More on the Seattle Soldier Beatings

The story continues to unfold here. The Seattle Times reports the Seattle PD now disputes a claim by a relative of one of the victims that a police officer watched the attack but did not intervene. The claim was first reported in an interview on KOMO-TV. The police did not immediately dispute the claim in the KOMO-TV interview:

The victim's family says there was one police officer very close by while the beating was in progress. They claim that officer did not try to help.

Pruitt did not address that claim specifically, but he did say it's up to an officer to decide if he/she feels safe confronting an angry crowd alone.

"If the crowd is large, if they can't see beyond the outer crowd and see what's happening, there may be some instances where an officer doesn't necessarily want to go running into a crowd and possibly make conditions worse," he said. "We didn't know if weapons were involved and we didn't know the conditions of anybody inside that crowd," Pruitt explained.

Meanwhile, Seattle P-I columnist Robert L. Jamieson Jr. comments on what he seems to view as some good news: not only were the assailants black, but so were the victims! From Mr. Jamieson:

But the beating victims and their female companions are -- surprise! -- black as well, police tell me. News reports failed to mention the race of the beating victims or the women.

. . . .

Police say race was not a factor in the July assaults, and point out that race should never come into play unless it is part of a crime, such as a hate crime.

That last quoted sentence is a neat piece of tautology: race should not be mentioned as a factor unless it is a race crime, which is a crime in which race is a factor. This should highlight once again the silliness of such a designation: would this be a more serious or heinous assault if the victims had been white? Do the victims feel some relief that their assailants were of the same race and were not attacking them because of their race? Did the attack feel less hateful? Was it a "dislike crime" rather than a "hate crime"?

This Time, A Good Seattle Story

After the story about the two soldiers beaten in Seattle, it is good to see a story of about decency and kindness toward the a soldier in the same city:

When Chris Yanez wanted to take his girlfriend out for a special dinner to celebrate their one-year anniversary, he chose the venerable restaurant Canlis [Ed: a very expensive local restaurant], perched high above Lake Union.

Yanez, a soldier returning from Iraq, knew the dinner would be pricey. What he didn't expect is that it would be free. And he also didn't expect that when he walked out, the place would be in tears.

. . . .

By the end of the night several patrons had, unknown to Yanez, offered to pay for the young couple's meal. With Canlis also sharing the costs, the $150 bill evaporated.

. . . .

"I knew Canlis was expensive, but this is a one-of-a-kind restaurant and this was a special occasion," [Yanez] said. "It was the greatest thing ever. It makes me feel like people appreciate the troops and they care about people in the community. I was in shock and my girlfriend started to cry. It was really emotional."

Hopefully, this story will inspire similar acts of kindness towards our returning soldiers in Seattle.

The AL East Pennant Race Is NOT Over

The AL East pennant race is still going strong and the Yankees are only 2.5 games behind the Red Sux. This is not where I expected the Yanks to be at this stage, but somehow they have underperformed preseason expectations and overperformed early season expectations. After this weekend's series against the Royals, the Yanks head here to Seattle to play 3 against the Mariners. The Blogero family will be there for 2 out of the 3 games to show support for the Yankees. Let's hope the Yanks have a good week and the Red Sux a bad one.

Gov. Richardson Advocates Razing Mexican Town

How is this for triangulation on the immigration issue?:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson will use a meeting with his Chihuahuan counterpart this week to press for the demolition of Las Chepas, the semi-abandoned Mexican hamlet used as a staging area for hundreds of undocumented immigrants who cross daily into the United States west of Columbus.

Republicans are ignoring this important issue while astute politicians such as Gov. Richardson stake out a position. Admittedly, pushing for the razing of a Mexican town would be reported a little differently if it came from a Republican politician, but Republicans must to learn to tackle this issue by making a clear distinction between legal immigration and illegal immigration. There is a tendency in the press to use "immigration" and "immigrant" interchangeably with "illegal immigration" and "illegal immigrant" and Republicans must resist this construct and call the press on it when they use it.

Soldiers Beaten in Seattle

Two soldiers were badly beaten here in Seattle on July 31st. The police have now released a videotape of the beatings after failing to get any leads. The video is available from KOMO-TV.

This is an unfortunate incident, and hopefully eyewitnesses to the beatings and anyone who knows these assailants will come forward.

UPDATE: The Seattle Police claim that the release of the videotape has yielded some leads. There is, however, something missing from this story and the previous story. Specifically, when did the police obtain this videotape (the incident occurred on July 31st) and how soon after that did they release it? There is some indication from local reports that the Seattle Police received the videotape one day after the incident. If this is true, this means the police delayed the release of the videotape showing the attack and the assailants for more than three weeks. The reason for the delay has not been explained.

UPDATE: KING5-TV also has an update and Michelle Malkin is following the story as well.

Bring Me the Head of "El Loco"

I am betting this (Robertson Calls for Chavez's Assassination) will get muchisimo ink and airtime in the MSM because it follows the MSM's favored script (religious right nutjob makes an outrageous statement). Does Robertson speak for the administration or even for the Republican Party? No, but it will not matter. This story will be played as if it was made by a senior member of the administration.

UPDATE: The MRC notes the same phenomenon on its NewsBusters blog.

UPDATE: Is this really necessary (U.S. Dodges Robertson Comments on Chavez)? Are Democrat leaders forced to "dodge" any of the loony comments or actions by Rev. Jackson?

Worth Dying For?

One of the most quoted sentences of late (at least in the blogosphere and conservative opinion pieces) is "This country is not worth dying for." Here is a evidence of a contrary opinion:

FT. LAUDERDALE -- The U.S. Coast Guard on Monday searched for as many as 31 Cubans who may have been on a speedboat that capsized while crossing the Florida Straits.
. . . .
U.S. officials don't know where this past weekend's boat was headed, but "34 people in one boat is usually an indication that they were trying to enter the United States illegally," Coast Guard Petty Officer Ryan Doss said.
. . . .
This summer, at least two Cubans have died while trying to reach the United States. In June, a man was pronounced dead on arrival at Florida's Lower Keys Medical Center after the Coast Guard found him onboard a boat off of Key West. On July 31, Joel Agustin Llamas Rodriguez died of head injuries he sustained on his way to the U.S. aboard a speedboat.

This is a tragic reminder that many who are not in this country disagree with the quoted statement and are willing to show their disagreement by risking, and in some cases losing, their lives to show their disagreement.

Some Questions About Voting and Photo Id

From Discriminations.us:

The Degradation Of Liberal Rhetoric

No, I'm not referring to Cindy Sheehan's calling President Bush the world's greatest terrorist, but rather to the charge that this or that proposal in the racial arena -- often, oddly, the call for colorblind equal treatment -- would result, as an OpEd in today's Washington Post puts it, in "Reviving Jim Crow." (I do not regard the question mark that follows the title to be a large enough fig leaf to cover the underlying charge.) The author, David Becker, identified as "a voting rights attorney and election consultant," begins his Chicken Little ("The sky is falling!" for those of you who don't recall) with the following sentence:

Any day now the Justice Department will render judgment on one of the single most discriminatory pieces of voting legislation of recent years: a Georgia state law requiring voters to present one of only six forms of photo identification before they can exercise their right to vote.

This is just the latest example of the running gag on liberal headlines: "World to End Tomorrow; Women and Minorities Hardest Hit."

Even if the premise that minorities, and blacks specifically, are unlikely to have photo id (oh, and congrats to the left for giving life to a new stereotype—minorities don't have photo id), is it really advancing the interests of those without identification to ensure that there is no possible reason for them to get photo id? After all, many normal activities in life require some form of photo id (renting an apartment, a car or even a video; admission to certain government buildings; boarding an airplane, writing a check, etc.). Wouldn't anyone, regardless of race, benefit from getting photo identification for use in not just voting but in these other activities? Shouldn't the efforts of these so-called rights advocates be on empowering people by helping them get these everyday tools rather than once again stereotyping minorities as helpless victims who cannot be expected to have photo id?

To add some context here, the Georgia Driver Services department issues FREE voter identification cards to poor, registered voters without any other acceptable proof of identity. Oh, and by the way, the closest Driver Services office from Downtown Atlanta is less than 8 miles away (not exactly an insurmountable distance, is it?).

New features on El Blogero

• Chris Muir's excellent Day by Day comic strip is now featured daily.
• The comments feature has been turned on.

Shark Jumping in Crawford

Time-warp summer continues in Crawford:

CRAWFORD, Texas - Iraq war protesters camping out near President
Bush's ranch got some support Sunday night from a prominent figure in the
anti-Vietnam war movement: folk singer Joan Baez.

The Sheehan Commune has now jumped the shark.

This is a Parody, I Presume

The Seattle P-I has an editorial in which it laments that Seattle is not ranked higher on a list of most liberal cities ("Cleveland . . . whupped us") and argues that the city is not liberal enough ("Seattle is an essentially prudish and, at times, provincial town"). I can only presume that the Seattle P-I in engaging in a bit of parody. If not, exactly how freakishly liberal does this town have to get to satisfy that editorial board?

Take Your Son to Canada Day?

Cindy Sheehan's declaration that she "would have taken [her enlisted son] to Canada" if she had known than what she purportedly knows now once again shows how time-warped the left is. This desire to take a son to Canada may have made some sense when there was a draft and the object of such a move was to protect a young man from the draft at all cost and at all consequences, but it is nonsensical in the context of an all-volunteer armed force. What Mrs. Sheehan is saying in essence is that she would have somehow "taken" a 24-year-old Army Spc. (one who enlisted voluntarily) away to Canada to live as an Army deserter and face prosecution as such.

How would Mrs. Sheehan have "taken" this adult enlistee to Canada? Note that there is no mention of Army Spc. Sheehan wanting to desert nor of Mrs. Sheehan's confidence in her ability to convince him to desert. Was she going to kidnap this adult and move him to Canada against his will? Or maybe she was going to move him to Canada BEFORE he enlisted, which of course would be even sillier because he would not be in line to go to war unless he in fact had enlisted.

This is a common theme among the left. Whenever I hear the tired, 1960s-inspired question, "Would you send your son/daughter to fight there?" I always ask the same question: Just how would I go about doing that, anyway? The left seems to have missed that post-draft we have an all-volunteer armed force, so I do not have the ability to send my son or anyone else anywhere. Nor does any other parent. My son can decide to go or not go by volunteering for service, but I cannot send him or stop him from going if he so chooses. That is what an all-volunteer armed force means. All persons wishing to test this should try thinking about how they would "send" or "take" their adult son or daughter ANYWHERE (e.g., college, a concert or even the barber) against their will.

Is that really so hard to understand for Mrs. Sheehan and the left? Perhaps they prefer the old mentality that people in the army are forced to be there, and those who are not were saved from forced conscription by their families. A large portion of the left appears to be unable to side with those in the military unless they first reduced to victim status. I do not believe that most enlisted men and women see themselves as victims.

Back after a long absence . . .

. . . and, hopefully, will be posting more regularly. There is lots out there, but it is being covered quite well by the blogosphere and the non-MSM. I will just pipe in when warranted.