VIDEO: Liberal elitism in a nutshell

Liberal NYT columnist David Carr on “middle America“:

Transcript (via RCP):

New York Times columnist David Carr responds to Bill Maher implying Alabama and Kansas are not the “smart states.”

David Carr: “If it’s Kansas, Missouri, no big deal. You know, that’s the dance of the low-sloping foreheads. The middle places, right? [pause] Did I just say that aloud?”

And speaking of “low-sloping foreheads” – ladies and gentleman, allow me to introduce … (drumroll) … Mr. David Carr:

David Carr

Photo of David Carr - courtesy of Getty Images.

Carr has lamely apologized. I ain’t buyin’ it. Neither is IWF’s Charlotte Hays:

Yep, and the message was loud and clear. Carr has already apologized but the apology only shows the truth of Michael Kinsley’s remark that a gaffe is when you tell the truth in Washington (and by extension on the Bill Maher show). This is really how the elite press views the rest of the world (and maybe one reason the rest of the world is increasingly unwilling to buy their products).

These are the people who will be covering the 2012 presidential race, trying to move us towards re-electing President Obama. Remember what they really believe when you are tempted to accept their judgments uncritically.

No worries there.

Ed Driscoll has much more.

With abortion waiting period veto, Gov. Perdue makes NC veto history

Just call her “Veto Bev“:

GREENSBORO – Gov. Bev Perdue vetoed a bill that would have imposed a waiting period and other restrictions on women seeking abortions during a stop in Greensboro this afternoon.

Republican lawmakers, who control both the House and Senate, say the bill is necessary to ensure that women seeking abortions get complete information about the procedure. But opponents have said the proposed law would interfere with the doctor-patient relationship.

This is the 10th veto of the year for Perdue, a Democrat. That total equals the tally of all other vetoes issued between when North Carolina governors first got the power to reject bills in 1997 through 2010. This year also marks the first time a governor with veto powers has faced a General Assembly completely controlled by a different political party.

As to whether or not this veto can be overridden, it’s not a sure thing – not even with a GOP majority in the state legislature:

The big veto was H854, the bill that would have required a waiting period, an ultrasound, and special counseling before an abortion. Gov. Perdue is pro-choice, so it wasn’t a big surprise that she vetoed it. The question now is whether the Democrats will uphold it. Three of the Party of Five – Reps Brisson, Spear and Hill – voted for the bill in the House. Republicans would need to pick up at least one more Democratic vote to override the veto.

Which means the bill will probably have to be watered down, vetoed again, and then overriden before it would be able to become law.

I should point out that back in May Perdue signed into law a bill that would protect unborn children from injury and death at the hands of a violent criminal. Kinda interesting that it’s a crime to injury or kill an unborn baby if you’re not an abortion doctor but it’s ok to hurt and kill the unborn fetus with the mother’s permission.

Just sayin’.

Anyway, here’s a list of the 84 bills that were on the table today, and how Perdue addressed them: 2 vetoes, 2 not signed, and 80 signed into law. Last week she vetoed the Voter ID bill. It’s unclear at this point whether the GOP will attempt an override.

Perdue’s campaign informally declared late last year that she will seek re-election in 2012. Her approval numbers in this state have been under 40% for well over a year now. Unless the economy does a miraculous turn-around she, like our celebrity President, could face a tough re-election year.

Related Reading:

Here’s an idea: let’s abolish the TSA – updated

**Posted by Phineas

While founded with the best of intentions after 9-11, the Transportation Safety Administration has become a source of outrage for Americans rather than a reassuring sense of security. In the past we’ve seen children groped, a breast-cancer survivor forced to remove her prosthetic breast, and a bladder-cancer survivor left soaked in his own urine. I’m sure you can think of others.

This latest incident had got to be a finalist in the “Let’s humiliate innocent travelers” contest: forcing a 95-year old woman to remove her adult diaper before allowing her on the plane:

[Jean] Weber said the two were traveling June 18 from northwest Florida to Michigan, so her mother could move in with relatives before eventually going to an assisted living facility.

“My mother is very ill, she has a form of leukemia,” Weber said. “She had a blood transfusion the week before, just to bolster up her strength for this travel.”

While going through security, the 95-year-old was taken by a TSA officer into a glassed-in area, where a pat-down was performed, Weber said. An agent told Weber “they felt something suspicious on (her mother’s) leg and they couldn’t determine what it was” — leading them to take her into a private, closed room.

Soon after, Weber said, a TSA agent came out and told her that her mother’s Depend undergarment was “wet and it was firm, and they couldn’t check it thoroughly.” The mother and daughter left to find a bathroom, at the TSA officer’s request, to take off the adult diaper.

Weber said she burst into tears during the ordeal, forcing her own pat-down and other measures in accordance with TSA protocol. But she said her mother, a nurse for 65 years, “was very calm” despite being bothered by the fact that she had to go through the airport without underwear.

Eventually, Weber said she asked for her mother to be whisked away to the boarding gate without her, because their plane was scheduled to leave in two minutes and Weber was still going through security.

TSA defended itself against complaints by saying its agents were following proper procedure, and it’s true that explosives have been smuggled in underwear before, as Ed Morrissey points out. But it’s not just the lack of common sense in the application of those procedures, as Ed argues, but the procedures themselves.

TSA screening procedures focus on the device, the means of attack, rather than the attacker himself. The myriad ways al Qaeda has dreamed up to deliver the explosives to their targets (shampoo, shoes, ladies’ lingerie, breast and rectal implants) have lead the TSA to increasingly invasive and outrageous efforts to find the weapon. And with each new means of attack, our response is yet another regulation that annoys and humiliates.

Let’s face it: while these procedures are incredibly effective against little old ladies in wheelchairs and young children, they don’t seem to be all that good against potential terrorists on a dry run.

What would be much more sensible and less intrusive would be the dread “P-word:” profiling. By looking at patterns of behavior indicative of a potential terrorist, we would concentrate on the person, not the weapon, an approach the Israelis have shown to be very effective.

The Transportation Safety Administration is in need of serious reform if it is to be able to actually carry out its mission, which, the last time I checked, was to make air travel safe, not leave innocent people crying.

And if it can’t be reformed, then it should be abolished and replaced with something that can do the job.

UPDATE: Courtesy of International Liberty, here’s video of Senator Rand Paul, who’s rapidly becoming a favorite of mine, taking a TSA representative to task for these stupid search policies:

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)