News Corp. and Dow Jones Seal the Deal

It's official.

The Wall Street Journal and FOX News are siblings of the same parent company, News Corp.

Rupert Murdoch has sealed a deal to buy Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones & Co. for $5 billion, ending a century of family ownership and adding a crown jewel to his global media empire, News Corp.

The companies said in the wee hours of Wednesday morning that they signed a definitive merger agreement after the deal won sufficient support to pass from a deeply divided Bancroft family, which has controlled the storied newspaper publisher for generations.

Murdoch is getting one of the great trophies of U.S. journalism and a newspaper that is considered required reading among the business and power elite.

The deal will also expand Murdoch's already massive global media and entertainment empire News Corp., which owns the Fox broadcast network, Fox News Channel, the Twentieth Century Fox movie and TV studio, MySpace, newspapers in Australia and the U.K., and several satellite TV broadcasters.

Dow Jones and News Corp. said in a statement that Bancroft family members and trustees representing 37 percent of the company's shareholder vote have agreed to support the deal. Combined with the 29 percent of the vote held by public shareholders, who are very likely to support Murdoch, the deal is now assured of passing.

I wonder if fringe Lefties will organize a boycott and demand that Democrat presidential candidates shun the Wall Street Journal.

The New York Times, the Left's propaganda rag, mourns the sale and fears that conservatives are taking over the world!

Read all about it!!!

Combined with the planned beginning of the Fox business news channel in October, the purchase of Dow Jones makes Mr. Murdoch the most formidable figure in business news coverage in this country, perhaps worldwide.

It also gives a larger voice in national affairs to an owner whose properties often mirror his own conservative politics.

OOOooooh! Scary!

John Edwards: "It's the Internet, Stupid"

Presidential wannabe John Edwards thinks that he can gauge his prospects for success by monitoring traffic to his website.

From The New York Times:

Most presidential campaigns mark their progress by how they are doing in the polls and how much money they are raising.

John Edwards’s campaign has another barometer of success: a 90-day calendar that tracks, in a jumble of red, green and black numbers, the spikes and dips in traffic to the campaign’s Web site. The calendar is taped on the wall of Joe Trippi, a senior campaign adviser, who can connect each spike to some effort to stir voters, including the video Mr. Edwards showed at a Democratic debate mocking the media for writing about his $400 haircut, and the time Elizabeth Edwards confronted the conservative commentator Ann Coulter on television.

After running a decidedly traditional race for the White House in 2004 and in the early stages of this contest, Mr. Edwards has quietly overhauled his campaign with one central goal: to harness the Internet and the political energy that liberal Democrats are sending coursing through it. In a slow but striking power shift, advisers who champion the political power of the Web have eclipsed the coterie of advisers who long dominated Mr. Edwards’s inner circle, both reflecting and intensifying his transformation into a more populist, aggressive candidate.

...“The Internet is the principal way we are communicating with voters right now,” Mrs. Edwards said in an interview.

...These days the Edwards campaign has taken on the appearance of Dean 2.0, and listening to Mr. Edwards is often akin to reading the postings on an angry blog.

...“Yeah, there are a bunch of differences,” Mr. Trippi said in an interview at the headquarters in Chapel Hill. “It was — it is — a more traditional campaign than the Dean campaign. The one thing is in a strange way, Edwards and Elizabeth — Elizabeth in particular, but Edwards, too — get it that the old way doesn’t work. That you need to use the Internet, blogs, technology, YouTube, to reach out to people.”

I love this statement: "[L]istening to Mr. Edwards is often akin to reading the postings on an angry blog."

Edwards projects more than just that foaming at the mouth anger of Lefty blogs. He taps into their extremism, their love of socialism, their anti-Americanism.

I think it's funny that The Times does this long piece on Edwards and the Internet without even mentioning the Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan fiasco.

Read about the slimy cyber-trail that caused these two bigoted, vulgar bloggers, hired by the Edwards campaign specifically for their Internet skills, to resign in shame.

Yes, that ugly episode was conveniently omitted.

There's another thing that's a bit odd about all this talk about the 2008 Election being the first presidential race to be run on the Internet.

It's very elitist.

When Edwards went on his Poverty Tour, did the people he talked to all have laptops? While there are millions of voters that do a lot of living online, they're offset by the millions of voters that don't have access to computers or don't care to use the Internet.

Edwards should know better. There are two Americas. One is online, and one isn't.

If the Edwards campaign thinks that hits on his site are a measure of people buying into his message, then I'm afraid he's in for a disappointment.

Based on Internet traffic, I think Paris Hilton would be the front-runner right now.

Tom Barrett and the Neighborhood Safety Initiative

Milwaukee's Mayor Tom Barrett surfaced to make a public appearance on Monday.

He wanted everyone to know that the Neighborhood Safety Initiative has produced positive results.

Non-fatal shootings in city down 22%

An anti-crime initiative that put Milwaukee police on patrol in some of the city's most dangerous neighborhoods this summer received credit on Monday for a nearly 22% drop in non-fatal shootings as well as a decrease in overall homicides during 2007.

So far, the Neighborhood Safety Initiative is working, police and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett said during a news conference outside the District 3 police station near N. 49th St. and W. Lisbon Ave.

"With the effort put forth on this initiative, the bad guys are starting to get the message: If we catch you, you are definitely going to jail," Milwaukee police Deputy Chief Brian O'Keefe said.

Barrett got a firsthand look at the program by going out on patrols with officers Saturday. The mayor and police touted drops in violent crimes as a measure of success for the $2 million program, which began just before Memorial Day and is to run through Sept. 8.

Police noted that between Jan. 6 and July 29 this year, there have been 275 non-fatal shootings, down from 351 during the same period in 2006. Those numbers are "raw" and still under review but should not change appreciably, said police spokeswoman Anne E. Schwartz.

Since May, 1,447 people have been arrested. Other figures included 110 firearms recovered, 50 of those involving felons possessing firearms.

Police and crime experts argue that the true measure of gun violence in a community is the total number of shootings, not homicides. That is because any shooting could become a killing, depending on a bullet's path and medical treatment.

Barrett noted that the drop in non-fatal shootings affected six of seven police districts, with the exception of No. 1, near downtown, in which there was no change. It had two shootings in each year.

"We have put dozens of police officers on the street. I think that they have been successful in helping us to reduce the violence in the city," Barrett said.

...The mayor further noted that the city's homicide year-to-date figures are down by 20 from 2005, when there were 77 homicides by July 29.

"That is still too many," he said. "I am not satisfied with the results, but I think we have to point out where we are making progress."

A couple things--

1. It should come as no surprise that more police means less crime.

2. What's going to happen on September 8, the scheduled date for the program to end?

In effect, the city is tipping off the thugs, giving them a timeline for the withdrawal of police forces. That's not good.

While it's good news that the mayor and the police can cite figures showing that the Neighborhood Safety Initiative has been effective, it's bad news that the stepped-up patrols will soon draw down.

Don't the figures reveal that the city needs those extra patrols on the streets?

Yes.

I agree with the mayor's statement that the level of violence in the city is still too high.

Since the news conference, there have been more shootings and homicides.

Ramon Spokes died early Tuesday after being shot multiple times.

A 29-year-old man was shot about 12:39 a.m. Tuesday.

A shooting that occurred about 4:19 a.m. in the 5000 block of W. Chambers St. is being investigated as accidental, according to police. A 27-year-old man was shot while sitting in the driver's seat of a car where a 28-year-old man in the backseat fired a bullet that went through the seat.

A 19-year-old man was shot at 7:40 p.m. Tuesday.

This violence, of course, is occurring with the Neighborhood Safety Initiative police patrols in place.

Frank Rich is Dale Gribble

Since George W. Bush took office, I can't read a Frank Rich column without thinking of Dale Gribble from King of the Hill.

Dale is a complete wacko and totally paranoid when it comes to the government. Everything is a conspiracy. Nothing is what it seems. No one in the government is to be trusted.

One of Dale's favorite quotes: "Guns don't kill people. The Government does."

Rich's writings are as off the wall and loony as Dale's theories about aliens, anal probes, and government plots to get him.

Rich's Sunday column has that Dale Gribble edge, "Who Really Took Over During That Colonoscopy."

I kid you not. That's the title of his column.

He writes:

There was, of course, gallows humor galore when Dick Cheney briefly grabbed the wheel of our listing ship of state during the presidential colonoscopy last weekend. Enjoy it while it lasts. A once-durable staple of 21st-century American humor is in its last throes. We have a new surrogate president now. Sic transit Cheney. Long live David Petraeus!

It was The Washington Post that first quantified General Petraeus’s remarkable ascension. President Bush, who mentioned his new Iraq commander’s name only six times as the surge rolled out in January, has cited him more than 150 times in public utterances since, including 53 in May alone.

As always with this White House’s propaganda offensives, the message in Mr. Bush’s relentless repetitions never varies. General Petraeus is the “main man.” He is the man who gives “candid advice.” Come September, he will be the man who will give the president and the country their orders about the war.

And so another constitutional principle can be added to the long list of those junked by this administration: the quaint notion that our uniformed officers are supposed to report to civilian leadership. In a de facto military coup, the commander in chief is now reporting to the commander in Iraq. We must “wait to see what David has to say,” Mr. Bush says.

Actually, we don’t have to wait. We already know what David will say. He gave it away to The Times of London last month, when he said that September “is a deadline for a report, not a deadline for a change in policy.” In other words: Damn the report (and that irrelevant Congress that will read it) - full speed ahead.

...On Tuesday - a week after the National Intelligence Estimate warned of the resurgence of bin Laden’s Qaeda in Pakistan - Mr. Bush gave a speech in which he continued to claim that “Al Qaeda in Iraq” makes Iraq the central front in the war on terror. He mentioned Al Qaeda 95 times but Pakistan and Pervez Musharraf not once. Two days later, his own top intelligence officials refused to endorse his premise when appearing before Congress. They are all too familiar with the threats that are building to a shrill pitch this summer.

Should those threats become a reality while America continues to be bogged down in Iraq, this much is certain: It will all be the fault of President Petraeus.

Dale Gribble.

Frank Rich drivel.

I see very little difference.

Joe Biden and David Letterman

On Tuesday, Joe Biden was a guest on Late Night with David Letterman.

He was the second guest and was given just one short segment.

He seemed to be there more to plug his new book rather than as a presidential candidate. (I know. I forget that he's running for president, too.)

Serious presidential contenders don't get put in the second spot.

The book, Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics, is a whopping 400 pages. That doesn't compare with Bill Clinton's 1008-page My Life, but Biden has less explaining to do.

It was sort of strange when Biden talked about his first days as a U.S. senator. He spoke of the deaths of his wife and daughter in an accident just after he was elected.

He said he started off his time in Washington "in a bad mood."

"Bad mood" was a bad choice of words.

When Letterman asked how he managed to go on, he spoke about his experience at length, relatively speaking given the confines of his short time allotment. It was a very heavy topic.

They switched gears very suddenly, probably because the segment was so brief. Letterman brought up the plagiarism charge. Biden brushed it off as a mistake. (I hope he used lots of footnotes in his massive new book. )

Needless to say, this was not a light-hearted interview.

Then, Biden referred to his cranial aneurysms and that his odds of survival weren't good.

Shockingly, Biden actually said that he thought his odds of becoming president were good.

He should have just said, "I am clinically delusional."

Maurice Hinchey

Maurice Hinchey, congressman from New York, has joined forces with Russ Feingold, embarrassment from Wisconsin.

Congressman To Offer House Legislation As Companion To Feingold's Censure Resolutions In The Senate

Saying that the time has come for Congress to formally condemn the Bush administration for falsifying its justification to attack Iraq, mismanaging the subsequent military occupation, and egregiously abusing the Constitution, Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) today announced that he will soon introduce two resolutions in the House to censure President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other senior administration officials. Hinchey's resolutions in the House will be companions to the censure resolutions U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) will be introducing in the Senate. Feingold and Hinchey are currently working to develop language for the censure resolutions that will attract the broadest support and plan to introduce the measures next week.

"The American people have reached a breaking point with this administration and they are demanding that Congress step up and hold the president, vice president, and others in the executive branch responsible for their actions," Hinchey said. "While President Bush and Vice President Cheney continue to operate as if they are leaders of a monarchy, Congress should censure them and make it clear to this and future generations that their actions are entirely unacceptable. If Congress does not act to formally admonish this White House then the future of our democracy will be placed on a slippery slope in which other presidents may point to the actions of this administration as justification for further abuses of the Constitution. Congress cannot allow such abuses of power and law, which is why Senator Feingold and I will soon introduce these censure resolutions."

...Hinchey and Feingold, who first announced his plans to offer the censure resolutions in the Senate on Sunday, are continuing to draft the censure resolutions and are actively soliciting the input and support of their colleagues as well as their constituents and the American people at large.

Hinchey's site also has a statement from Censure nutjob-in-Chief Russ Feingold:

“Congressman Hinchey has been a strong voice in opposition to the President’s policies in Iraq and in defense of the Constitution. I thank Congressman Hinchey for his willingness to stand up to this administration for its misleading statements leading up to and during our military involvement in Iraq, as well as its attack on the rule of law. I am working with Congressman Hinchey and others in crafting these censure resolutions condemning the damaging actions of this administration. Censure is about holding the administration accountable. Congress must be on the record repudiating the administration’s misconduct, both for the American people, and for history.”

Yes, Hinchey and Feingold are two peas in a pod, or if you wish, two nuts in the same shell.

Under "Latest Isssues," from Russ Feingold's senate website:

This Administration has led an assault on the rule of law and misled our nation into a war with Iraq and must be held accountable.

That is why I am introducing two censure resolutions condemning the President, Vice President and others within the administration.

For more details, watch my appearance on NBC's Meet the Press , watch or read my questioning of Attorney General Gonzales, or read my blog about the censure resolutions I plan to offer.

I have heard from many people in my home state of Wisconsin as well as from across the country about the need for accountability. As I draft these censure resolutions, I invite you to email me your ideas and suggestions of what to include in these resolutions to hold the Administration accountable.

I'm not surprised that Hinchey and Feingold are working together.

Hinchey is a far Left loon. Birds of a feather....

On Mark Levin's show today, Hinchey was a guest.

He tried to be cool, but was incoherent.

One thing he was clear about was this: Hinchey said, "We're not in the middle of a war."

That says all you need to know. Hinchey is another one of those Democrat foreign policy dolts.

War? What war?

To get an idea of the sort of congressman that Hinchey is, read the transcript from Hinchey's July 19 appearance on MSNBC with Tucker Carlson.

He discusses the Fairness Doctrine and his desire to tread on Americans' right of free speech.

It's funny that libs like Hinchey whine about the civil rights abuses of the Bush administration at the same time they argue about the need to trample on our rights.

"Funny" isn't the right word. "Hypocritical" is better.

And now you know a little about Russ' new friend.

Faith Hill, Tim McGraw, and Concert Video

June 25, 2008: "Trouble finds Tim McGraw at Washington show"
____________________

It was the concert from hell for Faith Hill and Tim McGraw.

Lafayette, Louisiana's Cajundome was the site of a rather unpleasant evening for the couple.

First, a fan pulled a ring off Tim McGraw's hand while he was performing a song. During the song, McGraw said, "Give me my ring back," and signaled security for help.

Watch video of the incident here.

(Note: sweet4mcgraw disputes the stolen ring story reported by KATC.

"And to comment about the ring incident. The lady didn't take Tim's ring. It had fallen off earlier and Tim noticed at that moment it was gone and 'assumed' it was stolen. It was a HUGE misunderstanding. The security had found it on the stage, I believe was said. I know this bc I'm a Tim McGraw fan club member and a fan that WAS there and WAS sitting right by this girl SAW everything")

There's more.

WKRN reports:

The couple was doing an encore song at the lowest level of the stage when a female fan groped McGraw.

That set off Hill.

..."Somebody needs to teach you..."

Right the fan’s face Hill said, "Somebody needs to teach you some class my friend."

Hill paused and then said, “You don't go grabbing' somebody else's… somebody's husbands privates, you understand me?”

This is a bit inaccurate. Hill didn't say "privates." She was more specific than that.

After another pause she said, “That's very disrespectful."

It certainly is disrespectful.

In Wisconsin, I think that would be fourth degree sexual assault.

KATC3 has an interview with Lori Poiencot, the woman that captured on video Hill reprimanding the unruly fan with the wandering hands.

Naturally, that video ended up on YouTube and TMZ.

Poiencot pulled the YouTube posting, but the one on TMZ can be seen here.



So was Hill out of line to berate the fan?

Of course not.

I don't think there's any question about it.

Was her choice of words a bit crass and out of line?

Certainly not as out of line as the fan's behavior.

Poiencot's video of Hill's reaction could bring her some big bucks.

Poiencot shot the video that shows Hill spouting off on a fan who grabbed her husband's crotch on stage.

"You don't go grabbin' somebody else's -- somebody's husband's... you understand me? that's very disrespectful," said Hill to the crowd of 11,000. "It was surreal - we didn't think she was saying that but she was speaking so clearly - we realized she really was sticking up for her husband," says Poiencot.

Monday morning - Poiencot and her fiance put the video up on YouTube. Before they removed it later in the day it received 80,000 hits. It's still up on tmz.com - and now Poiencot has signed an agreement to get a share of the revenue if it's sold overseas or to the tabloids.

Lori Poiencot admits she questioned Hill's choice of words - but she believes the video shows the country star in a positive light - fighting for her husband. "I think the people of Lafayette are really good people and I don't think that incident should hold them back from coming."

The video is all over the web, and could appear on ABC's Jimmy Kimmel Live Tuesday night. Cajundome director Greg Davis does not expect the incident to make musicians think twice about coming to Lafayette. He says no one was thrown out of the concert, and the production went off without a hitch.

This incident brings to mind Beyonce's fall seen 'round the world, courtesy of the Internet.

Sony BMG claimed copyright infringement and tried, unsuccessfuly, to purge the web of images of Beyonce tumbling down a flight of stairs. It was a futile attempt.

As far as I know, Warner Bros., Hill's label, didn't respond in the same manner at all.

There's no difference between the two incidents in terms of a fan capturing a moment at an artist's concert and posting the video on the Internet.

Poiencot even signed an agreement to profit from her video.

Warner Bros. doesn't seem to mind.

Interesting.

Warner Bros. doesn't have a problem with footage being circulated of Hill telling a fan to keep her paws off her husband's "balls."

Sony couldn't bear the thought of footage being circulated of Beyonce falling during a concert.

Bottom line:

---The offending fan should be charged and face the consequences for the grope. The fan deserves more than just humiliation as a punishment. The price of admission to the concert doesn't include grabbing the star's crotch.

---Faith Hill did the right thing.

---Sony BMG is far more oppressive and heavy handed when it comes to dealing with fans than Warner Bros.

Stacy Schulz

Stacy Schulz: Daddy's little girl

Many teens have issues with their parents. Relationships can be pretty rocky.

Stacy Schulz responded to her frustration and dissatisfaction with her father in an unusual manner.

She allegedly faked a robbery to scare her parents.

Warning: Don't try this at home.

GREENFIELD -- Police say a 17-year-old girl requested that a friend break into her own home. She told police she did it because she hated her father.

Stacy Schultz [sic] reportedly admitted to police that she asked a 16-year-old boy and his 14-year-old brother to break into the house and steal from her parents while they slept.

On Thursday around 4 a.m., the 16-year-old carried out the home invasion. After the daughter let him in, according to a police report, he went to the parents' bedroom, waved a gun while holding his a t-shirt up over his nose and mouth and demanded money and guns.

The mother, Brenda Schultz, directed him to a jewelry box, from which he stole about 50 pieces of jewelry.

Detectives searched through phone records and found a call pattern between the known suspect and Stacy Schultz. After going to the suspect's house, they found stolen items from the burglarized home.

Stacy Schultz was charged with party to armed robbery Monday.

...The two Milwaukee brothers with whom Stacy Schultz allegedly conspired were placed in a juvenile detention facility.

Stacy Schulz and her accomplices aren't too bright.

How could she think that she could pull off this stunt without getting caught? Why would the brothers agree to participate?

She must be quite good at manipulating people. The fact that she could convince the brothers to take part in her lamebrained plan is an indication of that.

It sounds like Stacy Schulz would have had a bright future in sales had she used her talents wisely. Instead, she's in jail.

This apparently was quite literally a rude awakening for Stacy's parents, Joseph and Brenda Schulz of Greenfield.

On Monday, Mr. Schulz said, "I've been traumatized, and I don't want to think it was my own flesh and blood that did it."

The best thing that Mr. and Mrs. Schulz could do for their daughter is to let the legal system mete out a punishment and not protect her from the consequences of her crime.

It would also be the best thing for society.

Chief Justice John Roberts

The ugliness of the Left shouldn't surprise me anymore, but there are always new lows.

When news spread that Chief Justice John Roberts had suffered a seizure, so did the really despicable comments of the fringe Leftist nutjobs.

WASHINGTON -- Chief Justice John Roberts suffered a seizure at his summer home in Maine on Monday, causing a fall that resulted in minor scrapes, Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said.

He will remain in a hospital in Maine overnight.

"It's my understanding he's fully recovered, said Christopher Burke, a spokesman for Penobscot Bay Medical Center, where Roberts was taken.

Roberts, 52, was taken by ambulance to the medical center, where he underwent a "thorough neurological evaluation, which revealed no cause for concern," Arberg said in a statement.

Roberts had a similar episode in 1993, she said.

Doctors called Monday's incident "a benign idiopathic seizure," Arberg said. The White House described the January 1993 episode as an "isolated, idiosyncratic seizure." Both descriptions indicate that doctors could not determine the seizure's cause or link it to another medical condition. For example, doctors would have quickly ruled out simple explanations such as dehydration or low blood sugar.

...Medical opinions differed on just what Roberts' seizures mean.

Someone who has had more than one seizure without any other cause is determined to have epilepsy, said Dr. Marc Schlosberg, a neurologist at Washington Hospital Center, who is not involved in the Roberts' case.

Whether Roberts will need anti-seizure medications to prevent another is something he and his doctor will have to decide. But after two seizures, the likelihood of another at some point is greater than 60 percent. "When it's going to occur, obviously nobody knows," Schlosberg said.

Thankfully, Roberts didn't seriously injure himself in the fall and there doesn't seem to be any cause for concern in terms of the seizure. That's all good news.

It's no big deal if Roberts needs to be on medication. It certainly seems like a manageable condition.

It bugs me that the libs are implying that Roberts lied about his health. For example, the headlines on The Huffington Post play up the negative.

Had First Seizure In 1993…60 Percent Likelihood Of Another…
Roberts Called His Health “Excellent”

It's true that Roberts had his first seizure in '93. It was his ONLY seizure until Monday.

Eight years later and without any other seizures, it doesn't seem odd to me that "[i]n 2001, Roberts described his health as 'excellent,' according to Senate Judiciary Committee records."

They're acting like he was trying to cover up a medical condition. Until this second seizure, 14 years after the first, there was no "condition." One isn't considered to have epilepsy without experiencing two or more seizures.

There was no cover-up.

Furthermore, why stress the odds of Roberts having another seizure? It seems the lunatic libs are trying to fool the public into believing that Roberts is unfit to serve. Of course, that's ridiculous.

The libs didn't demand that Janet Reno be replaced because she has a degenerative medical condition. She stayed on as Attorney General even though she was diagnosed with Parkison's disease in the fall of 1995. Reno was placed on medication after her diagnosis. So what?

A particularly offensive reaction to the news of Roberts' health issue comes from Wonkette.

Kathryn Jean Lopez points out an "Internet rumor" that appears on the site:

Chief Justice John Roberts has died in his summer home in Maine. No, not really, but we know you have your fingers crossed. [Talking Points Memo]

What a disgrace!

That's far from the only disgusting reaction circulating on the Internet.
____________________________

Daily Takes has some choice comments from that lib cesspool Democratic Underground.

They really are sickos. A decent person doesn't act that way.

Jason Schwaller and Kimberly Huebner

The parents, Jason Schwaller and Kimberly Huebner, of the sexually abused little girl are speaking out.

From The Sheboygan Press:

Choking back tears at times, the father of a now 11-month old girl who was sexually assaulted in June said Monday he hopes whoever committed the crime “gets punished to the fullest extent of the law,” and reiterated his plea for the community to help find the person responsible.

“This little 11-month-old girl I’m holding right now never deserved this,” said Jason Schwaller, 25, of Waldo, the infant’s father, at a late-afternoon news conference in front of the Sheboygan County Court House. “She didn’t do anything wrong to anybody. She’s helpless. No child or parents should have to go through this.”

It was the first time the parents, Schwaller and Kimberly Huebner, 27, of Adell, spoke publicly since news of the assault broke late last week.

...A representative of Our Lady of the Lakes Church has said he does not believe the assault occurred at the day care center, but the parents of the baby girl believe someone at the center may be responsible.

“What we do know is that she was dropped off healthy and when she was picked up, she wasn’t in the same condition, a condition that required reconstructive surgery,” Schwaller said.

...Investigators have served search warrants on the day-care center, 429 Third St., and the Our Lady of the Lakes Church offices, 230 Butler St., also in Random Lake. A search warrant was also served on the home of the day care center’s supervisor, who lives in Fond du Lac County.

The baby girl suffered injuries consistent with sexual penetration that required reconstructive surgery, doctors said in an affidavit filed with the three search warrants.

This is such an awful crime.

I don't know how anyone could do that to an innocent child.

Wearing a wide-brimmed, floppy pink hat and a white outfit with a doily pattern, the infant girl sucked quietly on a green pacifier during the news conference, with her eyes closed, held alternately by her father and mother.

“She’s healed up very well, she’s doing good,” Schwaller said. “She still has more doctor visits, many to follow. But they said she’s doing good. She’s happy to be home. She’s been playing and laughing and giggling …”

Schwaller and Huebner said they hoped the news conference might bring in tips to help investigators locate the person who committed the crime, possibly from someone recognizing the infant girl at the day care center.

The parents trotted out the baby before the cameras in hopes that someone might recognize her?

I don't think the floppy hat was a good idea if that's the case. It hid her face. They should have given the media a photo.

“Any information that they might have, even if they think it’s insignificant, might not be as insignificant as they think,” Huebner said. “It might be a missing piece to the puzzle.”

The baby was at the day care center on June 26 from 6:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. the day of the assault when Schwaller picked up the child. The injuries were discovered later that day by the baby’s grandmother, who found blood in the girl’s diaper and extensive bruising and tearing of her vaginal area while changing a diaper.

Schwaller said there was an error in the affidavit, which said the baby’s grandmother discovered the injuries at 10 p.m. that night, but he said he could not discuss the timeline of that day’s events because of the ongoing investigation.

It's the timeline that doesn't seem to fit.

Weird that Schwaller said there was an error in the affidavit and then he said he couldn't discuss it. He just did!

The parents, who are not married and do not live together, said they and other family members have been cleared by investigators, which is why the baby is in their custody.

“We have nothing to hide as parents, we did nothing wrong,” Schwaller said. “Some things may have been done different, but we are all in shock. You never expect this to happen to your own daughter. This is definitely the hardest thing I have ever had to do in my life, and I think it’s every parent’s nightmare.”

This news conference wasn't for the baby. It was for the parents.

I think they wanted to prove that they are innocent by going before the media.

It must be horrible for them. Not only was their baby assaulted but they're coming under scrutiny as possibly linked to the crime.

Ed Ritger, an attorney who is a member of the parish and chairman of its finance committee, said he does not believe there is any evidence the assault occurred at the day-care center.

“We have seven women who worked at that center or visited that center that day who found this little girl in the three or four hours before the father picked the child up to be smiling, to be pleasant, having a very mild and happy disposition,” Ritger said. “And it just seems that’s inconsistent with the kind of injuries that we’re describing here.”

The supervisor at the day-care center was placed on administrative leave when the investigation began, Ritger said.

“We’re not sure where it happened, but we haven’t seen any evidence that it happened at the child care center,” Ritger said.

Schwaller said he is upset that Ritger said the day-care center doesn’t believe the injury to their daughter happened there.

“Where does he think it happened?” Schwaller said. “He might as well say the family did it instead of beating around the bush. It is the family’s belief that the injuries occurred at the day care.”

What I don't understand is why the day care is still open and parents are taking their children there.

Schwaller and Huebner have custody of the baby because they've been cleared by investigators.

OK. Then the assumption must be that the assault happened at the day care.

So why do other parents continue to trust the center with their kids?

That's so strange. They must very confident that no crime occurred there.

Strange.

Bully Eric Hainstock

Yesterday, witnesses testified that Eric Hainstock was more than a victim of bullying. He was also a bully.

Baraboo -- Eric Hainstock picked on other kids as much as they picked on him, his fellow students testified Monday in the teen's murder trial.

The testimony could be important for prosecutors trying to prove Hainstock gunned down Weston Principal John Klang on purpose the morning of homecoming last fall. Hainstock's attorneys contend the shooting was an accident and Hainstock brought guns to school to persuade Klang and other teachers to stop other kids from teasing him relentlessly.

Samuel Brandt, a 17-year-old football player at Weston, testified he'd see Hainstock get in pushing and shoving matches with other kids in the halls, but "he would push people more than he would get pushed."

Hainstock often tormented younger students and then tried to pick on older kids, who picked on him right back, Brandt said.

Kimberly Durst, 18, a junior at Weston last fall, testified she was "acquaintances" with Hainstock. She said she saw people picking on Hainstock and Hainstock teasing them right back.

"They dished out and he dished out right back," Durst said. "Kind of the same."

This is the first that I've heard Hainstock was an abuser.

It's hard to view him as a helpless victim when he's said to have engaged in the very behavior that supposedly led him to crack and kill John Klang.

...Hainstock, 16, could face life in prison if he's convicted. His trial hinges on whether prosecutors can convince jurors he intended to kill Klang the moment he pulled the trigger. First-degree murder requires intent.

They contend Hainstock had been angry with Klang for two weeks before the shooting. The principal kicked him out of school for three days for throwing a stapler at his special education teacher, and a day before the shooting ordered Hainstock serve in-school suspension for bringing chewing tobacco to school.

Hainstock's defense attorneys counter that Hainstock suffered abuse at home and was teased mercilessly by his classmates, who called him a "fag" and accused him of body odor. They contend the boy's frustrations boiled over Sept. 29 and he went to school with guns to make people listen, not kill anyone.

Josh Manock, a junior at Weston last year, testified he came face to face with Hainstock as Hainstock moved down the hallway, waving his revolver sideways. He said the boy pointed the gun at him and Manock ran down the hallway, passing Klang, who told him to slow down.

"I kind of pointed backward and said 'gun!' " Manock said.

He heard Klang ask Hainstock if the gun was real, to which Hainstock replied, "What the (expletive) do you think?"

He then heard Klang say "Eric, you don't want to do this," and moments later, shots.

Manock told prosecutors he never heard anyone call Hainstock a "fag."

But defense attorney Jon Helland got Manock to contradict himself, pointing out in Manock's statements to police he heard other students call Hainstock names and pick on him for his body odor and Hainstock would take it.

Whatever.

Being bullied isn't an excuse to commit murder.

Tom Snyder

Lifelong insomniac that I am, most of my TV viewing takes place after prime time.

I wonder how many hours I've logged in with late night talk shows. It has to be an absolutely enormous total.

One of my favorite late night hosts was Tom Snyder.

I'm saddened today to learn of his death.

The obits are focusing on his interviews with John Lennon, Charles Manson, and Johnny Rotten. Not to take anything away from those memorable moments but Snyder didn't need a fascinating guest to do a fascinating interview.

There's so much that I liked about him. You'd think that his somewhat loud and occasionally abrasive style wouldn't fit with late late TV, in the quiet hours when so much of the country was fast asleep. He was sort of a caffeine jolt when it was time to be winding down.

In spite of the energy, Snyder managed to create a very intimate atmosphere. For most of his late night career, he had no studio audience and the set was only chairs and darkness. (Tomorrow Show viewers might remember the teddy bear mascot.)

Because there were no visual distractions of an overdone set, no live band, and no flashing applause sign, the atmosphere was perfect for compelling interviews.

I loved his opening monologues. They were simply Snyder's ramblings, not the work of a team of writers.

Although I didn't watch the original airing, I did see the famous John Lennon interview. It was shown after John Lennon was killed.

I remember when Meat Loaf appeared with Snyder for the first time. He mistakenly called him Meat Ball when he was saying who would be on the show that night. When the guest joined him, Snyder called him Mr. Loaf.

Another moment that still makes me laugh when I think about it was when Snyder was interviewing a few members of some cheerleading squad for a professional team. Snyder commented on the squad being bisexual. He meant coed or open to both sexes. He didn't mean to suggest that the cheerleaders were bisexual.

I remember being introduced to Curtis Sliwa and John Walsh on Snyder's show. I can't say that I remember U2's appearance, but odds are I saw it.

Although I was a fan of David Letterman's NBC morning show, I still was sorry when Snyder left the air to be replaced by Letterman.

It was kind of funny that the guy who bumped Snyder at NBC would be the one to bring him back to network TV.

I was so pleased when Letterman resurrected a version of Snyder's NBC show to follow his CBS program.

As pleased as I was with Snyder's return, I was equally disappointed that the CBS incarnation of The Tomorrow Show had a relatively brief run.

I loved The Late Late Show.

The interviews weren't the scripted stuff that Letterman and Leno offer, where everything has to have a punchline. They were real interviews -- entertaining, interesting, enlightening. The guests really talked.

Some memorable moments from that show came when Robert Blake would guest. I remember him confessing that he had a face lift and he was sorry that he did. He was unhappy that he had to shave behind his ears due to his facial skin being pulled back.

Of course, those appearances preceded Blake's murder trial. No confessions about that.

Snyder did a great interview with Conan O'Brien, his late night competition at the time.

Florence Henderson was on the show once. Snyder was saying something about the producer of The Brady Bunch, Sherwood Schwartz. Snyder mistakenly called him Sherwood Forest.

As a Wisconsinite, it was great when Snyder would talk about his days in Milwaukee, at Marquette University High School and Marquette University.

When the Green Bay Packers returned to glory and won the Super Bowl, Snyder cheered on the team.

Green Bay native Tony Shalhoub also talked Wisconsin when he was Snyder's guest.

During an interview with the late Barbara Olson, they talked about beautiful Door County, where she had a home in Ellison Bay.

And Snyder always kept his audience up to date on "Mother Snyder."

Snyder was a good son, a great interviewer, and proud to be from Milwaukee.

I'll have a colortini in Tom's honor tonight.
____________________

Read Badger Blogger's memories of Tom Snyder.

Maggie Simpson Speaks!

(Note: This isn't a spoiler. It's a suggestion to stick around and watch the credits rather than bolting from the theater.)



I think what Maggie says during the closing credits of The Simpsons Movie will prove to be prophetic.

LOS ANGELES -- Woo Hoo! "The Simpsons Movie" turned doughnuts into dollars over the weekend, raking in $71.9 million to debut as the top movie this week.

The big screen tale of the lovable, if dysfunctional, family rolled over the competition, sending last week's top movie, Universal Studio's "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry," into second place with $19 million, a 44 percent drop.

...The film, which featured the antics of yellow-hued Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, Maggie and a host of motley characters, grossed an average of $18,320 on 3,922 screens across the country and also opened strongly in 70 foreign markets.

"We are ecstatic," said Chris Aronson, senior vice president for distribution at 20th Century Fox. "It far exceeded even the most optimistic of expectations."

Maggie knows what she's talking about.

What does Maggie say?

I'm not talking.

A Day of Joy for the Iraqi People

It was a moment to savor.

Iraqis were united in celebration.

BAGHDAD -- Tens of thousands of Iraqis from the Shiite south to the Kurdish-dominated north poured into the usually treacherous streets Sunday to celebrate a rare moment of joy and unity when the national team won Asia's most prestigious soccer tournament.

The revelers spanning the country's sectarian and ethnic divisions danced, sang and waved flags and posters of the team after Iraq beat three-time champion Saudi Arabia 1-0 to take the Asian Cup.

Chants of "Long live Iraq" and "Baghdad is victorious" rang out across the country as Iraqis basked in national pride. Some of the revelers — mostly men — took their shirts off to display the red, white and black colors of the Iraqi flag painted on their chests.

Reporters of the state Iraqiya television wrapped themselves with the national flag as they interviewed people celebrating in the streets. Some joined in the chanting.

Within seconds of the final whistle, celebratory gunfire echoed across Baghdad and elsewhere despite a government ban and the threat of arrest by authorities.

At least four people were killed and scores wounded by the gunfire. But as night fell on the country, there were no reports of bombings such as those that killed at least 50 and wounded dozens in Baghdad during celebrations of Iraq's semifinal win over South Korea on Wednesday.

The Iraqis have to learn that celebratory gunfire is a dangerous thing.

Can you imagine if "celebratory gunfire" killed and wounded scores of individuals each year after the Super Bowl?

Iraqis really should reconsider the practice of firing guns to express happiness.

But what's great is that all Iraqis were united with national pride as their team was victorious.

The sectarian and ethnic divisions disappeared, even if it just was for a day.

This shows that it can happen. They can get along. They can chose a better future. It is possible.

Russ Feingold on FOX News Sunday

Yesterday, Russ Feingold dared to go where no Democrat presidential candidates agreed to go.

Feingold appeared on FOX.

GASP!

Yes, Feingold appeared with Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday.

Will the Lefty Daily Kos and MoveOn radicals object to their darling Feingold venturing into this unfair and unbalanced enemy territory?

If the Leftists loons are to be consistent, they should. They won't because they aren't consistent. They aren't logical. They demanded that the Dem presidential candidates boycott a debate hosted by FOX and the good, little puppets obliged.

Why does Feingold get to go and have his mug on FOX? There's no rhyme or reason to what the Left does.

So after Feingold's big day last Sunday on Meet the Press, when he made headlines by calling for President Bush to be censured, he took his little act on the road to FOX News Sunday.

I wonder where the next stop on his Censure Bush Tour will be. ABC with Stephanopoulos? CBS with Bob Schieffer?

Maybe a more intimate setting, like a conference call with Left-wing nuts.

All these TV appearances do have me wondering about Feingold's hair. How much does he pay for a cut? Whatever he's paying, it's too much. But I digress.

Anyway, Feingold was blabbing about the same old, same old.

Bush is destroying the country. He's attacking the privacy of Americans.

Attorney General Alberto Gonazles is a liar.

Bush should be censured.

Blah, blah, blah-dee, blah.

Transcript

(Excerpt)

WALLACE: Finally, while all this is going on, as you pointed out, you plan to introduce legislation or resolutions this week to censure the president, two resolutions.

When you tried this last year, only three Democrats signed on to your motions or to your resolutions. Wouldn't the American people rather see Congress do something about lower drug prices, about energy policy, about student loans, all part of the Democratic agenda, that you haven't passed so far rather than engage in this political theater?

FEINGOLD: Well, Chris, that's just not true. We have passed a major energy bill in the Senate. We have passed major legislation on student loans and higher education. The fact is we have done those...

WALLACE: But forgive me, Senator, but none of it has gotten through Congress.

FEINGOLD: Well, the fact is the minimum wage increase got through Congress, and I think by the end of this week you'll see a major lobbying and ethics reform bill passed that's going to be one of the most important bills in 30 years in this area that actually gets at some of these abuses from the Abramoff scandal.

So it's a myth that nothing's been accomplished. But it is time to address the matter of the illegal and other conduct of this administration....

If I hear one more Dem brag about the minimum wage increase, I'm going to be sick.

Whenever a Dem or a Dem supporter is asked to cite an accomplishment of the party, it's always the minimum wage increase.

That's the case because that's all they've got.

Feingold's rant picks up steam.

...This administration, honestly, has been one of the worst in American history. It has abused the American public with regard to the Iraq invasion in terms of misleading us as we got in and misleading us as we stayed there.

They have attacked the rule of law on everything from illegal wiretapping programs, to the writ of habeas corpus, to torture policies, to abuses under the Patriot Act. It has been a shameful record.

And there needs to be some historic recognition that these things are wrong. If the Congress does nothing, what will our children and grandchildren say when they look at the historical record of an administration that has abused the American people?

WALLACE: Senator Feingold, we're going to have to leave it there. We want to thank you so much for talking with us today.

FEINGOLD: Thanks.

That is absolutely pathetic.

"This administration, honestly, has been one of the worst in American history."

I think Feingold has been one of the worst U.S. senators in our state's history. That's too narrow to just refer to Wisconsin. Make that American history.

What will our children and grandchildren say when they look at the historical record of Sen. Feingold and see how he abused his position of power, DURING WARTIME, to serve his massive ego and insatiable need for attention?

At every turn, he's tried to undercut the Bush administration's attempt to protect Americans and fight terrorists.

What will our children and grandchildren say when they look at the Congressional Record and learn that Wisconsinites sent a senator to Washington that cared more about protecting terrorists than the lives of infants, the weak and the innocent?

On September 26, 1996, during debate on partial birth abortion, Feingold revealed just how extreme he is.

Transcript

Sen. Santorum: Will the Senator from Wisconsin yield for a question?

Sen. Feingold: I will.

Sen. Santorum: The Senator from Wisconsin says that this decision should be left up to the mother and the doctor, as if there is absolutely no limit that could be placed on what decision that they make with respect to that. And the Senator from California [Sen. Barbara Boxer] is going up to advise you of what my question is going to be, and I will ask it anyway. And my question is this: that if that baby were delivered breech style and everything was delivered except for the head, and for some reason that that baby's head would slip out -- that the baby was completely delivered -- would it then still be up to the doctor and the mother to decide whether to kill that baby?

Sen. Feingold: I would simply answer your question by saying under the Boxer amendment, the standard of saying it has to be a determination, by a doctor, of health of the mother, is a sufficient standard that would apply to that situation. And that would be an adequate standard.

Sen. Santorum: That doesn't answer the question. Let's assume that this procedure is being performed for the reason that you've stated, and the head is accidentally delivered. Would you allow the doctor to kill the baby?

Sen. Feingold: I am not the person to be answering that question. That is a question that should be answered by a doctor, and by the woman who receives advice from the doctor. And neither I, nor is the Senator from Pennsylvania, truly competent to answer those questions. That is why we should not be making those decisions here on the floor of the Senate.

That exchange is chilling, so chilling that Feingold had the Congressional Record altered.

In effect, Feingold chose to lie about what he said. By having his remarks expunged from the Congressional Record, he's misled future generations about what he said on September 26, 1996. He lied about himself.

Look at what Feingold has done. He has spent his time in the Senate making it easier for terrorists to hatch and carry out attacks, aiding and abetting the enemy.

During his tenure in office, millions of unborn children have been slaughtered. He has their blood on his hands.

It's a shameful record.

It's time to censure Feingold.

Mondale Follows in Carter's Footsteps

Former Vice President to the miserable failure President Jimmy Carter is weighing in on Dick Cheney in a Washington Post op-ed piece, "Answering to No One."

Unfortunately, Mondale has decided to disgrace himself by spouting loony stuff. Rather than conduct himself in an honorable manner, he traded his dignity for spitefulness and joined the lib fray to bash the Bush administration.

It's really too bad.

Why emulate the disastrous Carter and the rabid Left?

Mondale writes of his experience as VP, serving one term with Carter.

The Post's recent series on Dick Cheney's vice presidency certainly got my attention. Having held that office myself over a quarter-century ago, I have more than a passing interest in its evolution from the backwater of American politics to the second most powerful position in our government. Almost all of that evolution, under presidents and vice presidents of both parties, has been positive -- until now. Under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, it has gone seriously off track.

...Our relationship depended on trust, mutual respect and an acknowledgement that there was only one agenda to be served -- the president's. Every Monday the two of us met privately for lunch; we could, and did, talk candidly about virtually anything. By the end of four years we had completed the "executivization" of the vice presidency, ending two centuries of confusion, derision and irrelevance surrounding the office.

Subsequent administrations followed this pattern. George H.W. Bush, Dan Quayle and Al Gore built their vice presidencies after this model, allowing for their different interests, experiences and capabilities as well as the needs of the presidents they served.

Then, Mondale details why he considers Vice President Dick Cheney to be a power hungry nutjob.

This all changed in 2001, and especially after Sept. 11, when Cheney set out to create a largely independent power center in the office of the vice president. His was an unprecedented attempt not only to shape administration policy but, alarmingly, to limit the policy options sent to the president. It is essential that a president know all the relevant facts and viable options before making decisions, yet Cheney has discarded the "honest broker" role he played as President Gerald Ford's chief of staff.

Through his vast government experience, through the friends he had been able to place in key positions and through his considerable political skills, he has been increasingly able to determine the answers to questions put to the president -- because he has been able to determine the questions. It was Cheney who persuaded President Bush to sign an order that denied access to any court by foreign terrorism suspects and Cheney who determined that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Rather than subject his views to an established (and rational) vetting process, his practice has been to trust only his immediate staff before taking ideas directly to the president. Many of the ideas that Bush has subsequently bought into have proved offensive to the values of the Constitution and have been embarrassingly overturned by the courts.

The corollary to Cheney's zealous embrace of secrecy is his near total aversion to the notion of accountability. I've never seen a former member of the House of Representatives demonstrate such contempt for Congress -- even when it was controlled by his own party. His insistence on invoking executive privilege to block virtually every congressional request for information has been stupefying -- it's almost as if he denies the legitimacy of an equal branch of government. Nor does he exhibit much respect for public opinion, which amounts to indifference toward being held accountable by the people who elected him.

Whatever authority a vice president has is derived from the president under whom he serves. There are no powers inherent in the office; they must be delegated by the president. Somehow, not only has Cheney been given vast authority by President Bush -- including, apparently, the entire intelligence portfolio -- but he also pursues his own agenda. The real question is why the president allows this to happen.

The Democrats, present and past players, have really taken an ugly turn.

Their relentless thrashing of the Bush administration is unseemly at best, and aiding our enemies at worst.

I think much like Carter, Mondale can't bear the fact that he holds a negative place in our history.

By stomping on the current administration, he hopes to elevate himself.

It's a selfish, highly inappropriate move.

Past former presidents and vice presidents were much more restrained when it came to criticizing the sitting president and vice president.

With Carter, it's no holds barred. It's like a sickness with him. He's addicted to slamming Bush, Israel, and propping up terrorists.

Maybe Mondale is upset about Stephen Hayes' new book, Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President. Mondale could be jealous that he has such an overwhelmingly pitiful legacy.

Maybe he thinks if he criticizes the United States and its leaders enough he'll get some recognition. A Nobel Peace Prize for him is out of the question, but some Lefties might at least give him a nod to acknowledge that they remember he once was a heartbeat from the presidency.

Mondale concludes his column with this:

Since the Carter administration left office, we have been criticized for many things. Yet I remain enormously proud of what we did in those four years, especially that we told the truth, obeyed the law and kept the peace.

I have no idea why Mondale would be proud to have been part of the disastrous Carter era.

I think Mondale has blocked out much of what happened during those four years.

They didn't keep the peace. They helped to create the mess of Iran and the rise of radical Islam. They were impotent in dealing with the Soviet Union. Domestically, they were complete failures, unless you find "malaise" a desired state.

It took Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush to come in and clean up after them. It took years to undo the damage they did and the work isn't finished yet.

In short, Mondale should show more respect for the office he once held if he can't summon up the decency to respect its current occupant.

He should publish his scribblings on kook Left-wing blogs. Now that I think about it, I guess The Washington Post is the right place for his drivel.

The Petit Family

UPDATE, November 8, 2010: Steven Hayes Sentenced to Death for the Deadly Conn. Home Invasion
__________________

UPDATE, October 5, 2010: Triple Murder Case Yields Convictions on 16 of 17 Counts
__________________


Dr. William A. Petit Jr. 50, and his wife, Jennifer Hawke-Petit, 48, with their daughters Hayley, 17, and Michaela, 11. (Photo/Midtown Photography, via Associated Press)


Dr. William Petit Jr. is a remarkable man.

Frankly, I don't know how he managed to make it through the memorial service for his murdered wife and two daughters.

NEW BRITAIN, Conn. -- Dr. William Petit Jr. still bore bruises and gashes as he urged hundreds of mourners Saturday to "spread the work" of his wife and two young daughters, who were slain after burglars surprised them in their home.

Petit, the lone survivor of the violent attack, told more than 2,000 friends and strangers who crowded the memorial service about his wife of 22 years, who was a nurse; his college-bound daughter; and his youngest, who was just 11.

"I guess if there's anything to be gained from the senseless deaths of my beautiful family, it's for us all to go forward with the inclination to live with a faith that embodies action. Help a neighbor, fight for a cause, love your family," Petit said.

"I'm really expecting all of you to go out and do some of these things with your family, in your own little way, to spread the work of these three wonderful women. Thank you," he told the crowd.

Authorities say two men with long criminal histories broke into Petit's Cheshire home early Monday and held the family hostage for several hours. One forced Jennifer Hawke-Petit, 48, to make a withdrawal at a bank later that morning, triggering suspicion among bank employees, police said. Police rushed to the house, found it on fire and encountered the suspects fleeing. The two were arrested after crashing the Petits' car into police cruisers.

Petit was severely beaten and bound in the basement but managed to escape the fire. The bodies of his relatives were found in the smoldering home. Hawke-Petit was strangled, while Hayley, 17, and Michaela, 11, died of smoke inhalation.

This recap of what happened to the Petit family really doesn't relay the horror of their ordeal.

This account from the Republican-American provides more of the details.

After staking out the Petit house, the men — Joshua Komisarjevsky, 26, and Steven Hayes, 44, — drove to a Wal-Mart, where they bought an air rifle and rope.

They came back and waited about a mile-and-a-half away until about 3 a.m. Monday, when they slipped into the house through an unlocked door.

Komisarjevsky and Hayes attacked Hawke-Petit's husband, Dr. William Petit Jr., then threw him down the basement stairs and beat him viciously. Sources said the men bound Petit and left him in the basement, where he remained for the next six hours.

The men then restrained Hawke-Petit and her daughters — Michaela and 17-year-old Hayley — and raped them repeatedly, the sources said.

About 9 a.m., one of the suspects drove Hawke-Petit to the Bank of America on Route 10 in Cheshire and forced her to withdraw $15,000 in cash while he waited outside. Hawke-Petite managed to convey to a bank teller that there was a problem at her home. The teller called police.

At some point during that excursion, the man with Hawke-Petit stopped and bought a container of gasoline.

After they returned to the home, the attackers strangled Hawke-Petit, doused the home with gasoline and set it ablaze.

Dr. Petit, who remained hospitalized Tuesday at Saint Mary's Hospital in Waterbury, was able to free himself and crawl into the yard. Police arrived about the same time and arrested Komisarjevsky and Hayes after the two men tried to barrel through a police roadblock.

Inside the Petit home, authorities found the bodies of Hawke-Petit and her two daughters.

Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky

The two men responsible for these brutal, brutal crimes are evil.

They aren't fit to live among civilized human beings.

They destroyed this family.

They weren't satisfied with stealing money from them. They chose to torture the girls and their mom before they killed them.

Really there aren't words to describe how awful the mother and daughters' final hours must have been.

I don't know how Dr. Petit will be able to put his life back together after losing his precious wife and children through such utterly senseless and extreme violence.

My heart goes out to him and all those suffering the loss of Jennifer, Hayley, and Michaela.

Here's the kicker:

The suspects, 26-year-old Joshua Komisarjevsky of Cheshire and 44-year-old Steven Hayes of Winsted, are charged with capital felony, arson, sexual assault and other crimes, and could face the death penalty if convicted. Both had been released from prison on parole this year.

Think of how many lives would be different today if these two monsters hadn't been released from prison.

WNBC reports:

Two parolees, 26-year-old Joshua Komisarjevsky of Cheshire and 44-year-old Steven Hayes of Winsted, remained jailed on $15 million bond each Thursday.

Prosecutors said they will seek the death penalty against the two, who were each charged Thursday with six counts of capital felony. They already faced charges of assault, sexual assault, kidnapping, burglary, robbery, arson, larceny and risk of injury to children.

On an abstract level, I oppose the death penalty.

To embrace it would be inconsistent with my pro-life beliefs.

But in this case, looking at the concrete facts, it seems almost immoral to not favor the death penalty for Komisarjevsky and Hayes.

It's easy to say that I'm against capital punishment, but in instances like this I have to admit that it's also hypocritical.

One can't go through life on a theoretical level alone. I can't.

If my family had been brutalized and murdered, I'd want the killers to never see another sunrise, eat another meal, drift off into sleep, smile, laugh, read a letter or a book, speak to another person, or take another breath.
_______________________

May Jennifer, Hayley, and Michaela rest in peace.

_______________________

Statement issued by Petit Family

Memorial Funds:

The Jennifer Hawke-Petit scholarship at Cheshire Academy. (www.cheshireacademy.org)

The Hayley Elizabeth Petit scholarship at Miss Porter's School. (www.missporters.org)

The Michaela Rose Petit scholarship at Chase Collegiate School. (www.chasecollegiate.org)

The Parents of the Sexually Assaulted Infant

The parents of the 10-month-old girl that was sexually assaulted on June 26 have e-mailed The Sheboygan Press, asking for the public's help in finding the abusers.

From The Sheboygan Press:

The parents of a 10-month-old sexual assault victim issued a plea Saturday for the public’s help in catching those responsible for injuring their daughter.

In what the mother and father described as “every parent’s nightmare,” the infant was sexually assaulted June 26 around the time she was being cared for at Our Lady of the Lakes Child Care Center in Random Lake.

“Our concerns right now are ensuring that our daughter is healing from her injuries and making sure that whoever hurt our child is brought to justice,” the parents wrote in an e-mail to The Sheboygan Press. “Not knowing who did this to our baby is keeping us up at night.”

However, the child is “recovering from her injuries and doing well,” the statement said.

Why would the parents e-mail their plea for help to The Sheboygan Press a full month after the assault took place?

That seems very strange to me.

Why wait such an incredibly long time?

If my child had been injured like that, I would have done everything in my power to make sure that the guilty parties were held accountable for their crimes. I would have acted immediately to enlist the public's assistance.

If I thought making a public plea for help made sense, I wouldn't have waited over a month to do it.

...Investigators have so far focused their investigation on the child-care center, serving search warrants Thursday at the center, 429 Third St., along with the Our Lady of the Lakes Catholic Church office at 230 Butler St., and the Fond du Lac County home of the day-care center supervisor, officials said. Seized in the searches were computers and documents showing who worked at the center that day and when, court records show.

...Doctors said the injuries, which required reconstructive surgery, were consistent with sexual penetration within the last 24 hours, records show.

“No parent should need to sign off to have a rape kit done on their 10-month-old,” the statement said. “ No parent should need to have their 10-month-old tested for sexually transmitted diseases.”

A church representative on Friday expressed confidence the day-care was not to blame for the incident, saying the parish has “no evidence that anything happened to that child at our child-care center," but the parents contested that claim.

“What we know to be true is that our daughter was in good health when she was dropped off at day-care, and when she was picked up, she was in a condition that required hospitalization,” the statement said. “We entrusted our daughter to their care and feel betrayed.”

The supervisor, who court records say initially mislead investigators about who worked that day, has been placed on administrative lead during the investigation, said Ed Ritger, an attorney who is a member at the parish. He said the suspension is a step required by state child-care licensing protocol.

In the statement, the parents thanked the Sheboygan County Sheriff’s Department for its work in the ongoing investigation and praised the doctors and nurses who cared for the child at St. Joseph’s Hospital in West Bend and Children’s Hospital in Milwaukee.

The assault of this little girl is absolutely horrific. Her recovery is what matters. What's important is that she is cared for by loving, responsible people.

Beyond the positively depraved act, there are other things that bother me about this case.

As I said, I do think it's odd that the parents stayed silent about how horribly their daughter was violated.

Also, it doesn't make any sense to me that the doors of this child-care center remain open.

How could authorities allow it to continue to operate after such serious allegations have been made?

By permitting the center to stay open, aren't the authorities possibly putting other children at risk?

Even stranger, why are parents continuing to take their children to this alleged den of torture?

According to Ed Ritger, "no parents have pulled their children out of the child-care center during the investigation. Parents were notified of the situation in a July 3 letter."

None? None of the parents are uneasy about dropping off their children there?

That doesn't add up.

I wouldn't let my child anywhere near a place that was allegedly the site of such a despicable crime. My child would never return there.

Apparently, the parents still trust the center to properly care for their children.

I don't get it.

Eric Hainstock on Trial

It's really murderer Eric Hainstock's only defense.

His lawyer presented Hainstock as an angry young man that had been abused and neglected, but he didn't mean to kill anyone.

He was really a victim.

That's a tough sell.

BARABOO, Wis. -- A 16-year-old charged with shooting his high school principal to death didn't mean to kill him, and had brought two guns to school only to scare people, his attorney said Friday at his murder trial.

The prosecution, however, said during opening statements that Eric Hainstock's anger at Weston Schools Principal John Klang had been building. Two teenagers testified that Hainstock told them that Weston Schools Principal John Klang Klang wouldn't survive homecoming.

Hainstock is charged with killing Klang on Sept. 29, the morning homecoming festivities were set to begin. Investigators say Hainstock took his father's shotgun and a revolver to school because he was upset Klang and teachers hadn't stopped other kids from teasing him.

According to a criminal complaint, after a custodian took the shotgun from Hainstock, the student took out the revolver and Klang, 49, rushed him. Hainstock shot Klang three times before the dying principal wrestled him to the ground and pushed the gun away, the complaint said.

Hainstock's lead attorney, Rhoda Ricciardi, told jurors in opening statements there's no dispute Hainstock killed Klang. But he didn't mean to, she said.

She portrayed Hainstock as a lonely country boy who was teased relentlessly, labeled a "fag" by his fellow students and beaten and abused at home.

"This case is about a troubled boy from a troubled home who found nothing but trouble at school," Ricciardi said.

District Attorney Pat Barrett maintained that Hainstock's anger toward Klang had been building for two weeks before homecoming.

Barrett noted Klang kicked Hainstock out of school for three days after Hainstock threw a stapler at his special education teacher. Klang also gave Hainstock an in-school suspension after Klang found chewing tobacco in the boy's backpack.

Alyssa Fultz, 15, testified that Hainstock told her in a church youth group meeting about a week and a half before the shooting that Klang wouldn't survive homecoming.

"He just said the principal was not listening to him and people were just being mean to him," she said. She thought little of the statement at the time, she said.

Nicole Spurgeon, 16, testified Hainstock was at her house doing homework with her brother days before the shooting when she overheard Hainstock say Klang wouldn't make it through homecoming.

So who is the victim here?

Hainstock's lawyers want the jury to see Hainstock as a victim, too. Their case rests on the notion that Hainstock was a victim.

Yes, he killed Klang, but he didn't want to do it.

Hainstock's family abused him and supposedly teachers ignored his cries for help.

So it's the failures of social services and the school system that brought about Klang's death?

I don't buy that.

If Hainstock really only wanted to scare people at school, then he wouldn't have fired the shotgun THREE times.

...Ricciardi told jurors that Hainstock never developed coping skills and suffers from attention deficit disorder, which his father refused to medicate. She said Hainstock's father often made the boy wait on him, made him do all the household chores and sometimes beating him.

His stepbrother had sexually abused him until he was 6 years old, Ricciardi said.

Hainstock's frustrations just boiled over on Sept. 29, she said.

"He runs on emotion," she said. "He stupidly and recklessly brings guns to school."

The strategy is to paint Hainstock as a sympathetic figure.

It seems that Hainstock did suffer. His family situation was bad. Being bullied at school compounded his frustration.

As sad as his situation was, that didn't give him license to kill.

Hainstock's circumstances may have been the reason he chose to do what he did, but a reason is not the same as an excuse for doing something.

And if he really just wanted to scare people and get attention, then he could have brought UNLOADED guns to school. He could have made his threats and get his point across without putting others at risk.

That's not what he chose to do. He chose to fire his gun THREE times and kill John Klang.

10-Month-Old Girl Sexually Assaulted

This story is really nauseating.

How can a person or persons sexually violate a 10-month-old baby?

It's impossible for me to comprehend such a sick act.

From the Sheboygan Press:

A 10-month-old girl was sexually assaulted last month, and the incident may have occurred at a church day-care center in Random Lake, according to documents released this afternoon by the Sheboygan County Clerk of Courts.

The girl is believed to have been assaulted June 26, when the child spent most of the day at Our Lady of the Lakes Child Care Center, 429 Third St., records show.

That facility, along with the church office at 230 Butler St., and the Fond du Lac County home of the day-care center supervisor were searched Thursday afternoon.
But a church representative said this afternoon he does not believe the assault occurred at the day-care center.

“We as a parish have no evidence that anything happened to that child at our childcare center,” said Ed Ritger, an attorney who is a member of the parish and also chairman of its finance committee. “All the women who work at the childcare center indicate that on the day in question, June 26, that child was happy, smiling, showed no evidence of pain, crabbiness, anything like that.”

Capt. Dave Adams of the Sheboygan County Sheriff’s Department would not comment on whether authorities have a suspect in the assault.

Ritger said he hopes “that there will be a thorough investigation of all persons who had contact with that child.”

...The victim was at the day-care center from about 6:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. the day of the alleged assault. The child’s grandmother discovered blood in the girl’s diaper and extensive bruising and tearing of her vaginal area when changing the child’s diaper about 10 o’clock that night.

The injuries required reconstructive surgery, which was conducted hours after the injuries were discovered. The child underwent surgery at Children’s Hospital in Milwaukee.

The child’s parents had used the day-care center two or three times a week since January. The center opened in May 2006.

According to police, the supervisor of the day-care center’s statement about employees who working that day did not match employees’ statements regarding their schedules. The supervisor later told police she fabricated an infant care report for the child that did not match one sent home with the victim’s father.

The supervisor is believed to have been the only adult at the center from 6 a.m. to at least 7 a.m. on June 26, caring for 12 children, including two infants. The supervisor initially claimed a volunteer had begun work at 6:30 a.m., but the volunteer told investigators the supervisor told her not to come in because she didn’t need help.

The search warrant affidavit says investigators searched the day care, the church office and the supervisor’s home — in the Fond du Lac County Town of Auburn —looking for documents showing who was working June 26 and when.

Ritger said he believes any inconsistent statements made by the supervisor were “honest mistakes,” but the woman has been placed on administrative leave until the investigation is complete.

Obviously, the 10-month-old can't speak for herself.

She can't say who hurt her.

Is someone at the childcare center responsible or is it someone else?

The abuser wouldn't care that the parents and the workers at the center are being looked upon as potential criminals. The individual or individuals responsible couldn't possibly have such a developed conscience.

No one capable of causing such severe physical injury to a baby could possibly care about that. The little girl suffered such horrible injuries that she needed to undergo reconstructive surgery.

This abuse was so extreme that it resulted in mutilation.

If someone at the childcare center abused her, that will surely reflect poorly on Our Lady of the Lakes parish, and the Catholic Church in general. It will be just another example of child abuse committed by someone with connections to the Church, even if the perpetrator is a lay person.

If a family member or other person with access to the child assaulted her, then that will be chalked up as one more case of abuse committed by a trusted, but monstrous, individual.

I hope that the animal that did this is caught and put away for a long, long time.

That anyone would hurt a 10-month-old like this really makes me ill.

GOP Presidential Candidates Get Smart

After Monday's truly embarrassing CNN/YouTube Democrat debate, I commented:

I think the Republicans should boycott the CNN/YouTube debate scheduled for September.

It was so lame.

That upcoming YouTube debate will probably keep Fred Thompson from announcing until it's passed.

Other than John McCain and nutjob Ron Paul, the Republicans aren't signing up to take part.

From the Washington Post:

Four days after the Democratic debate in Charleston, S.C., more than 400 questions directed to the GOP presidential field have been uploaded on YouTube, as Republicans are scheduled to take their turn at video-populism on Sept. 17.

But only Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) have agreed to participate in the debate, co-hosted by the Republican Party of Florida in St. Petersburg.

"Aside from those two candidates, we haven't heard from anyone else," said Sam Feist of CNN, which is co-sponsoring the debate with the popular video-sharing site.

Rudolph W. Giuliani and Mitt Romney, both with dozens of videos on their YouTube channels, have not signed up. Neither have the rest of the Republican candidates, including Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.), whose "Tancredo Takes" on his YouTube channel draw hundreds of views. Sources familiar with the Giuliani campaign said the former New York mayor is unlikely to participate. Kevin Madden, Romney's spokesman, said the former Massachusetts governor has seven debate invitations over a span of 11 days in September.

"We haven't committed to any of them yet," Madden said.

In an interview Wednesday with the New Hampshire Union Leader, Romney said he's not a fan of the CNN/YouTube format. Referring to the video of a snowman asking the Democratic candidates about global warming, Romney quipped, "I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman."

Finally, at least some of the Republican candidates are doing something right.

The CNN/YouTube debate demands that participants check their gravitas at the door.

It's far better not to enter at all.