This is horrifying…

Lance Cpl. David Motari is being “processed for separation” and received non-judicial punishment, officials said in the statement Wednesday night. The Marine Corps would not specify what that punishment was because of privacy regulations.  He is being booted for throwing a puppy over a cliff while on patrol, and a second Marine involved has been disciplined, according to a statement released by the Marines.

The incident appeared on the Internet web siteYouTube in March, sparking outrage from animal rights groups around the world.

Although YouTube has removed the video from its site, you can still find it.  For example, here.

Quality Marines.  Let’s examine how many times dumb he is:

1. He threw a puppy off a cliff;
2. He allowed someone to videotape it;
3. He allowed someone to upload it to YouTube.

Not only should be be discharged, he should be thrown off the same cliff.

Apparently he has tried to explain his conduct:  he had a hard day, the dog was sick, it was going do die, usually we shoot them, I couldn’t bring it back with me, etc.  Well you didn’t look like you were having a bad day.  You seemed amused.  If you were putting the dog out of its misery, you wouldn’t've videotaped it and you wouldn’t have been smiling and laughing…

If you don’t know you’ve been living under a rock. If you haven’t heard about the firestorm that former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan’s recent book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception, has caused.

Supporters of the White House trash the book and McClellan himself. Critics of the administration point to the book as confirmation of what many have believed for years now.

Concerning those who criticize McClellan and his book, I have a number of issues with the criticism.

First, two notable political figures, Bob Dole and Dick Cheney, chastise McClellan; however, both concede that they have not even read the book and do not intend to do so. Dick Cheney has attempted to make comparison’s to earlier difficult time in the country’s history. He points to Watergate, the Civil War and other historical challenges. However, he does not actually deny the allegations made by McClellan. Again, since he has not read the book, I am left wondering on what basis he criticizes McClellan.

Next, Bob Dole has apparently shot an e-mail to McClellan. In that e-mail he calls McClellan a “miserable creature” who doesn’t “have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues, and mockingly suggested donating the proceeds to, “a worthy cause, something like, ‘Biting The Hand That Fed Me.’”¹

Former Bush Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove has said, “First of all, this doesn’t sound like Scott. It really doesn’t, not the Scott McClellan I’ve known for a long time, it sounds like somebody else. It sounds like a left-wing blogger. Second of all, you’re right. If he had these moral qualms, he should have spoken up about them.”  Again, no denial.  Only an attack on McClellan. ²

My final example is Dana Perino’s comments:  “Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House. We are puzzled. It is sad. This is not the Scott we knew.” The administration additionally took exception to the claim that they had misled the nation in the lead up to the war in Iraq, as Perino said, “He’s suggesting that we purposely misled. There is no new evidence of that.” ³  Again, there was no denial.  It is simply slamming the author.

And what the hell does “no new evidence” mean?  “New evidence”?  Doesn’t that imply that there is already some public evidence that supports McClellan’s claim?

What I am waiting to hear from the White House is a denial of the assertions made in the book - not an attack of the author himself.  Rather than relying on the denial that he has cited any evidence, why not categorically deny the allegations?  Perhaps because they cannot honestly do that?

Here’s the statement I want to see:  “We categorically deny the allegations in Scott’s book.  They are untrue and unsupported.”  Until I hear that statement from the White House, I will continue to give Mr. McClellan’s account of events more credence that I do the White House’s version.

To those elected officials who denounce Mr. McClellan, you should not comment or denounce until you have read the book, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Dole.

While it is just a typo, this story is pretty funny.  Apparently, in Westlake, Ohio, the diplomas which were distributed last weekend spelled “education” as “educaiton”.  The principal, Timothy Freeman, says he sent back the diplomas once to correct another error. When the diplomas came back, no one bothered to check things they thought were right the first time.

Aah, American educaiton.

You know the song a kiss is just a kiss.  Not so far.  Some kisses are different than others, at least at Seattle Mariners’ Safeco Field.

Last week a lesbian complained that an usher at Safeco Field asked her to stop kissing her date because it was making another fan uncomfortable.  The incident has reverberated through local TV, radio and the internet.  Sirbrina Guerrero and her date were approached in the third inning by an usher who told them their kissing was inappropriate.

The usher, Guerrero said, told them he had received a complaint from a woman nearby who said that there were kids in the crowd of nearly 36,000 and that parents would have to explain why two women were kissing.

“I was really just shocked,” Guerrero said. “Seattle is so gay-friendly. There was a couple like seven rows ahead making out. We were just showing affection.”

Two steps forward, one step back.

Over at this post in the comments, OldGuy53 posted the following in the comments:

What’s amazing to me is that you can find all kinds of insipid little whiners on the net scared to death about losing their “liberties” and “rights” and yet not a one will acknowledge this brave man who gave his all to protect them.
Marine Cpl. Justin Cooper, the world is a poorer place without you in it.
Rest in peace.

Here is my question:  If you’re so willing to call those who insist on their constitutional rights “insipid little whiners” and scare to lose their liberties and rights, what exactly are soldiers fighting for?  If we are fighting for America but have to sacrifice that which is America in the process, what exactly is the point?

Put another way, if we have to change the core principles of being American in order to win this war, what exactly are we protecting?

Michelle Malkin [click the link; it's worth it] is crazy. As much as right-wingers claim that liberals want to remove religion from every aspect of our public lives (not true), they engage in foolish conduct to get people outraged about the silliest, meaningless things.

From what is, in my opinion, a completely innocuous advertisement for Dunkin Donuts, Mrs. Malkin has blown up a tempest in a teacup. She defends against the boston.com’s allegation that she was “yowling”. Although she (or her defenders) claim she didn’t make any accusations, she clearly wrote statements such as “hate couture” while trying to decide whether the choice of scarves is a result of ignorance or ideology.

Further, Mrs. Malkin asks, “Is Ray’s blunder worth boycotting DD over?” Of course, this question does not literally suggest or support a boycott of Dunkin’ Donuts coffee. However, it does two things: 1) It actually raises the issue of a boycott ¹ and 2) it actually assumes the the choice to wear a certain piece of clothing is a blunder ². That’s spinning the story.

Oh. You haven’t heard about this issue. Okay. The issue is: Dunkin’ Donuts has abruptly canceled an ad in which the domestic diva wears a scarf that looks like a keffiyeh, a traditional headdress worn by Arab men.

After Malkin and other bloggers suggested that the scarf worn by Ms. Ray in the advertisement indicated Dunkin’ Donuts’ and Ms. Ray’s support of terrorism Dunkin’ Donut decided to pull the ad. The scarf is - or resembles - the keffiyeh worn by many Arabs and, most importantly, Yasser Arafat. She indicates that the keffiyeh was “popularized” by the former Palestine leader. However, she ignores that the scarves have been used by many over the years. Indeed, according to the Wikipedia entry, British soldiers were wearing keffiyeh at least as early as World War II.

She queries: “It’s just a scarf, the clueless keffiyeh-wearers scoff. Would they say the same of fashion designers who marketed modified Klan-style hoods in Burberry plaid as the next big thing?” This foolish comparison ignores at least a couple things: 1) Klan hoods were are not fashion statements; they were primarily intended to hide the faces of their wearers, 2) the white hoods were symbolic of Klansmen’s beliefs in white supremacy, and 3) a “Klan-style hood in Burberry plaid would not have the same significance as a white hood - at all.

She even goes so far as to conclude that, “Fashion statements may seem insignificant, but when they lead to the mainstreaming of violence — unintentionally or not — they matter.” Has the Dunkin’ Donuts’ ad led to the mainstreaming of violence? She hasn’t offered any proof of that. She didn’t even write that conditionally (i.e., “when the could lead to the mainstreaming of violence”). She leaps from wearing a scarf to existing mainstreaming of violence with no bridge between the two.

Indeed, Malkin is as good as GWB in mischaracterizing those with she disagrees. For example, she writes:

It’s refreshing to see an American company show sensitivity to the concerns of Americans opposed to Islamic jihad and its apologists. Too many of them bend over backward in the direction of anti-American political correctness. Naturally, liberal commentators on the Internet are now up in arms over Dunkin’ Donuts’ decision to yank the ad and mock anyone who expresses concern over the keffiyeh’s symbolism.³

Specifically, “[n]aturally, liberal commentators on the Internet are now up in arms over Dunkin’ Donuts’ decision to yank the ad and mock anyone who expresses concern over the keffiyeh’s symbolism.” I don’t think anyone is criticizing Dunkin’ Donuts. I think they are criticizing Mrs. Malkin and those who created this issue from nothing. The keffiyeh’s symbolism? You’re kidding, right?

She, like GWB, has managed to relate the most innocuous of things to terrorism. Maybe Malkin is bucking to replace Condi Rice this January should McCain win. It’s possible.

So, if I choose to wear a scarf made of fleece rather than wool, I must be anti-sheep farmers, right? Or worse, I must hate all Australians?  It couldn’t be that I am allergic to wool or that fleece is about, oh, a million times more comfortable than wool.

Similarly, if I choose to buy a Japanese car I must be anti-union? Oh wait. I am. Unions have done nothing more than pay workers more to make more expensive, lesser-quality American automobiles. But it doesn’t make me anti-American. I just think I am entitled to get the best quality for my money.

I guess if we can have “reverse discrimination,” we can have “reverse political correctness,” too. Malkin has ably shown that in her posts.

This issue is such a non-issue I can’t believe I have spent as much time on this post as I have. This is a foolish issue.

[Incidentally, it is my understanding that real keffiyeh do not have fringe-y tassels.]

On Thursday, the California Supreme Court has struck down that state’s ban on same-sex marriage.  In its 4-3 120-page ruling issue, the justices wrote that “responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation.”

Despite California’s reputation as a “liberal” state, the ruling surprised legal experts because the court has a reputation for being conservative. Indeed, it is worth noting that six of its seven justices are Republican appointees.

The genesis of this opinion is four years ago when San Francisco’s mayor performed wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.  Those marriages were challenged by the State of California.

A director of Concerned Women for America deplored the decision:  ”So-called ’same-sex’ marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it’s in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable.”

The opinion can be viewed in its entirety at http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2008-05/38894545.PDF.

After waking in the middle of the night unable to breathe, 55-year old Steve Wilder thought he was dying when the air wouldn’t go into his lungs, and he didn’t think emergency services would come quickly enough. So he went to his kitchen, grabbed a knife and made a small hole in his throat, saving his own life.

The Omaha man’s breathing had stopped because of a pre-existing condition that caused his air passages to swell up, not allowing any air through. Once his throat heals, doctors expect him to make a full recovery.

Crazy…& cool.

One of my all-time favorite movies from my childhood is “A Christmas Story.”   Though he really hasn’t been on the screen much since then, apparently Peter Billingsley is still active in Hollywood.

Peter:  then.

Peter: now.

I saw these posts and it brought me back.