Over at The Jury Talks Back, aunursa says that CNN can’t figure out why the terrorists attacked a Jewish center.

It’s not terribly surprising that they’re surprised. I’ll never forget how, after a Muslim terrorist shot up a Jewish Center in Seattle, the L.A. Times ran a box on the front page saying that the gunman’s motive was a “mystery”:

The story contained clues, such as the fact that the gunman targeted the Jewish Center after conducting a “cursory Internet search for Jewish organizations.” Or the witness who said the man had screamed “I am a Muslim American, angry at Israel!” before opening fire.

I swear I am not making up those facts, or the fact that the L.A. Times declared the gunman’s motives a “mystery” in the face of that evidence.

I guess these media types just keep getting mystified.

[Guest post by DRJ]

The AP reports that some view Obama’s election as proof the black civil rights struggle is over and believe now it’s time for the focus to be on gay rights:

“The gay rights movement entered a new era when Barack Obama was elected the first black president the same day that voters in California and Florida passed referendums to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying, while Arizonans turned down civil unions and Arkansans said no to adoptions by same-sex couples.

Racism was defanged by Obama’s triumph, leaving gays as perhaps the last group of Americans claiming that their basic rights are being systematically denied.”

It would help gays to have black support but I doubt that will happen since few blacks support same-sex marriage and it’s unclear how many agree their civil rights struggle is over.

An Obama win coupled with the loss of these initiatives must make gays feel like they took one step forward and two steps back … but I don’t see any evidence that Obama will be a strong advocate for same-sex marriage. It sounds like the formula for an unhappy partnership.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

The Indian doctors at the Mumbai hospital where the dead Jewish hostages were taken say the hostages were tortured:

“The other doctor, who had also conducted the post-mortem of the victims, said: “Of all the bodies, the Israeli victims bore the maximum torture marks. It was clear that they were killed on the 26th itself. It was obvious that they were tied up and tortured before they were killed. It was so bad that I do not want to go over the details even in my head again,” he said.”

The dead terrorists at the Jewish Center were also mutilated:

“The doctors who conducted the post mortem said the bodies of the terrorists were beyond recognition. “Their faces were beyond recognition.”

There was no way of identifying them,” he said. Asked how, if this is the case, they knew the bodies were indeed those of the terrorists, he said: “The security forces that brought the bodies told us that those were the bodies of the terrorists,” he said, adding there was no other way they could have identified the bodies.

An intelligence agency source added: “One of the terrorists was shot through either eye.”

A senior National Security Guard officer, who had earlier explained the operation in detail to rediff.com, said the commandos went all out after they ascertained that there were no more hostages left. When asked if the commandos attempted to capture them alive at that stage, he replied: “Unko bachana kaun chahega (Who will want to save them)?”

One of the reasons terrorism is so dangerous to society is that it targets innocents in ways that are both cruel and public. This not only enrages us but also makes us feel powerless, feelings that are more likely to lead to revenge against the terrorists and those who help them. And who, indeed, will want to save them?

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

“I think it would prevent a lot of parental frustration.”

Because it’s really about the parents.

– DRJ

(Note: “Now You Tell Us”™ is a semi-regular feature of this site, documenting examples of the Los Angeles Times’s disclosure of negative information about Barack Obama that didn’t come out during the election.)

The L.A. Times reveals a truth many of us already knew, but that the electorate at large evidently did not — namely, that Obama’s course is not likely to be centrist:

Labor unions, environmentalists and other liberal groups are eagerly preparing for new confrontations with business and conservative interests. They feel secure in having allies in Washington’s power centers, 14 years after Democrats last controlled Congress and the White House. (And some consider the exile even longer, dating from Ronald Reagan’s 1980 election, because President Clinton’s course was largely centrist and he had only two years with a Democratic majority in Congress.)

It’s OK to say . . . now that he’s safely elected.

(Previous entries here and here.)

They did everything they could. Except put extra security at the back door:

The Taj Mahal hotel in Mumbai, India, temporarily increased security after being warned of a possible terrorist attack, the chairman of the company that owns the hotel said Saturday.

But Tata Group Chairman Ratan Tata said those measures, which were eased shortly before this week’s terror attacks, could not have prevented gunmen from entering the hotel.

. . . .

However, Tata said the attackers did not enter through the entrance that has a metal detector. Instead, they came in a back entrance, he said.

“They knew what they were doing, and they did not go through the front. All of our arrangements are in the front,” he said.

Who would ever think terrorists would come in the back door?!?!

P.S. Mickey’s friend says the back door was locked. Well, there you have it, then. They must have teleported in.

Anyone getting a thrill up their leg?

The L.A. Times Top of the Ticket blog reports: Obama’s small donor base image is a myth, new study reveals.

Everybody knows how President-elect Barack Obama’s amazing campaign money machine was dominated by several million regular folks sending in hard-earned amounts under $200, a real sign of his broadbased grassroots support.

Except, it turns out, that’s not really true. . .. . [T]he nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute just issued a detailed study of Obama’s donor base and its giving. And that’s what the Institute found, to its own surprise.

“The myth is that money from small donors dominated Barack Obama’s finances,” said CFI’s executive director Michael Malbin, admitting that his organization also was fooled. “The reality of Obama’s fundraising was impressive, but the reality does not match the myth.”

Who woulda thunk it?

Well, OK. Even without the benefit of a New Study, the Washington Post and this here blog were reporting this in October. Before the election . . . when it mattered.

At the L.A. Times blog, Andrew Malcolm says: “[W]e’ll see how broad-based news coverage of this real reality is.”

Well, we already saw how broad-based the coverage was before the election.

[Posted by Karl]

The storyline of the past week or two has been the general lack of changeyness visible in Barack Obama’s picks as nominees for his incoming administration.  The other day, Allahpundit wrote that “the only ones who got screwed thus far were the far-Left groups that bought into the Hope and Change populism and thought Obama would start a new Golden Age of Progressivism.”

However, a hint of Change surfaced today with word that Samantha Power has crawled out from under Obama’s campaign bus:

A former adviser to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign who once called Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton a “monster” is now working on the transition team for the agency that Clinton may lead.

At the time, I noted that the “monster” comment was likely only part of the reason for the Power outage, with more realistic Kinsleyian gaffes about how quickly US troops could be drawn down in Iraq being another factor.  Power stood by those comments and even hinted she could return after the election.

Power seems to be making her comeback, so it is worth reminding everyone that she is a virulently anti-Israel academic who has supported, among other things, imposing and enforcing a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a commitment of US troops.

Now that would be very changey indeed.

– Karl

[Guest post by DRJ]

A Long Island Walmart maintenance man was killed this morning as shoppers trampled him entering the store for Black Friday specials:

“He was bum-rushed by 200 people,” said Jimmy Overby, 43, a co-worker. “They took the doors off the hinges. He was trampled and killed in front of me. They took me down too…I literally had to fight people off my back.”

The unidentified victim was rushed to an area hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 6:03 a.m., police said.

Unbelievable.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

The Indian government claims that up to 7 of the Mumbai terrorists were British-born Pakistanis from the same area as the 7/7 attackers:

“British-born Pakistanis were among the Mumbai terrorists, Indian government sources claimed today, as the death toll rose to at least 155.

As many as seven of the terrorists may have British connections and some could be from Leeds and Bradford where London’s July 7 bombers lived, one source said.

Two Britons were among eight gunmen being held, according to Mumbai’s chief minister Vilasrao Deshmukh. At least nine others are reportedly dead.”

British PM Gordon Brown urged caution while the reports are investigated.

Meanwhile, there are continued reports of explosions in Mumbai and of a resumption of gunfire at the Taj Mahal Hotel where “officers were still locked in combat with up to six militants believed to be holed up in the ballroom.” (Other reports say there may be a lone gunman.) There are also stories of heroism by the hotel staff who put their own lives at risk to save innocent guests.

Sadly, there was tragic news from a Mumbai Jewish Center where 5 Jewish hostages were killed including Brooklyn NY Rabbi Gavriel Noach Holtzberg and his wife, Rivkah. Their 2-year-old son Moshe survived.

It’s too early to know with certainty but it appears terrorists came ashore from boats and moved to pre-designated targets where they used small arms and explosives to terrorize the city. It reminds me of a terrorist version of the Luby’s shooting in Killeen, Texas. If so, it could happen anywhere.

UPDATE: The terror is over after 60 hours and it appears there may have only been 10 terrorists, most or all of whom were from Pakistan. The sole surviving terror suspect (photo at this link) claims they were trying to recreate 9/11 in India.

One photographer claims the police were ineffective at killing or capturing the terrorists. If this is true, I don’t think it would happen in the U.S.

– DRJ

In 2002, a federal judge chairing a committee on information technology wrote that software disabled by Judge Alex Kozinski was an “integral part” of the “security apparatus” of the federal courts’ data communication network, and that its disabling caused considerable “security risks” to court computer security.

For those of you who are interested the recent ethics complaint against Judge Kozinski, accusing him of disabling court security software in 2001, Howard Bashman has posted the complaint online here. The complaint was filed by L. Ralph Mecham, former head of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

In connection with that complaint, Cyrus Sanai passes along to me a letter that he says was sent to him by Mecham. The letter is dated May 10, 2002. It is from the late Edwin Nelson, a federal judge who was the chair of a 14-judge committee called the “Committee on Information Technology.” The letter is addressed to U.S. Rep. Howard Coble, then the chairman of a House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.

The most interesting part of the letter is at page 4, regarding Kozinski’s disabling of the intrusion detection system for the judicial branch’s Data Communications Network (DCN):

Note that Judge Nelson says the disabling was authorized by the “Executive Committee of the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council.” Exactly who was on that Executive Committee is not clear.

I’m not aware of this letter having been published before.