Rabblais

Rudy for President?

2005-04-10T13:55:00.000-04:00

Outside the Beltway, see http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/10015 makes the point that Giuliani seems an improbably popular candidate for President in 2008. Improbable in that he seems to offend a decent section of the Republican base.
My basic point, as I put in a little comment, is that he is a nasty S.O.B. As a former school administrator, I found him arrogant and frankly not all that interested in the schools. He pointed out that he had almost no control of the schools so he should not be blamed for the problems.
On the other hand, he was a superb administrator as mayor. The streets really did get far quieter and a lot cleaner as well. The change was real, was very visible. The media did not like him much but they had to report on progress. He was someone far more respected than liked.
But his weaknesses would be far more likely to be pointed out by Republicans than Democrats. And there are some reasonable answers.

a) Rudy's personal life was more than a bit of a mess. Amen. However, so's the personal life of a lot of people. Even those in Red States who are part of the base. He may not have the partner he started with but he's always pushed the idea of competence. That in itself is a pretty powerful message. And he can talk about how his current wife helped him through his bout with cancer. (It might also be mentioned that the groups working against prostate cancer have a lot of alpha males who might contribute more than a bit).

b) He's very friendly with gays, actually lived in the apartment of a gay friend who had a live-in lover. It would actually be fun to watch the Dems go after him on this one. The gay lobby would have a difficult time with their scare-notices. And he could focus on the real fear of a lot of heteros, that gays might go after kids. He would be able to promise real action on that without scaring the gays. As for gay marriage, who knows what the courts and legislatures will do between now and 2008? It could be as much of a problem for every candidate as they all tip-toe, at least to some degree, on the issue.

c) He is for gun control. Easier to answer than most. He WAS mayor of New York and something has to be done about handguns, etc. But he can point out that his biggest improvements came from better administration, not just the guns. I might also mention that he can point out how few crimes seem to be committed with rifles, shotguns, etc.

d) The abortion issue is his real problem. Very true. But he can work very firmly on a focus on things like partial-birth abortion, pointing out that there are limits to what even a President can do. After all, in the past quarter of a century, President Reagan and both Presidents Bush have had limited success. Can promise work on some limits that can withstand the courts.

e) The real issue is that he could actually win! If Hillary runs, that could prove very popular. Also, he is far more acceptable to the Republican center and right than McCain. Giuliani (and probably any Republican) could carry the South. But he would be very, very strong in the really contested states. He can work over the Catholics and go into Black and Hispanic areas and talk about what he has done! That could be very big in states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. If he takes those, the Dems start to die.

Why DEMS need Mrs. Clinton in 2008

2005-04-09T08:02:00.000-04:00

The Dems need Mrs. Clinton for a vital reason. They MUST win in 2008 or they will start being written off as a political party. There are several reasons for this:

1. You have to win sometimes or people will not think you're serious. Why would people want to run for election to Congress when they will have permanent minority status? There are more Reps. than Dems. in the House right now and it is likely there will be more. There are not all that many seats really up for grabs and there are far more seats in districts that Bush carried that have Dems than Kerry carried with Reps. After the next census, there will be even more Rep seats

2. Senate-wise there are very few seats that the Reps hold that are real targets. Olympia Snowe, RINO that she is in many ways, will probably hold on. Lincoln Chafee might slip through but votes with the Reps so seldom that it might not make all the much difference. Rick Santorum is the only Rep that faces a major challenge. But there are several Dem seats that have interesting problems: open seat in Maryland, for example. Plus a very weak Maria Cantwell in Washington where it is more and more apparent that Dino Rossi had the election stolen. And several very red states with Dem Senators.

3. Stated again, 2010 creates a new challenge. The new census will shift more seats in the House as well as more electoral votes to Red States. In 2004, had the Dems not stolen Wisconsin, Bush could have lost Ohio and still won. That would not even make a difference in 2012 if trends coming down the line continue. And they could get even worse for Dems... rising gas prices also reflect higher heating oil prices. That will make a life a lot less fun up north and will result in more people moving to the south.

4. The Dems are having trouble winning over or at least holding certain blocs. Hispanics are being well-organized by the Reps and most are either Catholic or Evangelical. That does not bode well for Dems. There are several districts in California that did not give Dem Reps very large margins. A few shifts, and WOW!

5. There is one thing that Reps need even more than a decent candidate in 2008-- control of one of the broadcast networks. If they controlled CBS or ABC they could get their message out, or at least do a job on the Dems. In that case, the Dems would probably be doomed.

Question is: How would they be replaced? The left is well-organized and has burrowed in very well...tenure in academia, the courts, and, of course, the media. But if all they can provide is thunder on the left, they will start to fade. Unless they can continue to B.S. with little opposition within their ranks. Then they can continue to rave and make life a lot easier for Reps.

Lies and ways of distortion of truth

2005-04-03T10:00:00.000-04:00

Cassandra has a "must read" blog on ways that main stream media lie. See it at: http://cassandra2004.blogspot.com/2005/04/top-10-categories-of-msmdnc-bias.html

There is an attempt to come up with ten different ways of slanting news and, of course there are so many more that there are actually twelve listed.

I propose a thirteenth:

Making false claims by saying that "something has already been debunked" and not providing any evidence. The stories of weapons of mass destruction is handled that way without recognizing that there were SOME wmd found...not a lot, but some. Also, that there is more than a bit of evidence that some weaponry wound up in Syria.

Best example of this, of course, is the Swifboat charges against Senator "Alfie". I watched Chris Matthews and Tom Oliphant freely saying that all the charges had been debunked. However, where was the evidence?
When it came to Rathergate, the evidence of the forgeries was right out in the open. The only doubts came from members of the mainstream media who overlooked minor details like the fact that they documents had been done on Microsoft Word that had not come along for 20 years after the event or that Bush would not have to take the physical exam since he was no longer considered a pilot (the type of plane he flew was discontinued in use) or that he was listed as having been ordered to take the physical on a national holiday (someone writing 20 years later might not check but people doing scheduling at the time would know). So it was clear that the charges were false.
However, Matthews and buddy claimed that "none of the media would accept the charges" and left it at that.
So we are left to believe that a man who had nothing at all in his record throughout his life to demonstrate reasons for voting for him suddenly was a paragon of truth about four months of his life. And that the 200 men who served with him all lied. And that the records that would show he told the truth should not be shown to the public although they might demonstrate that he HAD told the truth.
But many of us are considered too dumb to understand all of that.

Actually, that leads to a number 14 in ways of distorting the truth: Focus on one of the minor trees in the forest instead of a major argument.
Most of the Swiftboat vets were ticked off by Kerry's charges that they committed war crimes. Quite a lot of O'Neill's book focused on the charges made by Kerry. But that meant things were on videotape...or at least in old news reports. It would be very difficult to make false claims. So Matthews and his media chums almost NEVER spent any time on that element but only on the parts that they assumed at first would be easy targets.
This was done again with the claims on reasons for going to war in Iraq. President Bush gave a whole group of reasons for going in, but they focus on only one. They claim that was the reason we went in...and the only reason...short of wanting oil and to help Halliburton, etc. And there are people who, after a while, believe them.

Actually, that leads to another way (Perhaps everyone could get together and come up with a list of like "How do you lie to me, let me count the ways". Limit information in some areas.
I can imagine Chris Matthews announcing his next guest, "And here we have Mr. Tony Soprano, a respected businessman from New Jersey, who resents the identification of Italians with organized crime." Nothing more about Tony.
We have that now. In the Terri Schiavo case, several of the characters including Michael Schiavo's lawyer and the key doctor in the case are part of the "Hemlock" society, the one favoring assisted suicide. Why has that never been mentioned by the MSM? Can you imagine how that might change some minds?
Pollster: "Would the fact that the doctor who claimed Terri Schiavo would never recover and could be killed was an associate of Dr. Kevorkian have an impact on your opinion?"
This is done in so many ways. Randall Terry, a target held up by many in the MSM had not been involved at all in the discussion until near the end? His antics were discussed in great detail, the details of the pro-Michael group were ignored.
And we all know why.

As I said, why not a contest?

Terri Schiavo

2005-03-31T10:50:00.001-05:00

Terri Shiavo, R.I.P.

Terri Schiavo

2005-03-31T10:50:00.000-05:00

Terri Schiavo R.I.P.

Tribute to a patriot

2005-03-30T16:27:00.000-05:00

Wonderful story at American Thinker by Michael May about Michael Kelly who died two years ago today. He was a personal favorite of mine and I miss his writing today. I ask myself "why couldn't it have been one of the Nazis from Reuters who died?" They are of no value to anyone while Michael Kelly was a decent, thinking human.

We need more like him.

Link to the story here: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4371

Venezuela, Would Matilda run there anymore?

2005-03-28T09:21:00.000-05:00

Good piece in the Washington Post about Chavez in Venezuela
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5755-2005Mar27.html

Taking away freedom of speech...well, the press doesn't like that. Hating the US...wow, they love it.

We can expect more garbage from those slime buckets on the left about how great a man Chavez is, how democratic his government is,

Jimmy Carter, our most useless president, will probably find a way to say something good about Chavez. Perhaps Michael Schiavo could go after him next. He's been brain dead for decades.

Arguments over Life and Death

2005-03-26T08:03:00.000-05:00

David Brooks demonstrates again why he is the only great columnist at the Times. Read his column: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/26/opinion/26brooks.html?hp

His point is very good. We have two different arguments going on. Social conservatives are very aware of the difference between life and death. Liberals are far more interested in the idea of quality of life. They also tend to worship "the judicial system" as long as it goes along with their views, i.e., examining Republican or conservative flaws. The court has "sold out" when it rules for those groups, of course.

Doctor Kevourkian would not have been nearly as cruel as these sweet folks. Terri would have died quickly with no discomfort at all. Well, there are lots of Alzheimer's patients that can now be starved to death.

Solving Medicare crisis, etc.

2005-03-25T10:50:00.000-05:00

Good article in the Spectator
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7933

Of course, you get extra points if you recognize that this is satire. An extra gold star if you recognize the source of the title.

Terri Schiavo

2005-03-22T06:34:00.000-05:00

I have a modest set of suggestions for the case:

1. Run a full-fledged hearing that is shown on television. Let witnesses be called. This is the best way to not only find the truth but to allow all the rumors to die.

2. Let those people who say starving to death is gentle also agree that it would be the best way to have a death penalty. Why not just let the prisoner stay in a cell with no food or water (a flushless toilet) and die gently?

3. Find out where the money that Michael Schiavo went and how much he will receive if she dies. Also, how much he would have to pay back if a divorce was ordered.

4. Find out if it is true, as has been posted on the web, that he refused some elements of treatment that might have helped her do at least somewhat better. If true, take that into account.

The PeaceNazis and Bush

2005-03-22T06:26:00.000-05:00

Ralph Peters at http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/42929.htm has a good article on the refusal of the Eurotrash and Ameriscum (hereafter PeaceNazis) to accept the idea that George Bush is actually changing the Middle East.
I saw similar notions on West Wing last night where Toby Ziegler's ex-virago, the Congresswoman, wants a change in a major speech by the President in which she, and a group of her ilk, want the US to accept "differences in beliefs" by Moslems. By which she means their refusal to support democracy, preferring all those good old boys who murder everyone.
That's what the left and the followers of Lyin' Eddie Said actually believe. Let them kill, let them rape, it is the Arab way and who are we to argue. Well, George W. obviously wasn't smart enough to understand this so women are voting and going to school in Afghanistan and women no longer have to cower in fear except from the remnants of Saddam and the foreigners who want to keep to the ways of those good old boys.
Funny how the PeaceNazis talk so much about freedom and then kiss the butt of every rotten piece of garbage in the world. But then again they have the freedom to be hypocritical since the major news media cover up all the gaffes.

Some Decency, please

2005-03-21T09:29:00.001-05:00

Victor Davis Hanson does it again. In a brilliant essay (what else is new?) he points out that the left's constant comparison of Bush to Hitler degrades Bush and uplifts Hitler.
See http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson031805.html
It makes those on the left feel good to be that nasty. Oh, they get that sexual thrill. They think they've made a point. Oh, that Bush!

How seldom do they note that the other nation, beside Bush's America, that gets compared to Hitler is Israel? And what has it really done in recent years? Mostly defended itself. But we see the left calling down the name of Hitler on them!
Did the Eurotrash and Ameriscum call that name down on Saddam? He gassed minorities in his country, tried to commit genocide. No, they went and became human shields to protect him. They didn't try to protect Kurds and Shiites being murdered, no, they protected the garbage.
And they found good in the Taliban before that. And they protect the leadership of Sudan which still runs slavery. But, after all, who cares?
These PeaceNazis, friends of killers, rapists, and other scum, are a horrid joke who have achieved "protected status" by the intelligentsia who are part of their ranks. Where are Peter Jennings when these scum protected gunmen in a Bethlehem Church? Was he condemning the PeaceNazis or the Israelis? Hard to remember. ABC does not want us going back there.
We need accountability. Let the scum shout. But let us, the decent ones, respond.
That fact that we are not allowed to point it out and forbidden to criticize the networks on the real mass media, themselves, is the crime.
The next Campaign Reform Act should allow people and groups to buy time to criticize what the networks put out. Had the Swiftboat vets been allowed to buy time on network news shows to ask why they only focused on possible problems for Bush going back 30 years and ignored Kerry's problems, issues would have fallen into place very quickly.

Rumors come through the web, starting with a Philadelphia paper, that Kerry will release his records. If they all come through, it should be very interesting. As Kaus points out, if there is nothing there, why didn't he release the records? My point is that would be proof enough of stupidity. If there is something else that embarrasses him, that would be far more interesting.

My guess is that there will be some things that do not look good at all but are not that simple to understand. For example, his very late discharge. My guess is that the mainstream media will ignore those kinds of things and say there was nothing very much around. It will be up to specialists on the web to point out real problems.

Some Decency, please

2005-03-21T09:29:00.000-05:00

Black Messages

2005-03-20T13:20:00.000-05:00

Schipp has an interesting blurb about Bill Cosby in her latest column
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/291585p-249666c.html
It's fairly simple, similar to earlier posts from me. Improvement has to be internal. People can't make you better off, not at least in terms of anything permanent. Only you can do that.
Of course, those who speak the truth get condemned. Why not yell at Cosby because young black men are sent to prison? That the juries who send them there bave blacks in them, occasionally majority black in some cities, is casually ignored.
It is time to grow up. A hundred years from now, the people making the excuses wll be condemned. Of course, they will also be dead, having taken their cash and living well.

Taking Responsibility

2005-03-19T08:35:00.000-05:00

Great piece in the Baltimore Sun, at http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.kanecol19mar19,1,6577851.column?coll=bal-home-columnists
about "theories" of why so many black men are in jail.

Again and again and again, apologists blame "the system" when black men go wrong. It is the reason why the apologists love the Jesse Jacksons and all the other leadership scum despite their obvious criminality.

The first step towards human progress is through taking responsibility for your own actions. Ask anyone in a twelve step program. Ending alcohol (or other dependency) begins with accepting responsibility, making apologies. Compare this to the theory that it is not the fault of the culprit.

Why then is this so popular especially in a community that often glorifies thugs in its music? Well, if you want a killer or liar or thief to appear as a role model, you have to explain away bad behavior. So it must be the system.

Now, most of us know the system produces Condi Rices, Colin Powells, and Barak Obamas, not to mention millions of decent human beings who want a good life for themselves and their children. But the powers who wannabe know they must keep black people down; must exploit them.

How else do you explain black leaders who oppose vouchers for the people they represent while their kids go to private school? Or who ignore moral issues while proclaiming themselves the souls of morality. It happens because the basic point of our liberal brethren is to oppress and to do that they must condemn those who stray from their path, a path that is almost as damaging as those that rightfully have been left behind, slavery and segregation.

"Inner directed" people are successful people and the liberal media and think tanks push as hard as possible for those searching for explanations outside themselves. "The fault, dear Jesse, lies not in our system, but in ourselves."

On the Ground in Iraq

2005-03-17T09:16:00.000-05:00

The "fearless correspondents" from most of the media never mention that they seldom get out of their own hotels or beyond the"Green Zone." They get a much clearer picture, they claim, from talking to their buddies while drinking their favorites, and complaining how bad things are going.

http://www.Instapundit.com has an excellent bit by a general who actually got around. You won't hear CBS, NBC, or ABC discussing this stuff so try reading it. You have to open the blurb to get the full commentary. Very good.

Who knows? If Iraq turns it around really well, can Lebanon be far behind? Then a push on Syria.

My own opinion is that we should smuggle guns INTO Iran. Let the people there go after the mullahs.

Why the Dems oppose private accounts in Social Security

2005-03-15T11:40:00.000-05:00

Best of the Web mentions a Wall Street Journal article by Zogby that accounts for Democratic opposition to private accounts in Social Security.
See http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006425

It seems very clear. As people become property-owners they vote more and more for Republicans. If people begin to think of social security more as an investment instead of an entitlement, they would think Republican. Boy, would you see a shrinking of the Democratic base.

One important not-covered topic. When you die and have a personal account, the money goes to your heirs. What happens to people who are relatively poor but then leave enough money for their kids to put a down-payment on a house. Those kids will have enough money to get their kids into better schools and to leave them more money. After a while, people are better off and the Democrats have no one left to vote for them.

That is a major reason black leaders oppose the plan. If blacks have money and start thinking about the future, how many of their current leaders would ever be elected?

How do you know a country is a dictatorship?

2005-03-14T09:51:00.000-05:00

Great title from Coyoteblog at http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/03/how_to_spot_a_d.html

The basic point is that when the scuzzballs here start praising people they would never want to have living next door to them, you know it's a dictatorship. For example, not the LA Times having a columnist explain why North Korea isn't so bad. Hugh Hewitt at http://HughHewitt.com interviewed the woman last week and she admitted the place was awful, but we NEED to know more about it (learn to love it, perhaps?)

There is also an article from China at http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200503/10/print20050310_176350.html from the editor of the Washington Post. Now we all know that the Post claims to be one of those nice impartial papers. But here we have its editor talking to the Chinese, those wonderful protectors of human truth and freedom, about problems with freedom in the US. Can you understand why people are more than a bit confused?

Hugo Chavez is getting the "nice guy" treatment. That moronic ex-Prez Carter (and is there a worse President in the twentieth century?) blessed an obviously crooked recall election. And we read that Carter is on his way to certify an almost certainly crooked election for Lebanon. Didn't bother doing anything for Iraq, however. It's time to read him off the island.

We know that most of the people who say they are for freedom are corrupt. Too bad only a small minority in America really follows the blogs. When they get bigger and better known, most of the creeps will be doing things they can do better, like sweeping out newsrooms.

Blacks and the Dems

2005-03-13T14:41:00.000-05:00

Stanley Crouch in the LA Times http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-civilrights13mar13,0,548841.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

says that the civil rights leaders of today differ from those of the movement. I would carry his comments further. Martin Luther King, Jr., was smart enough to know that civil rights, indeed the well-being of the black community, was more important than partisan politics. He worked with people from all political parties.

When he died, leaders of the left (some claim it was Bill Moyers) decided to pick the most corrupt sleaze-bag they could find as leader, proclaim him a close disciple of King, and force the currents of black thinking into a totally corrupt pattern that would keep blacks in the Democratic Party and, as a side-effect, keep them poor.
So they broke apart the black family through welfare, put in affirmative action to such a degree that many blacks wound up facing challenges beyond their capabilities, and then kept complaining. Now they've been out of power for years. Charlie Rangel back in the early 1990's was certain he would chair the Ways and Means Committee within a few years. It is likely he'll retire well before that happens. And, unfortunately, too many of the top leaders are so corrupt that no one would ever follow them. They function best when there is no competition.
The real question arises: What happens if Condi Rice is on the Republican ticket? Especially if it's as President? If blacks break off from the Dems., they might just be finished.

Arabs, Are they different from the rest of us?

2005-03-11T14:12:00.000-05:00

Al Ahram has an excellent article about the general feeling that Arabs are somehow different from every one else. You can read the article itself in
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/733/op2.htm

The point is that the neo-scum in places like Europe and Columbia University have argued that it is alright for Arabs to kill each other, rape each other, attack others. They are "different." That's why McGovern, Carter, etc., say that we were partially responsible for Sept. 11. We just had to understand that our Arab brethren were ticked that we would not emulate Hitler and so they killed us. And we should do nothing. Well, we all know that the one was the stupidest losing candidate for President (though Kerry was a decent contender) and Carter our most useless President. Notice how even today, his years are sort of omitted on TV. If unemployment goes up to 5.6%, Lou Dobbs and fellow business liars wind up harkening back to the Depression, always leaving out the far higher numbers of the Carter years.

But the Arabs need to be held to the same standards as everyone else. If not, they can't grow. Or at least they'll grow into nothing more than a disorganized cancer. If they grow up, welcome aboard!

Don't expect the neo-slime to acknowledge it. They like the Arabs being "different," because to them it means they are lower which gives the neos a chance to feel superior.

Hispanics and Votes

2005-03-10T06:39:00.000-05:00

Very good article in The Hill: http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/Pollsters/DavidHill/030905.html

about Hispanic voting patterns. More Hispanics are voting towards their social values than had been predicted by the Democrats. Quel surprise!

The thing is, the Dems have had control of the Black vote just as they have been betraying them. There have been few bills that help blacks coming from the Dem party. They pushed the whole welfare mess and broke up black family life. They wanted control of schools that led to their downfall. They pushed for affirmative action to such a degree that no one really trusts those blacks who have made it, including a lot of their own people. I remember one fellow teacher, a black man, who said he was afraid to go to black doctors, especially young ones, because he was afraid they had gotten into medical school and through it, solely because of racial preferences.

Hispanics may be wiser. As someone married to a Latina, I know who serious they can be about their own way of conquering the world: through love and marriage. They make exceptional wives! And they want the best for their kids. None of the B.S. that you hear from the Dems.

The problem for Dems is that if the black vote starts splitting apart more evenly they are probably finished in terms of ever getting power. May it happen soon!

NY Times and Torture

2005-03-08T14:19:00.000-05:00

NY Times has an interesting editorial on torture in other countries. The editors say, at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/opinion/08tue1.html
that if we arrange for a terrorist to be sent to his own country, where he might be tortured, that we are now responsible.

There is something to be said for that. However, we should keep in mind that in many of these cases, the people we are sending back have committed crimes in their own countries. I would guess that someone who wiped out a village in some country that still has torture would be facing some problems...serious ones. It is not our responsibility (certainly it is not mine, the Editorial Board of the Times would disagree) to worry about other country's and their habits.

Perhaps we could have a compromise. The Editors of the Times and their supporters could each volunteer to go to the countries along with the suspected terrorists and receive the "torture." After all, those poor babies suspected of being naughty would definitely want to not see their friends hurt. Perhaps as a Sulzburger had his nails pulled out, Mohammed would immediately scream and give up all the information. If not, I am certain he would give up all his info when they start to use branding irons. And what good Moslem would not stop the beheading of his nice Jewish (or Christian) friend?

When I see the Times and their like-minded buddies putting their bodies where their mouths are, I might have some respect for them. Or at least, for their corpses.

Byrd the hypocrite

2005-03-07T13:24:00.000-05:00

The Wall Street Journal in an excellent editorial http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006383
writes that Robert Byrd is particularly hypocritical in his remarks about the up-down vote on judicial nominees since he has used the same tactics four times before.

Now many of us who follow blogs KNEW that already but why doesn't everyone else? Where are the commentators in the MSM talking about it? You know the answer. They are doing the basic job of covering up for the Democrats.

The answer is simple: we need to allow those who feel their views are not covered to be allowed to buy time on the news shows. For example, the Reps could buy a minute on each of the national news shows as well as good times on the morning shows and run commercials pointing out both that Byrd is a hypocrite and that this has not been covered. If this were possible, I think the MSM, at least the networks, would start to be far more honest.

I have noticed that both CNN and MS-NBC have been more responsive to bloggers recently. Since it means coverage of the more conservative ones, this is a boost. But these are done in the afternoon and it looks like those doing the news at other, busier times don't get the information.

Byrd is a disgrace. First, he is a hypocrite. Second, he is a reminder of the old filibusters back when it was OK for him to be part of the Ku Klux Klan (wasn't it a 'blast from the past' watching him attack the Hispanic and Black nominees for Cabinet Posts. This might bring back the good old days when he fought Robert Weaver and Thurgood Marshall, another point not mentioned by Dems.
Third, he's a senile old coot who is offensive by using the Hitler analogy. Best thing he could do is retire...even better resign now.

The Captain's Wisdom

2005-03-06T13:28:00.000-05:00

A couple of great pieces by the Captain at http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/. First, he discusses how moderates in the world of Islam have been empowered by the War Against Terror. As he notes, we have been told by those same experts who always turn out to be wrong that the "Arab Street" would revolt against us if we reacted to violence by other Moslems.

Instead a whole lot of people are speaking out against the terrorists and, even more importantly, the Wahhabis. The real extremists are being named as who they really are: moronic sleazoids who insist that everyone follow their ways.

Also, he points out that Hezbollah has come out strongly AGAINST Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon as being hurtful. It seems to fear "other influences" on the Lebanese. Presumably things like a desire for freedom, a fear that the crazies will bring more war, and other bits of foolishness. Let us hope that Hezbollah meets the fate it deserves.

Mark Steyn's wisdom

2005-03-05T12:03:00.000-05:00

Mark Steyn has another brilliant piece in the Spectator at
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=5759&issue=2005-03-05

I apologize that most of my previous links have not worked. I'm still learning how to do this stuff. I'm not even sure if this will work.

At any rate, read through. When I read Steyn I always think "Of course. It's obvious. Why didn't I write that? And then I realize it's because he's a great writer and thinker.

His basic point is that the Nionists, Not In Our Name ists...a great name, by the way, are almost always wrong. They always pick the wrong side of history. Remember "Miss Jean Brodie" who loved fascism. And a whole battalion on the left who adored Communism. Well, they always are let off the hook. Now they support Islamicism with all of its obvious flaws.

They don't want change. They are content to let people suffer in their own countries as long as the leaders hate the US enough. It is time for them to sow what they reaped.

Hanson, again and again and again

2005-03-04T09:12:00.000-05:00

Victor Hanson has another brilliant piece in National Review at http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200503040740.asp

He compares the Europeans to willful teenagers. He lovingly notes all the contradictions in their arguments.

I'm more inclined to think they are just obdurate. They love to talk big, love to pretend that they somehow are more sophisticated than we Americans, but they are actually just more degenerate.

Look at the arguments. We should be like them. But somehow all their talk leads to ways they get rights and no responsibilities. Their free press is almost totally government-controlled in France and several others. Certain topics are just not covered.

Even Britain follows the lead, with its Nazi-dominated BBC. They lie and lie and when they're caught they change the subject or demand their arguments be accepted even when everyone knows how false they are. And since most people do not know about the lies being caught, they go on and on.

It's sort of like Olberman on MS-NBC. He talks constantly of Guckert/Gannon where nothing much happened. Just like he spent a lot of time checking out a 118,000 vote victory by Republicans in Ohio without checking into the 10,000 vote margin of the Dems in Wisconsin. And he has not bothered to note that the Democratic head of elections in Milwaukee has been fired for not being able to explain over 8,000 votes assigned to people without addresses or other evidence of even existing. And there were frauds in several other cities. Had Wisconsin gone for Bush, no one would have paid attention to Ohio at all. But Olbermann does none of that.

He would fit in well in Europe. Once they established that he was not Jewish (since they hate the Jews) he could be a perfect brainless spokesman for any ideology.

Do you ever get the feeling Big Brother is watching?

2005-03-03T07:31:00.000-05:00

I took this from a bulletin board. Just very cute, but also very telling.

Ordering a pizza in 2008: > > >> Operator: "Thank you for calling Pizza Hut. May I have your national ID number?"
Customer: "Hi, I'd like to place an order."
Operator: "I must have your NIDN first, sir?"
Customer: "My National ID Number, yeah, hold on, eh, it's 6102049998-45-54610."
Operator: "Thank you, Mr. Sheehan. I see you live at 1742 Meadowland > Drive, and the phone number's 494-2366. Your office number over at Lincoln Insurance is 745-2302 and your cell number's 266-2566. Email address is sheehan@ home.net Which number are you calling from, sir?"
Customer: "Huh? I'm at home. Where d'ya get all this information?"
Operator: "We're wired into the HSS, sir.."
Customer: "The HSS, what is that?"
Operator: "We're wired into the Homeland Security System, sir. This will add only 15 seconds to your ordering time"
Customer: (Sighs) "Oh, well, I'd like to order a couple of your All-Meat Special pizzas."
Operator: "I don't think that's a good idea, sir."
Customer: "Whaddya mean?"
Operator: "Sir, your medical records and commode sensors indicate that you've got very high blood pressure and extremely high cholesterol. Your National Health Care provider won't allow such an unhealthy choice."
Customer: "What?!?! What do you recommend, then?"
Operator: "You might try our low-fat Soybean Pizza. I'm sure you'll like it." Customer: "What makes you think I'd like something like that?"
Operator: "Well, you checked out 'Gourmet Soybean Recipes' from your local library last week, sir. That's why I made the suggestion."
Customer: "All right, all right. Give me two family sized ones, then."
Operator: "That should be plenty for you, your wife and your four kids, and your 2 dogs can finish the crusts, sir. Your total is $49.99."
Customer: "Let me give you my credit card number."
Operator: "I'm sorry sir, but I'm afraid you'll have to pay in cash. Your credit card balance is over its limit."
Customer: "I'll run over to the ATM and get some cash before your driver gets here."
Operator: "That won't work either, sir. Your checking account's overdrawn also."
Customer: "Never mind! Just send the pizzas. I'll have the cash ready. How long will it take?"
Operator: "We're running a little behind, sir. It'll be about 45 minutes, sir. If you're in a hurry you might want to pick 'em up while you're out getting the cash, but then, carrying pizzas on a motorcycle can be a little awkward." Customer: "Wait! How do you know I ride a scooter?"
Operator: "It says here you're in arrears on your car payments, so your car got reposed. But your Harley's paid for and you just filled the tank yesterday" Customer: Well I'll be a "@#%/$@&?#!"
Operator: "I'd advise watching your language, sir. You've already got a conviction for cussing out a cop and another one I see here in September for contempt at your hearing for cussing at a judge. Oh yes I see here that you just got out from a 90 day stay in the State Correctional Facility. Is this your first pizza since your return to society?
Customer: (Speechless)
Operator: "Will there be anything else, sir?"
Customer: "Yes, I have a coupon for a free 2 liter of Coke".
Operator: "I'm sorry sir, but our ad's exclusionary clause prevents us from offering free soda to diabetics. The New Constitution prohibits this. Thank you for calling Pizza Hut!"

Jews as Republicans

2005-03-02T11:17:00.000-05:00

Bridget Johnson, in the LA Times, of all places has more on Jews becoming Republicans at http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~25062~2738927,00.html

Now many of us know that Mrs. Heinz Kerry donated more than a bit of money to groups that somehow got money to Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah. Of course, the MSM ignored the story. But Johnson notes how more Jews are being turned off by the casual anti-Semitism of a large part of the Democratic Party.

The problem is that these are the people that Orwell loved to tease. They even believe that the Dems are really for them. Down here in Palm Beach County where many people call the Palm Beach Post the Nazi News, they accept all the "well Israel is at fault" and other BS from the lovely folk at that newspaper. And they are the ones who needed therapy because Kerry lost. Israel, of course, is far better off now than it would have been had Kerry been elected.

But they are obdurate. One of my best friends, who on many issues has the same view I have, is now reading Motorcycle Diaries, the lovely novella about the sweet life of Che Guevera, and he writes me that "what happened to the America that supported the little guys?" Well, the neocons hated little guys like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Guevera, Saddam and a lot of others. Dean talks about being on the side of the good guys. And who gave support to Kerry?
Osama bin Laden, Kim Il Jong, Fidel Castro, and a handful of thugs. And he thinks he's on the side of the angels.

When my friend Steve notices that he's rubbing shoulders with all the scum of the earth and decides to do something about it, that will be "the tipping point."

For now it won't happen as fast. The Middle East is changing and the libs are busy protesting that Bush had nothing to do with it. And they write that he's dumb!

Islam in Europe

2005-02-28T10:14:00.000-05:00

Excellent article in the Times, not the NY one of course, about problems of Islam in Europe. Excellent article at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2099-1488514_6,00.html
It notes how Christianity has pretty much worn itself out and the people there are just waiting around for the Moslems to take over. Oh well, another fifty years and there won't be a Jacques Chirac but a Mohammed Chirac running France...an probably using Arabic.

It might even be an improvement.

Tipping Points

2005-02-27T10:06:00.000-05:00

Tom Friedman, the clown who sometimes gets it right, makes some good points in http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/27/opinion/27friedman.html?
He notes changes in three important counties in the Mid-East: Iraq, Lebanon, Israel-Palestine.
Interesting problem. He never mentions that it is the policies of the George W. Bush...repeat George W. Bush...that has brought us to this point.

THE REAL TIPPING POINT CAME ON NOVEMBER 2, 2004!

Had Kerry won, there probably would not have been elections on January 30th. Remember that he said they would never work? Of course not. The press kept its mouth shut AFTER Jan. 30th. Ralph Nader, who has never done much useful but has been carefully protected by the press, still wants to allow Iraq's neighbors to take over from us. Great: let's let Syria, Iran and Turkey run the place! Of course, they'll be good. After all, the UN wouldn't just let them do whatever they want. They wouldn't hang around for years...no, no, no. Forget what's going on in Lebanon. And the Turks have had a lot of experience in taking care of the Kurds.

The tipping point came because Bush won. Had Kerry won, the Gang of 4 midgets at the Times, and Peter, Brian, and whoever is sitting in for Dan would tell us that Bush made lots of mistakes. That Iraqis did not want democracy. Now we know better. And we should remember the slogan: "We have met the enemy and it is us, or at least our media."

The downfall of the liberals,,,so long, farewell

2005-02-27T09:56:00.000-05:00

John Leo has a good column at http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/050307/opinion/7john.htm in which he talks about the bitter way liberals have faced up to the facts that they have nothing more to offer.

John Dean is the wrong man to lead them, they need David Slade, "No, No Way Jose, Nunca, Nein," etc. All they want is for Bush to fail. Who cares about freedom anywhere in the world? Social Security is fine.

These are the intellectual heirs of the people who scoffed at Reagan when he called for winning the cold war. Remember the laughs at "Mr. Gorbachov, tear down this wall." Well, the wall came down.

We're watching, hopefully, signs of democracy through the Middle East. The people the liberals loved are being shown to be frauds. The left blamed Sharon for the stand-still in the Middle East. Never their beloved Yassir. Well, Arafat is dead and within a month or so there's been more progress than in the past five or six years. But, boy they loved their Yassir.

That self-hating anti-Semite, Richard Cohen, now talks about how we have to be nice to Saudi Arabia, quoted in www.Realclearpolitics.com. For a moron like him, it doesn't matter how low he goes, he'll spread those cheeks and stick out his tongue. A few months ago, he was critical of the Bush Administration for being too nice to these guys. Now he's concerned about preserving their way of life.

Do you have the feeling that if we confronted North Korea he would be telling us of the lovely reign of Kim Jong Il? I do.

I wish the libs would all just eat the butterflies and go where the woolly mammoths went to die.

David Brooks--- a form of retraction from last post

2005-02-26T08:48:00.000-05:00

I read David Brooks' excellent piece http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/26/opinion/26broooks.html?hp shows that he could be another Safire.

Look at him, discussing real possibilities of freedom. The Times midgets, Dowdy, Krugchimp, etc., spend their time attacking Bush... a far better man than all of them (and yes I know that Dowd is supposed to be a woman...let her show herself off as proof, most women are a lot smarter than her) and one who might change the world.

Then I remember that the same folk criticized Reagan. He was the dummy, the guy who didn't understand why we should work to make the Warsaw Pact more stable to help Eastern Europe, why we should give in to the USSR on so many things. But he was right. Not that they would ever admit it.

The Times needs more David Brooks. Hey, maybe they could get Mark Steyn, James Lileks, and have a best of the blogs...a real best, not one that just has their whores. That would be far more interesting. I might even read the paper (Now, I just check the paper on Tuesdays and Saturdays for Brooks...on line). He's about the only voice I trust.

New York Times B.S.

2005-02-26T08:04:00.000-05:00

Slate magazine has a cute coverup story about the NY Times at http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2113958/ You know the kind of story I mean, yes, Bill Keller is trying to deal with issues between his paper and the bloggers but he has more important things to do.

Slate, of course, is one of those mags that pretends to occasionally be critical of those on the left. Remember is is funded by Bill Gates, the guy who brought us windows and all those wonderful viruses.

Of course, Keller is full of it. The Times still lies like a rug. Read Dowd, Krugchimp, Rich, and Herbert and you see all the old vituperation without very much truth involved. And they say that they won't publish tough criticism...but those four...Gang of Four, shall we say, lie every day. And we have Tom Friedman and the pathetic Kristoff who manage to ruin most of what they write in homage to the others.

Where is there a new William Safire? They have David Brooks, who writes very well but often does not directly get into politics. And frankly I doubt they will look for a real conservative voice. Safire made all the others look like midgets. Now they can keep up their lies and no one will correct them UNLESS YOU GO TO THE BLOGS.

The prosties of the press

2005-02-24T09:24:00.000-05:00

We have a two for one today.

First, Howie Kurtz, who guards the reputation of CNN while being paid by the Washington Post (oops! he's paid by CNN too) is irate about "Nothinggate." He is outraged that that a reporter who has connections to the Republican Party got access to the White House press room. Wow! And Dan Rather's wife and daughter work for the Texas Democratic Party. No complaints there.

Here is Howie, displaying his idiocy in public: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/columns/kurtzhoward/

There's no real story there. Some guy gets day passes to the White House. Hey, and they've got Naderites and a whole lot of other people going on on the left. But that's OK. Howie, you have NO integrity. Time to give it up.

And then we have that other prime moron, Maureen Dowdy over at the Times
at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/24/opinion/24dowd.html?hp. Now her basic point, the Americanext's attack on the AARP is out of line, is not crazy. The AARP is mostly in favor of getting as much money from the young to support the old as it is possible to get. That it their major reason for being. Unfortunately, they also take positions on issues that have little to do with their own position and which, probably, has relatively little support from their membership. But that's not the real point of Dowdy.

She starts sliming the Swiftboat vets. These men were heroes. It came down to who you believed: a politician who changed his name (like Gannon) and whose story was filled with strange gaps or two hundred men of all political persuasions who had no reason to lie.
Dowd, best known as the person credited with dowdification...taking words so far out of context to portray people she doesn't like as wrong, demonstrates again that she is an intellectual whore.

Think of breeding Kurtz and Dowd...you could have the anti-Christ of journalism.

Kristoff's Take

2005-02-23T16:52:00.000-05:00

Nick Kristoff at the NY Times saddens me greatly. He performs some useful services but always screws it up.

Take his piece on Darfur http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/23/opinion/23kristof.html?hp

I feel bad for those people. But if you read his suggestions: no fly zone, embargo, UN resolutions, restrictions on use of oil money, they sound so familiar.

Let's call it... I don't know, Oil for Food II. Benan Sevan is now out of work at the UN. They can re-hire him. And the Times can tell us again how we are to blame for restrictions that only help dictators.

I get the feeling Kristoff's a nice guy...for a whore.

Fox Guy gets it wrong

2005-02-23T14:47:00.000-05:00

Excellent article in National Review online about "Judge" Andrew Napolitano.
They treat the guy at Fox like he's one of he world's experts on every piece of law and he always seemed slippery to me.

Take a gander at this at http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200502230740.asp.
Napolitano is eviscertated. Most of what he spouted off on about the Lynne Stewart case was totally wrong. Now, when I heard him it seemed to make sense.
Lots of talk about Ashcroft and his evil Patriot Acts. Shouldn't the accused have the right to privacy? And so on. Even for terrorists.
Well, it turns out that the whole thing took place in 1999 and 2000 BEFORE Ashcroft became Attorney-General. Go after Reno! And she's OK on this one. The blind sheik was not an accused. He had already been declared guilty. She was doing business with a convicted criminal. None of the special rights we have were in place. No sixth amendment. He was not on trial.

But she did pass along information that led to the death of others. She even passed along his fatwa that gave permission to hit the World Trade Center on 9/11. Remember this is the guy who tried to knock it down in 1993.

Napolitano is a blow-hard. I prefer Fox to the other networks but if they can't get it right, why even go to them?

The insane NY Times calumnist

2005-02-22T12:20:00.000-05:00

And now, Frank Rich, the NY Times calumnist, better word for him than columnist, is complaining that everyone is looking more at Eason Jordan than Frank Gannon.
Look at Justoneminute.com at http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/02/we_interrupt_fr.html, where it's noted that Rich, the man who destroyed Broadway almost single-handed, feels upset that people think the head of CNN passing around BS to a lot of Eurotrash is more important than some jerk getting a day pass to the White House press room.

Stop and think. If the libbies weren't pushing this with columns, etc., who would really care? They have Naderite groups there. They have al-Jazeera there. They have CBS there. But that's what Rich thinks is vital.

The fact that the news director of "the most trusted name in news" passes around lies does not bother him. Why should it? He's been doing the same for years. That CNN created the whole "Tailwinds" scandal out of nothing has no interest or that CNN has admitted that it conspired with Saddam Hussein to keep nasty news from getting out. Some "trusted news."

The latest feature of news shows on the news networks is to have people read from the blogs. They have a show on MS-NBC where Monica Crowley makes Ron Reagan, Jr. look like the chimp his father played with in "Bedtime for Bonzo." She's got a doctorate; he's got a famous name to betray. But they focus heavily on what's on the web...the bloggers. Even CNN was doing that yesterday. I almost had a fit when www.Captainsquarters.com was named, not to mention a few others. And the people reading from the blogs were reading from them, not just ignoring what they said or twisting them. This could be a new trend.

What an idea! Get some new ideas in there. Can you imagine how long Rathergate would have lasted if www.Littlegreenfootballs.com and www.Powerline.com had been quoted right away. Both of those were mentioned yesterday as well. This is one MSM trend I can get behind.

Successful Charter Schools

2005-02-21T07:35:00.000-05:00

Attention, www.eduwonk.com! There seem to be some valuable lessons learned from some of the charter schools in NYC. See this article: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/40208.htm

Now, we do have to remember that the Post is rather biased on those whole thing. But... if you can get students in classes for far longer periods than has been the case in regular schools...longer days, longer weeks, longer school years, that could have a big impact.

It should also be noted that there is a certain amount of cherry-picking...selecting the best students, going on. But you would need them with the longer hours, etc.

This could be a model for success. And, of course, the unions would absolutely hate the idea. Many want shorter hours. But if long hours not only increase pay (teachers get paid more because they work much longer hours) but produce results, that could be a powerful combination.

Europeans and their toleration

2005-02-21T07:23:00.000-05:00

No Paseran!. an excellent blog from France, reports that the EU is fighting the use of DDT in Uganda. Forget that malaria is wiping out the population! See
http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2005/02/eu-killing-them-softly-with-their-love.html for full information.

Forget that people are being wiped out in large numbers. The Europeans have a habit of criticizing anything that builds up anyone else while allowing huge numbers to die unnoticed. They had no trouble with Saddam. Who cares about rape, after all? Mass murder is fine by them. Just don't annoy them.

Note the lack of interest in doing anything about the Sudan. The French, Germans, Russians, Chinese are all being bribed nicely by the dictator there. Who cares that people are being murdered? Not the UN certainly. Even the leadership of the Black Caucus has stopped the criticism. After all, Reverend Jesse has spoken for them, being nicely paid.

So murder is OK, genocide no problem. Liberals and Europeans are just such fun people.

The Bush Tapes

2005-02-20T07:51:00.000-05:00

Big article in the NY Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/politics/20talk.html?ei=5065&en=3d3a7b4f99465096&ex=1109480400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&position=
about Bush on tape from before he was President. Fascinating reading. Bush seems to be exactly who he says he is. Boy, is that a shift from most politicians.

Al Gore, Mr. Stuffy, pretended to be the wild crazy guy n 2000. Big kiss for wife, claims that he founded the Internet. No mention that he had been the one to bring up Willie Horton twelve years earlier. A really good answer on drugs...used when a kid. And since the MSM did not do much in terms of challenging him, no one brought up the evidence that he had used drugs even while in Congress. It took a lot to even get anyone to check that his claims on the Internet were, to put it mildly, exaggerated.
Do you think Kerry would sound as good on tape? It would be fascinating to hear him discuss with someone that trip to Cambodia? Was he a liar? Or is he simply insane? The MSM refuses to examine that.

We are now in an age where the people who pass along the news are so used to pretense, to calculated lies, that they prefer those who avoid the truth. To quote Jack Nicholson: "They can't handle the truth." So they help cover up for Kerry. They know he never went to Cambodia, they know he never released his military records despite getting smashed all over the place. But they refuse to recognize that his records would damn him. So they just don't ask. It's a new form of "don't ask, don't tell." They don't really ask, so he won't tell. Watching Tim Russert ask him about the records well AFTER the elections demonstrates the pathetic quality of the press. Also, Russert accepted his statement that Bush had not released his records, a total lie. If he actually runs in 2008, does anyone truly believe that he won't say that the issue is an old and dead one, that everything was answered in 2004. And Nick Kristoff and Juan Williams will prostitute themselves to back him.

I don't agree with Bush on everything. But he seems to be who is actually is. I like that. The media hate it which says something about them.

North Korea

2005-02-19T07:28:00.000-05:00

The captain has some good comments on North Korea at http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/. The problem is that they are not rational....sounds like a lot of the peace movement folk.

If we do something, they could use nukes on us. Of course, they might do that if we do nothing. And if we even talk about action, we know the NYTimes and the other MSM scum will immediately find something good about that country.

Imagine we're thinking about going in and Katie Couric running stories about how those poor little kids will be hurt there...no mention of their current starvation, etc.

Maybe the next thing we need is reform of the MSM.

Spending and Schools, Again and again

2005-02-18T19:22:00.000-05:00

California, it seems, has just learned that more money is actually spent in schools with well-off students than poor ones. It is particularly damning when race is factored in. See http://www.hiddengap.org/resources/Executive-Summary-FINAL.pdf for more details. More info on this from the excellent www.eduwonk.com.

This is a real problem that the authors of the study fail to fully grasp. They write about raising salaries for teachers to work in poorer areas, for finding ways to work around single pay scales. There are several problems

1) More senior teachers tend to go where work is more pleasurable. The greatest cause of frustration for teachers is lack of student performance, NOT salaries. Promise another couple of thousand dollars for working in a lousy environment. Guess what? In a high tax state like California, someone is likely to realize that they get about two dollars a day for every thousand dollars they get in bonus...figure it out...fifty weeks means twenty a week and then come the taxes, etc. Let's say I'm asked to work at a school with very weak students that will cause me intense frustration that's an extra twenty miles away from my home (figure I would prefer NOT to live in a neighborhood with bad schools). Gee, now I can spend an extra hour a day in the car. For a five thousand bonus, I get an extra ten dollars...that might barely cover the costs of gas.

2) It is very difficult to really evaluate teacher performance. Students will usually do better in those nice middle-class schools. How do you decide they get very little extra cash while teachers who get nowhere might get paid more. And how do you convince the union? Also, how do you demonstrate that a teacher really did do a better job. One of the best teachers I've ever seen was a man who just whined constantly at his fifth grade students. After a short while, they all seemed to feel it was better to go along and do their work instead of being nagged. He did a lot of things wrong, but his kids always did very well on standardized tests and actually seemed to learn better than anyone else's in the grade.

3) The amount of graft, jealousy, etc. will be enormous.

The report is typical of people who do not serve in the schools. They have all the answers that go nowhere. I should also note that many students in poor schools have lower class sizes and more services because of Title I and a raft-load of extra services.

We need some answers.

Warch Churchill

2005-02-18T10:35:00.000-05:00

Like most of his ilk, Ward Churchill likes to compare anyone he dislikes to Nazis, except of course Nazis, who he seems to like because of their anti-Semitism.
Ed Cone, at www.edcone.com writes

Ward Churchill likes to compare people to Adolf Eichmann, it's something of a habit. Before he called the people killed in the Twin Towers "little Eichmanns," his target was Emory historian Deborah Lipstadt, of whom he said in 2000, there was "no difference" between "a Deborah Lipstadt and an Adolf Eichmann." Right. Except for the part where Lipstadt took on a Holocaust denier in court, and Eichmann was the architect of the Holocaust.

One of the most interesting things about dealing with the anti-Americans is how often they reference the Nazis, always calling America or Israel "Nazis" while they follow most of Hitler's ideas.
Churchill is a loser...a loser all the way. He got his job, it now seems, by claiming minority status under affirmative action although he was not a minority. Most of his work is nonsense, he allows no dissent in his classrooms under his definition of academic freedom and all the infants at the universities just love to hear him. He's a loser and so are they.

Democracy and Iraq

2005-02-18T10:29:00.000-05:00

I get tired of hearing that the only reason we went into Iraq was weapons of mass destruction. The people who do that seem to only quote what they want and the bootlickers at CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN, not to mention the mags, etc., let them get away with it.
Here is Normblog at http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2005/02/on_political_am.html
noting that democracy was ALWAYS mentioned.

We need more honesty in our media. We always seem to get back to Orwell and Pavlov. Say the magic words and the liberals yelp at the moon.

Thanks to, who else, www.Instapudit.com for the link.

Charlie Rose last night

2005-02-16T10:27:00.000-05:00

I enjoyed the blog discussions on Charlie Rose last night. I would have preferred to listen to Glenn Reynolds of www.Instapundit.com more than any of the others and he said the least. But he's the one I turn to first in the morning.
Andrew Sullivan. www.AndrewSullivan.com, was once a favorite of mine...very clear, very trenchant. Then he became one issue. Did anyone notice that despite the fact that officially John Kerry had the same position as George Bush on gay marriage in the past election, three quarters of gays voted for Kerry and three quarters of antigay marriage folk voted for Bush? Seems simple to me. Everyone believed Bush's stand and no one believed Kerry's. But Sullivan went off the deep end.
Andrew, Andrew. Don't you understand? When George W. says that he's willing to along with domestic partnership he means it. Kerry would favor gay-bashing in parks if it brought him votes. Think. Think.
Wonkette, www.Wonkette.com, needs a better haircut. She was constantly pushing that hanging lock away from her eye. Great in a singles bar, lousy for television. She did make some sense.
Joe Trippi, www.JoeTrippi.com, surprised me, mostly by being a lot smarter than Howard Dean. Can you imagine what would happen if he worked for a viable candidate? He would have been a far better head of the Democratic National Committee.
But a good discussion. Major problem not really resolved: that the MSM still really make the determination on whether something becomes a story. I heard someone on one of the Fox shows saying that most commentators on all the cable shows had not heard about Easongate until the resignation. The problem is that bloggers need a way to get to more people. Then they would get some real attention.

Mark Steyn is back!

2005-02-15T09:04:00.000-05:00

Mark Steyn, columnist extraordinaire, has returned. I recommended him to the NY Times as the obvious replacement for William Safire and he deserves the nod.
He has one fabulous piece about Europe and the Holocaust, found at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/01/25/do2502.xml It's a great piece. And, by the way, he has another piece for the Western Standard of Canada on the real dictator of Canada. http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/index.cfm?page=article&article_id=542
Read it and you'll understand how totally corrupt Canada has become. And why it shafted the U.S. in Iraq. This is another country run by one man, Paul Desmarais. Chretien was his father in law. Paul Martin worked for him as did most of the top leadership of Canada. And he's right in the middle of the UNSCOM investigation. He is the leading shareholder in the Total Group, which was once TotalFinaElf. It had been given control of a quarter of Iraq's oil. He also owns the bank through which most of the crooked payments were made. And no one ever talks or writes about him in Canada.
The people of this country, and even more of Canada, need to know more about his man.
Interesting footnote: Running through the spellcheck, the suggested replacement for Desmarnais was degenerate and the suggestion for Chretien was cretin. Interesting.

Education Department

2005-02-14T14:03:00.000-05:00

New York Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/14/politics/14educ.html? has an excellent piece on changes by Secretary Spellings at the Department of Education. Or, perhaps it might be better said, hints of change. Hat tip to www.Eduwonk.com
The problem with the No Child Left Behind Law, like most education laws, is that it makes a lot of assumptions that just are not true. And if the basic postulates are false, the whole theory falls to pieces.
There were good intentions for NCLB as there are in almost all education laws. But by setting up a lot of rigid standards it sets itself up for failure.

For example:

At my local high school in Wellington, Florida, the school was reprimanded because not enough of the non-English speaking qualified students took the test. Four of them were absent out of a population of 60 on the day of the test, meaning that fewer than 95% took the test. Whoops...bad school.
Also, like most educational laws is assumes that what is done in Special Education will just move those kiddies along. Right. A student who can barely read and write will do wonderfully well in a history class just because there are fewer students.
My darling wife is an extraordinary Special Education person...she's won awards. When she took courses for a Master's Degree in Special Ed., the courses focused on everything EXCEPT teaching. Testing, assessment, alternatives, etc. But nothing on teaching. There's a good reason: there is no really good methodology...the best teachers do well because they're extraordinary people. But the law does not reflect it.
The Bush Administration needs to get a life when it comes to these things. Yes, it is important to build up the schools. I would even agree, although it is against my wife's best financial interests, that money really does not directly help. But some flexibility is needed.

The new budget proposal

2005-02-14T09:25:00.000-05:00

Is it just me or is almost every TV newscast spending a lot of time presenting some small program, or example of a program, that will be slashed if the Bush budget passes? On the morning shows, you can watch how programs for blind, deaf, starving, autistic, adorable orphans are facing the ax.
No mention anywhere of how much all the program cost. Or whether too much is being spent for too little return.
And no defense of spending cuts at all.
Yes, and we know they are all non-partisan. They keep telling us that. And some people still listen.

The media and morality

2005-02-14T09:01:00.000-05:00

In reading about Eason Jordan's resignation, I came across more information than perhaps I wanted. It seems, according to Mickey Kaus, www.kausfiles.com, that Jordan was having an affair with the widow of Daniel Pearl, murdered by terrorists. There seems to be some muddled commentary that somehow that led him to make his comments. Huhh! Run that by me again.
Reese Schonfeld, a creator of CNN, tried to defend Jordan on Fox News this morning. Boy, what a liar. Said that Jordan had not meant that Americans meant to kill journalists...did not mention that Jordan had used the word targeted to describe what had happened. Even used words out of context from a report from the investigation to attempt to demonstrate that troops fired at the Palestine hotel in Baghdad (and wouldn't you just know that our unbiased journalists would use a hotel with that name). Of course, in the report, the soldier stated that troops thought they had seen a spotter for artillary at one point and had felt bad. Jordan overlooked that as did Schonfeld.
Defenders of the mainstream media are outraged at bloggers for bringing these things up. They downgrade the accuracy of we "little folk in pajamas" compared to their careful work. Well, Eason Jordan, who was praised for "not pulling his punches" despite his agreement to never mention on the air all the tortures of the Iraqi people, has several times made this particular comment about US troops. Not to mention Israeli troops. Funny how most of the killings of journalists have come from his pet "insurgents" and the Palestinians and he never condemned them.
What the mainstream press does not seem to recognize is how vulnerable they are when they don't check facts or when they demonstrate bias. Now, most of us know how often they are wrong. And that's really OK. No one is perfect. But when they deliberately err, they move into another region entirely. Dan Rather was not cashiered because he made a mistake. He, and CBS News, deliberately set out to zap the Republican candidate for President. They had Mapes work on collecting evidence about Bush's past for five years. Sounds like something out of "The Fugitive."
When they couldn't find anything, they, using the kindest interpretation, went to unbelievably unreliable sources to get documentation. Documentation that was faked. (by the way, thanks to http://Instapundit.com for most of my information here. He's a form of Google all by himself. How much time was ever spent checking out the credentials of John Kerry? Five years for Bush, not even five minutes for Kerry. And when CBS did mention Swiftboats they focused primarily on reasons why Kerry's critics were not reliable. Had they done even a bit more of that for Bush's critics, the story would not have been run.
After all, who would you believe? Two hundred veterans of all political stripes or a handful of old-time Democratic partisans who were considered losers? CBS chose. And that led to their disgrace.
CNN and the other mainstream media did not make a connection between the obvious bias of one of their leaders and the kind of coverage they provide. More and more viewers are making their own connections. In the last few weeks, CNN has declined almost to the viewership level of MS-NBC. When Bill O'Reilly is viewed by two million viewers some nights, Paula Zahn get a half million. Larry King, who is not even close to being a news person, does better than the rest of the lineup because he often has celebrities. I trust Larry to bring out the real hidden meaning of Britney Spears. Would anyone trust him with Osama bin Laden? ("Tell me, Osama, you don't mind if I call you Sam, why do you think George W. Bush is so evil?").
There will be more examples of distortion over the years. Sooner or later, we will move to a system where responses to what the big shots say can be presented. At that point, integrity will become the most important quality for journalists. Not yet. But the time will come.

Blogs and their use

2005-02-13T12:22:00.000-05:00

Michael Barone in http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/050221/opinion/21barone.htm writes that blogs have become used for different purposes by the left and the right.
Left-wing bloggers, like Kos, use their influence to pull the Democratic Party to the left. Howard Dean demonstrated, as a candidate, how funds could be raised using a broader base than the Clintons had. Previously the party had sucked up the big business and unions. Barone does NOT mention how the Dems usually had to finagle special laws in order to get the money...special little programs or exceptions to taxes. The new direction does make the party purer. If they depend on a lot of small contributions from same-thinking people they will be more consistent. They can fight for a cause without having their leadership betray their purposes.
They also can keep the party moving in the direction they prefer. They are more organized than many more moderate Democrats who are not as involved. They can stay together, raise money together, and work for candidates they like between election cycles. Someone who does not share their views can be excoriated. Combined with the gerrymandering of districts that has made elections for the House of Representatives rather boring in recent years, they can keep the Democrats as liberal as they want...except perhaps for the few months leading up to a presidential election.
Bloggers on the right take a different tack. They have identified the real enemy and it is not really the Democratic Party. It is the media that supports the Party, defends the Party, covers up for the Party. Blogs act as a form of samizdata, underground communications net, that keeps more conservative voters aware of the issues. That, of course, is the reason there has been an outright attack on media sources and spends more time on Dan Rather and Eason Jordan than on any individual in the Democratic Party.
Frankly, the media is the major target because it has become the Democratic Party. There are blocs that are party of the Democratic Establishment but they have often been so betrayed by the Party that coverups are always necessary. Majorities of Jews and Arabs both voted for Kerry in 2004. Not many people noticed that far less was said about the state of Israel and its defense for most of the election than had been done for twenty years. Only when Ed Koch expressed doubts about Kerry...and then only when his charges began to be noticed in South Florida...did the "regulars" come out to defend him. The Dems in the black caucus have rightfully claimed to have built the welfare system and the affirmative action system. Neither has done much to help blacks. Back in the 1950's black families were stable and provided support. Now that support can only be given by governmental agencies that support the Democrats. Affirmative action officially gives a small break to qualified minorities. Rather too often it gives very large breaks to people who can not quite hack the new schools or jobs for which they have been told they are qualified.
The Democratic Party's attack on Alberto Gonzalez, in which Democratic Senators did not bother asking him about civil rights, about law enforcement, about so many other important Justice Department issues, and which focused instead on a memo that he did not even write and which could only have been construed as support for torture by extremists demonstrated how important it seemed to them to keep Hispanics in line.
Many Dems are now bemoaning the success of Condi Rice. And the racism demonstrated by many liberals was not pretty in the lead-in to her confirmation. But keeping blacks "on the plantation" is vital to the success of the Democratic Party and the media rewards those who stay there.
The important element in the conservative attack on the press is that by damaging its most important element, media, it can damage the party. The Dems know that they have only one more Presidential election before the next census, which will likely make it even more difficult to elect a President, and that they need full control in order to win. Watch for more battles in the future!

Charter Schools on and on

2005-02-12T11:27:00.000-05:00

Charter schools are an interesting notion. There are dozens of attempts in every state to create schools that actually work. A small caveat: these are generally created to help students in schools that are not functioning well. The movement to create charter schools for those who perform well or to replace schools that are strong has not really got off the ground.
However, when schools exist that feature student graduation rates not far above average student age, parents are going to righteously, and rightfully, angry. Parents want the best for their children. Sending children into unsafe schools that turn off teachers as fast as students revolts many parents.
Thus, the idea of creating schools that will teach kids. There are several problems inherent in doing this.

The average student who comes to schools has spent most of his/her career in poorly performing schools. This means that statistics will probably not be as high for these students as for schools that don't contain these students. In fact, statistics from school systems as a whole may even improve as fewer students are enrolled in their weakest schools.
The regular school system has a huge built-in advantage. It gets its buildings essentially for free, or at least under another budget. So the amount of money spent on children in public schools will have a lot more buying power. The building is already there. Charter schools will have to pay for their space.
Many systems do not give charters the same amount of money for each students they receive for their own students. The charters may get, if they are lucky, the average amount of money spent per student that the system schools get. The special funding through Title I, for Special Education, for many other things quite often never gets to the new building.
Charter schools often demand staff work far longer hours but do not have the money to pay teachers at the same rate. As a result, salaries are actually lower. A good teacher may feel obliged to move to a government school in order to increase pay.

There are many other reasons charter schools often have trouble competing. Sometimes the reasons are built into the system, sometimes the schools just do not do a good job. Many charter schools have been closed because they do not achieve stated goals; few government-sponsored schools have ever closed for that reason.

Eason Jordan's Gone

2005-02-11T23:49:00.000-05:00

Eason Jordan, leader of "the most trusted name in news", resigned because he had lied and even worse for him, had gotten caught.
We need a way to keep the big news networks honest. It took several weeks of yelling and screaming by most of the really good guys to get attention and even then most of the mainstream media just avoided coverage.
My main proposal for news. and it will be repeated often, is to allow critics to buy time to criticize shows. Can you imagine what would happen if partway through Paula Zahn, a one minute commercial featuring Hugh Huwitt asks for the truth about Jordan's charges that American troops tried to kill journalists.
Even better, wouldn't it have been nice to ask during "60 Minutes" why they had spent five years checking on Bush's record for the VietNam years and not even five minutes on Kerry?
This is what we need. Freedom of the Press for all the people.

So Your Are Really a Progressive?

2005-02-11T20:44:00.000-05:00

You must be a Progressive when:

1) You support someone remaining in power in a nation who you would never want to live in your neighborhood.

Would you want a Saddam Hussein living on your street? He would have to be on a sex criminal registry for his rape rooms. And what about the cemeteries filled with children that his subordinates murdered. Who could want him close by?
Would you want a Fidel Castro who tosses people he doesn’t like into prisons for dozens of years near you? Or Hugo Chavez who demonstrates a total lack of concern for anyone’s rights but his own.
How about Kim Jong-Il? What a wonderful neighbor he would make! You might worry about those large buildings he puts on his property and the women and children starving next to them.
The Iranian mullahs would be a lot of laughs although you might want to tell your daughters not to wander onto their property because they might have stones thrown at them for not wearing burkhas.
Yet Progressives argue that these are the people who must be treated with deference.

2) You act as a human shield only for the nastiest, most hurtful people in the world.

Remember the human shields going to Iraq to protect Saddam and “his people”? I do not recall any of them protecting women from his rape rooms or your children from his prisons.
Remember the peace activists who protected the Palestinian gunmen in Bethlehem a few years ago? They did not try to protect Jewish children from being blown up or women at restaurants or on buses. They did not even go there to protect Palestinian children from being pushed into becoming martyrs. They went to protect murderers in the name of peace.

3) You understand which are the important people in the world and ignore those who are not.

The Progressives recognize that the Shiites and Kurds in Iraq do not count. They understand the murdering them means nothing. Raping the women should not even be mentioned by groups like NOW. It is the Sunnis, most particularly those who worked in the rape rooms and the killing fields who are important.
When people die in Iraq it is only the fault of the Americans. Those killed by Iraqis are only the fault of the Americans. A car bomb built by a Syrian in the pay of Usama bin Laden that kills five Iraqi women can therefore be blamed on the United States. The same women should have been raped by the same people when Saddam was in power. Then it would not have counted as all.
When Palestinians shoot each other for power it is the fault of the Jews. When a Palestinian bomber kills several Jewish children, it is their own fault. If he dies in the bombing, Progressives know that his death is the tragedy.
The people who died in Iraq because money was shifted from Oil for Food so Saddam could have dozens of palaces with gold bathrooms, died because of the United States. As a matter of fact all the people who have ever died in Iraq, even before the United States was created, can be blamed on the U.S.

4) If people hate the United States, whites people, or Jews enough they can not be held accountable for anything

Does it matter that Moslems are directly involved in just about every war around the world? Of course not. Does it matter that the simple answer to every discussion about problems in the Middle East leads to a demand for acting just like Adolph Hitler? Any good Progressive knows that the answer for both is no.

5) If media people depart from any of the above rules they must be called extremists.

This is self-evident. Stories are generally slanted the same way or if it is impossible to slant they are ignored. Terrorists are called “insurgents” and the US teams that go after them are called “death squads.”
Without FOX News and a handful of blogs getting in the way, news could be presented properly in line with all the precepts of George Orwell.

An Opening Wedge

2005-02-11T20:33:00.000-05:00

This is the opening posting of a new blog. Unlike at least a few others, I have not been bought by anyone. However, if there is anyone out there with a large bankroll, I might be bought fairly cheaply.
I am an old educator. I worked for decades as a teacher in New York City and then became an administrator. That has made me more than a bit cynical and perhaps a bit too judgmental. On the other hand, just as Rabelais viewed the world centuries ago, there is a lot to be cynical about. I see educators who are more interested in their "rice bowls" than in educating children. There are politicians who claim they want nothing more than to guarantee the best for all children but make certain their own children attend private schools.
Politicians are easy game and I plan to go after them. They may complain but then again if they wanted to avoid criticism they should not have become politicians.
N'est ce-pas? (That's in keeping with the theme of the name).

Why, you wonder, if the name misspelled? Well, as you might expect, the name spelled the real way has already been reserved. Second, I really am a man of the streets-- born, raised, and taught in the Bronx. So I am part of the rabble that believes almost nothing published by the mainstream media or said by the politicians.