Wednesday, 23 June 2010


Ken Berwitz

We may not have known her by name.  But we certainly know her by this picture, taken in Times Square by Life Magazine photographer Alfred Eisenstaedt on August 14, 1945 - also known as V-J (Victory over Japan) Day.














Edith Shain, then a nurse at Doctor's Hospital in New York City, died this week at the age of 89.  Despite the enthusiasm of her kiss, she never knew who the lucky sailor was (though several sailors came forth over the years to claim the honor).

Thank you, Ms. Shain, for being one half of this classic, enduring photograph.  May you find the sailor you were with (assuming he has passed away too), kiss him again for us, and then rest in peace.


Ken Berwitz

Suppose President Bush assembled a team of experts and then ignored their majority recommendation?  Would our media attack him as a hopeless cowboy?

Based on countless examples over the eight years of Mr. Bush's presidency, the answer is a resounding "yes".

That being the case, can someone explain the following excerpt from Scott Whitlock's blog at

All three network news shows on Tuesday skipped a report that eight of 15 experts consulted by the Obama administration opposed the government's plan to halt deepwater oil drilling for six months. Only Special Report With Bret Baier covered the story.

FNC reporter James Rosen noted a federal judge's decision to overturn the plan: "The judge also rebuked the Obama administration for filing a quote 'misleading misrepresentation' in the case by suggesting an expert panel supported the moratorium when a majority of its members do not."

ABC's World News, CBS's Evening News and NBC's Nightly News (as well as Good Morning America, Early Show and Today) all highlighted the ruling, but none of them mentioned the opposition from a majority of the panel

Are there any explanations for this other than media bias?  If so, let me know about them, because I can't come up with even one.

Thanks.  I'll wait.


Ken Berwitz

Is this administration capable of doing anything right in the Gulf of Mexico?  Anything at all?

From WDSU TV - New Orleans (the bold print is mine):


The federal government is shutting down the dredging that was being done to create protective sand berms in the Gulf of Mexico.

The berms are meant to protect the Louisiana coastline from oil. But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department has concerns about where the dredging is being done.

Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser, who was one of the most vocal advocates of the dredging plan, has sent a letter to President Barack Obama, pleading for the work to continue.

Nungesser said the government has asked crews to move the dredging site two more miles farther off the coastline.

"Once again, our government resource agencies, which are intended to protect us, are now leaving us vulnerable to the destruction of our coastline and marshes by the impending oil," Nungesser wrote to Obama. "Furthermore, with the threat of hurricanes or tropical storms, we are being put at an increased risk for devastation to our area from the intrusion of oil.

Nungesser has asked for the dredging to continue for the next seven days, the amount of time it would take to move the dredging operations two miles and out resume work.

Work is scheduled to halt at midnight Wednesday.

The California dredge located off the Chandelier Islands has pumped more than 50,000 cubic yards of material daily to create a sand berm, according to Plaquemines Parish officials.

 Nungesser's letter includes an emotional plea to the president.

"Please don't let them shut this dredge down," he wrote. "This requires your immediate attention!"

The department of fish and wildlife has concerns?  About what?  A cousin of the effing snail darter?  THIS IS OUR SHORELINE, THE LIVELIHOODS OF COUNTLESS PEOPLE AND A WAY OF LIFE AT STAKE.

In a previous blog I asked who is in charge of this operation:  Moe, Larry or Curly. 

I'm starting to think I overestimated the administration's capabilities.

Zeke ... ... Build the protective Berms by stacking up Fat Assed Bureaucrats .... .... Let 'em do something useful. (06/23/10)


Ken Berwitz

You have to hand it to Captain McLachlan.  He is a master of understatement.

Excerpted from an Associated Press article:


A woman was undergoing a mental evaluation Tuesday after police say she stole two vehicles, including a police cruiser, and led officers on a chase through two Salt Lake City suburbs - all while naked.

Police Capt. Tom McLachlan said doctors do not believe drugs or alcohol led to the woman's erratic behavior, which also included running through sagebrush.

The chase finally ended when she was subdued with a stun gun after climbing a chain-link fence.

"It appears there may be mental issues involved," McLachlan said.

"It appears there may be mental issues involved"? 

D'ya think?


Ken Berwitz

Here's a huge story the mainstream media, at least so far, have decided not to notice:

The National Enquirer, which won nods as a 2010 Pulitzer Prize finalist for uncovering John Edward's secret love child, now reports that former Vice President Al Gore was accused of sexual assault during a visit to promote climate change in Portland in 2006.

Gore was never charged with a crime, but the Enquirer reports that a 54-year-old masseuse claims the attack happened at a local upscale hotel:

No criminal charges were brought against Gore, but the Portland police prepared a document marked "Confidential Special Report" - which records the explosive allegations of "unwanted sexual contact" by Al Gore "at a local upscale hotel."

The ENQUIRER is withholding the name of the 54-year-old woman making the stunning accusations because she is potentially a sex-crime victim.

Portland police spokeswoman Detective Mary Wheat said this morning she's receiving inquires "from all over the world" regarding the matter, and said police supervisors are about to meet this morning to discuss what material, if any, is available.

Whatever that might be, it will probably be released something later today, Wheat says.

Is the National Enquirer a bottom feeding rag?  If you're asking me, the answer is yes.   But one thing it definitely knows is sex scandals.  The Enquirer has been right about them time after time after time.

Maybe this is why Mr. Gore's marriage broke up.  I certainly don't know one way or the other any more than I know for sure that this is a real story. 

But one thing I'm reasonably sure of:  If this were George Bush instead of Al Gore, the story would be fighting General McChrystal for top billing today.


Ken Berwitz

It is now 1:35PM.  NBC (and, I would assume, others) is now reporting that General Stanley McChrystal will be replaced in Afghanistan by General David Petraeus.

But, one of Barack Obama's biggest supporters - maybe the single biggest - absolutely hates him. (Remember those "Betray us" ads?).

If this is true it is going to be politically nuclear.  

Let's wait and see if it is true.  Not much longer now....


UPDATE:  Yes, it is true.  President Obama has accepted General Stanley McChrystal's resignation (I wonder how hard it was for him not to try socking McChrystal in the puss), and has replaced him with General David Petraeus.

In typical Obamian fashion, he praised McChrystal to the skies....and then dumped on him to make sure that, standard-issue BS notwithstanding, we all knew what the President was really thinking.

NBC's people - Brian Williams, Jim Miklaszewski and Chuck Todd, are all telling viewers that they are in love with this move.  Not one word about the fact that Petraeus is despised by the hard left which, at least until recently, has been so supportive of Mr. Obama.  And not one word about the political problems a schism between Obama and the moveon crowd might cause this November.

One other thing.  President Obama made a specific point of saying that he and General McChrystal were in total agreement on the current strategy in Afghanistan.  So when you, inevitably, read that this will signal some kind of new beginning (i.e. the failure in Afghanistan was McChrystal's, not Obama's), do yourself a favor and don't believe it.

Zeke .... .... @ 2:20 PM .... so, Stan McChrystal is fired .... and ... and .... why, General Petraeus is going to Afghanistan .... not quite sure why ... ... ... to look it over ?? ?? to take command ? ? If Petraeus takes over Afghanistan .. the WHO will head Central Command (current assignment of Petraeus) .... Central Command is responsible for Iraq, Afghanistan, * Bahrain * Egypt * Iran * Jordan * Kazakhstan * Kuwait * Kyrgyzstan * Lebanon * Oman * Pakistan * Qatar * Saudi Arabia * Syria * Tajikistan * Turkmenistan * U.A.E. * Uzbekistan * Yemen ... ... ... How can Petraeus directly manage the CentComm (Central Command) mission in all those countries ... including Iraq, and countering Iran & its proxies ... and still directly command the war in Afghanistan ? ? ? ... .... It was a stupid move by OilBama .... who could easily have saved face by firing 2 or 3 of McChrystal's subordinates (who were the guys who made the 'intemperate remarks'), and accepted McChrystal's apology. (06/23/10)


Ken Berwitz

Did General Stanley McChrystal use Rolling Stone magazine to resign as Commanding General in Afghanistan?

Did General McChrystal make those comments so that he would be fired for saying exactly what he wanted to communicate to the public, by doing it the only way he could without being court-martialed?

Was this General McChrystals way of getting revenge for the danger President Obama left the troops in last year and, on a personal level, the humiliating treatment he was afforded by the Commander-In-Chief?

Here is a blog I wrote October 31, 2009, while General McChrystal's request for more troops, and warnings of how dangerous it would be to our military and the overall war effort if they were not sent, was being ignored by Mr. Obama:


Ken Berwitz

Just a quick thought:

-Suppose you were appointed the commanding General of a war by the administration.

-Suppose you told the President you needed 40,000 more troops, without them the troops already there were in greater danger, and without them the war could be lost.

-Suppose the President ignored your request for two months.

-Suppose, after those two months, the President sought out the recommendations of other generals, not in command of your troops, for the purpose of finding a course of action that you do not think is adequate.

Would you resign your command?

I wonder when General McChrystal will do so.  Any day he packs it in will not surprise me.

Is it fair to at least wonder whether the General saw his opportunity when Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings showed up?  Did he decide to make the comments "in private", knowing full-well that they would be recorded by Hastings and written into the article?  Did he (correctly) assume that the comments would achieve lead-story news status when the article was published, and force Mr. Obama's hand? 

If President Obama relieves General McChrystal of his command today, which he almost has to do, McChrystal will forever be known as the General who, along with his staff, characterized the Obama administration as a bunch of amateurs and losers who didn't know what they were doing and, in Obama's case, didn't even seem to care.

Which clearly is how McChrystal views them.

What a way to go.  Not that it is difficult to outwit this administration, mind you  - third world dictators seem to delight in it.  But what a way to go anyway.

Zeke .... .... .... ..... Ken, .... V E R Y . interesting analysis ... .... ..... the devolution of service to the country into a PR op. ... .... Can't fault the logic, ... such a course is good for McChrystal and good for the nation.. .... .... WTF ARE we doing in Afghanistan, anyway .... ... Hey, we can win, ... just spend a couple of trillion and a few thousand more lives .... .. Then al Qaeda goes to Somolia, Yemen, Congo, Indonesia, etc, ... ... McChrystal was given an impossible task, and you believe he is forcing OilBama's hand ... ... I'd hate to be the next General in charge of that theater. ... ... Petraus is rumored to be ill with prostate cancer; if so, he'll be resigning. Who can Barry beat up next ? ... ... The troops in the field are very resentful of the Rules of Engagement .... (06/23/10)


Ken Berwitz

Here is what Former Florida GovernorJeb Bush has to say about President Obama's habit of blaming his brother George for just about everything that has gone wrong in the current administration.  It comes to us from the New York Times:

Its kind of like a kid coming to school saying, The dog ate my homework.  Its childish. This is what children do until they mature. They dont accept responsibility.

Well said.


Ken Berwitz

Say you're President Obama.  What do you do with a cabinet Secretary who lies to our faces?

Well, if he lies in a way that promotes your point of view, the answer apparently is nothing at all.

Let me explain, via an excerpt from Michelle Malkin's fire-breathing column about Salazar's lies.  Please pay special attention to the last paragraph, which I have put in bold print.:

Ken Salazar gets an a**-kicking
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010

For all his John Wayne rhetoric on the BP oil spill, President Obama has failed to administer a swift kick to the ample, deserving rump of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. No matter. Federal judge Martin Feldman has now done the job the White House wont do.

In a scathing ruling issued Tuesday afternoon, New Orleans-based Feldman overturned the administrations radical six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling and he singled out Salazars central role in jerry-rigging a federal panels scientific report to bolster flagrantly politicized conclusions. In a sane world, Salazars head would roll. In Obama world, he gets immunity.

The suit challenging Obamas desperately political ban was filed by Covington, La., rig company, Hornbeck Offshore Services, which spoke on behalf of all the small people in the industry whose economic survival is at stake. As the plaintiffs lawyer argued in court, the overbroad ban promised to be more devastating to Gulf workers than the spill itself. This is an unprecedented industry-wide shutdown. Never before has the government done this, attorney Carl Rosenblum said.

Scientists who served on the committee expressed outrage upon discovering earlier this month that Salazar had unilaterally and without warning inserted a blanket drilling ban recommendation into their report. In fact,seven panelists explicitly opposed a blanket ban as punishing the innocent. As Feldman recounted in his ruling:

In the Executive Summary to the Report, [Salazar] recommends a six-month moratorium on permits for new wells being drilled using floating rigs. He also recommends an immediate halt to drilling operations on the 33 permitted wells, not including relief wells currently being drilled by BP, that are currently being drilled using floating rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.

Much to the governments discomfort and this Courts uneasiness, the Summary also states that the recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering. As the plaintiffs, and the experts themselves, pointedly observe, this statement was misleading. The experts charge it was a misrepresentation. It was factually incorrect.

Allow me to be more injudicious: Salazar lied. Salazar committed fraud. Salazar sullied the reputations of the experts involved and abused his authority.

Ken Salazar should summarily be fired.  He has directly, blatantly lied to us.  There is no way to sugar-coat this.

But will our wonderful "neutral" media, or our Democratic-dominated congress, go into high gear and petition for it to happen? 

Wait a minute:  I'm asking if they would petition for the firing of an Obama appointee who lied in an attempt to lessen the production of domestic oil. 

Am I kidding?  I might as well hope for Mexico to demand a border fence.  It ain't gonna happen.

The 2010 elections cannot come fast enough.  And that goes double for 2012.

Too bad we can't elect mainstream media too.

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!