Oscar telecast is the largest global medium, and we felt that to use that medium as the vessel to get out the message of peace was really significant,’ Mr Rothman said. ‘When you see prominent Americans standing up for peace in a powerful way, I think it makes a powerful statement.’

According to their website, their honorary committee is made of of the likes of Mikhail Gorbachev, The Dalai Lama, Dennis Kucinich, Melissa Gilbert, Kurt Vonnegut, Christina Applegate, Drew Barrymore, Kathy Bates, Beau Bridges, Daniel Day-Lewis, Jonathan Demme, Leonardo DiCaprio, Teri Garr, Melanie Griffith,
Jessica Lange, Judith "Who’s the Boss" Light, Nick Nolte, Rob Reiner, Susan Sarandon, and Jane Seymour, among others.

I guess it’s time to rachet up some publicity for the organization, which seems to have been strangely silent about peace in the time since last year’s Academy Awards.

As part of its program, 30 to 40 actors and entertainment executives will be wearing a "Dove of Peace" pin to the Feb. 29 telecast of this year’s Academy Awards, organizers said.

Raise your hand if you think that the real reason that the Oscars will be on delay is not that the producers are worried about a Janet Jackson-like overexposure, but rather what sort of bile is going to come out of Micheal Moore this time. I suspect there will be a campaign pep-rally sometime during the broadcast.

"To be philanthropic is weirdly not as easy as you want it to be because the information and the resources aren’t as available as they should be," she said as a dozen photographers snapped away. "So when you do get an opportunity, it is so exciting, because it is not a day wasted, it’s a day when you actually did something important and it feels bigger than you."

Perhaps Drew really believes that she is helping mankind by getting her picture taken. But how exactly is she helping mankind? I know that she’s out making publicity stops for her new movie… I guess that’s what the UN is really for.

              

My heart goes out to the family of Carlie Brucia. There is nothing like an act like this to tear at the feelings of a parent. The worst fear realized.

So this Joseph Smith has been in jail since Tuesday and finally today told police where to find her. When they speak of seeing the ultimate punishment, it can not come too quickly. But to (read that Smith was arrested at least13 times in the last 10 years, I was shocked. Other stories (Court records chronicle a troubled life) detailed a number of offenses, drug related. (Of course, a neighbor was quoted as saying "It was like Rush Limbaugh getting hooked on drugs.")

But how can you be arrested thirteen times, including ten days after being released from jail for a different drug charge, and not end up with anything more than probation and drug treatment programs… which obviously weren’t exactly working.

A non-violent offender to be sure. Drug use doesn’t hurt anyone. A victimless crime… right???

              

Neal Boortz really hit the nail on the head with his analysis of the WMD ‘controversy’. I wish that I could state it as well as he did today… but since I can’t - I’ll give you his words.

At this point we all realize that there were some serious problems with the intelligence information being supplied to President Bush prior to the liberation of Iraq. Based on that intelligence information Bush thought that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that could be pressed into service in short order. Not only did George Bush believe this intelligence information, but so did quite a few other people.

Do you need some reminders? OK .. here goes.

On October 9, 1998 some members of the U.S. Senate sent a letter to Bill Clinton expressing their concerns about Saddam and his weapons program. That letter contained this paragraph:

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program."

That letter was signed by Tom Daschle, Carl Levin and John Kerry .. three Senators, one a probable Democratic nominee for president, who are now slamming George Bush for acting on the very intelligence they relied on for their 1998 letter to their president, Bill Clinton.

Carl Levin is particularly obnoxious. I saw him on some talking head show earlier this week pressing the idea that Bush should have known that the intelligence information he was relying on was faulty. In September of 2002 Levin said "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Levin, it seems, believed the exact same intelligence information that Bush relied on … and now he’s faulting Bush.

How about some other names of people who believed that Saddam had a weapons program and a stockpile of WMDs? Let’s put Nancy Pelosi on that list, and there’s Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeline Albright. Al Gore said "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Ted Kennedy said "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." How about some more from John Kerry? On October 9th of last year Kerry said "I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real grave threat to our security." In January of this year Kerry said "So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."

Now we are hearing doubts about the quality of that intelligence. Maybe Saddam didn’t have the weapons. Maybe he shipped them out to Syria and Iran. Maybe his own scientists were telling him what they thought he wanted to hear.

OK .. let me try to create a little scenario for you. Let’s say that NASA scientists together with experts from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California suddenly discover that there is a 15-mile-wide asteroid heading for the earth. If that asteroid strikes the earth millions of people will die. The president of the United States orders a very expensive crash program to develop a response. Billions of dollars are poured into an all-out project to develop and launch a dozen nuclear-tipped rockets toward the
asteroid to destroy it before it crashes into the earth. To fund the project billions are taken from various social projects. People suffer. The deficit blossoms. A debt is created that our grandchildren will have to pay.

The project is successful. The missiles score a direct hit on the asteroid and it is blasted into thousands of smaller fragments. Unfortunately some of those fragments are still large enough to cause severe damage and kill hundreds of people when they crash into the earth. Later, after the danger is past, we discover that the NASA scientists who originally warned of the threat from this asteroid made a little mathematical miscalculation. The asteroid was actually going to pass harmlessly between the moon and the earth. We now know that all of that money was wasted. Not only that, but those people who died when smaller fragments hit the earth would still be alive today if the asteroid had just been left alone.

Who do we blame here? Do we blame the president? He was acting on the information available to him at the time. He had no real choice but to trust that information. To ignore the warnings of the impending strike could be to pass a death sentence on millions. You can’t condemn the president for acting on information that he, and the rest of the world, thought to be correct.

Another quicker example. A surgeon finds a lump in your breast. He wants to do a biopsy. A test of the lump shows it to be benign. Do you condemn the doctor because he didn’t know that the growth was benign before he went in there with a scalpel?

Now, after Saddam has been deposed and after Iraq has been liberated, we find that some of the intelligence information was faulty.What do we do? Blame Bush for acting on information that was believed to be true at the time action was taken? All of this 20-20 hindsight is wonderful, but when it
comes to the defense of our country you can act on what you think might be true in 12 months, you act on what you believe to be true right now.

A bloodthirsty dictator has been removed from power. Rape rooms are no longer in operation in Iraq. The torture chambers have been shut down. Mass graves containing hundreds of thousands have been
uncovered. Saddam will never again use chemicals to kill tens of thousands of his enemies. And this is somehow bad?

RUMSFELD STRIKES BACK; SAYS IRAQ LIKELY HAD WMD
Well it’s about time somebody said it. Testifying before Congress yesterday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that it is "not likely" that Iraq lacked weapons of mass destruction when the war broke out last March. This of course puts him at odds with the recently resigned weapons inspector, David Kay. If you listen to the media, the entire administration is supposed to be sitting around with egg on their face over this issue. Goes to show you what they know.

Rumsfeld refused to back down from his prewar statements that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons. He went on to say "it took us 10 months to find Saddam Hussein. The reality is that the hole he was found hiding in was large enough to hold enough biological weapons to kill thousands
of human beings." Of course, this isn’t good enough for the Bush-haters.

No….you see, those on the left hold America to a higher standard. Not only do we have to prove what is there, we have to prove what is not there, an almost impossible task in a country the size of Texas. Rumsfeld said that the decision to go to war was based on 10 years worth of intelligence endorsed by the Clinton and Bush administrations. Not to mention Saddams’ 12 years of UN defiance. Of
course, that gets forgotten.

Again, none of that matters. It’s all about hating Bush as much as possible. Boy, those Democrats sure are bitter people.

              

Last week, I wrote about the City of Atlanta’s plan to use liquor laws to favor themselves over private businesses. Now the story gets even better.

History is already being re-written, and it’s hardly even happened. On January 29th, an AJC editorial (OUR OPINIONS: Underground rebound is overdue) sounded upbeat about the new ‘loophole’ allowing a later closing time for yet-to-be-created bars at the city-owned Underground Atlanta complex, rather than the Buckhead area:

Now, however, a series of events may conspire to breathe fresh life into the attraction. When the booming Buckhead nightlife began to intrude on that area’s long-standing residential neighborhoods, the city of Atlanta responded by forcing nightclubs to stop serving alcohol at 2:30 a.m., instead of the previous 4 a.m., a restriction that the bar industry fought bitterly.

They happily added:

Everybody who wishes Atlanta well realizes that a vibrant city center, including after-hours amenities, is needed to add interest, excitement and entertainment for visitors, conventioneers and tourists. A lively Underground could add to the city’s allure for bright young people, the tech-savvy newcomers whom all growing cities now court furiously.

Today, safety is not the issue. Word is, an even later closing time is being considered for any bar wishing to relocate to Underground Atlanta, in order to ensure that more people will go there even after the Buckhead bars are forced to close. (6 a.m. closing at Underground? )

"If it creates an even greater vibrancy and vitality for Underground, then of course it’s an interesting idea that should be considered," said Willis, an at large council member.

What about the safety issues? What about the drunk drivers travelling from Buckhead to downtown?

Willis said he wants to see Underground become Atlanta’s answer to Beale Street in Memphis or the French Quarter in New Orleans. "That’s what drove my vision for Underground," he said. Extended hours at Underground would help Atlanta stay competitive with places such as Las Vegas for tourism and conventions, Willis said.

I have no evidence that Councilman Willis smokes crack… but if he even imagines that Underground Atlanta, a failed downtown mall, will look anything like the French Quarter or Las Vegas - then he has a very rich fantasy life.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t understand why anyone needs to be out at 4 am. But the city of Atlanta clearly recognizes the economic impact of the closing times, and is trying to rig the game in its favor. Now if only it managed to find someone to buy the Underground so that it could get out of the entertainment business…