Another far-left cause, another riot and clashes with police.

Police used "flash bangs" and pepper spray against some protesters who pelted them with rocks and bottles late Wednesday, as violence erupted during May Day in Seattle.

Several dozen protesters, many using bandanas to cover their faces, began clashing with police in downtown Seattle hours after a peaceful immigrant-rights march ended.

The May Day protests in Seattle the previous year turned violent as well and in Los Angeles several years before. It's not just May Day either--let's not forget to mention the infamous Occupy Protests. There's something about anti-capitalism that brings out the worst in people.

When the "far right" protests? Millions of people in lawn chairs waving flags at Tea Party rallies.

That not only is strong evidence for the civility of their guiding ideology, but is an indictment on the media.

Can you imagine if a Tea Party rally turned as violent as a May Day or Occupy protest, with pepper spray and fires and vandalism? It would be front-page news for weeks.

But when the far left does it, it's just protesters being protesters. More of the usual--which is a sad commentary on that political ideology.

The Associated Press last week officially omitted "illegal immigrant" from its stylebook. Many media outlets already use the term "undocumented immigrant" to describe people who are living in the United States illegally.

The Star is one such newspaper. On Saturday, Start Editor John Moore wrote:

For the past two years, The Star's style ...has used the term "undocumented immigrant" instead of "illegal immigrant" in news stories when discussing a person who is living in this country illegally.

He's right.  Why? The reasoning is simple. People aren't illegal, as the lefty saying goes.

Kathleen Carroll, executive editor of the AP, said in an interview with Poynter.org that the use of labels in writing is "kind of a lazy device that those of us who type for a living can become overly reliant on as a shortcut. It ends up pigeonholing people or creating long descriptive titles where you use some main event in someone's life to become the modifier before their name."

Uh, "undocumented immigrant" is no different as a lazy, pigeonholing device than "illegal immigrant," using her logic. It's still a label, isn't it? It's just a softer one, which conveniently downplays the illegal part.  You could go with "one who is in the country illegally", but that sort of conflicts with Carroll's reluctance to use "long descriptive titles." Heck, calling someone an immigrant period, even one who is here legally, is a label. Should we drop that too?

It doesn't help her reasoning that "undocumented immigrant is less accurate than "illegal immigrant." Some illegal immigrants ARE documented--with stolen information. However, all of them are illegal. Why not use the most accurate term?

The truth of the matter is that the AP dropped "illegal immigrant" because of political correctness--they caved to political pressure from special interest groups or they themselves fall on the left-hand side of the illegal immigration issue. They are just fine with labels, especially when it comes to labeling conservatives. There are lots of people who want to influence the debate by changing the terms and the AP is facilitating that. Fine for an advocacy group, not fine for objective journalists.

Last month I wrote that the problem with Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained was that the revenge film "seemed more like an attempt to be inspirational" and to the extent social messages exists in it they "irresponsibly exacerbate existing racial tensions." Fast forward a few weeks, and Southern California was paralyzed by former cop Christopher Dorner  and his revenge killings aimed at the "racist" Los Angeles Police Department.

In Django Unchained, Jamie Foxx--who later said it's "great" he gets to kill all the white people in the movie--murders those who enslaved him as well as their families. Dorner, who saw Django Unchained and complimented it in his infamous manifesto, began his killing spree by executing the daughter of a former LAPD captain, as well as her fiancé.

"I've never had the opportunity to have a family of my own, I'm terminating yours," Dorner wrote. "Look your wives/husbands and surviving children directly in the face and tell them the truth as to why your children are dead."

Dorner's writings also revealed he is a liberal, supports Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Piers Morgan, Chris Matthews, Tavis Smiley, and so on.

 Now, we learned from the Left that Rush Limbaugh's and Sarah Palin's political opinions inspired the Gabby Giffords shooting, making them responsible. That's even considering that Loughner never listened to either pundit and his rantings have a left-wing bent.

Can you imagine if a Tea Partier waged a campaign of terrorism against a law enforcement agency, after writing a manifesto that praised Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rand Paul? The Left would attempt to put all of them out of business, if not behind bars, let alone what would happen to any of them that made an inspirational movie encouraging such acts.

Of course, it's silly to blame Piers Morgan and Chris Matthews for what Dorner did. But that's the standard the Left created, as stupid as it is. I would love to hear a committed liberal's thoughts about this, but it's one of those things that's too inconvenient for them to discuss.

With a superstorm barreling down on the East Coast in the last week of the 2012 presidential election, both candidates find themselves in the same position of having to tone down the campaign rhetoric to give the proper responses to the impending disaster. The media isn't taking a break, however.

President Obama, who at times has looked less presidential than his opponent, sees in the storm an opportunity to take command and reassure the American public that they are in his good hands. The Los Angeles Times followed that lead in a story headlined, "Obama: 'We're ready' for Sandy, election will 'take care of itself'.

Obama spoke after meeting with top security and emergency officials in the situation room, where he was briefed on the trajectory of the hurricane and the coordination of the federal and state efforts to minimize damage. Obama said he had been in touch with governors and other local officials, and urged people to listen carefully to their warnings.

How presidential. What was Mitt Romney up to?  Remember, he's in the exact same position as Obama and has given the exact same response that the election needs to take a backseat to the storm.

However, the Times said he is "electioneering".

Hurricane Sandy's impending landfall, just eight days before Election Day, puts the GOP nominee in an awkward position.

Both men are in the same situation, having to suspend campaigning due to the storm as the election nears. But the Times put a more favorable light on Obama, and cast Romney in an "awkward position."