1. American Exceptionalism, Yet Again — By: Rich Lowry
2. American Exceptionalism, Yet Again — By: Rich Lowry
3. American Exceptionalism, Yet Again — By: Rich Lowry

1. American Exceptionalism, Yet Again — By: Rich Lowry
2. American Exceptionalism, Yet Again — By: Rich Lowry
3. American Exceptionalism, Yet Again — By: Rich Lowry

1. American Exceptionalism, Yet Again — By: Rich Lowry
2. American Exceptionalism, Yet Again — By: Rich Lowry
3. American Exceptionalism, Yet Again — By: Rich Lowry

1. E-mail Links — By: Kathryn Jean Lopez
2. re: Begala E-mail — By: Kathryn Jean Lopez
3. Missing Links — By: Kathryn Jean Lopez

1. E-mail Links — By: Kathryn Jean Lopez
2. re: Begala E-mail — By: Kathryn Jean Lopez
3. Missing Links — By: Kathryn Jean Lopez

1. Obama’s Poetry — By: Jonah Goldberg
2. I’m Off . . . — By: Jonah Goldberg
3. Re: Rand — By: Jonah Goldberg

For the entire fiscal year, CBO projects the government will run a deficit of $1.36 trillion, just below the $1.41 trillion deficit incurred last year. However, if the president’s policies are enacted, the deficit will be $1.5 trillion.

If that's the new era of responsibility that the president is talking about, I would like my money back.

1. What’s Inside the Deficit? — By: Veronique de Rugy
2. The VAT Isn’t the Solution to Our Deficit — By: Veronique de Rugy
3. Gimmick Alert: The Estimated $200 Billion TARP Cost Cut Do Not Translate Into $200 Billion of New Spending — By: Veronique de Rugy

1. A Comment from the Hill — By: Kathryn Jean Lopez
2. Craziest Comment on Lieberman So Far? — By: Kathryn Jean Lopez
3. Of Google & Iran — By: Kathryn Jean Lopez

This is a fascinating (to me) turn of events, because it's been a long time in coming. If you go back and look through the archives of National Review, there really isn't all that much anti-Wilson sentiment outside the topic of Versailles. This, I think, can be partly explained by the prism of  Cold War anti-Communism (we can discuss that more later if you want!). Ditto if you search through WFB's columns for stuff about Wilson. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn was no fan of Wilson's and the Rothbardian libertarians had him, and the progressive era, pegged better than most.

But it was really the work of what I would call the Claremont crowd that pushed the anti-Wilson noodle across the carpet. Modern conservatism is largely a reaction to the Soviet threat abroad and the New Deal at home. But the Claremonsters (as my wife endearingly calls them) understood that starting with the New Deal amounted to a critic reviewing a play he only attended after intermission. It all goes back to the Progressive Era. They have done the bulk of the intellectual heavy lifting on this score. I don't want to list them all (in part because I don't have a great sense of where they all rank viz a viz each other), but some of the better known (and among my favorites) include Charles Kesler, R. J. Pestritto, Steve Hayward, Peter Schramm, Ken Masugi, and others. They can be found, among other places, at the Claremont Institute (and in the pages of the Claremont Review of Books), Hillsdale, and the Ashbrook Center. For years they did the serious intellectual spadework on the Progressive Era and it is finally paying off. (Perhaps the best, or at least my favorite, introduction to their project can be found in The Progressive Revolution in Politics and Political Science).

Anyway, I've been spotting Wilson hatred all over the place for the last year or so. But I found today's George Will column particularly edifying. He writes, in part:

Of course, there now is a commission of experts to recommend cures for this. It should be called the Philip Dru Memorial Commission.

In a scintillating book coming in June ("The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris"), Peter Beinart dissects the progressivism of Woodrow Wilson. Edward House, Wilson's closest adviser, wrote an awful but indicative novel, "Philip Dru: Administrator." With the nation in crisis, Dru seizes power, declares himself "Administrator of the Republic" and replaces Congress with a commission of five experts who decree reforms that selfish interests had prevented.

Wilson, once a professor of political science, said that the Princeton he led as its president was dedicated to unbiased expertise, and he thought government could be "reduced to science." Progressives are forever longing to replace the governance of people by the administration of things. Because they are entirely public-spirited, progressives volunteer to be the administrators, and to be as disinterested as the dickens.

How gripped was Wilson by what Beinart calls "the hubris of reason"? Beinart writes:

"He even recommended to his wife that they draft a constitution for their marriage. Let's write down the basic rules, he suggested; 'then we can make bylaws at our leisure as they become necessary.' It was an early warning sign, a hint that perhaps the earnest young rationalizer did not understand that there were spheres where abstract principles didn't get you very far, where reason could never be king."

Professor Obama, who will seek reelection on the 100th anniversary of Wilson's 1912 election, understands, which makes him melancholy. Speaking to Katie Couric on Feb. 7, Obama said:

"I would have loved nothing better than to simply come up with some very elegant, academically approved approach to health care, and didn't have any kinds of legislative fingerprints on it, and just go ahead and have that passed. But that's not how it works in our democracy. Unfortunately, what we end up having to do is to do a lot of negotiations with a lot of different people."

Note his aesthetic criterion of elegance, by which he probably means sublime complexity....

Not only is it delightful to see George Will getting in on the act, but it turns out that my friend Peter Beinart has signed up to be a Wilson basher as well. This is a little surprising because Peter and I have argued about Wilson before, and he's always come to Wilson's defense. So it's interesting to learn that he takes a new turn in his forthcoming book (I haven't seen it yet). Indeed, When Peter was still the editor of The New Republic he put Wilson on the cover for the 90th anniversary issue  -- and had him looming over FDR, Eleanor Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, JFK, and Harry Truman:

I should have seen some of this coming when my book came out. I had expected my Wilson chapter to attract some very pointed and defensive attacks from his defenders and from liberals generally. But most reviewers simply ignored or conceded the bulk of my anti-Wilsonism. If memory serves, Matt Yglesias tried to disown Wilson, going so far as to whine that you can't even call Wilson a liberal (tell that to TNR). Meanwhile, even as this was going on, the Left was proving itself much more eager to fully embrace the Progressive Era. During the Democratic primaries, both Obama and Hillary Clinton explicitly, boldly, and proudly associated themselves with Wilson-era Progressivism.

This is all very exciting because it suggests that after a very, very, long postponement a real argument about the Progressive Revolution might actually commence.

1. Don’t Tase Me! — By: Jonah Goldberg
2. The Warrior and the Priest — By: Jonah Goldberg
3. Things I Should Have Said Dept. — By: Jonah Goldberg

1. Pelosi’s Press Conference — By: Kathryn Jean Lopez
2. Palin vs. Pelosi — By: Kathryn Jean Lopez
3. Pelosi Aide Knew About Massa Complaints in October — By: Daniel Foster

As predicted, the European Parliament has voted for a tax on financial transactions, to be levied directly by Brussels. The vote went through by 536 to 80: only my own group, the European Conservatives and Reformists, voted solidly against the measure, although we had some support from UKIP and its allies as well as two Danish liberals and two Portuguese conservatives...The Tobin Tax might well be vetoed by one or other of the national governments. But the campaign for pan-European taxation is only just beginning. 

Anyone wondering why David Cameron broke with the palaeo-federalist EPP need only look at its automatic support for such measures as this. With a handful of exceptions... the Christian Democrats invariably vote for higher taxes, greater state intervention and Euro-corporatism. I do wish British journalists would stop lazily refering to the EPP as “Centre-Right”; the EPP itself angrily insists that it is “a party of the Centre”. 

1. Not Wasting the Crisis — By: Andrew Stuttaford
2. Not Wasting the Crisis — By: Andrew Stuttaford
3. Never Waste a Crisis — By: Andrew Stuttaford

As predicted, the European Parliament has voted for a tax on financial transactions, to be levied directly by Brussels. The vote went through by 536 to 80: only my own group, the European Conservatives and Reformists, voted solidly against the measure, although we had some support from UKIP and its allies as well as two Danish liberals and two Portuguese conservatives...The Tobin Tax might well be vetoed by one or other of the national governments. But the campaign for pan-European taxation is only just beginning. 

Anyone wondering why David Cameron broke with the palaeo-federalist EPP need only look at its automatic support for such measures as this. With a handful of exceptions... the Christian Democrats invariably vote for higher taxes, greater state intervention and Euro-corporatism. I do wish British journalists would stop lazily refering to the EPP as “Centre-Right”; the EPP itself angrily insists that it is “a party of the Centre”. 

1. Not Wasting the Crisis — By: Andrew Stuttaford
2. Not Wasting the Crisis — By: Andrew Stuttaford
3. Never Waste a Crisis — By: Andrew Stuttaford

As predicted, the European Parliament has voted for a tax on financial transactions, to be levied directly by Brussels. The vote went through by 536 to 80: only my own group, the European Conservatives and Reformists, voted solidly against the measure, although we had some support from UKIP and its allies as well as two Danish liberals and two Portuguese conservatives...The Tobin Tax might well be vetoed by one or other of the national governments. But the campaign for pan-European taxation is only just beginning. 

Anyone wondering why David Cameron broke with the palaeo-federalist EPP need only look at its automatic support for such measures as this. With a handful of exceptions... the Christian Democrats invariably vote for higher taxes, greater state intervention and Euro-corporatism. I do wish British journalists would stop lazily refering to the EPP as “Centre-Right”; the EPP itself angrily insists that it is “a party of the Centre”. 

1. Not Wasting the Crisis — By: Andrew Stuttaford
2. Not Wasting the Crisis — By: Andrew Stuttaford
3. Never Waste a Crisis — By: Andrew Stuttaford

One of the left's knocks on conservatives has been claiming they're demagogues that play on emotion to push a certain point of view. It's been said about Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and the Tea Party movement. 

However, HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" host Bill Maher doesn't seem to take issue with using trumped up emotions to push an agenda. The difference - he is approaching things from the opposite end of the ideological spectrum. Maher appeared on MSNBC's March 10 "Countdown" and defended his demand from his own March 5 program that President Barack Obama quit smoking. The reason - so he would get angry and use that emotion to promote his agenda.

"No, what I was - you know, the point of the rule was that when people quit smoking, they get angry," Maher explained. "And I like my president angry, because, you know, considering how much in this country people are poisoned, ripped off and lied to, we should all be angry, but especially that guy, who has to deal with Congress every day in trying to get this health care bill through and all that. And you know, I like him when he's out on the stump in a sort of a partisan mode. I think his biggest mistake, that he has made, in his first year, was to out put bipartisanship ahead of fixing the country. He spent all his political capital on getting three damned votes for that stimulus bill instead of coming in with all the energy from the election and saying, ‘You know what, we're in a crisis mode, I won this election by a sizable mandate, here's what we're going to do. If you don't like it, Republicans, you can suck on it.'"

"Countdown" fill-in host Lawrence O'Donnell asked what else Obama could do to push this initiative - having given numerous speeches both in public and on TV. According to Maher, the legislation now has to stand for itself.

"Well, there's nothing more he can do, because he's sort of made his bed already with the plan that they have," Maher said. "You know, I mean, again, I think he made a big mistake, not from the get-go, not supporting a public option and standing up for that because I personally do not believe that this plan will save money the way that they say it will."

Maher lamented that in his view, the legislation was weak. However, he suggested the issue of health insurance should be viewed as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that are occurring to given people the perspective the United States' medical system is "failing."

"I think they wussied out on standing up to the things that will actually be cost cutting," Maher said. "So, I don't believe that part of it. And so he's stuck with this plan, which I think is - it's not a great plan. I mean, yes, it accomplishes some things, and I guess I would call it a quarter loaf is better than none. But, you know, we asked this question on the show a couple of weeks ago. You know, 45,000 people die every year because they don't have health care. Can you imagine if that many people were dying in Iraq or Afghanistan? Why is the, that that's an impossibility in the country, that that many people can die, or in a terrorist attack, but it's OK that they die from a failing medical system?"

Maher also faulted Obama for framing the debate that if you preferred the status quo, then you would not be affected. However, had Obama taken a different tack and employed fear - making it seem that the public had no choice but to alter their health care coverage, it could have spurred more action.

"I don't know why they framed the debate the way they did, or rather, that they didn't," Maher said. "They should have framed it in a moral sense like that and they should have framed it for people who are more selfish thinking, that this is a -- that you are going to go broke. Democrats need to use fear the way the Republicans use fear. And it's true. I mean, health care costs keep going up."

And what would this fear entail? According to the "Real Time" host, Democrats should have manipulated people into thinking financial calamity was on the verge of occurring without so-called health care reform.

"They should have scared the American people into thinking, look, I know you think you like the plan you have now, but it's going to slowly drown you in debt," Maher said. "He started out all wrong by saying, ‘If you have - if you like the plan you have, you can keep it.' And everybody went, ‘Well, then what's the problem? Why are we spending all this money?'"

1. Backroom Health Care Deals Fuel Voter Anger
2. CBS Relays Liberal Anger ‘Their Agenda is Being Hijacked by a Few’
3. RNC fundraising document: Use fear of Obama’s “socialist” agenda to raise dough

1. Paranormal Activity — By: John J. Miller
2. ‘Paranormal Activity’ All too Normal
3. Halloween HamNation: “Paranormal Legislative Activity”

1. Re: ‘In preparing thousands of pages for submission, it was unfortunately and inadvertently missed.’ — By: Andy McCarthy
2. Eric Holder’s Non-Disclosure — By: Kathryn Jean Lopez
3. Wouldn’t Have Missed It for the World — By: Kathryn Jean Lopez

The Internet is a many-splendored thing.

1. Re: Not ‘Goodbye, Lee’ — By: Kathryn Jean Lopez
2. Accessorizing Politics — By: Kathryn Jean Lopez
3. Gerald Amirault — By: Kathryn Jean Lopez

1. Radio Report — By: Kathryn Jean Lopez
2. My Morning in America — By: Kathryn Jean Lopez
3. Good Morning! — By: Kathryn Jean Lopez

1. Book Him — By: Kathryn Jean Lopez
2. A Big Day for Book Sales — By: Kathryn Jean Lopez
3. This Is News? — By: Kathryn Jean Lopez

1. In Opposition — By: Kathryn Jean Lopez
2. Not-So-Freshman Concerns — By: Kathryn Jean Lopez
3. ‘I’ve always had concerns about a government plan.’ — By: Kathryn Jean Lopez

Ironically, on the Monday, March 8, The View on ABC, as the group discussed the film The Blind Side which features a white family taking in a black teen, co-host Barbara Walters complained about those who criticize interracial adoption as the more left-leaning Joy Behar and guest co-host and actress Vanessa Williams complained that the film portrayed white parents as being the answer to social problems of troubled black kids.

On the March 3, World News, after recounting that black social workers used to "condemn" interracial adoptions as "cultural genocide," Claiborne passed on that, although that view has softened up, there are still those with concerns:

GLORIA BATISTE ROBERTS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BLACK SOCIAL WORKERS: Children deserve the right to be with people who look like them, who can understand what they are going through, understand their culture.

CLAIBORNE: At the Spence Chapin Adoption Agency, counselors urge white parents adopting a black child to integrate their lives, even if it means moving to a racially diverse neighborhood.

RITA TADDONIO, SPENCE-CHAPIN ARC: If you look around your table and your guests are all of the same color, then you shouldn't be adopting a child of a different color.

After briefly giving voice to a white couple who adopted two black children whoto defend their point of view, Claiborne again summarized the views of interracial adoption critics: "Not wrong, say some of those who grew up black in a white family, just not easy."

On the March 8 The View, during a discussion of the Academy Awards and the film The Blind Side, starring Sandra Bullock, guest co-host Williams complained: "It brings up a theme for black folks that, okay, here's another white family that has saved the day in terms of another black story that has to have a white person come in and lift them up. And I'm not saying that it's not true and it didn't happen, but it's one of those, do I really want to see the same theme again?"

Walters defended the willingness of couples to reach out to children of different races: "I have to disagree with you. Yes, it is a true story, but I would hope that we would get to the day where the fact that a black family could adopt a white – or that a white family could adopt a homeless black child and it would not be applauded by all the races, I think to say, ‘Oh, it's one more white people helping.’ It was a wonderful story, and it was a story of closeness between two races."

Behar soon jumped in and seemed to agree with Williams. Behar: "But the issue with [The Blind Side] is that it gives the false impression that the problem of poverty and homelessness can be solved by the largesse of some liberal good family ... Liberal meaning, I wasn't referring to liberal as the party. I was referring to liberal as an open-minded and loving gesture. ... But I believe that that does not address the systemic differences in the races, in homelessness, in poverty in the country. And it puts a band-aid on the situation, and it's lauded as a solution to the issue, and it's not."

Below are transcripts of relevant portions of the Wednesday, March 3, World News on ABC, followed by the Monday, March 8, The View, on ABC:

#From the Wednesday, March 3, World News on ABC:

DIANE SAWYER, IN OPENING TEASER: Race and reality: What really happens to a black child adopted by an all-white family?

...

SAWYER, BEFORE COMMERCIAL BREAK: And still ahead on World News, we probe new questions about adoption and race: Should a black child be raised in an all-white family?

...

SAWYER: Tonight, provocative questions about black and white and adoption, raised again by all those adoptions of Haitian children after the earthquake. A lot of people of both races have been asking, are we sure what's really best for the child? Here's Ron Claiborne.

RON CLAIBORNE: They are images of joy, images of happy endings amid so much tragedy. In January, Duke and Lisa Scoppa adopted two Haitian orphans – four-year-old Erickson and six-month-old Therline.

LISA SCOPPA, MOTHER: I just always felt like it would be a really enriching experience for us and for everybody involved, really.

CLAIBORNE: For these children, it is certainly a better life, materially, and a chance to grow up in a loving family. But many black children who were adopted by white parents say there's another side to the story.

PHIL BERTELSEN, DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKER: I didn't feel like I was seen or understood.

CLAIBORNE: Phil Bertelsen was four when he was adopted. He and other black adoptees tell a similar tale, of feeling estranged, cut off from their own racial identity and culture.

BERTELSEN: It creates a lonely feeling.

CLAIBORNE: Bertelsen made a documentary about adoption and race, and the issues of identity that he himself is still grappling with.

BERTELSEN: Ultimately, I am a part of your family. I use my name with pride. But I am also an African-American man in your family. And, you know, you have to see me as that.

MOTHER OF PHIL BERTELSEN: Maybe we were naive, Phillip.

BERTELSEN: I found a moment to say what I had always wanted to say.

CLAIBORNE: Which was?

BERTELSEN: Which was, "See me. This is who I am."

CLAIBORNE: For years, trans-racial adoptions like Phil's were rare after the National Black Social Workers Association condemned them as "cultural genocide." The group has softened its position somewhat.

GLORIA BATISTE ROBERTS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BLACK SOCIAL

WORKERS: Children deserve the right to be with people who look like them, who can understand what they are going through, understand their culture.

CLAIBORNE: At the Spence Chapin Adoption Agency, counselors urge white parents adopting a black child to integrate their lives, even if it means moving to a racially diverse neighborhood.

RITA TADDONIO, SPENCE-CHAPIN ARC: If you look around your table and your guests are all of the same color, then you shouldn't be adopting a child of a different color.

CLAIBORNE: The Scoppas do not apologize for adopting black children.

DUKE SCOPPA, FATHER: If there are no black families that want to adopt them, and we want to adopt them and make them part of our lives and give them as much love as possible, then I don't know why that's so wrong.

CLAIBORNE: Not wrong, say some of those who grew up black in a white family, just not easy. Ron Claiborne, ABC News, New York.

SAWYER: And let us know what you think. We want to hear what you have to say.

#From the Monday, March 8, The View on ABC:

VANESSA WILLIAMS: And I have to be honest, the one thing about it – I’m sure I have a, I know it’s based on a true story, she won an Academy Award, I’m sure she did a brilliant performance – but it brings up a theme for black folks that, okay, here’s another white family that has saved the day in terms of another black story that has to have a white person come in and lift them up.

JOY BEHAR: Right.

WILLIAMS: And I’m not saying that it’s not true and it didn’t happen, but it’s one of those, do I really want to see the same theme again? You know, Finding Forrester-

BARBARA WALTERS: I’m not sure when you said, I have to disagree with you. Yes, it is a true story, but I would hope that we would get to the day where the fact that a black family could adopt a white – or that a white family could adopt a homeless black child and it would not be applauded by all the races, I think to say, "Oh, it’s one more white people helping." It was a wonderful story, and it was a story of closeness between two races, so I don’t agree with (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

WILLIAMS: I’m just telling you what people have said.

WALTERS: One of the other things that people objected to was that Precious was a bad depiction of black people, and we asked Monique about that because that had been a criticism. And she said it could happen in white and black families.

BEHAR: Lee Daniels, the director, said that it was produced, I believe, in London, with a white cast, so, obviously, but the issue with Blind Sided (The Blind Side) is that it gives the false impression that the problem of poverty and homelessness can be solved by the largesse of some liberal good family which basically does not, does not attack-

ELISABETH HASSELBECK: It wasn’t a liberal family. It was actually a Republican family.

BEHAR: Okay, Republican family.

HASSELBECK: Not that it matters, I’m not going to fact check there.

BEHAR: Liberal meaning, I wasn’t referring to liberal as the party. I was referring to liberal as an open-minded and loving gesture. ... But I believe that that does not address the systemic differences in the races, in homelessness, in poverty in the country. And it puts a band-aid on the situation, and it’s lauded as a solution to the issue, and it’s not.

...

WALTERS: This was not saying this is how, everybody should go out and adopt a homeless white child or a homeless black – it was not a documentary, it was one story of reconciliation and love.

HASSELBECK: And it actually shed light, if you read the book, which, okay, Tim read the book and we’ve been picking his brain about this since this subject has come up many times, and I think that he said he remembers in reading it that it was, it did shed light on the fact that it was the foster system that failed Michael Oher, it was the Memphis school system that failed him. So, in some ways, it actually was a call to action in showing, like, look, these systems which are supposed to help kids like a Michael Oher left to his mother who is dealing with drugs and other children and homelessness, regardless of race, this system is failing kids, and so I think it did shed light on that.

WALTERS: And the other black young people – whatever, they weren’t, they were sort of – were tearing his life apart and picking on him, it wasn’t the whites, it was, anyway, it’s interesting that you had both of these movies that have made-

BEHAR: Stirred up a lot of issues. ... It starts the conversation which we sorely need.

1. Black Children Are An Endangered Species
2. D.C. Archdiocese Ends Foster Care Program Over Same-Sex Marriage Bill, Which Allows Homosexual Couples to Adopt Children
3. Behar and Goldberg: First Year of Obama Presidency ‘Traumatic’ For Whites

There was a gripping moment this afternoon here in Washington. It happened on the floor of the House of Representatives as the House was debating withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Congressman Patrick Kennedy, a Democrat who represents Rhode Island, the son of the late Ted Kennedy, got up and gave a loud, emotional and angry speech about U.S. losses in the war, U.S. strategy in the war, then he turned on the news media and how few have bothered to show up to cover the debate.

If anybody wants to know where cynicism is, cynicism is that there's one, two press people in this gallery! We’re talking about Eric Massa 24/7 on the TV. We’re talking about war and peace, $3 billion, 1,000 lives and no press? No press?! You want to know why the American public is fit? They’re fit because they’re not seeing their Congress do the work they are sent to do. It's because the press, the press of the United States is not covering the most significant issue of national importance, and that's the laying of lives down in the nation for the service of our country! It's despicable the national press corps right now.

Audio: MP3 clip, with Kennedy's screaming.

Williams finished up without mentioning the overwhelming defeat for the measure: “Congressman Patrick Kennedy, who recently announced in the wake of his father’s death, he will not run for re-election to Congress. He’s coming to the end of his eighth term in office.”

1. Video: Patrick Kennedy goes nuts over media’s Massa coverage
2. CBS and ABC Lament Patrick Kennedy’s Exit as ‘End of an Era’
3. Pro-Abortion Kennedy Bashes Catholic Church For Obamacare Opposition (Video) …Update: Kennedy’s Bishop Calls Him a Disappointment

"People see dark faces out there, and the perception is that they're African American," Hunter apparently said of some Major League Baseball players. "They're not us. They're impostors."

Despite the controversial nature of these remarks, media outside of the sports pages and talk radio have mostly been mum.

What makes this even tougher to believe is that according to the article sportswriter Bob Nightengale published Tuesday, that's not even close to all Hunter had to say on this subject:

"Even people I know come up and say, 'Hey, what color is Vladimir Guerrero? Is he a black player?' I say, 'Come on, he's Dominican. He's not black.' " [...]

"As African-American players, we have a theory that baseball can go get an imitator and pass them off as us," Hunter says. "It's like they had to get some kind of dark faces, so they go to the Dominican or Venezuela because you can get them cheaper. It's like, 'Why should I get this kid from the South Side of Chicago and have Scott Boras represent him and pay him $5 million when you can get a Dominican guy for a bag of chips?'

"I'm telling you, it's sad."

Hunter has fired back at USA Today claiming he was misquoted:

Hunter, who directs a large share of his charitable efforts to the development [sic] baseball in disadvantaged neighborhoods and has won awards for his community service, said his comments "were distorted and taken out of context."

And he was in no mood for an apology.

"I'm not apologizing to nobody because I didn't do anything," Hunter said. "I didn't say anything like that.… I'm upset.… And people wonder why athletes don't talk to the media. It's stupid. They took one negative thing and ran with it.

"That wasn't even the main topic of the discussion. That was a piece of the conversation, .5% of 100%. The main topic was that there are not enough scholarships for baseball.... It was a positive story. I try to get a lot of inner-city kids to play the game. I've done the research. That's why I have all the programs."

For the record, I'm a HUGE Torii Hunter fan. This is a fabulous talent, and by all accounts a marvelous representative of the teams he's played for.

But also for the record, outside of the sports press, his statements have gone largely ignored.

According to LexisNexis, not ONE national, non-sports oriented television news outlet has reported his comments. NOT ONE.

As for print, besides USA Today and the LA papers, this has gotten little coverage.

Would the media have boycotted such statements if a white baseball player made them, regardless of who he was or what he's done for the community?

If the answer is "No," then why the double standard?

While you ponder, readers should also know what Hunter likely meant by his "bag of chips" comment.

Folks that I've spoken to concerning this issue say that scouts recruit from the Dominican Republic and other Latin American countries because they can find young talent for much less money than in high schools and colleges across America.

As such, Hunter's point might have been a valid one.

Yet, when it comes to comments folks consider racist, the truth isn't necessarily a defense is it? 

1. Re: re: Baseball’s Follies — By: Andy McCarthy
2. Re: Baseball’s Follies — By: Andy McCarthy
3. Baseball’s Follies — By: Ed Whelan

When Michael Moore starts getting panicked, you know times are getting tumultuous for the left and the Democratic Party. 

The anti-corporation, sometimes conspiracy theorist documentary filmmaker aired his frustrations about the current health care reform predicament. Congressional Democrats have gotten themselves into a mess with time running out as the midterm election cycle fast approaches and Moore said he was worried. According to Moore, who appeared on MSNBC's March 10 "The Rachel Maddow Show," if the Democratic Party doesn't make strides in getting their liberal agenda passed - it's bleak times ahead for them.

"Well, we see what it's led us to, to the fact that one out of eight homes now in America is in foreclosure or delinquency," Moore said. "One out of eight home and, of course, the millions that don't have health care and everything else it's - how do you get yourself out of bed every morning to do this show with just the despair of how - the hope that we all had a year, year and a half ago. And now it's like, I just feel like the Democrats are - they're in for an ass-whooping of Biblical proportions in November if they don't get off the dime and do the job they were sent there to do. I mean that. I mean, it - don't they see that?"

Although some would argue these dire political conditions are a result of overstepping boundaries in enacting some of their policies, Moore suggested they should double-down on their agenda and not be weak-kneed.

"They could avoid it by having the courage of their convictions and doing what the Republicans do when they take power," Moore said. "You know when the Republicans come into town, they get in the Hummer and they drive down Pennsylvania Avenue, mow down everybody in sight. They walk into Congress with both guns blazing and they say, ‘We were sent here to do a job,' and then they do the job. Democrats come in and I mean by an incredible majority in the Senate and the House, in this historic election with Obama in the White House. Democrats come in and go, ‘Oh hi, hi, umm - I guess we don't need universal health care for everybody. You know, we can compromise. It's OK.'"

He mocked the Democratic Party, whose convention he was once a guest at, for acting like "frightened animals."

"You know, they used to at least just sing ‘Kumbaya,'" Moore said. "Now they go in like frightened animals. I don't understand it. What is it about them that they can't do the math?"

He explained he was perplexed that Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., a strident no vote on health care without specific abortion language, was able to hijack the entire health care reform legislative process.  He likened the current conditions to a boat taking water and urged the Democrats to start bailing water before it was too late.

"It's kind of like, OK, the boat is taking in water," Moore explained. "Do we just sit here or do we pick up the Dixie cup that's over here and start bailing? I mean, we may not make it, you know, but do something! Do something, Democrats. Are you listening to me?"

Moore has been one of the leading left-wing proponents of nationalized health care. In his documentary "SiCKO" that favored the socialist health care systems of Canada, Britain, France and Cuba, Moore made the fantastic and inaccurate claim that almost 50 million Americans are uninsured.

1. Liberal Evangelical Christian Jim Wallis Rips Banks; Calls Bonuses ‘Sins of Biblical Proportions’
2. Michael Moore: Boycott Connecticut If Joe Lieberman Isn’t Recalled
3. Michael Moore: Capitalism Must Be Eliminated

From Politico:

A Pelosi aide told POLITICO on Wednesday evening that Massa’s chief of staff, Joe Racalto, informed a member of Pelosi’s “member services” operation in October that Massa was living with several aides, had hired too many staff members and used foul language around his staff.

Racalto also raised concerns about “the way Massa ran his office” and informed Pelosi’s member-services staffer that he had asked Massa to move out of the group house on Capitol Hill, the Pelosi aide said.

Democratic insiders say Pelosi’s office took no action after Racalto expressed his concerns about his then-boss in October.

Hoyer’s aides say he was informed of sexual-harassment allegations against Massa by Ron Hikel, another Massa aide, Feb. 8 and gave the New York Democrat’s office an ultimatum: Take the charges to the ethics committee within 48 hours, or Hoyer would.

Pelosi’s aide said that Hoyer’s office shared those allegations with a senior Pelosi staffer in February and that “the staff concurred that an ethics investigation was the proper course of action and were assured one would be initiated.”

When the allegations about Massa became widely known last week, Pelosi told reporters that her staff was aware only of isolated "rumors."

“I asked my staff, I said, ‘Have there been any rumors about any of this before?’” Pelosi said last week. “There had been a rumor, but just that, no formal notification to our office that anything — a one-, two-, three-person-removed rumor that had been reported to Mr. Hoyer’s office that had been reported to my staff, which they didn’t report to me, because, you know what? This is rumor city. Every single day there are rumors. I have a job to do and not to be the receiver of rumors.” 

House Republicans are considering bringing a resolution to the floor calling for the Massa inquiry to be reopened, and to include investigation of what House leadership knew and when they knew it.

1. Breaking: Massa Was Investigated for Groping Male Staffers — By: Daniel Foster
2. Breaking: Massa Was Investigated for Groping Male Staffers — By: Daniel Foster
3. Here we go: Pelosi’s staff knew of Massa allegations sooner than claimed

Cuccinelli, a strong social conservative, concludes that only the state legislature can extend legal protections to gay state employees and students. Virginia's legislature, the General Assemby, has repeatedly (and again just recently) declined to take this step.

Cuccinelli's position is, I think, correct as a matter of law. Indeed, though it denounces the decision, the Washington Post editorial board concedes that, for 25 years, Cuccinelli's predecessors -- Republican and Democrat -- have "come to a similar conclusion concerning cities and counties that wished to extend protections to gay and lesbian residents." If the elected representatives of local governments lack this power, I'm at a loss to understand how university bureaucrats possess it.

The Post says that "colleges and universities traditionally have been given broad leeway to set policy." But this only begs the question; it isn't really an argument.

The Post also says that colleges and universities "have been havens for inclusive policies that often go hand-in-hand with academic freedom." This invocation of buzz-words also begs the question, even as it raises a new one: if colleges and universities are "havens" of non-discrimination, do they really need formal policies to prevent discrimination against gays?

Cuccinelli isn't saying that Virginia's colleges and universities must discriminate against gays, and Gov. McDonnell has said he doesn't want them to. If a given college is enlightened enough to write up a formal anti-discrimination policy, it is enlightened enough not to permit discrimination against gays to inform its decisionmaking in the absence of such a written policy. So the issue here isn't really "legalized discrimination," as the Post's editors claim.

What practical difference (from the point of view of real gay rights, as opposed to symbols and public relations) does Cuccinelli's legal adivce carry, assuming that colleges and universities follow it? I may be missing something, but the only important difference I see is that the absence of a formal prohibition against discrimination cuts off potential litigation.

That's no great loss. Discrimination claims by gays against universities that are "havens for inclusive policies" are overwhelmingly likely to be frivolous. In any event, university administrators should not be drafting policies that may create suits over actions the legislature has refused to deem illegal.

Virginia's colleges and universities would like to keep their anti-discrimination policies in place for ideological reasons and to make their schools more attractive to top applicants and professors. But even if revoking these polcies might tangibly hurt these schools, it's up to the legislature to weigh this potential consequence.

1. No big deal, except symbolically
2. WaPo Unfairly Paints Virginia AG As Working for ‘Erosion In Gay Rights’
3. WaPo Unfairly Paints Virginia AG As Working for ‘Erosion In Gay Rights’

Cuccinelli, a strong social conservative, concludes that only the state legislature can extend legal protections to gay state employees and students. Virginia's legislature, the General Assemby, has repeatedly (and again just recently) declined to take this step.

Cuccinelli's position is, I think, correct as a matter of law. Indeed, though it denounces the decision, the Washington Post editorial board concedes that, for 25 years, Cuccinelli's predecessors -- Republican and Democrat -- have "come to a similar conclusion concerning cities and counties that wished to extend protections to gay and lesbian residents." If the elected representatives of local governments lack this power, I'm at a loss to understand how university bureaucrats possess it.

The Post says that "colleges and universities traditionally have been given broad leeway to set policy." But this only begs the question; it isn't really an argument.

The Post also says that colleges and universities "have been havens for inclusive policies that often go hand-in-hand with academic freedom." This invocation of buzz-words also begs the question, even as it raises a new one: if colleges and universities are "havens" of non-discrimination, do they really need formal policies to prevent discrimination against gays?

Cuccinelli isn't saying that Virginia's colleges and universities must discriminate against gays, and Gov. McDonnell has said he doesn't want them to. If a given college is enlightened enough to write up a formal anti-discrimination policy, it is enlightened enough not to permit discrimination against gays to inform its decisionmaking in the absence of such a written policy. So the issue here isn't really "legalized discrimination," as the Post's editors claim.

What practical difference (from the point of view of real gay rights, as opposed to symbols and public relations) does Cuccinelli's legal adivce carry, assuming that colleges and universities follow it? I may be missing something, but the only important difference I see is that the absence of a formal prohibition against discrimination cuts off potential litigation.

That's no great loss. Discrimination claims by gays against universities that are "havens for inclusive policies" are overwhelmingly likely to be frivolous. In any event, university administrators should not be drafting policies that may create suits over actions the legislature has refused to deem illegal.

Virginia's colleges and universities would like to keep their anti-discrimination policies in place for ideological reasons and to make their schools more attractive to top applicants and professors. But even if revoking these polcies might tangibly hurt these schools, it's up to the legislature to weigh this potential consequence.

1. No big deal, except symbolically
2. WaPo Unfairly Paints Virginia AG As Working for ‘Erosion In Gay Rights’
3. WaPo Unfairly Paints Virginia AG As Working for ‘Erosion In Gay Rights’

UN chief Ban Ki-moon and Washington led calls for restraint on Monday after the slaughter of more than 500 Christians in Nigeria, as survivors told how the killers chopped down their victims.

Funerals took place for victims of the three-hour orgy of violence on Sunday in three Christian villages close to the northern city of Jos, blamed on members of the mainly Muslim Fulani ethnic group. ...

"We have over 500 killed in three villages and the survivors are busy burying their dead," said state information commissioner Gregory Yenlong. "People were attacked with axes, daggers and cutlasses -- many of them children, the aged and pregnant women."

Do you remember the "massacre" at Jenin? Of course: Palestinians initially claimed that 500 had been killed, but it turned out that there was no massacre after all. In Nigeria, on the other hand, no one disputes that more than 500 Christians were slaughtered by Muslims. So where is the outrage? I don't know what denomination those Nigerian Christians were, but Lutherans are the most numerous Christian denomination in Africa. I'm a Lutheran, but I have never heard a single word from any church source, local or national, about the mass murder of African Christians. No one seems to care.

No doubt readers can refer us to some Christian sources--evangelical, most likely--who have tried to draw attention to the plight of Christians in Africa, the Middle East and Asia who are being exterminated. But any such effort has wholly failed to gain traction in the "mainstream" Christian community.

Why? I can't explain it. Maybe "mainstream" Christianity is dead, except as an appendage of secular liberal opinion. Maybe, as the world's largest religion, Christianity has become so diffused that New World Christians don't much relate to their co-religionists in Africa and Asia. I don't know. What I do know is that it is much more dangerous to publish a cartoon of Mohammed than to slice apart a Christian with a machete.

1. Why Don’t Christians Care?
2. Nigerian Muslim Herders Attack Christians With Machetes; 300 Dead
3. Nigerian Muslims Hack 500 Christian Villagers to Death With Machetes – Babies Scalped (Graphic Video)

UN chief Ban Ki-moon and Washington led calls for restraint on Monday after the slaughter of more than 500 Christians in Nigeria, as survivors told how the killers chopped down their victims.

Funerals took place for victims of the three-hour orgy of violence on Sunday in three Christian villages close to the northern city of Jos, blamed on members of the mainly Muslim Fulani ethnic group. ...

"We have over 500 killed in three villages and the survivors are busy burying their dead," said state information commissioner Gregory Yenlong. "People were attacked with axes, daggers and cutlasses -- many of them children, the aged and pregnant women."

Do you remember the "massacre" at Jenin? Of course: Palestinians initially claimed that 500 had been killed, but it turned out that there was no massacre after all. In Nigeria, on the other hand, no one disputes that more than 500 Christians were slaughtered by Muslims. So where is the outrage? I don't know what denomination those Nigerian Christians were, but Lutherans are the most numerous Christian denomination in Africa. I'm a Lutheran, but I have never heard a single word from any church source, local or national, about the mass murder of African Christians. No one seems to care.

No doubt readers can refer us to some Christian sources--evangelical, most likely--who have tried to draw attention to the plight of Christians in Africa, the Middle East and Asia who are being exterminated. But any such effort has wholly failed to gain traction in the "mainstream" Christian community.

Why? I can't explain it. Maybe "mainstream" Christianity is dead, except as an appendage of secular liberal opinion. Maybe, as the world's largest religion, Christianity has become so diffused that New World Christians don't much relate to their co-religionists in Africa and Asia. I don't know. What I do know is that it is much more dangerous to publish a cartoon of Mohammed than to slice apart a Christian with a machete.

1. Why Don’t Christians Care?
2. Nigerian Muslim Herders Attack Christians With Machetes; 300 Dead
3. Nigerian Muslims Hack 500 Christian Villagers to Death With Machetes – Babies Scalped (Graphic Video)

[Hanks] doesn't see the series as simply eye-opening history. He hopes it offers Americans a chance to ponder the sacrifices of our current soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. "From the outset, we wanted to make people wonder how our troops can re-enter society in the first place," Hanks says. "How could they just pick up their lives and get on with the rest of us? Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as 'yellow, slant-eyed dogs' that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what's going on today?"

There's no such thing as a definitive history. But what was once a passing interest for Hanks has become an obsession. He's a man on a mission to make our back pages come alive, to keep overhauling the history we know and, in the process, get us to understand not just the past but the choices we make today.

This is painfully stupid. We expect that from the current incarnation of Time as a journal of liberal opinion, but I would have hoped for better from Hanks. Nolte makes the basic point well:

Really, we wanted to annihilate the Japanese because they were different, because we saw them as "yellow, slant-eyed dogs that believed in different gods?" I thought it was due to the fact that "we viewed them" as barbaric imperialists who had attacked us first and wanted to enslave the world.

But there's no reason to speculate about America's motivations during WWII because history has proven Hanks wrong. We had every opportunity to annihilate these "different" people. Instead we chose, at great expense, to rebuild Japan and return the sovereignty of that nation over to the "yellow, slant-eyed dogs who believed in different gods." Or, as most people prefer to call them: our newly liberated allies.

And to answer Hanks's question: No -- annihilating people who are different sounds NOTHING like what's going on today.

This country spends billions and billions of dollars on weapons designed to target the enemy and save the lives of people who are "different" -- those who are not our enemy but still manage to look different, speak languages we don't and worship in ways unfamiliar to us. The irony is that as Hanks spoke those slanderous words, the American Military remains in the middle of two conflicts that have cost us thousands of precious lives and hundreds of billions of dollars all towards the noble goal of liberating 50 million "different" people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What is happening today actually bears a considerable resemblance to the aftermath of Pearl Harbor. Contrary to Hanks's thoughtless slander, before 1941 probably not a single American was interested in "annihilating [the Japanese] because they were different." As evidenced by our laxity when it came to national defense. After Pearl Harbor, however, we had no choice but to swing into action--not to annihilate those who are different, but to defeat Japan and restore the peace. The Filipinos were "different" too, of course, so did we take time out to annihilate them? Um, no.

Likewise with the current conflicts. Prior to September 11, far from setting out to annihilate those who are "different," we protected Muslims in Bosnia, tried to save Somalians from the warlords, and rescued Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Notwithstanding endless provocations, Americans were happy to leave it at that until Islamic terrorists murdered 3,000 Americans. Once again, we had to swing into action. So, did we "annihilate" those "different" Afghans and Iraqis? No, we established democracies and tried to bring both of those countries into the modern world by, among other things, liberating their women. How can a person of normal intelligence, as Hanks no doubt is, be so blind to reality? Presumably it has to do with swimming in the perverse, liberal water of Hollywood.

Far worse is Matt Damon's upcoming Green Zone, which will open on Friday. Green Zone is history as imagined at the Daily Kos and Democratic Underground. The film is a fevered portrayal of a fictional world in which the CIA warned President Bush that Saddam had no WMDs and in which Sunni insurgents are heroic patriots who are brutally targeted by evil American death squads. Kyle Smith concludes, in the New York Post:

"Green Zone" isn't cinema. It's slander. It will go down in history as one of the most egregiously anti-American movies ever released by a major studio.

The only consolation, I suppose, is that Green Zone will lose a fortune. But that hardly matters: someday soon, it will be taken as history.

Via Repubclic.

1. Does Hollywood Make You Stupid?
2. Tom Hanks: America Wants to ‘Annihilate’ Terrorists Because ‘They’re Different’
3. The Real ClimateGate: Who’s Stupid, Hu’s Not

[Hanks] doesn't see the series as simply eye-opening history. He hopes it offers Americans a chance to ponder the sacrifices of our current soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. "From the outset, we wanted to make people wonder how our troops can re-enter society in the first place," Hanks says. "How could they just pick up their lives and get on with the rest of us? Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as 'yellow, slant-eyed dogs' that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what's going on today?"

There's no such thing as a definitive history. But what was once a passing interest for Hanks has become an obsession. He's a man on a mission to make our back pages come alive, to keep overhauling the history we know and, in the process, get us to understand not just the past but the choices we make today.

This is painfully stupid. We expect that from the current incarnation of Time as a journal of liberal opinion, but I would have hoped for better from Hanks. Nolte makes the basic point well:

Really, we wanted to annihilate the Japanese because they were different, because we saw them as "yellow, slant-eyed dogs that believed in different gods?" I thought it was due to the fact that "we viewed them" as barbaric imperialists who had attacked us first and wanted to enslave the world.

But there's no reason to speculate about America's motivations during WWII because history has proven Hanks wrong. We had every opportunity to annihilate these "different" people. Instead we chose, at great expense, to rebuild Japan and return the sovereignty of that nation over to the "yellow, slant-eyed dogs who believed in different gods." Or, as most people prefer to call them: our newly liberated allies.

And to answer Hanks's question: No -- annihilating people who are different sounds NOTHING like what's going on today.

This country spends billions and billions of dollars on weapons designed to target the enemy and save the lives of people who are "different" -- those who are not our enemy but still manage to look different, speak languages we don't and worship in ways unfamiliar to us. The irony is that as Hanks spoke those slanderous words, the American Military remains in the middle of two conflicts that have cost us thousands of precious lives and hundreds of billions of dollars all towards the noble goal of liberating 50 million "different" people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What is happening today actually bears a considerable resemblance to the aftermath of Pearl Harbor. Contrary to Hanks's thoughtless slander, before 1941 probably not a single American was interested in "annihilating [the Japanese] because they were different." As evidenced by our laxity when it came to national defense. After Pearl Harbor, however, we had no choice but to swing into action--not to annihilate those who are different, but to defeat Japan and restore the peace. The Filipinos were "different" too, of course, so did we take time out to annihilate them? Um, no.

Likewise with the current conflicts. Prior to September 11, far from setting out to annihilate those who are "different," we protected Muslims in Bosnia, tried to save Somalians from the warlords, and rescued Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Notwithstanding endless provocations, Americans were happy to leave it at that until Islamic terrorists murdered 3,000 Americans. Once again, we had to swing into action. So, did we "annihilate" those "different" Afghans and Iraqis? No, we established democracies and tried to bring both of those countries into the modern world by, among other things, liberating their women. How can a person of normal intelligence, as Hanks no doubt is, be so blind to reality? Presumably it has to do with swimming in the perverse, liberal water of Hollywood.

Far worse is Matt Damon's upcoming Green Zone, which will open on Friday. Green Zone is history as imagined at the Daily Kos and Democratic Underground. The film is a fevered portrayal of a fictional world in which the CIA warned President Bush that Saddam had no WMDs and in which Sunni insurgents are heroic patriots who are brutally targeted by evil American death squads. Kyle Smith concludes, in the New York Post:

"Green Zone" isn't cinema. It's slander. It will go down in history as one of the most egregiously anti-American movies ever released by a major studio.

The only consolation, I suppose, is that Green Zone will lose a fortune. But that hardly matters: someday soon, it will be taken as history.

Via Repubclic.

1. Does Hollywood Make You Stupid?
2. Tom Hanks: America Wants to ‘Annihilate’ Terrorists Because ‘They’re Different’
3. The Real ClimateGate: Who’s Stupid, Hu’s Not

It's a good thing Kennedy is retiring at the end of his current term.

Via Sister Toldjah.

1. Report: Liberal Dem George Stephanopoulos Edging Out Liberal Dem Chris Cuomo for Anchor Slot
2. Chris Matthews: What’s Wrong With the Word Liberal…I’m a Liberal’
3. ABC Reportedly Offers Morning Show Slot to Liberal Democrat Stephanopoulos; Will Liberal Democrat Cuomo Leave?

Compliments sometimes come from strange places, but you'll take them where you can get them, no?

It seems that Fox News' March 10 "Glenn Beck" program, in which host Glenn Beck interviewed former Rep. Eric Massa, D-N.Y., captured the attention of both the left and the right. And it may have even put to rest some of the misconceptions about Beck, which are mostly generated by outfits that operate with just out-of-context sound bites.

"Let me tell you something," "Morning Joe" co-host Joe Scarborough said on his March 11 program. "[Beck] was not on his heels. He just - he played straight-man and Donny Deutsch, he was - he did it very, very well.

And surprisingly, MSNBC regular Donny Deutsch, who rarely has good things to say about conservatives, agreed.
"Beck actually helped his brand a lot because he went from the crazy idiot to kind of a good interviewer, you know what I mean," Deutsch said. "And you know - you couldn't help but not enjoy Glenn Beck yesterday - speaking from the extreme left."

Beck had won both conservatives and liberals over when at the end of his Massa interview he said he apologized for having "wasted an hour of your time" on his March 9 program.

Deutsch isn't known for having much compassion for conservatives. He recently referred to Florida U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio with a racially charged description, a "coconut." And he had a very harsh critique of former Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback Tim Tebow's pro-life ad, comparing it to a gay-dating spot.

1. Video: Beck, Michelle Malkin go toe to toe over Massa interview
2. Glenn Beck on Massa Interview: “Sorry For Wasting Your Time America” (Video)
3. Beck: Massa ‘Lied’ in Pre-Interview, ‘I Almost Threw Him Out’ — By: Daniel Foster