Around the nation

"Saturday Night Live" has made fun of the way Sarah Palin talks, the amount of McDonald's cuisine consumed by Bill Clinton, and everything else about Sarah Palin. This weekend, though, the crew goofed on New York Gov. David Paterson, whose twentysomething cocaine sampling and, much more recently, extramarital monkey business would naturally make him the butt of some jokes -- especially since he replaced another philandering governor, Eliot "Client 9" Spitzer. But does Paterson's visual impairment make him a no-go zone for comedians, especially if some of the jokes center around his disability?

Judge for yourself:

On Monday, Ernesto Caravantes, author of the controversial book "Clipping Their Own Wings: The Incompatibility Between Latino Culture and American Education," stopped by the Rocky editorial board, along with former Gov. Richard Lamm, to argue that Hispanic families were putting other cultural considerations ahead of education. "I felt that is was high time that Hispanics put education ahead of all those other considerations, because unless Hispanics want to graduate from four-year colleges and universities in the same numbers as the rest of the groups in America, all of society will suffer," he said when interviewed in the Rocky studio.

Caravantes' point is basically this: that it's up to Latino families to tackle the problem of educational underachievement. In the P.R. for his book release last year, he claimed, "Hispanics are lagging behind as a result of ignorantly and stubbornly adhering to cultural aspects that do not place education at the top of its values hierarchy and instead, are clipping their own wings by refusing to assimilate into the American educational system."

What do you think? Watch the video and log your own sentiments below.

You know you're somebody when a Facebook fan page is created in your honor -- and you know you're on the minds of voters when membership jumps after one's party just got thrashed on Election Day. It's the Bobby Jindal in 2012 movement, kicking into gear and on the lips of pundits just two days after Barack Obama's election.

Now, I'll be the first to say that I need a break from electioneering. I'm pooped, really. And cold, but that's another trip to the Eddie Bauer. But I did say in September that the Louisiana governor would have been the better choice for John McCain's running mate, and I got accused of hatching a conspiracy against Sarah Palin as a result. Now the rumor is that Jindal was offered the slot but said no, though Jindal steadfastly says that he was just interested in governing and never said if he was even extended the invitation. And it's probably all for the best: There's no telling what kind of damage to Jindal's young political career could have been wrought on McCain's coattails.

Jindal's just 37 right now, yet has enough credentials (in the following order) to make an early-thirtysomething like me feel like a complete slacker:

• Rhodes scholar and Oxford grad
• Advised Fortune 500 companies
• Director of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (and took the Medicaid from deficit to surplus)
  
• President of the University of Louisiana system
• Assistant secretary of Health and Human Services for Planning and Evaluation under Bush
• Congressman (two-term; re-elected with 80 percent of the vote), served on House Committee on Homeland Security
• First Louisiana governor of color since Reconstruction, as well as America's first Indian governor

He's also found the time to marry and have three kids. His life makes one tired just thinking about it. He also seamlessly guided Louisiana through Hurricane Gustav after the state's disastrous Katrina experience.

I think the past two days of GOP reflection and musings have led to one unmistakable fact: The GOP needs to rebuild. And that means, in four years, a very clean slate. My recommendation as of this point? A ticket of Bobby Jindal and Eric Cantor. All another Palin run would do is bring Tina Fey out of SNL retirement. The GOP needs to move forward, unless it craves another trouncing.

You can all get back to Post-Election Detox now.

Barack Obama, on the campaign trail, lured in voters with a moderated, populist persona, banking off not only dissatisfaction with eight years of Bush in the White House but emotional appeals about hope and change and breaking racial barriers. He easily ascended to the Oval Office on Tuesday.

But a funny thing happened on Election Day. While National Journal's most liberal senator of 2007 handily beat McCain, and Democrats gained solid ground in the House and Senate, Colorado voters rejected Bill Ritter's amendment to punish Big Oil. They shot down new taxes, no matter how worthy the cause. They kept TABOR intact, and the amendment to ban affirmative action was defeated by only the narrowest of margins. And in another surprise, they voted in favor of restrictions on campaign contributions even as the president-elect busted fundraising records.

Yet let's look beyond Colorado for a moment: Gay marriage was overturned by voters in California, and even 23.5 percent of voters (55,133) in San Francisco County voted in favor of the ban. Los Angeles County, which gave 69.4 percent of the presidential vote to Obama, voted in favor of banning gay marriage. Exit polling showed that 70 percent of African-American voters statewide backed the ban, and a majority of Latinos voted in favor of Prop. 8 as well. Arizona, which two years ago rejected a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, blocked the unions this time around, as did Florida.

It wasn't a one-issue day, though. California voters also resoundingly shot down alternative-energy mandates and easier punishments for drug offenders. Arkansas voters banned unmarried couples from being adoptive or foster parents. Missouri made English the official language at government proceedings (and approved alternative energy mandates). Other victories went to the left, such as assisted suicide in Washington and the rejection of bilingual education limits in Oregon.

So now comes the proverbial "wait and see." If Obama and/or Congress go too far to the left, will the voters who got them there balk? Or will he try to govern with the more moderate tone he struck on the campaign trail?

Oh, the insanity continues! I was tipped off to this by a former colleague who got stuck in the ensuing traffic snarl. Here's what Channel 6 News in Santa Maria, Calif., reports on the standoff:

"Highway 101 is back open after being closed all morning due to a standoff on a overpass, according to Caltrans.

According to our Action News crew on scene, the standoff with a 28-year-old gunman on a Highway 101 overpass in Santa Barbara has ended with the suspect taken into custody, no shots were fired.

...According to our Action News crew, before the 28-year-old man was taken into custody the bomb squad robot was sent out to the man with an Obama-Biden sign. The man was allowed to hang his American flag on the La Cumbre overpass with the Obama-Biden sign."

The L.A. Times also penned their own story:

"A masked gunman who was waving an American flag on a freeway overpass in Santa Barbara was in police custody after an hours-long standoff that shut down the freeway in both directions and caused a rush-hour traffic snarl, officials said.

The man, 28-year-old Edward Van Tassel, first handed over his handgun to authorities and asked for a Barack Obama sign, which he posted on a chain-link fence on the overpass along with the flag he was holding, said Sgt. Lorenzo Duarte of the Santa Barbara Police Department.

The freeway was reopened shortly after the incident was resolved."

What would you like, ask the police negotiators? An escape vehicle? Nah. A one-way ticket out of the country? Nah. An Uzi? Nope. A Barack Obama yard sign? YEAH!!

UPDATE: The Associated Press makes no mention of the Obama sign, just the American flag in the hands of the crazed gunman. Go figure.

UPDATE NUMERO DOS: That AP story has been updated to add "The man agreed to give up after he was allowed to attach a Barack Obama campaign sign and the flag to the overpass railing, said police Sgt. Jim Pfleging." Leaving out that the guy demanded the sign and was handed the sign by a bomb robot.

Just got these in my inbox from the FBI, which is seeking help to find the insidious letter-mailer in the latest white-powder scare. All I'm wondering, though, is what's the blacked-out word?

It's like a terrorist Mad Lib! Who are we kidding -- it probably says George Bush. And here's the scary envelope, noteworthy because more than 50 similar letters have all been postmarked in Amarillo.

 So professional!

OK, so with all of the ballot measures in Colorado this year, the last thing you want to give a second's thought to is an out-of-state initiative fight, right? But looking back to my home state a moment, it seems the tide is turning in the case for Proposition 8, which would ban gay marriage in the state's constitution by defining it between a man and a woman. The reason for the shift in the heavily funded battle? More young voters are supporting the measure.

Coloradans passed a similar amendment two years ago, so why the fuss over the measure in California? Four years ago, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom took it upon himself to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. In May of this year, California's Supreme Court allowed gay marriage, a decision they refused to put on hold until November elections.

The AP reports today that both sides have poured more than $41 million into the race. And the sides aren't as clear-cut as one might think: Supporters include religious groups, of course, and opponents include gay-rights groups, but Republicans Against 8 includes backers such as Ward Connerly, the anti-preferences guru behind our Amendment 46. Cali's Prop. 8, though, raises the age-old question: Should courts decide, or the voters? Does it depend on the issue? Voters passed Connerly anti-preference Prop. 209 in 1996, then the courts went against the will of the voters. Now voters are challenging the will of the courts. Should be interesting to watch.

They've asked the FEC to investigate the Clarion Fund's ad buy that inserted "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West" DVDs into newspapers across the country, including in the Denver Post.

"According to the website for the Secretary of State for New York, Clarion Fund Inc. is incorporated in New York as a Delaware based foreign not-for-profit corporation. According to the Delaware Department of Corporations, Robert (Rabbi Raphael) Shore, Rabbi Henry Harris and Rebecca Kabat incorporated Clarion Fund. All three of whom are reported to serve as employees of Aish HaTorah International, an organization apparently based in Israel. Also according to the Delaware Department of Corporations, the incorporators of the Clarion Fund used Aish HaTorah's New York City address (150 West 46th Street, New York) to incorporate Clarion Fund in Delaware.

According to the 'Obsession' website, Rabbi Raphael Shore is the founder and producer of' 'Obsession'. Sources have reported that Rabbi Raphael Shore is an Israeli citizen who lives in Jerusalem and was employed as an executive director with Aish HaTorah International. Gregory Ross has been identified as Clarion Fund's spokesman and communications director. According to the FEC candidate contributions database, Gregory Ross is a fundraiser for Aish HaTorah International. It was reported that distributors of 'Obsession' asked viewers to register for a screening of 'Obsession' by visiting an Aish HaTorah website."

Wow, look at that wording. Rabbi! Rabbi! He's a rabbi! Which, by the way, is mentioned neither on his Wikipedia entry or on the "Obsession" about-the-filmmakers page:

"Raphael Shore is a documentary producer and founder of Clarion Fund, Inc., a new non-profit organization dedicated to educating the public about national security threats. Shore is currently producing a documentary about radical Islam inside America. He previously produced the critically acclaimed documentary Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West (2006). He was the producer/co-writer of Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East (2003). Previously, Shore worked for international organizations as an analyst of Middle East issues. He also has expertise regarding the history of anti-Semitism. Shore has been interviewed by CNN, The New York Times, and other media organizations. A native of Canada, he graduated from the University of Toronto."

Word is that Shore is an Orthodox rabbi in addition to everything else you see. But CAIR's insistence on mentioning that every time they say his name is, indeed, in support of their Handy Jewish Conspiracy. In addition to the FEC letter, the organization goes into the Wicked Jewish Conspiracy allegegations on their Web site (the bold phrases are CAIR's doing):

"The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is urging the FEC to investigate whether the Clarion Fund, a shadowy non-profit organization that distributed DVDs containing "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West," is really a front for an Israel-based group seeking to help Sen. John McCain win the U.S. presidential election. (No information about a board of directors, staff or even a physical address is offered on the fund's website.)

In its complaint to the FEC, CAIR wrote in part:

..."It appears that the funding for the production, marketing and distribution of 'Obsession' may have originated from Israel-based Aish HaTorah International."

..."American voters deserve to know whether they are the targets of a multi-million-dollar campaign funded and directed by a foreign group seeking to whip up anti-Muslim hysteria as a way to influence the outcome of our presidential election," said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad.

Awad said CAIR has received numerous complaints from those who were sent the DVD in newspapers delivered to their homes and has recorded at least one report of an anti-Muslim bias incident directly resulting from the DVD distribution.

SEE: Ohio Muslims Fearful After DVD Released in Newspapers

...Interfaith leaders such as Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, have spoken out against the distribution of "Obsession" in swing states. In a statement, Gaddy also called for an FEC investigation: "...when a cynical attempt is made to influence our nation's presidential election by stoking fear of one religious group we believe the media along with public officials, such as the Federal Election Commission, must establish who is trying to influence our politics through religious bigotry."

...Editorial and letter writers nationwide have called the film "propaganda" and even compared it to Leni Riefenstahl's 1935 pro-Nazi film "Triumph of the Will." One writer called it "misleading and dangerous." (Broward-Palm Beach New Times, 9/20/08)"

The Sunday, Sept. 14, edition of The Denver Post was among dozens of newspapers nationwide that included a copy of the DVD "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West" as a paid advertising supplement, drawing complaints in a Post article today that called the documentary "anti-Muslim hate speech" and "hateful information on Islam." The Greensboro News & Record in North Carolina had refused to carry the DVD at all, saying it was "divisive and plays on people's fears and served no educational purpose." Editor & Publisher cynically observed that the newspaper buys were in swing states, and questioned the New York Times about its policy on such inserts: "We believe the broad principles of freedom of the press confer on us an obligation to keep our advertising columns as open as possible. Therefore our acceptance or rejection of an advertisement does not depend on whether it coincides with our editorial positions," replied the NYT. The advertising buy, by the way, coincided with the film's Sept. 11 wide release in major retailers.

This story piqued my interest because, for one, I was at the premiere of director and writer Wayne Kopping's "Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in Israel" in L.A. four years ago, and found it to be a powerful documentary. (I'd known that Yasser Arafat was a rascally lil' scoundrel, but never realized he talked out of both sides of his mouth THAT much.)  I'd received a DVD of "Obsession" months ago, tucked inside a copy of a promo book on Israel, and today I finally sat down with my lunch (yeah, parts of the film were a little too gory to do that) and watched a copy.

Now, I happen to believe that, with the subject of Islam, it's certainly possible to engage in fear-mongering or hate speech. Something that sticks out to me is the "Obama is a Muslim" rumor. Besides the fact that, no, he picked Rev. Wright over Muhammad, the assertion that a candidate wouldn't be fit to govern simply for being Muslim is ludicrous. Look at the highest-ranking Muslim in the Bush administration, our ambassador to the U.N., Zalmay Khalilzad -- I haven't seen him use his post to wage jihad. My career has brought me in regular contact with more moderate Muslims than not, including doing commentary for Al-Jazeera. I recall the Pakistani consul general stressing to me that should I visit the country, I shouldn't even think about wearing a headscarf because they were modern and tolerant. (And if you look at the horrific bombing last weekend, it was radical Islamists targeting Muslims breaking the Ramadan fast in the Marriott's restaurants.) I also recall lunching with Mirwaiz Omar Farooq, the spiritual leader of Kashmir's Muslims, hearing him describe a strategy for brokering peace in the disputed territory and looking to the West as helpful partners rather than Satan. (Salman Rushdie, incidentally, has lifted up Kashmiri Islam as tolerant and Sufistic, noting that this is resented by the radical Islam that has taken root in Pakistan.)

Long story short, I encourage everyone to get to know their Muslim neighbors, share thoughts and traditions. But as "Obsession" reminds us, it is a movie about self-identified Muslims who give those good Muslims a bad name. Like these Brit blokes:

"Obsession" begins with a title screen: "It is important to remember most Muslims are peaceful and do not support terror. ... This is not a film about them."

No, it's not. And for those who complain that it's 60 minutes of hate speech wrapped up in a DVD, I'd suggest watching the film first. It's a film about the "deviants" -- as the Saudi government calls terrorists -- who have hijacked and perverted the faith with the goal of universal submission to radical Islam. It reminds us of the violence the world has weathered in such a short period of time -- from the Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings to 9/11, the bombings in Bali, Istanbul, Madrid and London, the gruesome 2004 seizure of a school in Beslan by Islamist Chechens. It not only uses clips from Iranian, Palestinian, and Lebanese TV to show the hate speech being spewed by radical clerics, but the hatred and jihad/martyrdom goals being taught to little, often heavily armed kids. And it not only shows this ugly side, but an important clip from Bahraini TV deplores how fanaticism leads to extremism, which leads to violence and jihad. (I highly recommend Bahraini blogger Mahmood Al Yousif, by the way.)

The cast of interviewees in the documentary is highly effective at getting the point across. While many may raise objections with the inclusion of Daniel Pipes, the viewer is transfixed by the words of Palestinian journalist Khalid Abu Toameh (an awesome guy who covers the West Bank and Gaza for the Jerusalem Post), by onetime PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat (who provides some of the most compelling clips on this DVD), and Nonie Darwish, the daughter of a famous Gaza "martyr." Alan Dershowitz astutely notes that if 9/11 happened on the West Coast instead of New York, Hollywood would have a different view about terrorism.

The Post story said that the film "draws strong parallels between Nazi Germany and modern Muslim countries." Actually, the film draws strong parallells between Nazi Germany and the extremist Islamist philosophy, not modern Muslim countries. (Unless, of course, you want to suggest that Iran, the mullahocracy that hangs gays and stones adulterers while beating women in the street for showing a lock of hair, is "modern".) Among the speakers in the documentary is the late Alfons Heck, a former Nazi Youth commander who spent his later life studying "the fatal attraction of Hitler." If you think the analogy is too broad without listening to the clerics' rhetoric, the side-by-side comparison of modern-day anti-Semitic cartoons from Arab media and anti-Semitic cartoons from Germany in the 1930s is striking.

Simply put, we need to cool the knee-jerk reaction that every expose of radical Islamist terrorism is an effort to "bait people to be anti-Muslim." We need to realistically acknowledge the good and the bad. We can't risk getting "terror fatigue" and just sweep it under the rug. This is beyond partisanship. Remember that of the four 7/7/05 London bombers, three were born in Britain and the fourth in Jamaica (not exactly a hotbed of terror training). And if you think terrorism can't be bred in the U.S. remember (the late?) Orange County terrorist Adam "Azzam al-Amriki" Gadahn.

And if you still don't like the message, or would rather keep those blinders on, don't kill the messenger.

Well, not quite. But for all the misery that monster Ike may cause, this should bring a smile to some storm-weary faces (as it made the firefighters on the Galveston sea wall laugh):