Only in Massachusetts do voters put up with liberal tax and spend politicians who don’t feel an obligation to pay their own taxes. Only in Massachusetts.

Boston Herald
Herald audit: Pols trip up on taxes

Six of the Hub�??s 36 elected representatives charged with managing public finances at the State House and in City Hall have failed to pay their own taxes, a Herald review found.

Boston City Councilors Chuck Turner, Maureen Feeney and Felix Arroyo have let property taxes go unpaid for years at a time, although all are currently paid up, according to county and federal real estate records.

Among Boston�??s legislative delegation, tax woes also have dogged state Reps. Dianne Wilkerson, Gloria Fox and Marie St. Fleur.

Marie St. Fleur, you may recall, was Attorney General Tom Reilly’s pick for Lt. Gov on the Democrat ticket. She lasted a whole day because the Boston Globe did due dilligence that Tom Reilly should have and discovered in a matter of hours that St. Fluer owned significant back taxes. St. Fleur, a co-sponsor of the wildly unpopular and soundly defeated bill to grant state tuition tax breaks for illegal immigrants, also didn’t feel the need to repay her student loans. Ouch.

Chuck Turner is a name that may be familiar to some of you. He is the pile of garbage that slandered and smeared the US military in the early days of the Iraq war by falsely claiming GI’s were raping Iraqi women. He held an infamous press conference at Boston’s City Hall with an equally loathsome “community activist” named Sadiki,

Boston Globe publishes bogus GI rape pictures

Boston residents got more than they bargained for this morning when their copy of the Globe came complete with graphic photographic images depicting U.S. troops gang-raping Iraqi women.

Problem is the photos are fake.

The photos accompanied an article about Boston city councilor Chuck Turner, who distributed the graphic photographs yesterday at a press conference with activist Sadiki Kambon. Turner told reporters the photos showed U.S. soldiers raping Iraqi women.

“The American people have a right and responsibility to see the pictures,” Turner said.

Kambon, who is director of the Black Community Information Center, said at the news conference he received the photographs by e-mail from Akbar Muhammad, a representative for the Nation of Islam.

Only in Massachusetts.

Are you a New England Republican? Are you passionate about politics here in the northeast? If so, you now have a great opportunity to become a contributing writer at one of New England’s finest blogs, New England Republican.

This blog has been around quite a while, and is highly regarded by bloggers, both locally and nationally. If your interested in joining this group blog as a contributor, click here for more information.

If you are not interested, or not from New England, you should check out this site anyways for interesting commentary on local and national political and cultural issues. I do.

Instapundit’s Professor Glenn Reynolds, who appeard on our program last Sunday night to talk about his recent book “An Army of Davids” has written an article in today’s WSJ entitled “Early Warning System” in which he argues that the blogosphere has significantly helped to resolve the issue of ports by elevating the substance of the debate beyond hasty generalizations, demagoguery, and uniformed opinions. He also has some advice for the White House for the future.

I will admit that when the story first broke and I went on air and opposed the sale of the ports to the Dubai company. I had not done my homework thoroughly enough and will endeavor to educate myself more thoroughly prior to sounding off on the air.

It seems as though Professor Reynolds had the same “knee jerk reaction.”

Some bloggers, meanwhile, were having second thoughts. One of them was me: Although my initial reaction was negative, I started getting emails from readers — some of them longtime correspondents — who had experience with the UAE. One had served alongside troops from the Emirates in Afghanistan; another had spent time in Dubai. Some had worked with UAE ports officials. All were positive.Then Jim Dunnigan of StrategyPage explained why the UAE has been a good friend to the U.S. and is likely to be trustworthy here, and why this deal is in American interests. I found it pretty convincing. A lot of other bloggers, of all political persuasions, were reaching the same conclusion, even as the mass-media and talk-radio hysteria was still building. (To be fair, some Big Media like The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post were weighing in with good sense.) As the National Journal’s Blogometer reported, “This movement was generally led by the intellectual right, and the intellectual left soon found itself in guarded agreement — the deal wasn’t as bad as it first seemed.”

Here is the full article (subs req).

In a related editorial also in the WSJ today (subs req) entitled “Ports of Gall” the editors explain how the new protectionists (mostly union backed Democrats) use national security as their cover.

Although Hillary has been one of the most vocal critics of the transaction, she was signing a different tune a few years ago:

“I also believe that winning the war on terror will not happen by military strength alone. This is fundamentally about America’s values and leadership. . . . The idea of winning hearts and minds has been derided by some. But I don’t think that we can overlook its singular importance. . .”

– Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, February 25, 200

When one looks at the primary opponents of this transaction they are almost all big time recipients of Longshoreman largesse in the form of campaign contributions.

And, lo, the New York Sun reported this week that “nearly every politician who has been at the forefront of the opposition to the Dubai deal is on the receiving end of some Longshoreman largesse” in the form of campaign contributions. They include New York Representatives Peter King (R), Jerry Nadler (D) and Vito Fossella (R) and Senators Clinton, Robert Menendez (D., N.J.), Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), Chris Dodd (D., Conn.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.).

I have said all along that although Bush has not been conservative on borders, spending, and affirmative action, he has led capably and boldly in the face of constant criticism and attacks from the Defeaticrats in the War on Terror.

To take seriously the political criticisms of the DP World deal, you must also take seriously the notion that President Bush has suddenly gone soft on security. So the same Administration that’s criticized for being overly obsessed with terrorism suddenly can’t be trusted to vet a routine deal involving terminal management at a handful of U.S. ports. We can understand why some Democrats would want to make this case; the shame is that so many conservatives and Republicans have taken their political bait.

This UAE Port deal will go through and the protectionist labor backed doom and gloom liberals who are attempting to be perceived as taking a tough stand on national security will be seen for the political demagogues they have always been. The liberals who glom on to one potentially damaging story after another in their seething hatred of the Bush administration (Scooter Libby, terror suerveillance, Katrina, Cheyney’s hunting accident, etc… will eventually abate once the American public get all the facts. Then, they can turn their attention toward the next “scandal” they hope will lead to impeachment proceedings.

Only at Mark Cuban’s Blog Maverick can you find back to back posts about the influence of music on the energy in an NBA arena, followed by a complicated story about naked short selling.

A Treasure Trove is what it is.

Have you heard about this story?

Autistic teen scores 20 points in final game

Do yourself a favor, take a break and watch the video.

HT: Paul Gillin

Sunday evening (2/19) we discussed the UAE port deal and the Cheney shooting. The port deal was fresh news and we had full lines for the hour. Since then, as you can see in the blog posts below, our opinions have changed somewhat as more details have emerged. We had some great calls and got to use a good amount of sound clips, some of on the port deal and some of it having some fun with the vice president. It was fun.

In this edition of Pundit Review Radio we spoke to Glenn Reynolds, aka Instapundit, about his new book An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths

We were also joined in studio by respected IT journalist Paul Gillin, a former editor and publisher of Computerworld Magazine.

This is a fascinating discussion on how technology is empowering the little guy. Enjoy!

It is also available at iTunes and Podcast Alley

Lists are one of those things that everyone loves. Top 5 this or that. Hardly matters, peeople love lists.

Technorati has asked some of the new media’s brightest lights to submit their personal favorite blog sites.

Michelle Malkin was one blogger asked to share her favorite things. When I read her list, I couldn’t think of how many we had spoken to on the radio.

By the way, all of our archived radio shows are now available as Podcasts at iTunes and Podcast Alley.

Michelle’s favorite blogs,

1.
lgf: cannot just be…
By Charles Johnson.
2.
The RCP Blog
By RCPer.
3.
Mudville Gazette
4. The Radio Equalizer:…
Pundit Review Radio Interview
5.
protein wisdom
Pundit Review Radio Interview
6.
The Counterterrorism…
7.
Right Wing News…
8.
Captain’s Quarters
By Ed Morrissey
Pundit Review Radio Interview
9.
PoliPundit.com
10.
Michelle Malkin
By Michelle Malkin.
Pundit Review Radio Interview
11.
JunkYardBlog
Pundit Review Radio Interview
12.
Instapundit.com
Pundit Review Radio Interview
13.
Power Line
Pundit Review Radio Interview
14.
Expose the Left
15.
The Brussels Journal |…
16.
Pajamas Media
See above and below.
17.
Michael Yon : Online…
Pundit Review interviews: from Mosul;
Mosul, number 2; Live from Baghdad
18.
patterico.com/
Pundit Review Interview number one; number two
19.
biglizards.net/
20.
www.blackfive.net/
Pundit Review interview
21.
www.zombietime.com/

Here is an interesting premise, the favortite blogs of famous people. Jake Tapper from ABCNews is featured.

Today’s article in the WSJ entitled “Ports in Storm” (subs req) makes the case that Bush is right to aprove sale of port management to Dubai World Ports. On balance, I concur with this assessment.

The author Zachary Karabell rebuts the three major objections to the approval of the sale:

1. Concerns about the Deal itself and the concern among critics that a relationship exists between the Dubai comapny and terrorists.

Dubai is rapidly becoming a major entrepôt in the Middle East. Like Switzerland, it is a haven for assets owned by individuals who crave anonymity. It has become a duty-free shopping haven that actively courts global companies. It aims to become the financial hub for the region, with a new stock exchange and offices throughout the world. The ruling family currently owns property and assets across the globe — including a minority share of the gambling and resort company Kerzner International and a controlling interest in the Essex House in New York and Madame Tussaud’s of London. Dubai is, in fact, an example of global capitalism taking root in unlikely places, a hybrid cross between Miami and Singapore with a dollop of Las Vegas on the fringe of the Arabian Peninsula. And precisely for these reasons, it has as much to worry about from fundamentalist terrorism as the United States.

2. Critics are concerned the Bush admin is placing economic interests over port security.

However, many American ports are currently operated by foreign entities, a fact which seems to have been overlooked. The port of Los Angeles has terminals run by companies from Taiwan, Denmark, Singapore and even China. The model the administration should follow is that of the airports, which are managed by private companies but whose security is the responsibility of the U.S. government. Yet while decrying the proposed sale is a way to score political points — because the company is Arab and thus can be easily (and wrongly) equated with Islamic terrorism, and allows for revisiting a failing of the administration’s homeland security policies — it is not without considerable costs. Think of it: America says that it wants Muslim partners in its struggle against terrorism, yet politicians on both sides of the aisle are willing to tar a potential partner. The president may deserve attacking, but doing so in this way is truly cutting off our nose to spite our face.

3. Critics are concerned with “globalization” - that the U.S. is “outsoucrcing” U.S. jobs to foreign comapies.

Having committed ourselves to a system and crafted its rules, we are suddenly confronted with the possibility of real competition, whether from China, India or the emirates of the Gulf. There is a debate to be had about the perils and promises of globalization, but invoking national security to block corporate sales or instituting retaliatory tariffs risks eroding both our global leadership and our economic growth. In the coming months there will be calls to label China a “currency manipulator,” which may satisfy domestic discontent with the trade deficit but is unlikely to strengthen our economy or enhance our security. In the quid pro quo of international politics, other nations are likely to retaliate the only way they can: by making it more difficult and costly for U.S. companies to operate within their borders.

The author does a nice job of hitting on the most important aspect of the debate that many are missing:

The real national security question is not who owns the ports, but how to ensure that they are safe and secure. Period. The economic question is also simple: Do we really want a world where capital and goods flows freely, trade barriers are minimal, and companies can operate on a global scale? Or, do we only want that when it is convenient and comfortable? Nothing the U.S. government can do is likely to halt globalization, but in the process of trying we might unwittingly make the U.S. less competitive, more isolated — and ultimately less secure.

Matt Margolois of Blogs For Bush has a great post on how Dems are flip flopping on racial profiling by opposing the sale of the 6 ports to the UAE.

Michelle Malkin provides a diferent viewpoint here.

Vodka Pundit has this on what Peggy Noonan see as the real story that is not being covered. I could not agree more.

Politics make strange bedfellows. Conservative Bill Bennett and liberal Alan M. Dershowitz, the law professor at Harvard, have a joint editorial today in the Washingtin Post which is a must read for all media watchers,

A Failure of the Press

Since the war on terrorism began, the mainstream press has had no problem printing stories and pictures that challenged the administration and, in the view of some, compromised our war and peace efforts. The manifold images of abuse at Abu Ghraib come to mind — images that struck at our effort to win support from Arab governments and peoples, and that pierced the heart of the Muslim world as well as the U.S. military.

The press has had no problem with breaking a story using classified information on detention centers for captured terrorists and suspects — stories that could harm our allies. And it disclosed a surveillance program so highly classified that most members of Congress were unaware of it.

In its zeal to publish stories critical of our nation’s efforts — and clearly upsetting to enemies and allies alike — the press has printed some articles that turned out to be inaccurate. The Guantanamo Bay flushing of the Koran comes to mind.

But for the past month, the Islamist street has been on an intifada over cartoons depicting Muhammad that were first published months ago in a Danish newspaper. Protests in London — never mind Jordan, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Iran and other countries not noted for their commitment to democratic principles — included signs that read, “Behead those who insult Islam.” The mainstream U.S. media have covered this worldwide uprising; it is, after all, a glimpse into the sentiments of our enemy and its allies. And yet it has refused, with but a few exceptions, to show the cartoons that purportedly caused all the outrage.

This is a damning indictment of the MSM, and they don’t even bring up the laughable, over the top coverage of the Cheney shooting, Al Gore’s anti-American diatribe in Saudi Arabia or Bill Clinton taking the side of the “Arab Street” over the free press in the cartoon controversy.