Image 01 Image 03

If this is “into the light”

If this is “into the light”

I’d rather sit in the dark.

That’s my sense of today:

  • Secret Service agent scandal gets worse with allegations of cocaine use, and here is a headline which tells us this drama will play out for a while: Escort Recounts Quarrel With Secret Service Agent.
  • Image of the Day, via @iowahawkblog.
  • State Dept official allegedly, allegedly, got something on the roof of the Baghdad embassy, and there are videos.
  • Tina Brown, who has done as much as anyone to cheapen and diminish journalism, attacks Andrew Breitbart.  Brown’s recitation of the Shirley Sherrod tape typically is misinformed and wrong.
  • Dewhurst must be really, really worried about Ted Cruz to put up a website like this one.  I may have to endorse Cruz, not that it will make a difference.
  • Blowing oneself up into pieces is just another day.  Soldiers getting photographed with those pieces is an outrage, apparently (and generates a lot of web traffic for the newspaper publishing the photos).
  • Taunting soldiers and trying to provoke a reaction is just another day, but when one is provoked and pushes back with a rifle butt (that’s pushes, not swings or shoots), it is an outrage apparently (and generates a lot of web coverage for the taunter).
  • This doesn’t look right to me, maybe staged; the people hitting the piñata  look too young to be in college.
  • Greg Sargent wants Dem donors to wake the hell up, because Obama may not be the billion dollar candidate after all.
  • But, have hope, there is light:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


This should add a little light into your life, Professor:TEAM ROMNEY – GAME ON! Many were concerned that if Romney were nominated, that the Seamus-on-cartop meme would bite him in the asset. I am thrilled to see that between Ann Romney’s Nuclear Response to “Rosengate” and the plethora of tweets, t-shirts,buttons related to #ObamaDogRecipes, Team Romney seems to have the “fire in the belly” to defeat the Once.

Regarding GOP fundraising, Greg Sargent asks:

Which raises a question: Why is Dem outside-group fundraising failing to keep pace?

Gee, I dunno. That’s a deep existential conundrum. Too bad Derrida and Foucault are no longer with us.

However, Paul Begala takes a shot: Kumbaya-chanting Democrat donors are so idealistic and goshdarn nice (“not transactional”) that they don’t understand Republican ruthlessness.

Tony Rezko could not be reached for comment.

    Milhouse in reply to EBL. | April 18, 2012 at 8:44 pm

    Colombia. Though honestly speaking, Columbia ought to be the correct English spelling, or at least a correct English spelling. We don’t write Brasil, or Espana, or Deutschland; We call the guy it’s named after Columbus, not Colombo. And when we name places after him we call them Columbia. So why do we use the Spanish spelling in this instance?

      Valerie in reply to Milhouse. | April 18, 2012 at 9:47 pm

      Because that’s how the Colombians choose to spell it?

      gasper in reply to Milhouse. | April 18, 2012 at 10:51 pm

      Christoforo Colombo was his given name. His father was Domenico Colombo and his mother was Suzanna Colombo. The name Columbus is thought to have been taken from the Latin history written by Peter Marty. Columbus called himself Colon, which is still used by the Spaniards. The Italians still refer to him by his given name. Information is in one of my favorite books: Samuel Eliot Morison’s Christopher Columbus, Mariner.

      BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Milhouse. | April 19, 2012 at 1:47 am

      Germany is closer to the original . Germanicus was the name given to a son of a tribal leader taken to Rome & who returned to defeat the Romans & thus set the northern limits of the Empire.

      So we have kept the latin & the Germans went through many identities over the next 200 years depending on the region.

      Colombia /colombine is also a mountain range in Italy , A flora species found there , an inhabitant of & a girl’s name.

War photos are quit popular among the troops, my buddy gave me a whole CD full of them, enemy head run over by a tank, shot in the face, suicide bomber (hilariously) attacks a tank with their body parts strewn for fifty feet.

Quite hard to look at but all good stuff.
-war is hell.

I had the good fortune to work with Ted Cruz. He is magnificent and could help establish a much better senate. I have sent him some California dollars, and I think he should be part of Operation Counterweight.

This president has brought us out of the dark and into the blight.

Maybe Michelle was misquoted.

“This president has brought us out of the dark and into the (flickering, sickly yellow, environmentally hazardous, fractional wattage, dim, uncertain because of power outages, and “necessarily skyrocketing” in price)light.”

(tiniest “yea” possible)

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | April 18, 2012 at 7:28 pm

Re: Obama fundraising.

Obama has all the advantages of incumbency: He’s got 100% name indentification with voters; he’s got “unprecedented” legislative accomplishments and a historical governing record as president to campaign on; he’s got the biggest, most powerful mega SuperPAC in the world — otherwise known as an adoring media establishment cheerleading his every move.

Greg Sargent is asking the wrong question. He should be wondering why an incumbent with all those built in advantages NEEDS to raise a billion bucks to be competitive.

Rush and Legal Insurrection. That’s a good day.

The Manchurian Candidate (Mitt) is going to hammer Obama when the final votes are counted.

So am I qualified to talk about women’s economic issues because I’ve been poor, or NOT qualified because I used the generosity of the American people to pull myself and my son out of poverty?

Just asking’.

Watched, this morning, a little video clip of Laura Ingraham straightening out Megan Kelly. Laura’s point, re Bill Maher’s comments about Ann Romney in this instance (Rush cleaned them up in his commentary) was don’t try to shut them up, let them go, give them all the space and visibility they want. These are the point people, the vanguard, the voice and face of the left-progressive-liberal-Democratic institutions and organizations in this country today. At best, they are dishonest, snickering, and crude—it goes down from there. Most Americans are not. Let them be seen as and for what they are. At the very least they are a national embarrassment, the price we pay for allowing them in; at worst, they have endangered the country, wrecked the economy, and must surely be the despair of freedom-loving people everywhere on the planet who are left with the hopeless task of explaining, justifying, and defending these disgusting representatives of America and freedom to their oppressors. God help them with that task; I’m not sure I could do it.

As to the GSA, secret service, and state department exposes and scandals, if Washington could once have been considered a swamp, it is now, certifiably, a cesspool.

Regarding blowing ones self up. So it’s an outrage to be photographed with a dead jihadi but it’s just fine to brag that ‘I got Bin Laden’ just so long as you don’t release the photos.

    Rick in reply to wayne. | April 18, 2012 at 10:59 pm

    Wayne: That really is an excellent point.

    punfundit in reply to wayne. | April 19, 2012 at 12:09 am

    wayne, permit me to rephrase you:

    It’s an outrage to be photographed with a dead jihadi, but it’s perfectly acceptable to exploit the death of Bin Ladin during an election year?

Kudos, Professor.
You got the Rush treatment.
I expect that you will have many more fans.
And well-deserved.

Thanks for the link Professor, and for all the other links you’ve given me this past week. I’ve definitely had a mini-instalanche over at my blog!

It occurs to me that the outrage about the US soldiers taking pictures with dead jihadis is of a similar nature to the outrage about the IDF commander hitting a terror-supporter (aka “activist”). The real outrages are ignored in order to smear those brave men defending their home countries. It’s inexplicable and incomprehensible to me.

J_in_Memphis | April 19, 2012 at 4:19 am

The pinata incident occurred at Campus School, which is an elementary school located on the the U of M campus (hence the name), and is affiliated withe the U of M school of education.

Implicitly, you make an important point here. Why were the “pieces” of Afghan insurgents. I’ve not looked at the LA Times article, but none of the news reports I’ve heard explain this.
If the dead insurgents were suicide terrorists, doesn’t that mitigate the circumstances of the photographs? Were the soldiers in the pictures survivors of that attack?

    Soccerdad in reply to Soccerdad. | April 19, 2012 at 10:28 am

    BTW, I don’t know that answers to those questions, but the answers are worth knowing.

    Aridog in reply to Soccerdad. | April 19, 2012 at 3:35 pm

    I know that such photos are not new in this war…or any other war. The big hurrah now is meely mouthed media driven crap. Just what do these people think happens when a jihadi straps on C4 and a detonator? What do they think happens when the guys shooting at you get hit by 155mm artillery fire, or an 81mm mortar drops in their fighting hole?

    The more shown the better, and if you’ve not been there done that, then don’t mock the grins of soldiers … you have no idea what is behind those faces, in those hearts.

As one mosquito said to the other one, that fateful evening:

Duuude! Look at that bright light! Follow me and let’s go check it ou—