I absolutely loved their work, and will be sad to see them step away from the world of editorial cartoons. I wish both John and Allen well in their future endeavors.

Chris Muir has a nice tribute to them here.

Check out this appalling story, via the Monroe, Louisiana News Star:

A recent incident at the elementary school on the Grambling State University campus that resulted in a noose hanging around a small child’s neck has left university officials scrambling for answers.

Grambling State University President Horace Judson was driving to Dallas on Friday afternoon for the Saturday football game between GSU and Prairie View when his secretary called him, describing certain pictures that had been posted online by the student newspaper, The Gramblinite.

Among the photos immediately ordered taken down by Judson was one of a young girl in a school uniform, a noose around her neck, being hoisted by a woman who may have been a family member.

In the photo, the girl, a student at Alma J. Brown Elementary School at Grambling, appears confused and frightened. GSU oversees the school. The child apparently was taking part in a school lesson related to events surrounding the Jena Six, criminal defendants in that Louisiana town who stand accused of beating a fellow student into unconsciousness. Their arrests on adult charges have spawned organized protests by black leaders and national attention.

“At this point I’m starting a full investigation into what happened,” Judson said in a phone interview from his car while en route to Dallas. “I will meet with all the people involved at 8 o’clock Monday morning.”

The Gramblinite staff leaders could not be reached for comment on the incident.

According to an article in the newspaper written by Justin LaGrande, posted on the student newspaper Web site some time this week, and sent to The News-Star by Ruston Daily Leader publisher Rick Hohlt, “kindergarten and first-grade students at Alma J. Brown Elementary will always remember the day they marched for equality. The children marched in protest of the imprisonment of Mychal Bell, and the seemingly racial bias shown toward blacks in a small Louisiana town.”

LaGrande wrote that while the students “marched,” they actually only circled their playground with their teachers during the event.

“Before marching, the students were taught about racism,” LeGrande wrote. “They also learned about the events surrounding the ‘Jena Six’ and their arrest.”

According to the article, teachers “had a replica noose and explained why it is such a symbol of racism. They also allowed the children to carry chains and shackles.”

Are these people out of their freaking minds?

Sweetness and Light has some photos from the “lesson in racism.”

It has not been a good day so far for the Panthers, as they are down 17-0 at halftime. Delhomme is out with an elbow injury he suffered in the 3rd quarter of last week’s game against the Falcons.

Congrats to Bret Favre, the new record holder on career touchdown passes.

Update: A disappointing day for the Panthers, as they fall to 2-2.

Friedman, in his opinion piece in today’s New York Times, writes that 9/11 “made us stupid” and implores “us” to get back into “our old habits and sense of openness”:

[…] Times columnists are not allowed to endorse candidates, but there’s no rule against saying who will not get my vote: I will not vote for any candidate running on 9/11. We don’t need another president of 9/11. We need a president for 9/12. I will only vote for the 9/12 candidate.

What does that mean? This: 9/11 has made us stupid. I honor, and weep for, all those murdered on that day. But our reaction to 9/11 — mine included — has knocked America completely out of balance, and it is time to get things right again.

It is not that I thought we had new enemies that day and now I don’t. Yes, in the wake of 9/11, we need new precautions, new barriers. But we also need our old habits and sense of openness. For me, the candidate of 9/12 is the one who will not only understand who our enemies are, but who we are.

Before 9/11, the world thought America’s slogan was: “Where anything is possible for anybody.” But that is not our global brand anymore. Our government has been exporting fear, not hope: “Give me your tired, your poor and your fingerprints.”

You may think Guantánamo Bay is a prison camp in Cuba for Al Qaeda terrorists. A lot of the world thinks it’s a place we send visitors who don’t give the right answers at immigration. I will not vote for any candidate who is not committed to dismantling Guantánamo Bay and replacing it with a free field hospital for poor Cubans. Guantánamo Bay is the anti-Statue of Liberty.

Roger Dow, president of the Travel Industry Association, told me that the United States has lost millions of overseas visitors since 9/11 — even though the dollar is weak and America is on sale. “Only the U.S. is losing traveler volume among major countries, which is unheard of in today’s world,” Mr. Dow said.

Note the obligatory mention of “new precautions, new barriers.” By this, what does Friedman mean? In his piece, the strong impression you get is that he finds the very “barriers” put up by the Bush administration after 9/11 - barriers meant to prevent another terrorist attack on our soil - are hindrances to what the US is all about: freedom, openness, the perfect place to realize your dreams. But what Friedman, another 9/10 lefty, still doesn’t understand is that those barriers weren’t meant to keep the good people out - they’re there to keep people who aim to do us harm from getting in. Yes, America is the land of hope and dreams, Mr. Friedman, but the “dreams” of some - most noteably Islamofascists - revolve around the death, destruction, and submission of the west, with the United States being the dominant symbol of everything radical Islamists despise. And dare I say that I could care less if people who want to visit this country decide not to do so because they don’t like the post-9/11 measures America has taken in order to protect herself? We’ve got enough idiots in this country who believe the US should play nice with those who wish to kill us, and we certainly don’t need anymore.

Friedman’s clearly upset that things had to change at all after 9/11. To him, the precautions this country has put into place, the actions taken by the President in response to the attacks, are not only irritating inconveniences to him that he’d rather not have to deal with, but also not necessary when there are issues of more “importance” that in his mind should take priority over fighting terrorism (emphasis added):

Total business arrivals to the United States fell by 10 percent over the 2004-5 period alone, while the number of business visitors to Europe grew by 8 percent in that time. The travel industry’s recent Discover America Partnership study concluded that “the U.S. entry process has created a climate of fear and frustration that is turning away foreign business and leisure travelers and hurting America’s image abroad.” Those who don’t visit us, don’t know us.

[…]

Look at our infrastructure. It’s not just the bridge that fell in my hometown, Minneapolis. Fly from Zurich’s ultramodern airport to La Guardia’s dump. It is like flying from the Jetsons to the Flintstones. I still can’t get uninterrupted cellphone service between my home in Bethesda and my office in D.C. But I recently bought a pocket cellphone at the Beijing airport and immediately called my wife in Bethesda — crystal clear.

Oh, the horror! George W. Bush is stealing our rights, but what’s even worse, Tom Friedman can’t get good cellphone service at his home and work. Continuing:

I just attended the China clean car conference, where Chinese automakers were boasting that their 2008 cars will meet “Euro 4” — European Union — emissions standards. We used to be the gold standard. We aren’t anymore. Last July, Microsoft, fed up with American restrictions on importing brain talent, opened its newest software development center in Vancouver. That’s in Canada, folks. If Disney World can remain an open, welcoming place, with increased but invisible security, why can’t America?

That Friedman would compare the complexity involved in our government securing this country over the relative ease with which security measures can be implemented at one of our nation’s most popular theme parks is a powerful indicator of the sheer and utter cluelessness that pervades 9/10 Democrats today on many issues, but especially ones related to our national security (like on the Patriot Act, Gitmo, warrantless wiretaps, etc, as Prairie Pundit touches on here). Mr. Friedman, the United States is not a theme park. It’s a country. It should be obvious that different rules apply, but then again, Friedman demonstrates in his stunningly ignorant essay that perhaps the obvious isn’t so obvious to people like him who believe that making it a priority to fight terrorists after Islamofascists murdered 3000 innocents on 9/11 was misguided and, in essence “anti-American.”

More, from Friedman:

We can’t afford to keep being this stupid! We have got to get our groove back. We need a president who will unite us around a common purpose, not a common enemy. Al Qaeda is about 9/11. We are about 9/12, we are about the Fourth of July — which is why I hope that anyone who runs on the 9/11 platform gets trounced.

Angevin at The Oxford Medievalist responds:

For Friedman and the rest of the left who adopt a frivilous and rather ignorant view of the threat of Islamofascist terrorism, the measures taken since 9/11 that have, in fact, staved off attack after attack and kept us safe are the root of all of the problems Friedman observes. I do, however, agree with Friedman’s argument that “We need a president who will unite us around a common purpose, not a common enemy,” although not at the expense of properly understanding and combating the enemy we face. Or, in some instances, with some people, that we even face an enemy - and it’s not George W. Bush. It’s a shame that people like Friedman can’t unite around the common purpose of defeating terrorism, but can quite easily unite around a platform of promoting tourism and “getting our groove back.” Rather than a 9/11 or even a 9/12 candidate, what Friedman really wants for America is a “9/10 candidate.” “Al Qaeda is about 9/11,” Friedman remarks. What he and the rest of the left fail to understand is that 9/11 changed everything - Al Qaeda and the need to defeat terrorism is not just about 9/11, but about every day thereafter.

Yep.

To lefties like Tom Friedman, the US’ focus on trying to prevent another terrorist attack on our soil has cost us our reputation worldwide, as if we should base the security of this country on what the international community has to say about it. This is the same type of dangerous thinking we saw from the 2004 Democratic nominee for president John Kerry, who advocated in 2004 that before the US acts in self-defense, that her rationale for doing so should be subjected to a “global test.” After all, we don’t want to alienate the ‘progressive’ elites in European countries whose passive approaches to the ever-growing threat of Islamofascism have proven to be “successful” only for Islamofascists (read more on that via AJ Strata), do we?

Tom Friedman: Writing out the left’s “We must bow to Dhimmitude” screed, so they don’t have to.

Also blogging about this: Jules Crittenden, Warner Todd Huston at Stop The ACLU, The Hatemongers’ Quarterly, Don Surber

I’m out to enjoy this gorgeous fall weather we’re having today

Here’s one quick link I’d like to post: Author, NPR correspondent, and Fox News analyst Juan Williams wrote a piece for Time magazine defending Bill O’Reilly against charges of racism being levelled at him by the far left Media Matters, among others, for - what else - taking his comments out of context and accusing him of racism. The comments were taken from O’Reilly’s radio talk show, in a conversation O’Reilly had with Williams about black culture.

In the Time article, Williams points out how he was called the usual disgusting nicknames levelled at black people who don’t follow the black liberal line about white people. Make sure to read the whole thing.

I’ll check back in tomorrow.

This is hilarious:

Democrat John Edwards said Friday that the nation needs an honest and sincere president more than it needs the “next great politician.”

Asked by a voter what quality he possesses that other candidates lack, Edwards described what he would look for in a president if he was not running.

“I would absolutely require that the person I was voting for is someone I believe is honest and sincere and has integrity,” he said. “We don’t need the world’s next great politician as president. What we need is someone we can trust.

“We’re not looking for the most cunning, manipulative, artful politician. I’m not looking for that. Maybe someone else is,” he said. “I just don’t think that’s what America needs.”

All of which begs the question: If he thinks the ideal presidential candidate is one who is honest, sincere, and has integrity, then why the hell is he trying to get people to vote for him?

In other news related to the 2008 elections, Mike Allen at The Politico reported today that Newt Gingrich wants to run for president. Newt says he needs $30 million in pledges (not actual dollars - yet) in the next three weeks, but will leave most of the legwork to other people. Check out that article, and let me know if you got the same impression I did that he’s not all fired up about running - it’s almost like he feels “obligated” to run, which is not a good way to start out a candidacy.

But if he does indeed officially throw his hat into the ring, prepare for fireworks in the race for the Republican nomination as Newt is not one to mince words, and it’ll be interesting to see how the current group of candidates who have been out there meeting people, making speeches, and participating in the debates the last few months while Newt has been busy on the sidelines tearing them down as nothing but a bunch of “pathetic pygmies,” will react to his candidacy.

Brian Faughnan at the Weekly Standard blog has a post up today on how the far left has been foaming at the mouth, demanding denunciations from Republicans and apologies from Rush Limbaugh himself after comments he made on his program earlier this week that to them suggested that he thought that troops who had served in Iraq who were critical of the Iraq war were “phony soldiers.”

Of course, as you’ll see from looking at the transcript, the remarks were taken out of context, and the “phony soldiers” he was talking about were phony “soldiers” like Jesse MacBeth, who recently admitted in federal court he lied about being an Iraq war veteran, this a little over a year after being caught by conservative bloggers who questioned his claims about supposedly being an Iraq war veteran who was supposedly “forced to commit attrocities” against the Iraqi people.

Faughnan writes:

Limbaugh’s offhand comment was poorly chosen. It’s clear that there are ‘real soldiers’–real by anyone’s criteria–who oppose the war in Iraq and they’re entitled to their views. But much like the recently manufactured controversies over Bill O’Reilly’s comments, and President Bush’s comment about Saddam having killed “all the Mandelas,” [Note: For background on that, go here. –ST] the left is trying to pull a fast-one by taking Rush’s statement out of context.

It’s also clear and undeniable that the political left has eagerly stood behind fakers who spout tales about Iraq that are at times false, or ridiculous, or both. From Jesse MacBeth to Scott Thomas Beauchamp, liberals and anti-war moonbats have suspended logic and reason to embrace people because they liked what they had to say, regardless of whether the tales made sense, or their credentials were as they claimed.

And why do they do this? We know.

The WSJ reports today on how bloggers and other citizen journalists are keeping the world informed about the situation in Myanmar:

As Myanmar’s regime cracks down on a growing protest movement, “citizen journalists” are breaking the news to the world.

At 1:30 yesterday afternoon, a cellphone buzzed with news for Soe Myint, the editor in chief of Mizzima News, a publication about Myanmar run by exiles in New Delhi.

The message: “There is a tourist shot down” in Yangon, the center of recent protests by Buddhist monks and others against the military junta in Myanmar, formerly Burma. Troops there were clearing the streets, telling protesters they had just minutes to go home — or be shot.

The text message wasn’t from one of Soe Myint’s reporters. In fact, he doesn’t know who sent the message. He believes it came from one of the more than 100 students, activists and ordinary citizens who have been feeding him reports, images and video of the violent events unfolding in recent days.

But in an effort to stifle the information flowing out of Myanmar via the I’net and cell phone, the military junta has shut off some cell phone service, as well as cut off Internet access. Michelle Malkin has more updates, including news on what’s happened to some area blogs and bloggers, including one whose blogposts have been completely erased, and his whereabouts unknown. The USA Today’s On Deadline blog has extensive coverage as well.

Prior:

• The revolution taking place in Myanmar

I’m a little behind on blogging about this, as it was first reported by Ben Smith at The Politico a few days ago. Howie Kurtz reports on it today (emphasis added):

Two stories, both about politicians named Clinton, collided recently at one of the nation’s most prominent magazines, raising questions about journalistic integrity and hardball political tactics.

GQ killed a 7,000-word article about infighting among aides to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, a move that came after the magazine began work on a cover story on the philanthropic efforts of Bill Clinton. The final decision was made after a spokesman for the Clinton camp told GQ that running the piece on Hillary would endanger the piece on Bill.

GQ Editor Jim Nelson insisted in an interview that the two events were not directly linked. “Hillary didn’t kill the piece; I killed the piece,” he said. While the author, Joshua Green, is a “terrific reporter,” he said, “the story didn’t end up fully satisfying. . . . I guarantee and promise you, if I’d have had a great Hillary piece, I would have run it.”

Green said the spiking had nothing to do with his work. “GQ told me it was a great story and a hell of a reporting job, but they didn’t want to jeopardize the Clinton-in-Africa piece,” he said. “GQ told me the Clintons were unhappy and threatened to revoke access to Bill Clinton if the Hillary story ran.”

The incident, first reported by Politico.com’s Ben Smith, reflects the kind of pressure tactics that are not unusual in political campaigns but may be practiced with unprecedented aggressiveness by the tightly controlled Clinton media operation. It also demonstrates how the former president’s star power — he is a media magnet riding a wave of favorable publicity — can be employed on his wife’s behalf.

The freelance article was submitted to GQ by Green, a meticulous and well-regarded Atlantic Monthly writer but not a popular figure in what insiders call Hillaryland. In a cover story for the Atlantic last year, Green portrayed her as a “diligent” New York senator who skillfully forged alliances with detractors but also a cautious politician with “no big ideas.”

Here’s more via the Ben Smith Politico article:

The Clinton campaign is unique in its ability to provide cash value to the media, and particularly the celebrity-driven precincts of television and magazines. Bill Clinton is a favorite cover figure, because his face is viewed within the magazine industry as one that can move product. (Indeed, Green’s own magazine, The Atlantic Monthly, ran as its October cover story “Bill Clinton’s campaign to save the world.”)

It’s a fact that gives the Clintons’ press aides a leverage more familiar to Hollywood publicists than even to her political rivals — less Mitt Romney and more Tom Cruise, whose publicists once required interviewers to sign a statement pledging not to write anything “derogatory” about the star.

The Clinton campaign has more sway with television networks than any rival. At the time Clinton launched her campaign, the networks’ hunger for interviews had her all over the morning and evening news broadcasts of every network — after her aides negotiated agreements limiting producers’ abilities to edit the interviews.

I know all politicians like to “control” the message that gets out, but Hillary’s threats towards GQ are extreme, and reading between the lines of it tells a lot of people that Senator Clinton has a lot of things she’d like to keep secret. She knows that, with a couple of exceptions (the WSJ and the LAT), the media will give her a pass on anything, but in the rare instances that the media gets too close to finding out that all is not well in Hillaryworld, she will use whatever leverage it takes - including controlling access to her husband - in order to keep unflattering stories about her from being published.

And while we’re talking about Hillary, the NY Daily News reports today on Hillary’s flip-flop on the use of aggressive interrogation tactics on terrorist suspects in order to obtain information that could save lives:

WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign yesterday belatedly explained that her flip-flop to oppose torture was an evolution inspired by talks with retired generals.

“Upon reflection and after meeting with former generals and others, Sen. Clinton does not believe that we should be making narrow exceptions to this policy based on hypothetical scenarios,” said campaign spokesman Phil Singer.

Clinton (D-N.Y.) came out against all torture - “period” - in Wednesday’s Democratic debate after previously telling the Daily News last October it would be okay to torture a terrorist to foil “something imminent.”

Clinton’s transformation on torture now aligns her perfectly with the voters she’s trying to woo. A Zogby International poll this month found 64% of Americans oppose the interrogation tactic - and an earlier ABC poll showed more than 70% of Democrats are against it.

Clinton aides said she changed her mind after meeting in April with a group of retired three- and four-star generals.

But her epiphany appears to be incomplete. Clinton still hasn’t signed a pledge with a group called the American Freedom Campaign that requested presidential candidates oppose all torture.

And I doubt she will. Signing a pledge would mean she would actually have something in writing with her signature stating what her stance on a particular issue is, which would be inconvenient for Hillary, especially during a campaign season that has seen her stay way ahead of Barack Obama in the polls. If she makes it beyond the primaries, not signing that pledge will give her the opportunity to shift her position once again, in an attempt to appeal to moderate voters.

Related: The Washington Post lines up with Hillary on the issue of aggressive interrogation tactics, while chiding Republicans who are in favor of them, here.

Rmemeber the story from early last month where, during a traffic stop in Goose Creek, SC, two men who were described by witnesses as being of “Middle Eastern descent” were arrested after police found explosives in the trunk of their car? Initially, indictments were handed down in Tampa against the two Egyptian nationals for “transporting explosives materials without permits.”

Well, it turns out that, as expected, there was a lot more to this story than was initially reported:

In a 12-minute video posted on YouTube, an Egyptian man wearing a white shirt, khaki pants and rubber gloves explains in Arabic how to turn a toy boat into a bomb.

His name is Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed, and last month he was arrested in Goose Creek after authorities found four PVC pipes containing a mixture of potassium nitrate, kitty litter and sugar in his car’s trunk.

Mohamed told FBI agents he made the video to teach “those persons in Arabic countries to defend themselves against the infidels invading their countries,” according to federal court documents released late Tuesday.

Specifically, he told the FBI “the technology which he demonstrated in the tape was to be used against those who fought for the United States.”

What started as a traffic stop for speeding in South Carolina has led to a two-count federal indictment on terrorism-related charges and a multistate mystery investigators still are working to unravel.

[…]

In the back of the patrol car on the way to jail on charges of possession of an explosive device, the two whispered in their native Arabic while a hidden recorder taped their conversation, according to court documents:

“Did you tell them there is something in them?” Mohamed asked, an apparent reference to the PVC pipes.

“Water,” Megahed said.

“Water! Right? The black water is in the Pepsi.”

A few seconds pass in silence. Mohamed speaks again.

“Did you tell them about the benzene (gasoline)?”

“I have nothing to do with it. I do the fireworks and so… so… so… that is it.”

But the pipes weren’t fireworks.

An examination by the FBI’s explosives unit found the materials in the PVC pipes fit the legal definition of an “explosive.”

After examining Mohamed’s laptop computer, which was in the 2000 Toyota Camry that was stopped in Goose Creek, agents found an electronic folder titled “Bomb Shock.” The folder contained several computer files about explosives, including TNT and C-4, a military-grade plastic explosive.

They also found the 12-minute video on the laptop. Someone had uploaded the video onto YouTube, a video-sharing Web site. It could be found on YouTube by entering a complicated 14-word search term, which included the words “martyrdooms” and “suiciders.”

Two days after the traffic stop, FBI agents found a remote-controlled toy boat, still in its box, and a partially dismantled digital watch in Megahed’s Tampa, Fla., home, where he lived with his parents. Authorities said in court documents they believe the two items were the beginnings of a homemade bomb.

Hat tip: LGF