Does Anyone Agree?

The War on Plastic Bags

2007-04-26T17:11:00.000-05:00

It started in San Francisco (of course it did). Now, it's spreading to my hometown. (via Michael Graham)

Since when did plastic become the most important thing on everyone's minds?

Let's skip ahead, though, to the last two paragraphs of this piece, as it clearly illustrates why this measure supported by 9 of the 12 members of the City Council is over-reaching and unnecessary (emphasis mine):

"Still, the production of paper bags produces more water and air pollution than plastic bags, according to the EPA, which promotes the use of reusable bags. Paper bags also take up more space in landfills."

"Boston has a recycling program, which in 2005 recovered 17 percent of the 302,000 tons of waste generated by the city. But the city does not accept plastic bags in its program, instead encouraging residents to take the bags back to the retailer."

Here's a hint: why not accept plastic bags instead of charging consumers for using them? Why not accept plastic bags instead of charging supermarkets to come up with more expensive ways to package groceries, a hit the consumer will eventually feel in his wallet anyway?

Because it's all about the money, not the environment. It's always about the money.

Michael Graham is hysterical in his commentary, and manages to point out the lunacy of this idea:

"Meanwhile, State Sen. Brian Joyce is trying to get rid of the plastic bags statewide. His plan is to charge shoppers up to 15 cents per bag if they choose plastic over paper. Doesn't this insensitive earth-hater know that paper bags come from TREES! Why, every paper bag I choose is equal to at least a dozen 'one-square' visits to the potty by Sheryl Crow."

Here's Debbie Schlussel's incisive insight from the San Francisco measure:

"...It's not like people who live, frequent, or shop in San Francisco don't have plastic bags from other cities and suburbs, or get plastic bags from clothing, electronics, and other types of stores, which aren't covered by the silly measure.
"And have fun carrying biodegradable bags made of corn and potato starches in the rain--they'll melt and your purchases will roll around on the ground. That'll hardly eliminate waste. It will only increase it. Way to go, San Francisco."

Way to go, Boston.

Carbon Offsets

2007-04-26T16:10:00.000-05:00

First of all, it would probably be a good idea to define a "carbon offset" - here's the definition from greenie David Suzuki (with an included example for clarification):

"A 'carbon offset' is an emission reduction credit from another organization’s project that results in less carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than would otherwise occur. Carbon offsets are typically measured in tons of CO2-equivalents (or 'CO2e') and are bought and sold through a number of international brokers, online retailers, and trading platforms.

"For example, wind energy companies often sell carbon offsets. The wind energy company benefits because the carbon offsets it sells make such projects more economically viable. The buyers of the offsets benefit because they can claim that their purchase resulted in new non-polluting energy, which they can use to mitigate their own greenhouse gas emissions. The buyers may also save money as it may be less expensive for them to purchase offsets than to eliminate their own emissions."

Sounds almost too good to be true, right?

Well, it might be.

Because of their increasing popularity, carbon offsets finally have rightly come under some scrutiny. Are they effective? Does the environment become "greener"? Who's profiting? These are the questions that are finally being asked.

...and the answers are not pretty for the environmentalists.

First, Businessweek examines the "feel-good hype" surrounding carbon offsets and coins what has to be one of my new favorite terms, the "checkbook environmentalist" - someone who thinks he can solve the supposed global warming crisis by merely buying carbon offsets to counter his own massive pollution. (see Al Gore and John Edwards as examples)

What's good about the Businessweek piece is that, from what I can tell, it is not reporting this information through a liberal or conservative lens. Rather, it's simply reporting on current trends which don't seem to be working:

"Done carefully, offsets can have a positive effect and raise ecological awareness. But a close look at several transactions—including those involving the Oscar presenters, Vail Resorts, and the Seattle power company—reveals that some deals amount to little more than feel-good hype. When traced to their source, these dubious offsets often encourage climate protection that would have happened regardless of the buying and selling of paper certificates. One danger of largely symbolic deals is that they may divert attention and resources from more expensive and effective measures."

Read the entire piece for more information on TerraPass, Waste Management Inc., Hollywood ignorance, and how they all tie together.

The Financial Times follows Businessweek's lead - here's what its investigation uncovered:

"A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.

"Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway."

So...here are the results:
1) companies are paying for carbon emission reductions, which don't actually occur
2) companies are profiting off carbon trading for cleanups it was already planning
3) the new lucrative business of carbon trading helps big spenders to think they're actually saving the planet when, in actuality, they're diverting resources from other measures which may in fact help

Looks like Gore's ideas aren't as environmentally sound as he thought.

Lorie Byrd makes a fantastic point in addressing the heart of the carbon offset issue, particularly with "limousine liberals" like Al Gore and John Edwards:

"...If global warming is truly a dire threat to the existence of life on earth as Gore and others claim, and if human activity contributes to the problem, what could possibly justify the excessive (I would even say obscene) energy consumption of Gore and other limousine liberals? If paying someone else to behave better than you do (through offsets) is a sufficient answer, I have to wonder just how real the problem is. I also wonder just how much bad behavior can be forgiven with the purchase of offsets."

Another fear of those of us on the right is the idea that government will limit economic progress and, therefore, our general well-being, by creating a "global warming tax" (like Britain) or federally sponsoring the production of ethanol (which corn growers LOVE - but Rebecca Hagelin refutes). John Stossel rightfully argues on the side of economic progress - which will, as a result, help the environment (in response to celebrating Earth Day):

"Human ingenuity and technology not only raised living standards, but also restored environmental amenities. How about a day to celebrate that?"

And...

"President Bush chides us for our 'addiction to oil.' But under current conditions, using oil makes perfect sense. Someday, if we let the free market operate, someone will find an energy source that works better than oil. Then richer future generations won't need oil. So why deprive ourselves and make ourselves poorer with needless regulation now?"

So...it would seem that the world is just fine as it is, and do-gooders like Al Gore really aren't helping anyway. Seems like a win-win to me - the less he can help, the better.

See Sister Toldjah for more.

The Ongoing Threat of Radical Islam

2007-04-25T16:48:00.000-05:00

One might not know with the wall-to-wall coverage of Don Imus, Rosie O'Donnnell, Virginia Tech, and Anna Nicole's baby, that we're still fighting a war.

According to what's happened around the world this week (or, at least what I've come across this week), we're fighting that war with good reason:

1) British Police Arrest 6 Terror Suspects (via Atlas Shrugs) The New York Times refers to one of those arrested as an "outspoken Islamic activist" - Abu Izzadeen. Here's what Izzadeen thinks of the UK:

"What I would say about those who do suicide operations, or martyrdom operations - they're completely praiseworthy. If I see Mujahadin attack the UK, I always stand with the Muslims".

And...

"Osama bin Laden, excuse me, Sheikh Osama bin Laden, he offered to the British public, and the European people at large, an offer of ceasefire. He said that if they rose up against their governments, brought their troops home, he promised not to attack them. But unfortunately the stiff upper British lip became hardheaded, and we saw what took place on 7 July [meaning, the London bombings]."

Mind you, this person was born and raised in the UK - so much for assimilation and pride in one's country.

There's much more there - read the whole thing.

2) The AP reports that Osama Bin Laden was behind the February attack on Vice President Dick Cheney. Despite this report, doubt is circulating about its authenticity. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, filling in for the recuperating Tony Snow, said it was "an interesting claim but ... I haven't seen any intelligence that would support that."

Hot Air also does some debunking.

Doesn't the question become, though: Why would Mullah Dadullah tell Al Jazeera this if it weren't true? I haven't been able to come up with a good reason...

3) Syria is armed with bio-terror (again, Atlas Shrugs) Smallpox, apparently, is the weapon of choice:

"'Syria is positioned to launch a biological attack on Israel or Europe should the U.S. attack Iran,' Jill Bellamy-Dekker told WND. 'The Syrians are embedding their biological weapons program into their commercial pharmaceuticals business and their veterinary vaccine-research facilities. The intelligence service oversees Syria's 'bio-farm' program and the Ministry of Defense is well interfaced into the effort.'
"Bellamy-Decker currently directs the Public Health Preparedness program for the European Homeland Security Association under the French High Committee for Civil Defense.
"She anticipates a variation of smallpox is the biological agent Syria would utilize.
"'The Syrians are also working on orthopox viruses that are related to smallpox,' Bellamy-Decker said, 'and it's a good way to get around international treaties against offensive biological weapons development. They work on camelpox as a cover for smallpox.'"

Whew! Good thing Harry Reid told the President we can't attack Iran. You know, because there's so much evidence of that...

4) Al Qaeda seemingly responsible for the killing of 9 U.S. soldiers. The International Herald Tribune goes into detail to describe the area where the suicide attacks took place, Mesopotamia:

"The membership of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is made up mostly of Iraqis, with some tribes in the country divided in their loyalties toward the group.
"Al Qaeda was once most active in Anbar Province, a Sunni Arab bastion, but appears to have shifted much of its efforts to Diyala Province, which lies between Iran and Baghdad. The province is a seething caldron of ethnic and sectarian tensions, with Sunni Arab militants driving Shiites from the provincial capital, Iraqi Army units operating under a general loyal to a Shiite militia, and Kurds slowly seizing cities in the north."

The umbrella group responsible for the attack, the Islamic State of Iraq, encompasses Al Qaeda. Apparently, the group was proud of its handiwork, as boastful postings could be found on the internet related to the attack.

5) Ayaan Hirsi Ali threatened with death...AGAIN. According to NewsBusters, though, the mainstream media largely ignored this story, while the focus remained on...Al Sharpton.

Hirsi Ali was scheduled to speak at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown (likely on her book, Infidel, which is something ELSE I have to read!). This is what the Johnstown Islamic Center had to say on her appearance at the University:

"Imam Fouad ElBayly, president of the Johnstown Islamic Center, was among those who objected to Hirsi Ali's appearance.
"'She has been identified as one who has defamed the faith. If you come into the faith, you must abide by the laws, and when you decide to defame it deliberately, the sentence is death,'" said ElBayly, who came to the U.S. from Egypt in 1976."

Does that sound like the Religion of Peace to you?

Here is what she says about those constant death threats:

"People are always asking me what it’s like to live with death threats. It’s like being diagnosed with a chronic disease. It may flare up and kill you, but it may not. It could happen in a week, or not for decades.
"The people who ask me this usually have grown up in rich countries — Western Europe and the United States — after the Second World War. They take life for granted. Where I grew up [Somalia], death is a constant visitor."

Here is her website for those who are interested.

Does any of these most recent events penetrate the mind of the left to make them reconsider why de-funding the troops is a bad idea? What's wrong with trying to win this war? Regardless of your stance at the beginning of the war, one must realize that de-funding the troops and, as a result, leaving the region and losing the war, will promote chaos for the region. An unstable Iraq will be taken over by an increasingly vigilant Iran, and the prospects of Iran's nuclear program will likely trigger a nuclear arms race in the region (with Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, among others, likely pursuing nuclear development).

In what way is this good for the United States? Despite the negative press, we need to see this war to its end: victory for the United States, and the ultimate safety of our country and people.

Do You Read?

2007-04-25T15:55:00.000-05:00

In college, I think many students feel overwhelmed by the amount of required reading they have to do for all their classes (particularly at a liberal arts college), so oftentimes they feel they have little time to read "for themselves", or, what they actually want to read. I know I felt this way. Come June, I was so burnt out from the school year, I generally took summers off from reading.

I'm not like that anymore. And it's crucial not to be.

A couple of different pieces brought this topic to my attention. First, LaShawn Barber (as many of you know, one of my favorites) asked her readers "How many books do you own"? as a light-hearted yet telling post as to where her regular readers stand. She lists her favorites, and many commenters do the same.

Sad to say, I haven't read much of what's on this post. And, since I now consider myself a "reader," I wonder how many other people out there haven't read Song of Solomon, The Screwtape Letters, The Old Man and the Sea, and A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (none of which I, a "reader", have read)...

The second reason I bring this topic up is Kathleen Parker's most recent column. Specifically, she cites the reduction in stand-alone book sections of newspapers as an indication that overall readership in the country has declined - people aren't reading books anymore. Given the similar decline in newspaper readership, Parker wonders why newspapers don't try to reach out to a dwindling reading audience:

"From a practical standpoint, it also makes no sense. Clue: People who read newspapers are also likely book readers. So why do newspaper editors and publishers think that killing one of the few features that readers might — big word here — READ is a smart move in an era of newspaper decline?"

For those of you who make the argument that Barnes and Noble and Borders are always packed when you're in there...well, that may be true. People may be buying the books, I suppose, but not reading them. Parker points us to a 2004 survey conducted by the National Endowment for the Arts, which found the following:

- fewer than 1/2 of American adults read literature
- an overall decline of 10% in literary readers from 1982 to 2002, resulting in a loss of 20 million potential readers
- a decline among every single segment of the American population
- the rate of decline for the youngest adults (18 - 24...or, those eligible to be on The Real World) was 55 percent greater than that of the total adult population

These are scary statistics.

I'm curious if these statistics give weight to Ann Coulter's argument that "liberals don't read."

I'm currently reading The Fountainhead (and Atlas Shrugged turns 50 this week, by the way)- if you're not reading anything at the moment, why not?

Pro-Abortion Advocates Be Damned

2007-04-19T18:01:00.000-05:00

As the nation and the media recover from Virginia Tech and Imus, a little Supreme Court ruling finally went the conservative way this week, with little media fanfare:

Justices uphold ban on abortion procedure

and was Ruth Bader Ginsburg STEAMED:

"In a bitter dissent read from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman on the high court, said the majority's opinion 'cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away a right declared again and again by this court, and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives.'
"She called the ruling 'alarming' and noted the conservative majority 'tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases' by doctor's groups, including gyncecologists."

How about the assumption in this dissent that abortion only affects women's lives? Where did Ginsburg come up with the gall to say that? Or even think it, for that matter? CNN's sub-headline reads "Sole woman on bench reads bitter dissent" - and then, immediately, again emphasizes that Ginsburg is "the only woman on the high court"...as if she's more qualified to voice an opinion on this subject because she's a woman. Sorry, CNN, but I have to point out: many women disagree with Ginsburg.

A reminder from one of my earlier posts on abortion:

1) "It's my body." It's not. It's a body within the womb of a woman. Isn't this undeniable?
2) "I'm not "pro-abortion" - I'm "pro-choice"...ummm - you're pro-abortion. Plain and simple. You can call me anti-choice all you want. As far as abortion goes, I am both pro-life and anti-choice. Those who are "pro-choice" are also "pro-abortion"
3) "safe, legal and rare" - ...If 165,500 abortions in Britain alone in one year is rare...I'd hate to know the definition of "common"...
4) "but abortion should be a last resort" - well, if you're not aborting a human life, why should it matter when you have an abortion? If there is no moral attachment, and abortion is purely a physical procedure, then all forms of abortion should be legal. But, oftentimes, that's not the case. Why? Proponents refuse to acknowledge publicly the moral component, that's why. But they limit the types of abortion (i.e., partial-birth, late-term) to seem sympathetic when all they're really doing is killing the baby earlier.
5) "I have freedom to do what I want - the government can't tell me what to do" - this is true. The government can't tell you that you can't get pregnant. The government can't say you can't get pregnant out of wedlock. But the government can legislate based on moral absolutes - this is one of them: MURDER.

This is a step in the right direction. Hopefully now, the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade will be revisited altogether - and here are two quick reasons why this should take place:

1) The premise of the case was based on a lie. "Jane Roe" initially claimed she was gang-raped - this turned out not to be true. Her pregnancy was the result of a failed relationship.
2) That same "Jane Roe" now opposes Roe v. Wade

I'll be looking for loony lefty responses and posting them later...

Virginia Tech Perspective

2007-04-19T17:33:00.000-05:00

The consistently brilliant Mark Steyn's piece in National Review is a good place to start analyzing what really happened at Virginia Tech, and why. The first line should indicate to you that it is a provocative must-read:

"I haven’t weighed in yet on Virginia Tech — mainly because, in a saner world, it would not be the kind of incident one needed to have a partisan opinion on."

Of course, he's right.

Steyn takes the media (including - gasp - Fox News) to task for its characterization of many of Cho Seung-hui's victims as "children." However, because of America's culture of prolonged adolescence, the victims were not "adult" enough to respond appropriately when confronted by danger. From Steyn:

"We should be raising [our sons and daughters] to understand that there will be moments in life when you need to protect yourself — and, in a 'horrible' world, there may come moments when you have to choose between protecting yourself or others. It is a poor reflection on us that, in those first critical seconds where one has to make a decision, only an elderly Holocaust survivor, Professor Librescu, understood instinctively the obligation to act."

Second, Steyn addresses the idea of "protection" - of course, the implication is that protection does not come from oneself (say, for instance, by lawfully carrying a concealed weapon), but through institutions...in this case, the school itself, but, on a much larger scale, the government. Naturally, constant protection provided by big government from danger is impossible, though many in the media fail to see that. Steyn uses a 9/11 comparison story to illustrate his point:

"The only good news of [September 11] came from the passengers who didn’t meekly follow the obsolescent 1970s hijack procedures but who used their wits and acted as free-born individuals."

Despite the fact that many of us have been on a heightened sense of alert since the September 11th attacks, tragedies like those at Virginia Tech prove that we are still vulnerable - deadly so. By ensuring our freedoms and constitutional rights both on and off campus, we will naturally offer better protection for ourselves and others.

Mot of those victims were helpless (with no way to defend themselves) and hopeless (with no idea how to respond to an emergency of this magnitude). Many are pointing to this article in the Roanoke Times as proof that the 2nd Amendment can be thrown out the window on campus - it's a shame that a tragedy such as this will provoke discussion concerning our rights as U.S. citizens, rights that should have been protected all along.

Morbid quote from the article:

"Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. 'I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.'"

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Rap Music's Influence - LANGUAGE WARNING

2007-04-17T19:01:00.000-05:00

As my previoius post illustrates, many in the media have drawn attention to the rap culture as promoting this type of unfair treatment of black women in society. I think John McWhorter makes the point best when he says that Imus likely lifted the term "nappy-headed ho" from rap music itself.

But...

...the argument seems to be missing something. And that's the role of black women in their own portrayal.

After all, who's portraying "nappy-headed hos" in music videos? Is it...white women? Hispanic women? Asian women?

I don't think so. It's black women.

And as long as black women in these videos keep giving us reason to think of them as "nappy-headed hos", people will keep thinking it.

Michelle Malkin talked about the Billboard Hot Rap Track chart and how all the lyrics debase women. But the songs are all by black men. What about the lyrics by black women themselves which do the same thing?

Here's a sampling of one of Li'l Kim and 50 Cent's biggest hits, "Magic Stick":

"Lil' Kim not a (w)hore
But I sex a nigga so good, he gotta tell his boys
When it, come to sex don't test my skills
Cause my head game have you HEAD over heels
Give a nigga the chills, have him pay my bills
Buy matchin Lambo's with the same color wheels...
.. and I ain't out shoppin spendin dudes C-notes
I'm in the crib givin niggaz deep throat
Tonight Lil' Kim gon' have you in the zone
Girls, call ya crib, I'm answerin' the phone
Guys wanna wife me 'n' give me the ring
I'll do it anywhere, anyhow,down for anything
Couple of humps, give a nigga goosebumps
This junk in my trunk ain't made for chumps
When Lil' Kim's around you don't need to lie
It's the "Drugs" baby, I'm makin' ya HIGH!!"

Right - she says she's not a whore...and then proceeds to explain how she is, in fact, a whore.

And here's her verse in "All About the Benjamins":

Uhh, uhh, what the blood clot?
Wanna bumble wit the Bee hahh?
BZZZZT, throw a hex on a whole family (yeah, yeah yeah)
Dressed in all black like the Oman (say what?)
Have your friends singin 'This is for my homey' (that's right)
And you know me, from makin niggaz so sick
Floss in my 6 with the Lex on the wrist
If it's Murder, you know She Wrote it (uh-huh)
German Luger for your ass bitch, deep throated
Know you wanna fill the room cause it's platinum coated
Take your pick, got a firearm you shoulda toted, suck a dick
All that bullshit you kick, playa hatin from the sideline
Get your own shit, why you ridin mine? (uh-huh)
I'm, a Goodfella kinda lady
Stash 380's and Mercedes, Puffy hold me down baby!
Only female in my crew, and I kick shit
like a nigga do, with a trigga too, fuck you
[Big:] (Yeah, yeah, uhh, uhh, uhh!)

And, no, Li'l Kim is not alone. Here are the opening lyrics to one of Foxy Brown's more popular songs, "I'll Be":

What up pop, brace yourself as I ride on top
Close your eyes as you ride, right out your socks
Double, lose his mind as he grind in the tunnel
Wanna gimme the cash he made off his last bundle
Nasty-girl don't pass me the world
I push to be not the backseat girl
Don't deep throat the C-note she float
Murder she wrote, and keeps the heat close
Firm nigga, we 'posed to be the illest on three coasts
Familia, bigga than Icos
Y'all, Danny DeVitoes, small niggaz
All I see is the penny heaters, that's all niggaz
No shark in this year raise it bigga...

Nice to know she can rhyme "niggaz" with... well,"niggaz"...

Here's the second verse to arguably her biggest hit, "Hot Spot":

Yo! Cats bustin out the six, cash flushin out the niggaz
Platinum heart in half hangin 'tween the two tit-ties
Scheme on your team, lookin over graph pictures
Pick the finest, then I put it on the minors
Love, after the club, meet me at the diner
So you can bring your boys, we got ten cars behind us
Order a steak, a glass of OJ to break-fast
Hop in the car and head straight up Eighth Ave.
The night is young, I'm likin son
Either he don't have one, or his wife is dumb
His whole hand numb, nigga iced his thumb
Pull up my tights some, enticin him
You can handle the work, I'll play wit it
Til he curve and swerve nigga, stay wit it
Bitches in the club they, hated it
Cause I put my mack down then I, skated it

Rapper Trina clearly couldn't be left out. I can't even make sense of the chorus to a song off her 2000 album, "Da Baddest Bitch". The song is "Niggas Ain't Shit":

Niggas ain't shit, but hoes and tricks
Lick tha pearl tongue nigga keep tha dick
Get tha fuck out after I cum
So I can hop in my Coup and make a quick run

Clearly, she cleaned up her act with her most recent release, as here are the lyrics from one of the songs off her most recent album - the song is called "So Fresh":

Paint candy racin' sribs.
Crush dem bitches off the rip.
I don't think you really wanna mess with me, test me and eventually.
See me speedin', cops don't see em', fuck em' & feed em' wouldn't wanna be em'.
I ain't scared of ya'll,
I ain't no regular broad I'ain't scared at all.
Like bone crusher I'll crush your bones when I come through strong with my big big brone.
Ride spinners like 3-6 do. Let me do me nigga you do you.
Suck this clit till my shit turn blue.
Put a bitch to sleep wake me up when you threw.
I'ma get dress so fresh lookin' new and it's back to the chevy or the cab for you.
Chuck & Duece switchin' lanes.
Ridin' dat douk & sittin' on things.
You ain't never met a bitch like me and your bitch ain't never ride a dick like me.
Check the paint, watch the feet, inches 26's deep, candy drippin' on the street, bitch I'm ridin;
BIG.

A hint to all the female black rappers out there - you are not doing ANYONE ANY FAVORS. If you're outraged by what a 60-something "shock jock" has to say about a dozen or so female athletes, then be MORE outraged by what you say about ALL OTHER BLACK WOMEN.

It's not just the men - it's also the women.

Imus Roundup

2007-04-17T18:11:00.000-05:00

Let's be clear: I don't care that Imus was fired. I didn't listen to him, and on the off-chance I did hear him, I didn't listen to him very long.

To me, he was a goner the second the media ran with the story. Honestly, I don't think CBS and MSNBC come out on top here, despite taking the "moral high ground" by firing him. Their initital decision was a two-week suspension, and then, after 8 days, he was gone altogether. Why not fire him, then, in the first place? Because CBS and MSNBC don't care that Imus made disparaging comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team - they care about the almighty dollar. So when sponsors such as Staples, Bigelow Tea, American Express, General Motors and others decided to pull out, the plug was pulled on Imus. Clearly, the final straw was loss of dollars, not public outrage.

Here's what the people are saying, playing various angles:

E. J. Dionne:

"Arguing about Imus does absolutely nothing to provide our poorest African-American kids with better schools, health insurance or a chance at college and higher incomes. We rightly heap praise on those noble Rutgers women, but we should ask ourselves if Imus would have gotten away with comparably sleazy comments targeting less visible and less successful women, or men. I think we know the answer."

Linda Chavez:

"Don Imus is a crank. But his bigoted remarks have made him more famous than anything he's done in the past and will probably attract more listeners when he returns to his ornery morning show than he has ever had. MSNBC and CBS may have cancelled him for now, but he'll be back, and when he returns, ratings will go up. And we can thank the "news" coverage Imus has received when they do."

Jason Whitlock:

"Thank you, Don Imus. You extended Black History Month to April, and we can once again wallow in victimhood, protest like it’s 1965 and delude ourselves into believing that fixing your hatred is more necessary than eradicating our self-hatred.
"The bigots win again.
"While we’re fixated on a bad joke cracked by an irrelevant, bad shock jock, I’m sure at least one of the marvelous young women on the Rutgers basketball team is somewhere snapping her fingers to the beat of 50 Cent’s or Snoop Dogg’s or Young Jeezy’s latest ode glorifying nappy-headed pimps and hos."

Pat Buchanan:

While the remarks of Imus and Bernie about the Rutgers women were indefensible, they were more unthinking and stupid than vicious and malicious. But malice is the right word to describe the howls for their show to be canceled and them to be driven from the airwaves – by phonies who endlessly prattle about the First Amendment.

John Fund:

"It's certainly true that many black leaders, ranging from Calvin Butts of New York's Abyssinian Baptist Church to Queen Latifah to the editors of Essence magazine have spoken out against offensive rap lyrics. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have also raised their voices against them. On Friday Barack Obama told a black South Carolina audience that offensive rappers 'are degrading our sisters.' It's about time he stepped forward, since it was Mr. Obama who helped legitimize the rapper Ludicrus, whose oeuvre includes such songs as 'Ho,' 'You'z a Ho' and 'I Got Hos,' by inviting him to his Chicago office last year to talk about, as the Associated Press put it, 'lighting the way for the nation's youth.'
"But there have been almost no calls demanding that any 'gangsta rap' artists be driven from the airwaves as Mr. Imus was or that the record companies promoting 'gangsta rap' be boycotted. Pepsi did drop Ludicrus from its ad campaign after his lyrics angered Oprah Winfrey and also became the subject of a pointed campaign by Fox News's Bill O'Reilly, one of the few media figures who has been willing to take on hate rap foursquare."

Sister Toldjah (re: Obama's response, here):

"...I could appreciate a generalized rant about our culture if that was what was at issue here, but it wasn’t. The issue was Don Imus’ 'nappy-headed hos' comment as it compared to rap music and it’s influence on the black community. Nice way to skip out of issuing a more serious condemnation in favor of the general 'we’re all guilty' standard liberal line whenever people start focusing more intently on problem segments of our society. Guess the Senator didn’t want to risk offending any black voters with a long overdue bit of straight talk, eh? "

Tammy Bruce's website:

"However, whatever his merits and demerits, Imus is just another media curmudgeon. He's not particularly responsible for keeping black people down, and taking him out will not do anything to improve the state of the world. Everybody knows this. The firing is just a war trophy for the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton."

Ann Coulter:

"The reason people don't like what Imus said was because the women on the Rutgers basketball team aren't engaged in public discourse. They're not public figures, they don't have a forum, they aren't trying to influence public policy.
"They play basketball — quite well, apparently — and did nothing to bring on an attack on their looks or character. It's not the words Imus used: It would be just as bad if he had simply said the Rutgers women were ugly and loose.
"People claim to object to the words alone, but that's because everyone is trying to fit this incident into a PC worldview. It's like girls who say, 'It's not that you cheated on me; it's that you lied about it.' No — it's that you cheated.
"If Imus had called me a 'towheaded ho' or Al Sharpton a 'nappy-headed ho,' it would be what's known as 'funny.' (And if he called Anna Nicole Smith a 'flaxen-headed ho,' it would be 'absolutely accurate.') But he attacked the looks and morals of utterly innocent women, who had done nothing to inject themselves into public debate.
"Imus should apologize to the Rutgers women — and those women alone — send them flowers, and stop kissing Al Sharpton's ring. This wasn't an insult to all mankind, and certainly not an insult to Al Sharpton. Now, if Imus had called the basketball players 'fat, race-baiting black men with clownish hairstyles,' well, then perhaps Sharpton would be owed an apology."

Monica Crowley:

"We've caught Hillary Clinton in another lie, this time involving the Imus firestorm.
"Several days after the controversy broke out, Clinton decided it was safe for her to weigh in on the I-man's comments. Clinton was quoted in the New York Daily News and on her website as saying, 'I've never wanted to go on his show and I certainly don't ever intend to go on his show, and I felt that way before his latest outrageous, hateful, hurtful comments.'
But hold on. She never wanted to go on Imus? After all, her hubby Bill has Imus to thank for saving him in the 1992 New York primaries. Many say Bill Clinton's appearance on the Imus radio show helped him to win in New York and launch him to the national stage. Maybe Imus could do the same for her in 2007?
"It sure sounded like the Clinton camp wanted to go there, when Imus buddy Donald Trump called into the show on April 6th. Anyone who listed to Imus knew how he felt about Hillary. He called her 'Satan,' and vowed she would never appear on his program. That morning, Trump tried to change his mind:
'As you know I mentioned that Hillary wanted to really get on your show. She has a lot of respect for you but it doesn't seem to be reciprocal. She's a terrific woman and she'd do your show gladly but you don't seem to want to according to Bernard and according to watching you, you don't seem to want her on the show.'
"The interview raises some real questions: Was Trump speaking on behalf of the Clinton campaign or was he doing this totally on his own? If you listen to the interview, it sure sounds like Trump wasn't asking for himself. Who put Trump up to it?
"You'd think these would be good questions for the mainstream media to ask, but they've been too busy piling on a man who said a stupid thing and bowing to the pressures of two race-baiting hustlers."

Debbie Schlussel:

"These women--who seemed to be basking in their 15 minutes of fame quite exuberantly for women claiming to be upset by it--tried so hard to seem glum, it was hard to tell if I was watching a press conference . . . or extras tryouts for the Lifetime Channel's latest angry-women-done-wrong-by-the-White-man movie of the week, big-and-tall-size.
"Who are Essence Carson, Heather Zurich, and C. Vivian Stringer? Before Monday, we'd never heard of them. After all, they play in a college sport no-one on earth cares about: women's basketball, which has a popularity level lower than the XFL (pro-wrestling's failed football league, which didn't last a full season). And these women weren't even the champions. They lost.
"But now, even though we don't want to, we know their names, while we don't even know--and couldn't care less about--the names of the women on the team (University of Tennessee Volunteers) that beat them and actually won the NCAA women's basketball championship.
"Sounds to me like they owe Donald Imus a big thank you. He put them on the map, to the point that we know more of their names than we do pro women's hoops players. The WNBA President was so jealous that even she had to insert herself into the controversy by piling on with her Imus condemnation."

Kirsten Powers:

"This also isn't about free speech. Nobody is saying Imus should go to jail for what he said. The issue is whether there are standards that you apply to people in the public eye, and if one of those standards is that you don't tolerate blatantly racist comments. When you have a person on the record admitting that they hired someone to make racist jokes, then it's unclear how you cast them as a person who just made a 'mistake.' Seems like more of a 'plan' than a 'mistake.'"

Joe Conason:

"Whatever the true motivation behind the decisions by NBC and CBS to rid themselves of Don Imus, the executives who decided to jettison the bullying schlock jock managed to focus on what mattered most to them. Perhaps they were pandering to frightened advertisers or perhaps they were soothing outraged employees, but the network suits ultimately ignored all the special pleadings, racial diversions and other distracting irrelevancies.
"So should the rest of us, when Imus and his defenders whine about the injustice inflicted on him this week.
"It doesn't matter whether rappers or anybody else use the same disgusting language that Imus and his sidekick Bernard McGuirk used when describing the Rutgers basketball team as 'nappy-headed hos.' Imus himself tried out a version of this argument when he appeared on the Rev. Al Sharpton's radio show, pointing out that although he is indeed a white man, he is hip enough to know that 'ho' is a term of disrespect heard in the black community. This is a stupid argument, roughly akin to claiming that white ownership of slaves was justifiable because black Africans sold them. The only issue for NBC and CBS was the standard of discourse on their programming, not what some idiots may be saying somewhere else.
"It doesn't matter whether Sharpton -- or any of the other Imus critics -- has raised equally loud objections to vile rap lyrics. There are many reasons, of course, to discount Sharpton as a moral exemplar. Like Imus, he hasn't hesitated to exploit prejudice as part of his act. But changing the subject to the preacher's checkered background doesn't exonerate Imus. Regardless of the preacher's always amazing alacrity, he was not the victim here and his role is not the issue. What Imus did would demand redress even if Sharpton had never elbowed his way into the controversy."

Michelle Malkin:

"I believe top public officials and journalists who have appeared on Imus's show should take responsibility for enabling Imus—and should disavow his longstanding invective.
"But let's take a breath now and look around. Is the Sharpton & Jackson Circus truly committed to cleaning up cultural pollution that demeans women and perpetuates racial epithets?
"...What kind of relief do we get from this deadening, coarsening, dehumanizing barrage from young, black rappers and their music industry enablers who have helped turn America into Tourette's Nation?"

John McWhorter:

"Imus hosts a radio show and a lot of people listen to it. During a few seconds last week he said something tacky. The show went on, as did life. Black people continued to constitute most new AIDS cases, black men continued to come out of prison unsupervised. And we're supposed to be most interested in Imus saying 'nappy-headed ho's'?
"What creates that hypersensitivity is a poor racial self-image. Where, after all, did Imus pick up the very terminology he used? Rap music and the language young black people use themselves on the street to refer to one another.
"What Imus said is lowdown indeed, but so is the way blacks refer to each other. And life goes on."

Lastly, LaShawn Barber, who sums up my viewpoint better than I could:

"If black Americans in 2007 are this delicate and overreact to the slightest insults with this much unrighteous indignation, it’s pretty safe to say black people are not made the way they used to be, of stronger stuff, able to withstand truly demeaning and criminal treatment at the hands of true oppressors. It’s sad to know that the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of people who faced actual oppression are so much weaker, much less discerning, and much more undignified."

And this is just what I've read - there's much more out there. Who do you agree/disagree with?

Pelosi Exposed

2007-04-03T18:32:00.000-05:00

Magic Valley Mormon with the latest "pork" statistics.

Tancredo IN

2007-04-03T18:18:00.000-05:00

Monica Crowley has him Saturday.

WTKK in the Boston area beginning at noon.

Good News Iraq

2007-04-03T18:04:00.000-05:00

1) Encouraging news of Iraqi and U.S. soldiers working together for Iraqi schoolchildren. Telling quote:

"If we give them the ability to learn and get an education, they’re less vulnerable to other influences – like extremist views."
U.S. Army 1st Lt. Kevin Grilo

Amen.

2) Victims of the Tal Afar bombings are being assisted by Iraqi and U.S. peacekeeping troops alike:

"[Army Lt. Col. Malcom] Frost said coalition an Iraqi security forces are working to ensure that the attack doesn't overshadow the good works done during the past 15 months. Schools and medical clinics have been built, infrastructure and the general economic situation of the residents of Tal Afar have been improved.
"'I want to emphasize that this tragic event is absolutely not indicative of the thousands of good things that have happened over the last 15 months in the city of Tal Afar,;Frost said.
"In addition to working with the Iraqis to help secure the city, he added that coalition forces are conducting successful humanitarian assistance missions to provide food, medical supplies and shelter to the victims of the March 27 blast."

Just more signs that U.S. and Iraqi forces are working together, something you'll never hear from the mainstream media.

Update on Sean Bell; More Crime in Boston

2007-04-03T17:12:00.000-05:00

I first wrote about Sean Bell here.

The latest from must-read Heather Mac Donald first exposes the New York Times for, yet again, inaccurate, incomplete, biased reporting:

"A March [New York Times] article, for instance, devoted itself to charges that the police were preying on the black community. After noting that more than half the people whom cops stop and frisk are black, Times reporter Diane Cardwell added: 'City officials maintained that those stopped and searched roughly parallel the race of people mentioned in reports from crime victims.' No, actually, there is no 'rough parallel' between the proportion of stops and the proportion of alleged assailants: blacks aren’t stopped enough, considering the rate at which they commit crimes. Though blacks, 24 percent of New York City’s population, committed 68.5 percent of all murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults in the city last year, according to victims and witnesses, they were only 55 percent of all stop-and-frisks. Of course, the Times didn’t give the actual crime figures. Even a spate of vicious assaults on police officers in the week before the indictments didn’t change the predominant story line that officers were trigger-happy racists."

By these statistics, the problem is not racist cops - it's that blacks in New York City commit a lot of crimes. Reasons for this seemingly vary, depending on your way of thinking: liberals say it's because whites don't care that blacks die, so blacks kill other blacks to get revenge on a white society which doesn't respect or acknowledge black manhood (make sense? Didn't think so.).

Sound-minded conservatives, like LaShawn Barber, offer comments on black-on-black violence here, in conjunction with the Sean Bell case and the first Duke rape case:

"Look, I understand the all-too-human tendency to point fingers, but important to the development of good character is a willingness to face hard truths. Black crime rates are out of control, and it’s not white peoples’ faults. Criminality and incarceration (however brief) is a defining characteristic of black subculture. The least of our concerns are drunk white men at house parties or perceived 'racist' police shootings. If white cops want to kill black men and white boys want to rape black women, they’ll need to kill and violate a hell of a lot of them to catch up to black-on-black crime stats."

Back to Heather Mac Donald's piece: after chronicling the Sean Bell case and its aftermath, Mac Donald offers this solution up to Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the "black community":

"Unless black leaders—real or media-created—muster the will to address the crime epidemic among black youth (most of it inflicted on other blacks), the ongoing carnage will almost inevitably include an infinitesimal number of accidental police shootings of unarmed men. Criminal activity among young African-Americans is the poison of cities and of race relations; if Bloomberg can force a conversation about it, he could help reclaim urban America."

Let's hope Bloomberg listens.

Meanwhile, violence continues in Boston with more innocent victims. NY Daily News relays suspicions of gang violence:

"Cops suspect the shooting was related to ongoing violence among Cape Verdean gangsters in the Dorchester neighborhood.
An 18-year-old with multiple arrests and a violent reputation, Jason Barbosa, walked into the hospital minutes later with a bullet wound in his shoulder. Cops suspect he may have been in the car [in which Chiara Levin was killed] at the time."

And, the revealing truth about Dorchester, and the "progress" of the investigation:

"Boston cops said no one was held behind bars.
"'It's possible that someone was being questioned, but no one was taken into custody, handcuffed or otherwise,' said Officer Eddy Chrispin, a police spokesman.
"Neighbors said the party on the first floor of a rundown gray three-story apartment building was a weekly event in a neighborhood stung by gunfire and nearby murders. The building was still sealed off by cops last night.
"'They have parties every weekend. You've got to wonder why he holds them. It's not safe,' said a neighbor who heard the shots."

Predictably, still no arrests.

Mayor Menino's new idea, apparently, is to end after-hours partying....I think real punishments, such as arrests and long jail sentences, might work better.

With violence continuing and no arrests made, it seems as if no progress is being made. Let's hope these crimes are taken seriously and the perpetrators punished to the fullest extent of the law. The climate is right to make an example of anyone caught committing a violent crime, and the example should stand as the rule, rather than the exception.

...But Don't Question Their Patriotism

2007-04-03T17:09:00.000-05:00

A sympathetic portrait of tax evaders in liberal bastion San Francisco - because they don't support the war.

(via Michelle Malkin)

Who's Heard This Before?

2007-04-03T16:37:00.000-05:00

I have.

To promote panic mode, the article just about ends thusly:

"The devastating 2005 season set a record with 28 named storms, 15 of them hurricanes. Four of those hurricanes hit the U.S. coast, the worst among them Katrina, which devastated New Orleans and leveled parts of the Gulf Coast region."

We get it - Katrina was bad. Can we move on (even though New Orleans hasn't)?

Here is what scientist William Gray, quoted in the AP piece, predicted last year. Naturally, the AP doesn't mention how far off Gray was, merely saying that "last year, Gray's forecast and government forecasts were higher than what the Atlantic hurricane season produced."

But here's the breakdown:

Gray's 2006 prediction - major storms: 5
hurricanes :9
tropical storms: 17

actual 2006 Atlantic hurricane season - major storms: 2
hurricanes: 5
tropical storms: 10

Gray also "calculate[d] an 81 percent chance that at least one major hurricane will hit the U.S. coast in 2006. " That didn't happen, either.

The National Hurricane Center got it wrong in 2006, too.

More scare tactics from Reuters, with gloomier predictions:

"The Atlantic hurricane season will be exceptionally active this year, according to a British forecasting group, raising the possibility that killer storms like Hurricane Katrina could again threaten the United States."

I guess we'll see how it all plays out - but I'm not putting too much credence into these predictions...

Leftist Thuggery

2007-03-28T17:44:00.000-05:00

If you don't know by now, Press Secretary Tony Snow's cancer has returned and spread to his liver. The only clear course of action is to "aggressively fight the disease," according to this AP piece.

Certainly, the nation should keep Snow in its prayers.

But, predictably, that can't be the case with the Angry Left. Here are a few choice examples:

1) Onmilation says:
Dear Tony,
I hate you.
-God

2) ph7 says:
At least we now know cancer is bi-partisan...

3) David Flores says:
Man, this is awful news. Let's just hope that Tony Snow isn't one of the 40 million Americans without health insurance who this Administration hasn't lifed a finger to help, because then he and his family stand to lose everything they own desperately trying to pay for his treatment. (Why do I suspect this won't be an issue).

4) Fred_O_E_Caldo says:
I'm impressed by all the sympathy for a guy who sells out our nation 24/7. You people are stronger than I am. I say: Let's see him spin this one away.
"I don't know. What do you think it means that I have cancer?"

5) sjc says:
Dear God --
I hate myself.
-- Tony

6) V572625694 says:
It seems uncharitable to make this observation, and as someone whose wife had breast cancer I am quite sympathetic to Snow's personal situation, but Jesus Christ!--is there NOTHING on earth the Bush flacks won't use for political gain?

7) TDoff says:
Under the heading of 'What goes around comes around', the cancer in Tony Snow is removing the cancer of Tony Snow from the national scene.
OMG, could there be a god?

8) PeeJay says:
Maybe he'll have a Lee Atwateresque deathbed transformation and come clean about everything.

9) Lionel Hutz says:
Mr. Snow's doctor's have told Mr. Snow that they could simply remove his liver and he would be better. They have given him a deadline of August, 2008 by which they have to act.
Mr. Snow however stated that he felt such artificial deadlines would just embolden the cancer, and that to cut and run his liver out of his body would mean that the cancer had won. As such, he has refused the treatment, stating that he believed that by fighting the cancer in his liver, he would not have to fight it elsewhere. He denied rumors that he was planning a pre-emptive surgery on his kidneys, although he stated that he would not take any options off the table and that his kidneys would never be allowed to have cancer as long as he is around.

10) PeeJay says:
Yes, the Holier Than Thou crowd is right. We should wish Tony, W, Cheney and Gonzales nothing but the best of health, so that we can then waterboard the shit out of them until they tell us the truth about, well, anything would be nice.

There's more on the site - with very few comments expressing true sympathy.

There was more Snow Bashing at Huffington Post but it was thankfully deleted.

You may be wondering if the Right did any bashing when Elizabeth Edwards announced her cancer had returned, as well.

Let's see...

Not here. Or here (but, note who stirs up trouble - it's "Kathy", the loony Lefty). BUT...

...very interesting comments here about what Elizabeth Edwards has said in the past about cancer victims - namely, Laura Ingraham.

Here's her post on Democratic Underground. It seems as if she tries to wish Laura well, but can't help herself towards the end (emphasis mine):

"...As I go through treatment for this same disease, I think often about the women who fight breast cancer without health insurance, without a supportive husband, with a physically demanding job that doesn't know or doesn't care that she is exhausted and weak and aching, with children but no child care. I find it absolutely impossible that LI won't also have those thoughts run through her head or that she won't rethink her position on health care or the social safety net. Pray for her health AND her enlightenment, if you must. But pray, with me, for her good health."

Call me crazy - but isn't that a little unnecessary? Please note the deranged comments left about Laura on the site as well.

Regardless, keep Elizabeth Edwards in your prayers as well. Even if Time Magazine doesn't care.

An Act of War?

2007-03-28T17:21:00.000-05:00

You bet.

Melanie Phillips:

"...There is every prospect that these hostages will be used as bargaining counters to force the release of five Iranian Revolutionary Guards who were captured in Iraq by American troops earlier this year.
"Yet in its response to these events, Britain seems to be in some kind of dreamworld. There is no sense of urgency or crisis, no outpouring of anger. There seems to be virtually no grasp of what is at stake.
"Some commentators have languidly observed that in another age this would have been regarded as an act of war. What on earth are they talking about? It is an act of war. There can hardly be a more blatant act of aggression than the kidnapping of another country’s military personnel."

And...

"My goodness, the Iranian regime must be shivering in its shoes. With what contempt they must regard us — a country that stands impotently by while its people are kidnapped and then does no more than bleat that it is ‘disturbed’.
"What on earth has happened to this country of ours, for so many centuries a byword for defending itself against attack, not least against piracy or acts of war on the high seas?"

Does anyone else in Britain think like her? I don't know if anyone in Britain or the U.S. for that matter can rival her in common sense.

I recommend reading the whole piece...and, everything else she writes.

Hot Air demonstrates Blair's weakness:

"'I hope we manage to get them (the Iranian government) to realize they have to release them,' Blair said in an interview with GMTV. "'If not, then this will move into a different phase.'"

He hopes? Why don't you MAKE THEM REALIZE IT?

CNN helps by playing dumb (emphasis mine):

"The female British sailor detained by Iran along with 14 male sailors and marines in the Persian Gulf last week said her crew 'trespassed' in Iranian waters, in comments broadcast Wednesday on Iranian television.
''Obviously we trespassed into their waters,' detainee Faye Turney said in video broadcast by Alalam, an Iranian Arabic language network.
"'They were very friendly, very hospitable, very thoughtful, nice people. They explained to us why we'd been arrested. There was no aggression, no hurt, no harm. They were very, very compassionate,' Turney said.
"It was not known when the videotape was shot, or whether Turney, 26, was able to speak freely, since she is being held against her will."

I'm going to guess her statement was...not of free will. How quickly CNN forgets.

Here's what Tony Blair meant by "different phase", apparently:

"In a first act of retribution against Tehran, Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett suspended bilateral talks with Tehran on all other issues. Visits by officials were stopped, issuing visas to Iranian officials suspended and British support for events such as trade missions put on hold, her office said."

I wonder what Britain will do after this doesn't work...

What Does Global Warming Really Kill?

2007-03-28T17:18:00.000-05:00

Answer: Communities

(via Debbie Schlussel)

More on the Flying Imams

2007-03-28T16:35:00.001-05:00

Remember them?

They are at it again! And they're suing the passengers on their flight. As if a reminder were needed, the Washington Times provides us with one anyway:

"The imams were removed from the flight after praying loudly in the gate area, speaking angrily about the war in Iraq and President Bush, not taking their assigned seats and requesting seat-belt extenders that were not necessary and that could be used as weapons, according to incident reports and officials interviewed by The Washington Times. "

And, here's why they're suing:

"Three of the imams said they 'noticed an older couple was sitting behind them and purposely turning around to watch the other plaintiffs as they prayed together' and that the man 'picked up his cellular phone and made a phone call while watching the plaintiffs pray,' according to the imams' lawsuit. "

So, they're suing an old couple for watching them pray...how quickly can this get dismissed?

Here's the text of the lawsuit, if you can bear to go through it.

Look at #4:

"Federal law expressly provides that an 'air carrier or foreign air carrier may not subject a person in air transportation to discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, religion, sex, or ancestry."

First of all - someone should've edited this, because it says "religion" twice. Second, it doesn't say you can't discriminate based on crazy behavior - you know, like switching seats and asking for unnecessary seat belt extenders while bashing what is supposedly your country (as they are all U.S. residents). THAT is what the airline and the "John Does" did.

Interestingly, lawsuit point #25 says the imams bought round-trip tickets...there's dispute about that.

#33 says "At no time did Plaintiffs discuss politics or refer to Saddam Hussein or President Bush."

and #37 and #38 nail a John Doe!

"Upon information and belief, the gentleman ("John Doe") in the couple facing Plaintiffs at gate C9 picked up his cellular phone and made a phone call while watching the Plaintiffs pray...Upon information and belief, Defendant John Doe moved to a corner near gate C9. While observing the Plaintiffs discreetly, he kept talking into his cellular phone."

What damning evidence that these imams should sue this "John Doe," who probably doesn't even know he's being sued.

Much of this lawsuit contradicts early reports of this case as well. Let's hope that nothing comes of it and we can drop the subject for good.

New Bedford Sob Story...

2007-03-22T17:24:00.000-05:00

Here's the New York Times Editorial which should have you outraged. Pay particular attention to the lede (emphasis mine):

"A screaming baby girl has been forcibly weaned from breast milk and taken, dehydrated, to an emergency room, so that the nation’s borders will be secure. Her mother and more than 300 other workers in a leather-goods factory in New Bedford, Mass., have been terrorized — subdued by guns and dogs, their children stranded at school — so that the country will notice that the Bush administration is serious about enforcing immigration laws. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of poor Americans, lacking the right citizenship papers, have been denied a doctor’s care so that not a penny of Medicaid will go to a sick illegal immigrant."

The GALL of the New York Times to insinuate that the Bush administration is "terrorizing" illegal immigrants just to get attention. The implication is also that these people who are "lacking the right citizenship papers" are doing everything they can to become legal citizens, but unfortunately haven't completed the process - who knows if that's true? And, I'm sorry, if they are "illegal immigrants", they cannot at the same time be "Americans"!

Bill O'Reilly, meanwhile, takes the NYT to task. He's at his best here (again, my emphasis):

"Wow. A screaming baby denied breast milk? So dehydrated she has to be hospitalized? Can this be happening in America?
"Well, it may not have happened.
"Because The Times editorial was so intense we decided to look into the situation. And guess what? There's some real problems with The Times' descriptions.
"Two babies were admitted to two New Bedford area hospitals shortly after the raid. A 7-month-old was taken to St. Vincent's where it was diagnosed with pneumonia and dehydration. And another baby was admitted to St. Luke's, also with pneumonia and dehydration. Both babies were accompanied by guardians and both were treated. If there's another baby in play, we can't find it.
"Of course, the immigration raid didn't cause the pneumonia, which most likely led to the dehydration. So the description used by The New York Times to demonize the Department of Homeland Security seems to be false.
"Now, we called the Times asking for clarification. They say they witnessed the event but can't provide any details. What hospital was the baby in? We suspect they looked at the Web site featuring an unidentified baby. We saw the same Web site, the same thing, and it proves nothing."

Deval Patrick is now feigning outrage over the whole matter, though it's clear that he knew about the raid beforehand. Now there's going to be a Congressional investigation! So much for enforcing the law...

Here's a thought: since all the illegals were flown out to Texas and separated from their children, instead of flying the illegals back here, why not fly the children out to the illegals? That way nobody can complain that "immigration raids split families."

Michael Graham sums it up much better than I could:

"...There are real costs to real Americans of refusing to enforce immigration laws. There are also real costs to the nations these illegals are fleeing. If your life is so lousy that you'd rather work in an American sweatshop than in your own country, your country must really, really suck.
"So why not stay there and fight for a better future? Why not work as hard to create jobs back home as you do to steal jobs here? If illegal immigrants truly are the ambitious, caring, community-minded folk their advocates insist, aren't they needed more in the backwards ratholes of Central and South America?"

Lastly, check out Froma Harrop's take for a fairly reasoned liberal perspective on this case.

Well, Well, Well...

2007-03-22T17:21:00.000-05:00

...all charges to be dropped? ABOUT TIME.

I recommend LaShawn Barber for the most thorough analysis of the Duke Rape Case.

Remember the "Buyback" Program?

2007-03-22T16:35:00.000-05:00

Michelle Malkin's latest piece, "The Witch Hunt Against Gun Owners," reminded of Boston Mayor Tom Menino's ridiculous "Gun Buyback" program and, although it took place some time ago, I feel the need to address it now.

The last attempt before 2006 at a "gun buyback" program in Boston took place in the mid 1990s. Those who turned in guns were given $50, no questions asked.

Guess what happened.

"Criminologists found that some people used the buyback money to buy newer guns."

Shocking!

To explain the city's "retooled" position on the gun buyback program - offering gift certificates rather than cash - police department spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll noted that it was "(the city's)responsibility to explore every possible avenue in our efforts to decrease violent crime."

Apparently, even those avenues that don't work - Mass Backwards explains why, with examples that include a Charlestown woman beaten in the face with a baseball bat.

This is not to say, however, that criminals need to become innovative now that they don't have their guns - why? Because they can just return their purchased items from Target, bought with their gift card for returning the gun, and get a full refund.

Here's the store's return policy: "We will issue a full refund for most items returned within 90 days in new condition, with the original receipt or packing slip, packaging and accessories."

I must say, quite convenient for those crafty criminals.

And Best Buy does the following: "Refund will be in the same form as original purchase. Exceptions: Cash, debit or check purchases over $250 will be refunded in the form of a mail check within 10 business days of return." Not sure if the "gift card" purchase would count as "debit" - so this is a bit unclear. But it seems doable to get cash back.

Since gun violence is up in the city as of late February 2007, with more murders seemingly reported every day, it seems as if Menino needs to go back to the drawing board.

Maybe abolishing the Second Amendment will work, Mumbles...

If Edwards Isn't A "Faggot", Is Obama A "Negro"?

2007-03-22T15:40:00.000-05:00

Apparently, according to the LA Times.

This has to be one of the weirdest articles I have ever read - I'm shocked that it was even published (though, on second thought, I shouldn't be - nothing should really come as "shocking" anymore...).

The article's main point is that not only is Barack Obama running for President of the United States, but he's also "running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the 'Magic Negro.'"

Not only a Negro - but a Magic Negro...fascinating!

Columnist David Ehrenstein draws the basis of his comparison from information off Wikipedia - a website which just recently reported that comic Sinbad was dead and describes itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." And the history department at Middlebury College in Vermont has banned the use of Wikipedia in citations due to numerous errors.

So, though the information Ehrenstein presents may be accurate, it should, at the very least, be viewed skeptically. It also seems to be a lazy way to conduct research, given the known inaccuracies of the site.

But the two main problems I have with this piece really don't have to do much with its factual content, per se. One, Ehrenstein plays the "white guit" card when describing why whites would find Obama a desirable candidate. And two, its explicit use of the word "negro." Let's examine both reasons a bit more closely.

Ehrenstein characterizes "white America" as "desiring for a noble, healing Negro." Personally, I don't know what he's talking about. The implication here is that a white person who sides with Obama politically does so out of a longing to see a black person save the country (at least, I guess that's what he means). I would give Americans much more credit than that, believing that, if they support Obama, they do so absent of his race, but on his views...like universal health care, raising taxes on oil companies, raising minimum wage, more money for education, in favor of Roe v. Wade, immigration reform, etc...

Not that white people or anyone else should be supporting those ideals...

The second, and perhaps more major, issue I have with this article is the accepted use of the term "negro," - or, more accurately, the lack of objection to the term's usage from the Left.

What if Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, or anyone else the Left despises said something like this? Or what if the Washington Times or even the Boston Herald published this "opinion" piece? Wouldn't there be demands for apologies (maybe from both sides, just like in Coulter's case of the use of the word "faggot")? Wouldn't they be branded racists? Wouldn't it point to the continued lack of intolerance in this country for minorities? Wouldn't it point to the HATE the Right feels for anyone/thing that isn't White, Christian, Pro-Gun, Anti-Illeglas, etc???

The hyprocisy is what's outrageous here. The fact that there is no outrage for this from the left exactly makes the point that the Left doesn't care if someone is racist, homophobic, or anything else...the Left only cares if you're CONSERVATIVE.

Then, watch your back.

Break For Some Madness...

2007-03-12T16:07:00.000-05:00

Time to take a break from all this politics and talk about another passion of mine, college basketball.

I'll preface this entry by letting all readers know that I graduated from HOLY CROSS in 2003, so some bias may sneak in to the analysis...but that's to be expected. Needless to say I'm very excited about our chances and you'll see it below.

I'll try to highlight what I think could be key matchups in each game, plus pick a winner. You'll be able to see every pick.

First, though, a discussion of the "bubble teams."

The last 4 teams to get into the field of 65 were (presumably) Stanford, Illinois, Old Dominion, and Arkansas. The first four teams out were, in my opinion (and in this order): Drexel, Syracuse, Air Force, and Florida State. I'd have to say the next four were Missouri State, Kansas State, West Virginia, and then any number of teams (Clemson, Bradley, Ok St. etc).

I think the committee pretty much botched these last few spots. Here are the profiles of the last 4 teams.

Stanford (6th in Pac 10: 18-12, 10-8)
GOOD WINS: Texas Tech, at Fresno St., at Virginia, Washington St., USC, UCLA, Oregon (by 19)
BAD WINS: San Jose St., Denver, UC Davis, and Northwestern - programs that combined for 27 wins...14 schools in the field have at least that many.
BAD LOSSES: bubble team Air Force (by 34), Santa Clara (by 16), Cal, Washington
RPI: 63 - worst of the At Large field

Illinois (4th in Big 10: 23-11, 9-7)
GOOD WINS: tournament teams Jackson St., Miami (OH), Belmont, Florida A&M (this is STRETCHING their non-conference schedule), Michigan St., Indiana (2)
BAD WINS: nobody's really terrible, except Savannah St., that I can see
BAD LOSSES: most damaging loss was Purdue (by 17)...after that, to Michigan
RPI: 29

Old Dominion (2nd in CAA: 24-8, 15-3)
GOOD WINS: at Georgetown (by 13), Drexel (2, once by 27), at Toledo (BracketBusters), VCU

BAD WINS: naturally, the bottom feeders of their conference, plus SC St. and Richmond
BAD LOSSES: at James Madison, at Va Tech (by 17), George Mason (by 16)
RPI: 40

Arkansas (4th in SEC West: 21-13, 7-9)
GOOD WINS: at Southern Illinois, West Virginia, Oral Roberts, Alabama (by 27), Vanderbilt (2, once by 15)
BAD WINS: Missouri-Kansas City, SE MO St., La Tech, Stephen F. Austin...etc, etc, etc...
BAD LOSSES: at Missouri (by 22), Texas Tech (by 16), at Mississippi St. (by 24), Auburn, South Carolina
RPI: 35 (somehow, their Strength of Schedule is 10 - apparently that's just a formula I don't understand)

Clearly, Arkansas has the worst profile of the 4. I was really shocked to see Stanford get in with that crazy RPI, but they do have a lot of good wins despite the bad losses. So I think I would've bumped Arkansas and Old Dominion out, replacing them with Drexel and Syracuse. Syracuse also beat Georgetown and their conference play was much tougher than Old Dominion's, so I give them the nod. And Drexel gets the nod over Arkansas as the last team in because of their 13 road wins, including beating Syracuse, Villanova, and Creighton.

Time for the brackets!

MIDWEST REGION:

ROUND 1

Florida v. Jackson St.: Everyone talks about Florida's big men, but the two key players for me on this team are Corey Brewer and Taurean Green. If they play well during the tournament, Florida should be fine.
PICK - Florida

Arizona v. Purdue: The question in this game will be which Arizona team will show up - the one ranked preseason #10, or the one that didn't show up for games against UNC, UCLA, and Oregon. This Arizona team has the ability to hurt people (see: UNLV, Louisville, Memphis) and should get it done early against a Purdue team that has a tendency to blow out or be blown out (check out the crazy scores of most of their games). Despite the ability of Carl Landry, Arizona's too talented to let a Purdue squad many thought were closer to the bubble get close to them. I predict a rout.
PICK - Arizona

Butler v. Old Dominion: It's always tough for a team like Old Dominion trying to prove they "belong" in the tournament - but it becomes tougher when you go against a squad who knows exactly how you feel. Butler started off the season beating Notre Dame, Indiana, Illinois, Tennessee and Gonzaga within the span of 11 days. They don't need to prove anything to anyone anymore. If A.J. Graves can get his act together and play like he did during most of the season, it's Butler in a blowout.
PICK - Butler

Maryland v. Davidson: The key throughout the tournament for Maryland will be the play of their big men: James Gist, Ekene Ibewke, and Bambale Osby. If they can neutralize big men from other teams, combined with the leadership of senior backcourt mates D.J. Strawberry and Mike Jones, this team could be very, very dangerous. Many people may like Davidson in a spoiler role because of their gaudy record and no bad losses on the season, but Davidson really can't defend anybody. Maryland will pull away in this one after a tight first half.
PICK - Maryland

Notre Dame v. Winthrop: Talk about a team with no bad losses - Winthrop lost to UNC, Maryland, Wisconsin (in OT), and Texas A&M. THAT'S IT. Problem is, their best wins were Mississippi St. and Missouri St. (BracketBusters - which did likely end Missouri St.'s chance at a bid) Notre Dame beat Maryland, Villanova, and Marquette during the season, and got better as the season moved along. This could be the highest scoring game of the tournament, but I just like Notre Dame's offense better. I feel like this was a bad matchup for Winthrop, as Notre Dame has the ability to outscore just about anyone.
PICK - Notre Dame

Oregon v. Miami (OH): Are you kidding me?
PICK - Oregon

UNLV v. Georgia Tech: The committee gave us a great matchup here. UNLV flew under the radar most of the season despite their gaudy RPI (which now sits at 10, ahead of Kansas, Texas A&M, Texas, and a slew of other teams OUTSIDE the Big 12) and beat Nevada, Texas Tech, Air Force, and BYU. Plus their 3 guard lineup might be Georgia Tech's worst nightmare, considering Tech's strengths are quickness and depth (Paul Hewitt will go at least 10 deep in the first ten minutes of the game). This has the makings of an absolute classic, but if Tech can play a lick of defense, I think they'll eke it out.
PICK - Georgia Tech

Wisconsin v. Texas A&M/Corpus Christi: Wisconsin desperately needed an easy first rounder and they got it.
PICK - Wisconsin

ROUND 2

Florida v. Arizona: These teams are much more similar than people may think. Florida wasn't tested in the SEC tournament and now everyone says they're "back" after a February swoon. Both these teams have looked downright awful and absolutely spectacular this season...for that reason, I'm going with the huge upset. I think Shakur and Radenovic, as seniors, will finally show the fire that Lute Olson has been waiting for for four years. Freshman J.P. Hill will also have to come up huge to go against Florida's bigs.
PICK - Arizona

Butler v. Maryland: Maryland's bigs will have to get out on the perimeter to defend Butler's bigger shooters, and they have the athleticism to do so.
PICK - Maryland

Notre Dame v. Oregon: Another high scoring affair. This one's a nail biter where Aaron Brooks, maybe the "third" most clutch player in the country (Acie Law, Drew Neitzel) wins it for them.
PICK - Oregon

Georgia Tech v. Wisconsin: Because of their depth, Tech should be able to run Wisconsin off the court. The loss of Brian Butch kills the Badgers, plus Taylor and Flowers can't be expected to carry the burden against all that quickness of the Yellow Jackets. I predict Alando Tucker has an off-night and falls out of contention for player of the year.
PICK - Georgia Tech

SWEET 16

Arizona v. Maryland: Despite time to rest, Arizona will have done enough by beating Florida to call the year a success. They will revert to form and Maryland will throttle them.
PICK - Maryland

Oregon v. Georgia Tech: Georgia Tech will have to score more points in this game to beat the Ducks than they will have to against UNLV and Wisconsin. They won't have the punch to get it done.
PICK - Oregon

ELITE 8

Maryland v. Oregon: Oregon will have all sorts of problems with Maryland's size and will have to rely exclusively on outside shooting to win. One only needs to look at the 19 point loss to Stanford as an indication that Oregon has trouble with size. Maryland can move on if Strawberry and Jones can neutralize Brooks and company.
PICK - Maryland

WEST REGION

ROUND 1

Kansas v. Niagra: Niagra will win the playoff game. Their reward? Losing to Kansas by 54.
PICK - Kansas

Kentucky v. Villanova: Considering that Tubby Smith's job no longer is in jeopardy, I just get the feeling that his Wildcats will fold in this one. Randolph Morris looks bored half the time and Ramel Bradley and Joe Crawford have to be the two streakiest players in the country. I just don't think this Kentucky team is that good despite their RPI, and Villanova has the size with Curtis Sumpter and the quickness with Scottie Reynolds to win this one. It may be close for a bit but Villanova should win fairly handily.
PICK - Villanova

Virginia Tech v. Illinois: For a team that's offensively challenged, Virginia Tech is a bad draw for the Fighting Illini. Warren Carter and Shaun Pruitt are nice enough players, but this team can go through some scoring droughts (41 total points v. Wisconsin, 44 v. Ohio St., 47 v. Purdue, 48 v. N'Western in a win) and Tech has the athleticism to blow them out.
PICK - Virginia Tech

Southern Illinois v. Holy Cross: The Crusaders could not have asked for a better matchup. Southern Illinois' slow-down style mimics Holy Cross', so this game will likely end up in the 50's. The Salukis have won many games by controlling tempo, but if the game can go a bit quicker (like their matchup with Indiana) than their comfort zone, they can be beaten. With Torey Thomas and Keith Simmons, Holy Cross has the ability to do just that.
PICK - Holy Cross

Duke v. VCU: People are calling for an upset here, too. What people overlook about Duke, however, is that they beat who they are supposed to beat. Bad news is, they are coming in off their second losing streak of at least three games this year. But Gerald Henderson is back, and if Coach K can get some production out of his bench, it should be business as usual.
PICK - Duke

Pittsburgh v. Wright State: Don't I have to pick against Pitt after having them in my Final Four last year, only to see them lose to Bradley - the LAST team to get in?
Yes.
I don't know anything about Wright State other than they beat Butler twice. Pitt showed it has trouble scoring yet again this year in the finale against G'Town. Everyone's looking forward to a Ben Howland reunion party in the Sweet 16. It ain't gonna happen.
PICK - Wright State

Indiana v. Gonzaga: This game really doesn't matter because the winner will get thrashed by UCLA in the second round. Logic would say go for the upset and hope to grab the points with the Zags, but I think D.J. White will be too much for the Zags to handle. Despite beating UNC and Texas, these are not your father's Bulldgos.
PICK - Indiana

UCLA v. Weber St: I truly believe this UCLA team is the best team in the country. They have an emerging star at the point in Darren Collison, a first team All-American in Aaron Afflalo, and enough outside shooting and inside size to win the whole thing. Weber St. will be no problem.
PICK - UCLA

ROUND 2:

Kansas v. Villanova: I think Kansas can get by Villanova on talent alone. This Villanova team is not as good as last year's, plus Kansas will (or, should) have a chip on its shoulder after some early flameouts the last couple years (Bradley, Bucknell). Villanova is basically a weaker version of Kansas, with good depth and quick players, but they can't score like Kansas can. It will be close for a while but Kansas should pull away from what amounts to an inferior team.
PICK - Kansas

Virginia Tech v. Holy Cross: The Crusaders can get it done against the Hokies provided that the Hokies team that shows up is the one that lost to Marshall, not the one that beat UNC twice.
I'm betting on the former.
PICK - Holy Cross

Duke v. Wright State: Again, Duke has a history of beating teams it should beat. They welcome the chance to play Wright State rather than bang around with Pitt for 40 minutes. The new opponent will do them well.
PICK - Duke

Indiana v. UCLA: Despite the fact that Indiana is playing better team defense, UCLA will have too much firepower. Kelvin Sampson's first year in Bloomington will remind people of Mike Davis.
PICK - UCLA

SWEET 16:

Kansas v. Holy Cross: This is where the slipper comes off. Holy Cross puts forth a game effort, but Brandon Rush and Co. will just have too much talent.
PICK - Kansas

Duke v. UCLA: Edge to UCLA off the bat for the game being in San Jose. After winning two fairly routine games, Duke will have its hands full in this one. It's relative lack of depth will be exposed and Josh McRoberts won't be able to carry the load as a sophomore. UCLA will pull away in this one.
PICK - UCLA

ELITE 8:

Kansas v. UCLA: The de facto national championship, as far as I'm concerned. Kansas' resiliency will shine through, but their lack of a go-to player may come to hurt them here as Aaron Afflalo steps it up.
PICK - UCLA

EAST REGION

ROUND 1:

UNC v. Eastern Kentucky: UNC starts its title drive with Eastern Kentucky. It's a good thing, because it gets much tougher. Enjoy it while you can.
PICK - UNC

Marquette v. Michigan State: Arguably the toughest first round match of the whole tournament. Marquette seems underseeded and when Dominic James isn't mired in his sophomore slump, the Golden Eagles can hang with anyone - just ask Texas Tech, Pitt, Duke, and Louisville. But James has hit a real bad shooting slump which started about 10 games ago and hasn't snapped out of it. If Travis Walton can lock him up, and they get enough scoring from Drew Neitzel and rapidly improving Raymar Morgan (remember the name), that should be enough for the Spartans to move on.
PICK - Michigan State

USC v. Arkansas: All I know is that somebody is going to blow out somebody in this game. Neither team is all that good, but Arkansas doesn't even deserve to be here. I'm going with the Trojans.
PICK - USC

Texas v. New Mexico State: People think Texas is infallible because of Kevin Durant, but they have some REALLY close wins that don't impress (St. John's by 1, LSU by 1, Arkansas by 4, Nebraska by 1, Baylor THREE TIMES, all 5 points or less)...of course, the bottom line is, Texas won those games. Look for a similar contest against a pesky Aggies team and watch all your friends sweat it out.
PICK - Texas

Vanderbilt v. George Washington: Despite an NIT profile (no other good wins other than Virginia Tech), George Washington is not a bad team. They come in winning 8 in a row and get good guard play with a deep rotation, led by Maureece Rice. Vanderbilt is likely the most overrated seed in the tournament (losing to FURMAN???) but they got lucky in that GW probably shouldn't have been an 11. Vanderbilt also plays a deep rotation and will have the best player on the floor in UVA transfer Derrick Byars, which should make the difference.
PICK - Vanderbilt

Washington State v. Oral Roberts: I wonder if Washington State is a young team which peaked too early. They finished 2nd in the Pac 10 but didn't beat UCLA or Oregon, which, to me, really puts them third. Oral Roberts has the best player in the country you've never heard of in Caleb Green, plus another 2,000 point scorer in Ken Tutt. Can't two players carry you for one game in the Big Dance? They played pretty well last year against Memphis and are a better team this year.
PICK - Oral Roberts

Boston College v. Texas Tech: BC has lost 5 of 7 down the stretch, while Texas Tech got blown out in the Big 12 quarters. So who do you pick when neither team wants to win? BC lost to Vermont, Providence, Duquesne (!), Clemson by 20, and their last 3 losses have been blowouts. Texas Tech played a much tougher non-conference (Marquette, Air Force, Stanford, Arkansas, UNLV) and showed it can beat the big teams. BC's loss to UNC showed that the most important player to that team is not Jared Dudley, but Tyrese Rice. If Jarrius Jackson covers him, it's lights out.
PICK - Texas Tech

Georgetown v. Belmont: Georgetown has a much easier ride than its counterpart at the top of the bracket, and it starts with Belmont.
PICK - Georgetown

ROUND 2:

North Carolina v. Michigan State: This won't be as difficult as one might think. UNC averaged 86.3 points per game this year. Michigan State averaged 65.1 versus worse competition. Look for the score to be about that.
PICK - North Carolina

USC v. Texas: USC had no real non-conference heft outside of Kansas (and beating Wichita St. doesn't count - unless you want to count losing to Kansas St.) so this team is hard to judge. Like I said, I don't think they're very good, and overall I think Texas' talent will carry them. An easier game for Texas here than in the first round.
PICK - Texas

Vanderbilt v. Oral Roberts: Vandy should benefit from the upset here. The teams match up fairly well but Vanderbilt can score a bit better. Oral Roberts will need someone other than Green and Tutt to step up to pull off another upset, but Vandy's balance should be too much.
PICK - Vanderbilt

Texas Tech v. Georgetown: I'm not sure Texas Tech has the strength and size to compete with Green and Hibbert of Georgetown. The loss of BC's Williams will enable Tech to sneak one win, but two physical teams in a row might be too much.
PICK - Georgetown

SWEET 16:

North Carolina v. Texas: Both teams are extremely young, but both are so experienced by this point. Texas has shown it has a killer instinct when they beat the assassin himself, Acie Law, and A&M in overtime recently. However, UNC will be able to give Durant more looks than he's seen all year because of their depth, and that should give them the edge.
PICK - North Carolina

Vanderbilt v. Georgetown: These two teams squared off in November, with Georgetown winning by 16. And Georgetown got better. Yikes.
PICK - Georgetown

ELITE 8:

North Carolina v. Georgetown: The one thing UNC can do is handle Georgetown's size, and they'll be the first team to be able to do so. With Tyler Hansbrough, Brandan Wright, Deon Thompson, and Alex Stepheson, the Tar Heels could counter Hibbert and Green. With their better perimeter game led by Wayne Ellington and role player (again, for the second time) Reyshawn Terry, UNC should prevail.
PICK - North Carolina

SOUTH REGION

Ohio State v. Central Connecticut State: Honestly, Ohio State couldn't have asked for a better first round matchup. The "other" Blue Devlis put pressure on the ball and can create turnovers that lead to easy buckets. If Ohio State's wing players don't help the backcourt bring the ball up, they could be vulnerable to CCSU's patented press and...
...okay, I'm kidding. Ohio State's going to kill them. Central Connecticut lost to St. Bonaventure this year.
'Nuff said.
PICK - Ohio State

BYU v. Xavier: A lot of people "want" to see Xavier win because of the Thad Motta connection. This is going to be a real tight game, but I do in fact give the edge to Xavier because of Drew Lavender's newfound leadership after transferring from Oklahoma.
PICK - Xavier

Tennessee v. Long Beach State: Long Beach State is a surprising #12 seed since their best out of conference win this year was against nobody. But they can put points on the board. Problem for them, so can Tennessee.
PICK - Tennessee

Virginia v. Albany: Yikes. I'm nervous if I'm UVA. First of all, UVA's RPI of 55 is more in the range of teams who didn't make the NCAA tournament, nevermind a #4 seed (by contrast, Southern Illinois' is 7)...so clearly, they are vulnerable. Next, they have some curious losses earlier in the year (Appalachian State and ESPECIALLY Utah by 24) which shows that their head isn't always in it. And, after earning a bye in the ACC tournament, they lost to a much hungrier NC State team after being up early. So can they get it done?
I give them one chance.
PICK - Virginia

Louisville v. Stanford: I'm not sold on Louisville, and they may have issues with Stanford's size, but I love Edgar Sosa and I'm not sure how healthy Stanford is as a team just yet. Plus, playing in Lexington shouldn't hurt.
PICK - Louisville

Texas A&M v. Pennsylvania: Penn is comparable competition to which A&M scheduled out of conference, so A&M should have no problems. Look for Josh Carter to hit about 7 threes in a pretty easy win.
PICK - Texas A&M

Nevada v. Creighton: Nick Fazekas v. Nate Funk. Whose name is cooler? I think Funk's is, but I think Nevada is the better team, even with Kyle Shiloh on the shelf. Ramon Sessions and especially Marcelus Kemp should be enough scoring support for the Wolf Pack to move on.
PICK - Nevada

Memphis v. North Texas: See the blurb on Texas A&M, but Memphis was accustomed to it all season in Conference USA. North Texas should be happy if they don't lose by 30.
PICK - Memphis

SECOND ROUND:

Ohio State v. Xavier: Greg Oden and all their perimeter shooters will be too much for the Musketeers. They make a game of it, though, and prove to doubters at ESPN that they certainly belonged in the field.
PICK - Ohio State

Tennessee v. Virginia: Virginia likely has better size than Tennessee, but I really think Chris Lofton will be the difference. Whereas Sean Singletary has the propensity to overtake games when he doesn't really have to, Lofton has the ability to win games (ask Winthrop).
PICK - Tennessee

Louisville v. Texas A&M: Texas A&M should be able to overcome Louisville's virtual homecourt advantage with better guard play. As I said, I love Sosa, but he's no Acie Law. It should be a fun 2nd round game.
PICK - Texas A&M

Nevada v. Memphis: This is where the loss of Shiloh will hurt Nevada. Memphis' depth is comparable to UNC's and Georgia Tech's, so they should be able to wear Nevada down with their pressing style that John Calipari likes to employ. Nevada could win if it's close as Memphis struggles mightily from the free throw line, but I like the higher seed here.
PICK - Memphis

SWEET 16:

Ohio State v. Tennessee: A great rematch from a fun game a couple months ago in Columbus where OSU squeaked by with a 2 point win. Look for Tennessee to continue to pressure Oden like they did in the first matchup and create similar turnovers (he had a great game, but 4 turnovers among the team's 20). Also, the Volunteers should benefit from a neutral floor. If they can get more help from young big men Wayne Chism and Ryan Childress than they did in the first meeting, take the upset.
PICK - Tennessee

Texas A&M v. Memphis: The challenge here for A&M will be Memphis' depth. But, despite that depth, Memphis has a similar issue to Kansas in that it doesn't have that "go-to" player. Chris Douglas-Roberts is certainly a good player but he hasn't been asked to win close games this year. Acie Law has. And he's delivered. It won't hurt that the game is in San Antonio.
PICK - Texas A&M

Elite 8:

Tennessee v. Texas A&M: A fantastic matchup between the region's best clutch performers, Chris Lofton and Acie Law. I think A&M's defense, though, will be the difference here, as despite averaging nearly 80 points per game, Tennessee's offense has gone AWOL at times this year (like the entire Butler game). I like A&M in a great contest.
PICK - Texas A&M

FINAL FOUR:

Maryland v. UCLA: Afflalo, Shipp, and Collison should be too much for Strawberry and co. to handle, plus UCLA's big men can hang with the Terps.
PICK - UCLA

North Carolina v. Texas A&M: UNC will pass yet another test in this brutal run as A&M won't have enough offense to stick with the Tar Heels.
PICK - UNC

CHAMPIONSHIP:

UCLA v. North Carolina: UCLA won't lose back to back years. Despite the boatload of talent UNC possesses, Aaron Afflalo will be the best player on the floor, and Ty Lawson will be too tired to compete with Darren Collison after having to chase around Drew Neitzel, D.J. Augustin, and Acie Law.

WINNER: UCLA

Hope you liked this diversion from the usual stuff! I'm impressed if you can read it all! Enjoy all the games, and root for the CRUSADERS!!!

What to Do About Global Warming?

2007-03-11T14:26:00.000-05:00

Is this the hottest issue of the day or what?

The New York Sun editorializes that "Global Warming Turns Ugly" in the face of debate. And check out the way it absolutely slams England's Guardian newspaper for its attack on global warming dissenters:

"...the singularly nasty attack by the left-wing Guardian newspaper of England a week or so ago attacking a distinguished American think tank, the American Enterprise Institute of Washington, D.C., for soliciting scholarly papers that might disagree with the so-called global warming consensus. 'Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study,' the Guardian breathlessly headlined its story last week.
"AEI, described as a 'lobby group,' was said to be offering $10,000 — plus, wait for it, travel expenses — to scientists and economists for essays that showed the 'limitations of global climate models.' In the second paragraph the Guardian described AEI as an 'ExxonMobil-funded think tank with close links to the Bush administration.'
"Never mind that scientists on both sides of the issue take 'cash' to study global warming. And never mind that AEI isn't a 'lobby group' — under American tax law, organizations like AEI are expressly prohibited from lobbying. Or that ExxonMobil funding is less than 1% of AEI's total budget, or that a recent AEI research paper called for a tax on carbon, an idea that is hardly in line with ExxonMobil's financial interests."

Wow - was that good or what...

Also, the United Nations report referred to in the beginning of the article is worth analyzing. More specifically, the organization behind the report itself, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is worth a second look.

Just who are they?

According to Patrick J. Michaels, author of Meltdown (emphasis mine):

"Projections of future warming from greenhouse gases largely depend on how much carbon dioxide is produced by the respiration of our civilization. For years, the unchallenged prognosticator of these concentrations has been the United Nations.
"In 1988, the UN established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which describes itself as 'an intergovernmental mechanism aimed at providing the basis for the development of a realistic and effective internationally accepted strategy for addressing climate change.'
"The IPCC conducts occasional 'assessments' of the state of climate science, producing one assessment in 1990, another report as a supplement for the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, and subsequent assessments in 1996 and 2002. Those slick, massive volumes are the product of hundreds of scientists and a larger community of reviewers. They include analyses of past climate behavior, projections of future greenhouse gas emission pojections, and forecasts of future climate....
"Briefly, the IPCC is as much a collection of government bureaucrats as it is of working scientists. In The Satanic Gases, my coauthor, Robert Balling, and I determined that only about 33 percent of the 200+ 'lead authors' are in fact climate scientists. Consequently, the 'consensus' that these documents achieve is in fact determined by a majority opinion that is not necessarily formally trained in the subject matter."

You will not hear this from mainstream media outlets!

Czech president Vaclav Klaus recognized both the imbalance and lack of expertise among the U.N. panel and blasted them in this way:

"'These are politicized scientists who arrive there with one-sided opinion and assignment,' he told interviewers.
"According to the Czech president, 'each serious person and scientist' says that global warming is a myth. "

Politics should not be involved in the scientific debate over global warming, and the Czech president is right to recognize it and speak out against it. The Washington Times calls attention to the bullying coming from the Left, and notes that this bullying has led to putting people's jobs in jeopardy:

"Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack -- treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming.
"'In general, if you do not agree with the consensus that we are headed toward disaster, you are treated like a pariah,' said William O'Keefe, chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute, which assesses scientific issues that shape public policy.
"'It's ironic that a field based on challenging unproven theories attacks skeptics in a very unhealthy way.'
"Two climatologists in Democrat-leaning states, David Legates in Delaware and George Taylor in Oregon, have come under fire for expressing skepticism about the origins of climate change. Oregon Gov. Theodore R. Kulongoski is publicly seeking to strip Mr. Taylor, widely known as the state's climatologist, of his position because of his stance.
"'There has been a broad, concerted effort to intimidate and silence them,' said Myron Ebell, director of energy and global-warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. 'It's the typical politics of the hard left at work. I think these are real threats.'"

The attempted silence of debate from the Left has been going on for too long. Whether its supporting ethnic profiling, questioning the legitimacy of the 9/11 widows' political points of view, or now, the global warming debate, the Left constantly tries to silence debate through intimidation, smear (we know Ellen Goodman thinks us "Holocaust deniers"), and distortion of fact. Hopefully, contrarian views on global warming will continue to be presented, as there is a mountain of evidence. (By the way, read Dennis Prager's refutation of Goodman here.)

More dissenting news from the Telegraph:

"Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.
"This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing.
"He claims carbon dioxide emissions due to human activity are having a smaller impact on climate change than scientists think. If he is correct, it could mean that mankind has more time to reduce our effect on the climate."

Naturally, the Telegraph refers to the research as "controversial" twice in the short piece. Either it's clear where the Telegraph stands on this issue, or the collective vocabulary of the editing staff is quite limited...and why is it that those who believe that man is the primary cause of global warming are always called "experts", even when called in question by "controversial" studies? Why are those scientists who believe in global warming more worthy of the label "expert" than Svensmark is?

The Times Online highlights the reporting distortion in the mainstream media about global warming phenomena:

"Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean."

Read the whole piece.

John McCain and Joe Lieberman, known to have conservative support on a number of political issues, attempt to proselytize skeptics with these hysterical predictions from their op-ed piece last month, reprinted in the Boston Globe:

"Indeed, if we fail to start substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the next couple of years, we risk bequeathing a diminished world to our grandchildren. Insect-borne diseases such as malaria will spike as tropical ecosystems expand; hotter air will exacerbate the pollution that sends children to the hospital with asthma attacks; food insecurity from shifting agricultural zones will spark border wars; and storms and coastal flooding from sea-level rise will cause mortality and dislocation."

Where's the evidence for all these outlandish claims? Again, the main source for advocates of man-made global warming is the all-powerful IPCC report blaming man for global warming (well, it's "90 percent" sure it's man's fault - good enough, right?). And, again, there's no indication of who makes up this panel, or how this panel conducts its research.

Here's more evidence contradicting "experts" on global warming - this time, more specifically, to the rise in Antarctic temperatures during the late 20th century. Curiously enough, professor David Bromwich, reporting on the study, seems sympathetic to the global warming cause:

"Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong.
"'It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations,' he said."

Sounds like what the Washington Times predicted about dissension is already coming true.

It really is too bad that all these facts disproving global warming are coming out now, since it's become chic in Hollywood to embrace the cause. "Rock star" Al Gore has announced "plans on (July 7 of this year) for a worldwide string of pop concerts...featuring Sheryl Crow, Red Hot Chili Peppers and scores of others to mobilize action to stop global warming."

And don't worry - the sports world will not be left out of the global warning arena, either. Sports Illustrated injects itself into the argument with Dontrelle Willis on the cover, standing in a flooded Dolphin Stadium, presumably to the effects of global warming. Alexander Wolff echoes the mainstream media with some strong, baseless assertions (emphasis mine):

"...A warming planet doesn't create hurricanes, but it does make them stronger and last longer. Tropical storms become more powerful over a warmer Gulf, turning a category 4 storm, for example, into a category 5, like Katrina, which transformed the symbol of sports in New Orleans, the Superdome, into an image of epic disaster. In addition to more intense storms, higher seas, and droughts and floods, ocean flow patterns could change, leading to the extinction of marine species. Warmer temperatures could devastate agricultural economies around the globe, and diseases such as malaria now confined to the tropics would spread to other regions.
"Unlike many other pressing environmental concerns -- pollution, water shortages, overpopulation, deforestation -- global warming is by definition global. Every organism on the planet is already feeling its impact."

Global warming as a science has not yet been proven, yet Sports Illustrated has become an authority on the subject. So scientists can't expressing differing viewpoints, but Sports Illustrated should be taken at its word.

Unreal.

The next step in the debate is the "controversial" (there's that word again!) documentary which aired a few days ago in Britain. I'm curious to read the backlash this receives.

Hopefully debate will remain open on this subject that will likely remain debatable for quite some time. I leave you with a humorous take on the entire scope of the issue from Doug Giles.

Sometimes you just have to laugh.

"America Hasn't Been Attacked Since 9/11..."

2007-03-11T13:18:00.000-05:00

This is quite a tired conservative argument.

Why? Because it's not true.

Sure, 3,000 Americans haven't died on the same day at the hands of terrorists like 9/11. But terror attacks are still occurring. Here are a few:

1) The Beltway Snipers. John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo terrorized Montgomery County, Maryland and the Washington D.C. area back in the fall of 2002, leading to the deaths of at least 10 Americans. Their criminal behavior has been linked to as many as 16 deaths.

It's been reported by the Seattle Times "that Muhammad and Malvo were known to speak sympathetically about the September 11 hijackers and may have been motivated by anti-American sentiment. " Muhammad converted to Islam after divorcing his first wife.

2) terror attack on Chapel Hill. Mohammad Reza Teheri-Azar drove an SUV through a crowd of students, apparently as a revenge attack on America for how it treats Muslims. He was indicted for nine counts of attempted murder in May 2006.

3) LAX. Hesham Mohamed Hedayet killed at least 2 Americans at LAX airport in July 2002. There are conflicting reports as to whether Hedayet should've been in the country in the first place - but it seems as if he was granted a 245(i) exception, which "allows illegal immigrants who might otherwise be deported to remain in the United States while they adjust their status to that of a legal permanent resident."

Al Hayat and World Net Daily report that Hadayet had links to terrorism. CNN reports that the attack was isolated:

"Federal, law enforcement and city officials said it appeared the shooting was an isolated incident, with nothing to suggest otherwise.

"'There is no indication of any terrorism connection in this matter right now, but again we also can't discount that until we know more,' (FBI spokesman Matt) McLaughlin told reporters.

"Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn added: 'It appears this was an isolated incident.' A Bush administration source concurred with that statement, adding that nothing suggested it was anything other than a criminal act. "

I guess we're left to draw our own conclusions, but this reeks of terrorist activity. This guy shouldn't have been in the country in the first place, and if not for the Bush administration's still-lax immigration policies, he wouldn't have been. Faced with possible deportation, Hedayet went on a killing spree.

Sounds like a terrorist to me.

4) Sulejman Talovic. Despite the sympathetic coverage in the press, this man's actions should not be overshadowed by his family's dire circumstances. The cold-blooded murder of 5 Americans in a Salt Lake City shopping area (reportedly, the number likely would've been more than 5 had not Talovic been killed himself) took place in February of this year. This case appears to be another revenge attack, this time for Muslim persecution in Bosnia during the '90s

This is only a partial list, too. So the next time someone tries to start a debate with the tagline "America hasn't been attacked since 9/11", know that they are wrong and defend why we need to be vigilant now more than ever in protecting this country.

Of particular importance on this topic is the work of Debbie Schlussel. Check it out.

Ann Coulter and the "Faggot" Joke

2007-03-06T18:22:00.000-05:00

OF COURSE this is SUCH a big deal...

Why can't we say that the joke was just bad and move on?

Did she mean any ill-will towards gays? No.
Did she botch the joke? (as John Kerry claims he did) No. Here she is on Hannity and Colmes with an explanation:

"...Liberals like Kerry get caught calling our troops dumb and then go back and say, oh, I botched a joke. No, I didn't botch a joke, and I didn't use an insulting word. I used a schoolyard word about a married man with children, 28th billionth time, and the audience knew that. I mean, the joke wouldn't have worked if I had inserted the name of a gay Democrat. Any other Democrat, the name could have been inserted. It could have been Howard Dean or Hillary Clinton, because it's a schoolyard taunt meaning wuss..."

And...

"...Kerry actually said, if you don't do your homework, if you don't go to school, you end up in Iraq. You can quote me exactly, and I don't have to change any words..."

Many conservatives are not happy with Coulter.

Malkin unleashes here.
Mary Katharine Ham is done defending her.
Dean Barnett is sick of it.

Michael Medved's response, though, is the one that stood out for me. Why?

...because he sounded like a liberal.

First of all, he calls the term "an anti-homosexual slur"...which was not her intended use. Then, he goes on to paint John Edwards as someone who should not be criticized because of his tough life:

"...it’s totally unacceptable to direct (the word) at Edwards – who’s been happily married for thirty years to a breast-cancer survivor and fathered five children, one of whom died in a tragic accident."

And...

"...laughingly smearing him as a closeted homosexual constitutes an inexcusable degradation of public discourse."

WOW - isn't THAT quite a leap in interpretation?

He then goes on that Coulter shouldn't question the sexuality of those who are married (which she wasn't doing) because she herself has never been married...implying that her own sexuality should be questioned more than Edwards'.

I have liked some of Medved's writings in the past, but this is so off-the-wall wrong you would think it came from Huffington Post or something.

I like what Atlas Shrugs says here:

"My point is I hate how the right has completely thrown her under the bus. She is a brilliant, beautiful, acerbic, bright light of the right. The right can't run fast enough the other way. Seems to me they are a bunch of faggots as well."

Again, the joke admittedly wasn't funny. But she wasn't engaging in hate speech or making anti-gay comments in any way. Let's forget this and move on.

Separation of Church and State...

2007-03-06T17:15:00.000-05:00

...matters when you're a Mormon (registration required - the New York Times), who's Republican, who's running for President.

The article asks if Mitt Romney's religion will be an "obstacle" and wonders if he will be able to "overcome" it while running for the White House.

"Christians...dismiss his religion as a cult" according to MSNBC. The article also references a Washington Post/ABC News poll which says that 35% of the respondents would be "less likely" to vote for a candidate who is Mormon...

...but we have no idea who the respondents are. The poll isn't cited.

USA Today seems to think Mormonism is "strange" and a "handicap" to the White House.

...and atheists are furious with him!

But what happens when religion intersects with politics on the Democratic side?

Don't worry - it's just "two rivals mark(ing) the civil rights struggle." They're just "honor(ing) activists." They're "commemorat(ing) 'Bloody Sunday.'" They're "converg(ing) on a civil rights shrine."

Where's the ACLU on this one? Why aren't they furious that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama hosted political rallies in churches? Isn't this an obvious violation of church and state??? Where's the perpetual outrage we are so accustomed to seeing?

The bigger question: Why can one candidate (in this case, two) be influenced by his religion, while another cannot?

At least one headline captured the true meaning of why Clinton and Obama were in Selma in the first place...

More on "The Right to Life"

2007-03-06T17:12:00.000-05:00

Sister Toldjah lets us know that baby Amillia goes home.

God bless.

Obama...Not Articulate?

2007-03-06T17:04:00.000-05:00

Ann Coulter puts this issue to rest here.

Duke Rape Case

2007-02-22T18:54:00.001-05:00

LaShawn Barber on the REAL Duke Rape Case.

The Right to Life

2007-02-22T18:32:00.000-05:00

Caught this story via Sister Toldjah:

"'(Baby Amillia) showed us early on that she was a fighter and wanted to be here,' said Dr. Paul Fassbach, a neonatologist.
"Amillia was born Oct. 24, 2006. She was the world’s fourth-smallest baby, weighing 284 grams (just under 10 ounces) when she was born. She was just 9.5 inches long — barely longer than a ballpoint pen.
"'We’ve never even really resuscitated babies this small right,' (Dr. Paul) Fassbach said. 'Now, the recommendations for the American Academy of Pediatrics is that we can resuscitate babies that are 23 weeks or by birth weight over 400 grams. So, babies were considered non viable or too immature to survive outside the uterus if they were born earlier than that.
"Doctors said that at 23 weeks old, their survival rate is 30 percent. Now, after nearly four months at Baptist’s Children’s Hospital neonatal intensive care unit, baby Amillia will be going home healthy and thriving."

UPDATE (via Drudge): It looks as if the baby isn't going home just yet.

In an age where abortions can be legally mandated, this story is yet another example of why abortion is wrong. On ALL levels.

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, this baby shouldn't have been resuscitated. Now she's almost ready to go home.

Proof that miracles do happen.

Unhinged on Campus

2007-02-22T18:28:00.000-05:00

For those of you who don't believe that college campuses are increasingly left-leaning, and that "College Democrats" do not possess fanatic ideologies...

...I point you to this story.

Be sure to double check your facebook profiles before Democrats attack...

Border Patrol Outrage

2007-02-22T18:00:00.000-05:00

The Ramos-Compean story continues.

I've written about this twice before (here and here) but there's so much material on this that I have to address it continually.

World Net Daily has the scoop on a potential mistrial in the case, as the defense attorney is now claiming that exculpatory evidence (this agency memo), which seemingly implicates the two agents, was withheld from the defense.

According to Ramos' attorney Mary Stillinger, the prosecution violated both the Jencks Act and Brady v. Maryland.

World Net Daily has a good round-up of the entire story here.

Democratic strategist Kirsten Powers shrewdly points out that "the defenders of Ramos and Compean would be smarter to focus on (the harsh sentence) instead of claiming that the agents just simply didn't do anything wrong."

The argument could be convincingly made that the agents were in the wrong - Deb Saunders acknowledges as much: "(Attorney Johnny) Sutton can point to inconsistencies in Ramos' and Compean's stories. He is right to argue that law enforcement officials cannot be allowed to shoot at unarmed suspects or lie about what they do."

But 10 and 11 year sentences?

When rewards are bestowed on illegal aliens for their testimony against Border Patrol Agents, and people cry about the "prison-like" conditions to which illegals are subjected when they're actually caught...isn't it about time that we stick up for people who actually try to DEFEND our borders?

For more on this and other illegal immigration controversies, check out Laura Ingraham's website.

What's Wrong With New Orleans?

2007-02-22T17:24:00.000-05:00

A lot, apparently.

This article does a decent job focusing on the problem that existed BEFORE Katrina - though some have been exacerbated after it struck.

Tulane University criminal instructor Ronnie Jones makes an interesting implication:

"Before Katrina struck on August 29, 2005, there was little public pressure to do something about the number of murders, which peaked in 1994 with 425 killings.
"But Katrina hit hard the poor neighborhoods where the murders usually occurred, and brought the criminals closer to wealthier, often mostly white, areas, Jones said."

The juxtaposition of those two sentences makes it seem as if the poor communities of New Orleans were apathetic to the crime around them - only AFTER Katrina hit, and crime migrated to the "white" areas, was any outrage expressed publicly.

Does anyone else find this odd?

The article lays blame to the following for New Orleans' demise: poor police work, inept prosecutors, a local government that hasn't taken action, drug use, broken families, overall poverty, and the education system.

WOW - is anything right in this city?

One would think that people would use an event like Katrina to revamp all that is wrong, as the devastation of Katrina practically left a blank slate...but the city, with more than half its population displaced with no intentions of returning, is STILL in shambles almost two years later.

So where to start with the blame game?

I start and end with Ray Nagin - who was inexplicably re-elected.

Nagin has stepped in it a few times in the Katrina aftermath. He attacked NYC rebuilding efforts after 9/11 when confronted with his own shortcomings in the New Orleans clean-up efforts. From CBS News:

"On a tour of the decimated Ninth Ward, Nagin tells (CBS Correspondent Byron) Pitts the city has removed most of the debris from public property and it’s mainly private land that’s still affected – areas that can’t be cleaned without the owners' permission. But when Pitts points to flood-damaged cars in the street and a house washed partially into the street, the mayor shoots back. 'That’s alright. You guys in New York can’t get a hole in the ground fixed and it’s five years later. So let’s be fair.'"

Okay, Mr. Nagin. Let's be fair. One city is cleaning up from the worst terror attack on American soil, and the other is cleaning up from a hurricane, one for which it was ill-prepared.

Which city should we give a little bit more leeway to - New York City, or New Orleans?

I thought so.

Before this swipe at NYC, however, he strangely characterized his own city as "chocolate," on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, no less. According to the article, here's his rationale for using the term:

"'How do you make chocolate? You take dark chocolate, you mix it with white milk, and it becomes a delicious drink. That is the chocolate I am talking about,' he said. 'New Orleans was a chocolate city before Katrina. It is going to be a chocolate city after. How is that divisive? It is white and black working together, coming together and making something special.'"

"How is that divisive"???...well, maybe when you're trying to explain things like THIS:

"'I don't care what people are saying Uptown (a predominantly white section of town) or wherever they are. This city will be chocolate at the end of the day,' he said. 'This city will be a majority African-American city. It's the way God wants it to be.'"

God wants New Orleans to be black - according to Ray Nagin.

Again, this fool was RE-ELECTED.

We already know that Nagin ignored the city's official evacuation plans for hurricanes, and now it appears he's doing nothing to dispel the reputation of his city. His "100 Day Plan" since re-election accomplished essentially nothing, and he tried to take credit for what actually was done, when he did not have a hand in doing it...

Ray Nagin is the reason New Orleans is in its sorry state. Let's hope the city smartens up and gives this guy the boot...real soon...

Boston Security "Scare"

2007-02-11T15:53:00.001-05:00

How to react to the "Boston security scare" of a few weeks ago? Do you say that, in a post-9/11 world, there's no such thing as an "overreaction" and applaud Mayor Menino, Governor Patrick, and Police Commissioner Davis for taking every precaution regarding the 10 or so "suspicious packages" strategicaly placed around Boston and outlying areas?

Do you blame Turner-owned Cartoon Network and its marketing strategy, conceding that, again, in a post-9/11 world, one should be sensitive to the world climate and understand that any misidentified "suspicious package" could be part of a terrorist plot?

Is it right for Turner and the contractor behind the marketing scheme, Interference Inc., to pay $2 million dollars to make amends for the publicity campaign, and for the two men who placed the devices, to be brought up on criminal charges?

Or...

Is Boston now more than ever a national embarrassment, mistaking a marketing scheme by the Cartoon Network as the work of Islamic fundamentalists? Then demanding retribution in the amount of $2 million dollars to save face, deflect blame, and excuse behavior?

What of the fact that these devices had been there for at least two weeks in Boston and in other major cities without so much as a peep of their existence? (apparently, the marketing scheme wasn't working anyway)

And the fact that it seems that Mayor Menino, Governor Patrick, and Police Commissioner Davis clearly have no idea what terrorism actually looks like, what constitutes a terrorist threat, and what means terrorists use to threaten us?

so...
which argument is more plausible?

To me, it has to be THE LATTER.

A lengthy excerpt from John Stossel's revealing piece, Panic In Boston:

"The Boston Globe reports, 'Turner Broadcasting acknowledged that it never sought approval or alerted authorities that it would put up the signs.'

"Good lord, if advertisers now have to apologize for not seeking prior approval from authorities for putting up signs, what have we come to?

"One of the men charged, Peter Berdovsky, said, '[It's] kind of ridiculous that they're making these statements on TV that we must not be safe from terrorism, because they were up there for three weeks and no one noticed. It's pretty commonsensical to look at them and say this is a piece of art and installation.'

"Terrorism is horrible, but your chances of dying in a terrorist attack are relatively low. You're more likely to be killed hitting a deer with your car. (Two hundred Americans die on average every year from car collisions with deer. Including the toll from 9/11, the average number of Americans to die each year from international terrorism since 1981 is 145.)

"Excessive fear of terrorism hurts Americans, too. After 9/11, many people chose to drive rather than fly, leading to 1,000 additional deaths in automobile wrecks.

"Boston's crazy reaction reinforces the theme I've been sounding in recent columns: Decentralization of authority is always better than centralized power. Imagine if the federal Department of Homeland Security imposed procedures on all cities for when suspicious devices are spotted. The whole country might have come to a standstill.

"Instead -- thank goodness -- cities and states can establish their own procedures based on their own knowledge and experience. If Boston's procedures cause the city to panic and shut down, at least New York's and L.A.'s don't."

Michael Graham's take:

"So, do you think the people in New York and LA are really bummed out that THEY didn't spend an hour stuck in traffic or trapped on a stopped subway train? Do you think the taxpayers in Portland and Seattle wish they had blown a million bucks chasing Lite Brites on Wednesday?

"Or do you think they're thinking their lucky stars that their mayor isn't named Menino?"

Again...THE LATTER.

New Links

2007-02-11T15:48:00.000-05:00

1) Magic Valley Mormon: Not sure if this blog is still active, but it is insightful. I've cited it here before and am starting to comb its archives for information.

2) Atlas Shrugs: One of the most intense blogs I've ever come across, and quickly becoming one of my favorites. Quite thorough and dense, and with over 2.5 million visitors in about two years, very heavily trafficked.

Check them out.

Schlussel v. Hannity

2007-02-11T15:19:00.000-05:00

I've always liked both Debbie Schlussel and Sean Hannity - Schlussel more, though. She's one of the most articulate, insightful, and analytical pundits out there, while Hannity tends to benefit from sitting across from Alan Colmes.

If I had to choose one in a fight, however, it would be Schlussel. Hands down.

And it appears as if she's winning.

I first found out about the battle Schlussel is waging here when Hot Air linked to a clip of Ann Coulter and Geraldine Ferraro on Hannity and Colmes debating the worthiness of Imam Al-Husainy's giving the opening prayer at the Democratic National Convention's winter convocation. Here's what Schlussel had to say about the clip:

"...clearly, they (HANNITY AND COLMES/FOX NEWS) are ripping people’s work off. Since they used my info on Al-Husainy, they could have at least given me credit or had me on. Everyone else gave me credit. Why couldn’t they? FOX News has done this to me so many times, my head is spinning.

"Covering the story is only half of the story. Getting people on who are the basis for the story and who have the complete info–as I do on Al-Husainy–is the other half. They did not do their job tonight."

Schlussel convincingly states her case against Hannity here, here, here, and here, with prominent blogosphere support from LaShawn Barber, Robert Spencer, and Independent Conservative.

It appears that Hannity is in the wrong and he should just "make amends," as Barber suggests. If this whole thing is true (which, it appears to be), it is quite a letdown. We conservatives supposedly stand for truth in all respects - and Hannity is denying the truth by not crediting Schlussel for her exclusive work.

I urge you to read Schlussel frequently. As for Hannity...we'll see if he publicly addresses this...so far, I haven't seen anything.

More on the Border Patrol

2007-02-11T14:24:00.000-05:00

Tammy Bruce gives us a heads-up on the most recent goings-on in this case that is now spiralling out of control. Via World Net Daily: (my emphasis)

"A heavily redacted Department of Homeland Security report on the prosecutions of Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean was issued by Assistant Inspector General Elizabeth M. Redman, one of four investigators called upon to resign for lying to Congress.

"The 77-page report – which Redman issued with her signature in November – was released to the public yesterday on the heels of DHS Inspector General Robert Skinner's admission at a hearing that his deputies falsely told lawmakers the agency had documentary proof the border agents were rogue cops 'out to shoot Mexicans.'"

The report is linked, but I don't know that it is all that helpful to understanding the case. The main point here is that DHS lied under oath. Who can you trust these days?

Meanwhile, Ignacio Ramos has been beaten in prison by "fellow inmates." What does the AP story fail to mention?

The assailants were quite possibly illegal immigrants.

Honestly, my head is starting to spin over this. Keep in mind the following:

1) The drug smuggler, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, was given immunity by the U.S. government to testify against the two border patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean. Aldrete-Davila is now suing the Border Patrol for five million dollars (U.S. taxpayer funded, naturally) for civil rights violations.

2) The prosecution and the Department of Homeland Security, at best, used false testimony or, at worst, lied about the events of the day of the shooting:

"The prosecution contended Compean called the alien victim a 'Mexican piece of sh-t.' The DHS went further, telling concerned Congressmen in Texas on September 26 that the agents confessed they 'were out to shoot Mexicans.' The department’s Office of Inspector General has provided no proof for the assertion. Nor do they seem concerned that both alleged racists, Ramos and Compean, claim to be of Mexican descent."

3) From Deb Saunders (as previously linked here): "Two of Aldrete-Davila's family members, who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation, told the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin that the smuggler had been dealing drugs since age 14 and, according to one, he 'wouldn't move drugs unless he had a gun on him.'"

4) The judge has acted in a corrupt manner: (emphasis mine)

"Some of the jurors broke down in tears at the reading of the guilty verdict. Three jurors – Robert Gourley, Claudia Torres, and Edine Woods – came forward days before the sentencing in October to say they had been holdouts against a guilty verdict and only voted with the majority when other jurors told them the judge would not allow a hung jury. Doing so, they noted, violated their consciences. Gourley wrote, 'Had we had the option of a hung jury, I truly believe the outcome may have been different.' Two days later, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone denied the motion for a new trial.

"Although many Congressmen hoped for a federal investigation, Judge Cardone – a 2003 George W. Bush appointee whose near-total focus before assuming the federal bench had been family law – had also refused to delay sentencing until after any potential review, saying it would only 'postpone the inevitable.' Ultimately, no review ever came.

"In October, Cardone sentenced Ramos to 11 years, and Compean to 12 years, imprisonment – 6-7 years longer than the sentence a U.S. district judge imposed that July upon another Border Patrol officer who had smuggled 100 illegal immigrants into the country."

5) The feds knew the smuggler.

Doesn't this SCREAM of a presidential pardon? As I've asked before, who in their right mind would want to work as a Border Patrol Agent after this mess?

With our sieve-like borders becoming more transparent by the day, and with DHS lying to protect illegal immigrants and turning against its own people...how can ANYBODY take the president seriously when he rhetorizes how tough we have to be in the War on Terror? Who doesn't think, at this point, that radical Muslims are watching the details of a case like this and thinking to themselves "America will take care of itself! We don't have to do anything!"

With our increasingly lax immigration policy, our declining overall birth rate, and the lack of assimilation among those immigrants here (legally or illegally), it won't matter that we haven't had an attack like September 11th in over 5 years.

We're allowing the takeover to occur without attacks even happening.

Lourdes, 149 Years Ago...

2007-02-11T14:00:00.000-05:00

The story of Saint Bernadette, the patron saint of the sick, poor, and the people of Lourdes.

Here are the details of the 18 apparitions - all encounters Bernadette had with the Blessed Virgin Mary...of particular miraculous importance are #3, where Mary first spoke to Bernadette, and #12, where a friend of Bernadette's plunged her dislocated arm into the water of the spring near the apparitions, and it healed.

The Church officially recognizes these encounters and canonized Bernadette in 1933. Here's why these apparitions are so important to life in the Church, according to the website:

THE APPARITIONS IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH.

"This judgement of the Church is essential because the Apparitions add nothing to the Creed or the Gospel; they are a reminder for an age that had a tendency to forget them, they are indeed, a prophetic Visitation to our world. God does not want us focusing on the wonderful or the extraordinary; but through the Apparitions he gives us a sign that we should return to the Gospel which is the Word of his Son, the Word of Life. Faithfulness to the message of the Gospel, the authenticity of our life of witness, the results of holiness which flow out from it for the people of God are the criteria of an authentic Apparition in the Church. At Lourdes they are verified with a special clarity: the Church is not deceived in this."

"A reminder for an age that had a tendency to forget them"...seems all too appropriate now, as well.

In particular for today, please pray for the sick and the poor. They need it now more than ever.

Here is information for the Jubilee Year 2008 in celebration of the 150th anniversary of Lourdes.

Are We All Hopelessly Racist?

2007-02-06T17:57:00.000-05:00

Some recent events involving race that have ticked me off:

1) The lauding of Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith being two Black coaches in the Super Bowl...why is it that everything these days seems to be a multicultural landmark (except in the case of Condoleeza Rice being the first Black woman Secretary of State - nobody cares about that)? Look at the boatload of stories on this non-issue:

Via CNN, Vibe, the Washington Post, CBS, the LA Times, and, above all, this gem from the Denver Post (entitled "Black Power"), among others...

Check out how Debbie Schlussel tries to put the issue to rest on CNN recently - she says it much better than I could. Here's a long segment of the transcript, worth quoting at length (my emphasis added):

SCHLUSSEL: Well, I think that this whole focus on racism, racism, racism -- we are the most unracist country in the world. Black coaches get this chance to be in the Super Bowl. There isn't a white coach in the Super Bowl. They made it on merit alone, not because of the Rooney rule. Neither of those guys got hired because of the Rooney rule. Nobody has ever been hired because of that rule.
(ESPN analyst Stephen A.) SMITH: How would you know that?
SCHLUSSEL: Because the teams usually know who they want to hire. And they interview somebody and waste that person's time.
(CROSSTALK)
SMITH: For decades, there was never anybody else. For decades, there was never anybody of African-American descent that they wanted.
SCHLUSSEL: Name one person you know was hired because of the Rooney rule. The Rooney rule is silly...
(CROSSTALK)
SCHLUSSEL: ... because what it does is, it wastes a black candidate's time, when the team probably already decided who they wanted to interview.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHLUSSEL: Now Mike Singletary has been interviewed by the Dallas Cowboys. Do you think he's going to be hired because of the Rooney rule or based on merit?
(CROSSTALK)
SCHLUSSEL: An owner wants to hire somebody...
(CROSSTALK)
SMITH: You ask a question that you don't want answers to. You are obviously asking questions that you don't want answers to.
(Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Karen) HUNTER: This is about affirmative action. And, as a person who has benefited from affirmative action, I can tell you, it's absolutely necessary. People will not hire people who don't look like them, who they're not comfortable with, unless they're forced to.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHLUSSEL: Everyone in America is a racist?
(CROSSTALK)
HUNTER: No, everyone in America is not a racist.
SCHLUSSEL: Exactly.
HUNTER: But this country has a racial foundation that we do not...
(CROSSTALK)
SCHLUSSEL: It's time to move on.
(CROSSTALK)
HUNTER: Is it time to move on?
SCHLUSSEL: Yes.
HUNTER: It's time to move on when we stop being racist.
(CROSSTALK)
(host Paula) ZAHN: Let me move on to another question. Do you think blacks have been held to a different standard?
HUNTER: Absolutely. I have to be twice as good at what I do.
ZAHN: Not even you...
HUNTER: Yes. No, exactly.
ZAHN: ... but specifically when it comes to the NFL?
HUNTER: Both of these coaches, that they are both in the Super Bowl right now says a lot about...
(CROSSTALK)
SCHLUSSEL: If you were twice as good, you wouldn't need affirmative action.
HUNTER: Really?
SCHLUSSEL: Yes. You don't need it.
(CROSSTALK)
SMITH: There is not a black person in America that would tell you differently than what she just said. Of course we're held to a different standard. We're always held to a different standard. That's why, even more significant than Tony Dungy -- or just as significant as Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith going to the Super Bowl, is the fact that Tomlin was hired by the Pittsburgh Steelers, because his resume is not impeccable. Yet, at the age of 34, he was given an opportunity to be a head coach in the NFL. That's something that simply never, ever happened in this sport's history.
SCHLUSSEL: Why should he get that opportunity just because of color?
SMITH: Because white folks get that opportunity all the time.
(CROSSTALK)
SMITH: And, if you're talking about fairness, how about being fair and making sure that black people are afforded the same opportunity as white people?
SCHLUSSEL: OK. Fine.Do you think that there should be -- do you think there should be Samoan and Latino coaches, because there are Samoan and Latino players? And there hasn't been one of those coaches yet.
(CROSSTALK)
HUNTER: Deborah (ph), the NFL is 70 percent black, right? The NFL is 70 percent black.
SCHLUSSEL: Over 75 percent.
HUNTER: OK. Well, I -- right, 70 percent.
ZAHN: But does that necessarily mean that 75 percent of the coaches should be black?(CROSSTALK)
HUNTER: You make -- you make a point.
SCHLUSSEL: Well, then maybe we should have affirmative action for white players on the field. Why does there need to be a correlation between the 75 percent on the field?
HUNTER: It is about opportunity. The fact that Smith is the lowest paid coach in the NFL. SMITH: $135,000.
(INAUDIBLE)
SCHLUSSEL: He had a very bad agent. He had a bag agent
ZAHN: What evidence is that that that's relevant? You know, racism and not bad agent? SMITH: I'll give you a perfect example, Lane Kipman (ph), new coach of the Oakland Raiders. He was at USC. You got a guy like Norm Chow (ph) who led USC to two national championships as an offensive coordinator, plus he took them to a third. He did a fantastic job at Tennessee. He couldn't get a head coach job. You got Ron Rivera (ph)
(INAUDIBLE)
Let me just say. The man is 31 years old with no experience whatsoever coaching on the NFL level, but he was given a head coaching job. That simply does not happen for black people in America.
SCHLUSSEL: There are 32 jobs, 32. There are a lot of good coaches of all races that want to be coaches.
SMITH: Let me address my issue. The man is 31 years old with no coaching experience, any NFL and got a head coaching job for the Oakland Raiders. Does that happen for a black man in the United States of America?
SCHLUSSEL: Everybody gets a chance.
SMITH: Does that happen?
SCHLUSSEL: The fact is that
(INAUDIBLE) .
Why did Art Shell (ph) and Dennis Green (ph) get hired over and over and over again?
SMITH: What are you talking about? What are you talking about over and over again? HUNTER: Here's the problem I have. When you hire unqualified people and you say, ha, see, blacks can't do it.
(INAUDIBLE)
SCHLUSSEL: I think blacks are very qualified.
HUNTER: The Rooney rule works. Affirmative action works
(INAUDIBLE).
(CROSSTALK)
SCHLUSSEL: These are two great coaches, not black coaches. They're great coaches of any race. They are great coaches in their own right, not because they're black and it's time to move on.

I think she put that "issue" to rest... wonder if CNN will ever have her on again after she smoked those two...

Here's what should be emphasized, via the Miami Herald. Fantastic piece.

2) Barack Obama is articulate...

Racism!!!

Read this via the New York Times:

"That is the core of the issue. When whites use the word in reference to blacks, it often carries a subtext of amazement, even bewilderment. It is similar to praising a female executive or politician by calling her 'tough' or 'a rational decision-maker.'
"'When people say it, what they are really saying is that someone is articulate ... for a black person,' Ms. Perez said.
"Such a subtext is inherently offensive because it suggests that the recipient of the 'compliment' is notably different from other black people.
"'Historically, it was meant to signal the exceptional Negro,' Mr. Dyson said. 'The implication is that most black people do not have the capacity to engage in articulate speech, when white people are automatically assumed to be articulate.'"

...and the piece has the GALL to point out how to use the word!

"But here is a pointer. Do not use it as the primary attribute of note for a black person if you would not use it for a similarly talented, skilled or eloquent white person. Do not make it an outsized distinction for Brown University’s president, Ruth Simmons, if you would not for the University of Michigan’s president, Mary Sue Coleman. Do not make it the sole basis for your praise of the actor Forest Whitaker if it would never cross your mind to utter it about the expressive Peter O’Toole."

This is beyond comprehension. Barack Obama IS articulate. Condoleeza Rice IS articulate. Thomas Sowell IS articulate. LaShawn Barber IS articulate. Star Parker IS articulate. Oprah Winfrey IS articulate.

And they're all black. IT'S A GOOD THING.

3) LaShawn Barber's piece entitled "Slavery Apologies and Diversity Pledges" is spot on, per usual. She highlights two resolutions in the Virginia legislature which call for the state to apologize to blacks for its role in slavery.

Of course, blacks were slaveowners too - disproportionately so, according to some statistics. But you never hear this. Anywhere.

Here's the simple point Barber makes: "Raise your hand if you or anyone you know was a slave. Raise your hand if you or anyone you know owned slaves."

As Debbie Schlussel was saying, it's time to move on.

The second racial issue Barber notes is this diversity pledge from the University of Virginia.

Excerpts from Barber:

"The student council proposed a so-called diversity pledge to…who knows? Someone tell me what is a “diversity pledge?” A promise to always consider the skin color of fellow students? Hmm…content of character, and all that, doesn’t apply. Is it a promise not to notice differences like skin color? Wait a minute. You can notice differences if doing so is beneficial but not detrimental, right? Isn’t that inconsistent and a bit…hypocritical?...

"...If you need a 'diversity pledge' to act like a responsible, courteous adult, no matter what color skin someone is born with or who they have sex with (besides a child), a diversity pledge ain’t going to help you."

Naturally, she's right. Certain blacks, it seems, don't want racism to go away, and in fact perpetuate it, when it benefits them. All three of these cases illustrate that point. Be it the need for "diversity" among NFL coaches, the "proper" use of certain words towards minority groups, or "diversity pledges" on college campuses, it's ALL a part of the victimhood culture which permeates our society.

Certain blacks (and white liberals, come to think of it) need to see Tony Dungy, Lovie Smith, Barack Obama, and LaShawn Barber for who they are, and get past the "Rooney rule" obsession that blacks need help because of oppression.

These people are proof positive that you don't. See beyond their race.

To CMS...

2007-02-06T16:52:00.000-05:00

...your post infuriates me - I had to address it separately. Though I am glad that you posted - it gives me a chance to highlight hollow arguments from the left:

First off, here is Bush's proposal for balancing the budget by 2012. Note that "permanent tax relief" strengthened the economy and contributed to cutting the deficit in half, three years ahead of schedule. Also, the report explains that only those programs "that are not getting the job done" should be eliminated.

Sure, not all Americans will be happy with cuts in government programs...but could Americans as a whole be really upset about cutting programs which serve no purpose? According to this budget fact sheet, the Program Assessment Ratings Tool is used to determine what programs are useful, which could use more funding, which could be eliminated, etc. Here is the latest information as of February 5th...

After analyzing this data myself, it looks like we could cut the Department of Education altogether - but I digress...

There has been no evidence of a lack of consumer or investor confidence despite what you say about Americans lacking any savings. If you want to blame Bush on the outrageous costs of education and housing which prohibit many Americans from saving anything, well...you're just wrong. Education costs go through the roof when legislators want to make education tax deductible (a Clinton idea) and extend tuition breaks to illegal immigrants (a decision made at the state, rather than the federal, level - see here). Also, housing prices are starting to fall nationwide, and supply and demand, rather than any government interference, is dictating their pricing.

Also, earmark reform, which Bush addressed briefly in his SOTU, should greatly contribute to the trimming of the national deficit by eliminating wasteful spending.

Lastly, I HAVE to address the fact you threw in "global warming" as if that was all Bush's fault...

Read this and weep.

Looks like they were against it before they were for it this time, huh?

New Links...

2007-02-06T16:32:00.001-05:00

First, two books:

1) State of Emergency by Pat Buchanan. I feel that I'll be referencing this book often, as it makes strong points for securing our borders before the rest of our country looks like "Mexifornia"...also, there's some justified Bush-bashing for all you haters out there...

2) Meltdown by Patrick J. Michaels. I'm sure you'll see a lot of this, too. It's rather dense, and science is not my forte, so it will take me a while to dig through. The premise of the book is to debunk the "predictable distortion of global warming" conjured up by scientists, politicians, and media elites. Michaels is a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, and senior fellow of environmental studies at the Cato Institute.

Here's a preview.

...and one columnist link:

1) Star Parker. Check out her story here and discover why her voice is so important in today's racially charged political climate.

More to come as my search expands for more sources...

The Border Patrol Fiasco

2007-02-01T17:11:00.000-05:00

First, here's President Bush with Neil Cavuto yesterday on the Border Patrol Fiasco:

CAVUTO: Let me ask you, sir, about the ex-Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, both serving time in jail for shooting a runaway Mexican drug dealer.
Would you pardon them?
BUSH: You know, I get asked about pardons on a lot of different cases. And there's a procedure in place. And what I told members of Congress who have written me or called was to just look at the case, look at the facts in the case.
And people need to understand why these folks were sent to trial and why a jury of their peers convicted them. And that's, of course, what a president does on any pardon request.
CAVUTO: So, what are you saying?
BUSH: I'm saying, I would look at all the facts. And — but there is a process in any case for a president to make a pardon decision. In other words, there is a series of steps that are followed, so that the pardon process is, you know, a rational process.
CAVUTO: Well, they're in jail now. They're not going anywhere.
BUSH: Right. That's right.
CAVUTO: So...
BUSH: So...
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: ... as things stand now, they will stay in jail.
BUSH: As things stand now, they will serve their sentence, right.
CAVUTO: Unless you interfere.
BUSH: Right. But what I'm trying to tell you is, is that it is — there is a series of steps that are analyzed in order for the Justice Department to make a recommendation as to whether or not a president grants a pardon.
CAVUTO: And we're not at that yet?
BUSH: No, we're not at that stage yet.

Background on the story from World Net Daily here and here (much of the two pieces are the same). The ultimate miscarriage of justice:

"U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Cardone in El Paso, Texas, sentenced Jose Alonso Compean to 12 years in prison and Ignacio Ramos to 11 years and one day despite a plea by their attorney for a new trial after three jurors said they were coerced into voting guilty in the case, the Washington Times reported."

Maybe the President isn't pardoning the two agents because he nominated the judge to the U.S. District Court? Let's hope not...

Deb Saunders has been all over this case: here is her most recent piece, along with past columns here and here.

What kind of message does this sentencing and subsequent inaction by President Bush send to current and would-be border patrol agents? "You better not make a mistake"?

The victim's civil rights were violated - keep in mind, the victim purportedly sold drugs since the age of 14, never sold unless he was packing heat, carted over 700 pounds of marijuana illegally over the U.S. - Mexican border, and is now suing for $5 million dollars.

Isn't this just a little bit backwards?

With our borders more porous than we even knew, immigrants sending money to their homelands in record numbers due in large part to deportation fears, and the opportunities for work extending beyond agriculture, illegal immigrants are pouring into the country in record numbers (according to the Washington Times, 300,000 illegal aliens live in the Washington, D.C. metro area ALONE)...

...shouldn't border enforcement be something we REWARD, rather than PUNISH?

These agents have suffered enough. A presidential pardon is necessary.

Congressman Duncan Hunter has the right idea. Hopefully the President does, too.

Sign this petition, along with nearly 300,000 other people, in the hopes of making a difference.

The Response

2007-02-01T16:18:00.000-05:00

Here is Jim Webb's response to the President's speech.

Actually, I thought it was quite good. I would be more than satisfied if I were a Democrat listening to Webb speak. Not only did he come off as quite articulate, but also he presented himself as militarily strong, which was especially important considering the Dems' recent weaknesses on military, defense, and national security.

From what I could see, the Dems chose the perfect representative who didn't shy away from the spotlight despite his freshman status. Some of what he said, however, did not sit well with me.

For instance, this statement on the economy: "The first (difference between the two major parties) relates to how we see the health of our economy – how we measure it, and how we ensure that its benefits are properly shared among all Americans." To me, this sounds like code language for "redistribution of wealth"...certainly a scary thought. Shouldn't you be allowed to keep what you earn?

This fragment on the Iraq War is QUITE telling of the Dems' real stance: "The second regards our foreign policy – how we might bring the war in Iraq to a proper conclusion..."...wouldn't a "proper conclusion" to the war be "winning"? Why doesn't he say he wants to win the war?

Do ANY Democrats say they want to win the war???

Another point of contention I have with the speech is the consistent Democratic claim that the war in Iraq takes away from the global "war on terror"...

Is there ever any proof of that?

The President has made abundantly clear that an unstable Iraq is not the only threat to our national security. And other countries are doing their part as well.

Another suspect statement during the rebuttal: "The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military." - Webb offers no evidence to support this claim. It seems apparent that the former assertion is true...but the latter?

Questions are raised by Flopping Aces here. More from National Review.

The conclusion to the speech, I thought, was the best part. Invoking Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower, two universally respected Presidents, was a good move. Also, the fact that Webb re-wrote the speech himself also seemed to be a good move. His personal story of military strength showed that Dems' *may* be able to be against the war and support the military.

They haven't proven that to me yet, though...

The Speech

2007-01-24T18:15:00.000-05:00

First, former Clinton advisor Dick Morris on the O'Reilly Factor on his thoughts before Bush gave his speech:

1) latest Fox poll showed that, of those surveyed, 45% agreed that the biggest problem facing the country was Iraq. The next most important issue (not mentioned) registered a mere 10%. Morris suggested that Bush steer clear of the "one-issue" presidency

2) in response, O'Reilly quoted a Gallup Poll which stated 86% of Americans are satisfied with their life here...so, he wondered, can President Bush really get around the question of Iraq?

3) Morris suggested that Bush address the following topics to highlight some recent strong points of the presidency: low unemployment; strides made in reducing the terror threat from North Korea, Iran, and Somalia; and low gas and oil prices

4) Lastly, Morris wanted Bush to address fixing Social Security ("everything should be on the table") and energy independence.

Fox News' Brit Hume summed up the speech before it began, saying that Bush would try to reach common ground by addressing gasoline usage, health care reform, and the Iraq war - all of which he did cover...not so sure about the "common ground" part, however.

By the way, did anyone actually notice Michael J. Fox in the audience? Apparently he was there...

Considering the speech Bush gave only a few weeks ago, the Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes did not have high expectations for the context of the speech, predicting a non-confrontational assessment of the State of the Union, with a focus on energy and education. He also wanted viewers to note the Democratic response to any of Bush's talking points.

Roll Call's Mort Kondracke safely predicted a thunderous clapping when Bush brought up personal responsibility for the Iraqi people, but a muted applause when Bush explained that, in order to achieve the goals in Iraq, the U.S. military would need time.

Before the speech began, Hume took a jab at presidential hopeful (to use the term graciously) Dennis Kucinich, asserting humorously that this speech gave Kucinich "more air time than he has ever gotten in his political life."...it's always about campaigning, right?

Now, for the speech (first, what I took from it, followed by links):

- the introduction for Nancy Pelosi, followed by heartfelt recognition from constituents, was a classy move on the part of the President (Chris Matthews called it "chivalrous"), and I thought she received the applause pretty graciously. It was a great start...but did it give the Dems hope? Well...probably not.

- Bush claimed he was "willing to cross the (political) aisle when work had to be done", explaining that people didn't care what party you were from, as long as you got the job done. This received an appreciative applause but I'm not sure Dems should buy into it absent from "comprehensive immigration reform" and the minimum wage hike. Going through his bullet points, we'll see if "common ground" is reached on any other issues.

- the early positive statistic Bush spouted was on the economy: 41 straight months of uninterrupted job growth, creating 7.2 million jobs in that span (pretty sure that was the right time frame). Unemployment and inflation both very low - Bush encouraged the growth of the economy not through more GOVERNMENT, but more ENTERPRISE. Dems did NOT like this line as Pelosi seemed to bite her lower lip, while Republicans went nuts. I personally thought the point was well taken, and he's proven that his hands-off approach to the economy works.

- Bush plans to outline a goal that eliminates the federal budget within 5 years - everyone could come together on that issue; however, when he said he planned to do it without raising taxes, Democrats fell silent. I found this especially telling - I'd like to see this report when it's released, it's a very intriguing idea...and one that Dems don't buy at the moment.

- he vowed to end the practice of earmarks - of which both Dems and Republicans are guilty of exploiting. Unfortunately, he didn't mention the role that bloggers played to get this legislation passed. I was hoping he would, but not expecting it.

- rhetoric that Social Security is failing, which we should all know by now. Not sure that the "Reagan era...is still alive in the Bush White House."

- he asked Congress to re-authorize the No Child Left Behind Act. Dems didn't approve of the idea of "school choice" which Bush brought up. I honestly have never understood this one and would love for someone to come up with good reasons why school choice doesn't benefit everyone. For whatever reasons, Dems hate it. I think it's a great start to solving our dwindling public school system.

- health care through tax deductions - Dems hated this too. We should expand Health Savings Accounts (no response from Dems) and should legislate Medical Liability Reform to protect good doctors from "junk lawsuits" (are you listening, John Edwards?) He asserted that the relationship between a patient and his doctor should be the overriding factor in determining treatment, not the government

- immigration - ugh. The shot of Tom Tancredo shaking his head said it all. "No animosity, no amnesty" didn't make much sense to me. Signing "comprehensive immigration reform" into law will please the Dems greatly (and some Republicans, too - read anything Linda Chavez ever seems to write).

- energy and the environment: reduce gasoline usage by 20% in the next 10 years. Now THAT sounds ambitious - again, I'd like to see plan outlines for that. Also, an increase twofold of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve...oops, he lost the Dems again! He called for the U.S. to be "better stewards of the environment" and "confront global climate change" - Dems liked this, but, unless I missed it, he didn't really outline a strategy to confront global climate change...

- a brief bit on the courts and how nominees are due prompt, fair hearings - a bit of a shot to Dems, which I'll expound upon in a later post

then, on to TERROR. I'm not going to be super extensive here because much of it was addressed in his speech a few weeks ago and the themes are pretty much the same. But some key points:

- BEST LINE (paraphrase): "Success measured by things that have NOT happened - and to those men and women who have prevented it, WE OWE A DEBT OF GRATITUDE TO THOSE PUBLIC SERVANTS."...It's not something that's often recognized or even acknowledged, heroes that go unnoticed because terrorism does NOT strike again...and not just soldiers, but just vigilant citizens. Extraordinary recognition on the part of the president.

- he pointed out that our enemies have adjusted their tactics in 2006 after a relatively successful 2005, citing steps backward in Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq. This was tough to listen to, if you're a proponent of the war or not.

- SECOND BEST LINE: "You did not vote for FAILURE."...Ouch, Dems...(to be fair, Republicans too)

- the War on Terror will be a generational struggle - he will develop a special, bipartisan advisory council on the War on Terror...this is quite intriguing. Who will be named to this panel? And what will their role exactly be?

I won't get into the special guests because, although worthy guests, their stories largely are not political. I'll tackle Jim Webb's response in a later post.

Full text of speech via Drudge.

Thorough coverage as usual from Michelle Malkin.

Live blogging from Mary Katharine Ham, Captain Ed, and Ace of Spades (ha!).

More reaction, and fallout, to come.

If I Were A Meteorologist…

2007-01-24T18:12:00.000-05:00

…I’d be fired.

Just look at the outright BULLYING behind this junk science:

“(The Weather Channel’s Heidi) Cullen’s call for decertification of TV weatherman who do not agree with her global warming assessment follows a year (2006) in which the media, Hollywood and environmentalists tried their hardest to demonize scientific skeptics of manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News 60 Minutes correspondent, compared skeptics of global warming to "Holocaust deniers" and former Vice President turned foreign lobbyist Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers."

And…

"Cullen’s call for suppressing scientific dissent comes at a time when many skeptical scientists affiliated with Universities have essentially been silenced over fears of loss of tenure and the withdrawal of research grant money."

OUTRAGEOUS. And she calls herself a woman of science? I wonder if she’s considered what her call for decertification might do:

"Cullen’s call for decertification by the AMS can only serve to intimidate skeptics and further chill free speech in the scientific community. Stripping the "Seal of Approval" from broadcast meteorologists could affect their livelihoods, impact their salaries and prestige."

Really, it’s unbelievable – essentially willing to ruin other people’s lives for her pet cause.

So many links on this piece worth looking at – be sure to check it out.

Here’s her blog if you want to voice your opinion…be respectful, of course.

A MUST READ

2007-01-23T17:34:00.000-05:00

What the loony left really thinks - despicable.

Via Sister Toldjah.

Minimum Wage Arguments

2007-01-23T16:44:00.000-05:00

Minimum wage legislation is basically feel-good legislation. Giving poor people more money is GOOD, right? And many on the left would like you to believe that those making minimum wage are in fact poverty stricken.

But...is that what raising the minimum wage actually does? Could it in fact HURT poor people?

First, from John Stossel, who talks about "sticking it to low-skilled workers" - the conclusion to this piece is quite telling, as he borrows a quote from economist Walter Williams:

"As George Mason University economist Walter Williams says, 'It's tempting to think of higher minimum wages as an anti-poverty weapon, but such an idea doesn't even pass the smell test. After all, if higher minimum wages could cure poverty, we could easily end worldwide poverty simply by telling poor nations to legislate higher minimum wages.'"

Is that common-sense thinking, or is Williams wrong here?

Stossel talks about why a supply-and-demand approach works when it comes to the labor force and minimum wage. He explains why government mandate simply won't work:

"The law of supply and demand works in the labor market, too. If government mandates a higher minimum wage, some workers will get a raise. Some. But something else will happen. Employers will hire fewer low-skilled workers. Others will let some current workers go. Some will choose not to expand their businesses. A few will close altogether. If an employer believes a worker creates only about $5.15 worth of value on the job, he won't pay $7, even if the government demands it."

And, as he goes on further to explain, the victims of this legislation will not be highlighted in the press - instead, they will likely become part of the welfare state they were probably trying to avoid in the first place BY WORKING.

More evidence stated plainly from George Will.

"Most of the working poor earn more than the minimum wage, and most of the 0.6 percent (479,000 in 2005) of America's wage workers earning the minimum wage are not poor. Only one in five workers earning the federal minimum live in families with household earnings below the poverty line. Sixty percent work part-time and their average household income is well over $40,000. (The average and median household incomes are $63,344 and $46,326 respectively.)

"Forty percent of American workers are salaried. Of the 75.6 million paid by the hour, 1.9 million earn the federal minimum or less, and of these, more than half are under 25 and more than a quarter are between 16 and 19. Many are students or other part-time workers. Sixty percent of those earning the federal minimum or less work in restaurants and bars and are earning tips -- often untaxed, perhaps -- in addition to their wages. Two-thirds of those earning the federal minimum today will, a year from now, have been promoted and be earning 10 percent more. Raising the minimum wage predictably makes work more attractive relative to school for some teenagers, and raises the dropout rate. Two scholars report that in states that allow persons to leave school before 18, a 10 percent increase in the state minimum wage caused teenage school enrollment to drop 2 percent."

More from one of my favorites, Mona Charen. She quotes Democratic rhetoric following passage of the minimum wage bill in Congress:

"'...With the passage of this crucial legislation, we will reward work, paying America's workers a decent wage so they may join in our nation's prosperity,' declared Speaker Pelosi. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer chimed in that 'You should not be relegated to poverty if you work hard and play by the rules.' Rep. Bill Pascrell proclaimed that 'The little guy is not going to be forgotten any longer.'"

This goes back to Williams' point. These quotes seem to illustrate that Dems (and some Republicans, as Charen notes) have solved the poverty issue. If that's the case, why not speak to leaders of, say, North Korea (they're so fond of being diplomatic, aren't they) and tell them to stop starving their millions of citizens and give them a "living wage" to end poverty? And how do they know what a "living wage" actually is? And why can't they trust the American people to earn it for themselves?

Here's an attempted refutation of all the above from Media Matters - try to be fair and balanced, right? The site references two pieces from ABC News it claims are biased, reported by Jake Tapper and Betsy Stark. Look at what Stark says in her piece:

"STARK: For the nearly two million Americans who worked for the minimum wage, the 10-year status quo has been painful. While their wages have stood still, rents have gone up 34 percent. The cost of seeing a doctor is up 30 percent. A gallon of milk is 29 percent more. A gallon of gas has more than doubled."

Ummm...isn't there some sort of implication here that these two million people have stayed at minimum wage level for 10 years? Not sure about the authenticity of that statement...

Also, both pieces comment on Congress fattening its own wallets without raising the minimum wage for everyone else - fairly critical, right?

I don't see a "conservative bias" here, and Media Matters just seems wrong to me.

We'll see how this legislation plays out in the real world.

Who to Vote for in 2008? Part III

2007-01-22T14:52:00.000-05:00

John Edwards

Honestly, I didn't know a lot about him, so I had to do some digging.

For starters, a good article from Kathleen Parker of the Orlando Sentinel on the unfortunate timing of Edwards' announcement. A perfect summation of his press conference towards the end of the piece:

"Passionate, but not overwrought, he conveyed the persona of a deeply caring man who wants to make the world a better place. Either that, or the persona of a deeply cunning litigator adept at pulling a jury's heartstrings, which usually precedes the pulling of someone else's purse strings."

Whose purse strings were pulled? From his website, a description of his life before politics:

"For the next 20 years, John dedicated his career to representing families and children just like the families he grew up with in Robbins (North Carolina). Standing up against the powerful insurance industry and their armies of lawyers, John helped these families through the darkest moments of their lives to overcome tremendous challenges. His passionate advocacy for people like the folks who worked in the mill with his father earned him respect and recognition across the country."

What exactly does this mean? Kirsten Powers has argued on John Gibson's "The Big Story" that Republicans have little basis to criticize Edwards' abundant wealth - after all, wasn't he living the "American Dream" through hard work? He didn't grow up with a lot of money, being the son of a mill worker (Did you get that part yet?), and received a public education. He studied hard in law school and won big settlements for the "little guy" in heart-wrenching cases involving cerebral palsy and brain damage. Now it seems every time you turn around he's helping the downtrodden of New Orleans - isn't that be something President Bush should be doing, Dems argue?

On the face of it, not a bad argument. But let's look into how exactly Edwards achieved his wealth.

Via CNSNews, a "Heart-Wrenching Plea":

"But some of Edwards' critics say that as a trial lawyer, he relied more on his verbal skills than the latest scientific evidence to persuade juries that the doctors' mistakes had been instrumental in causing the cerebral palsy in the infants.

"Edwards' trial summaries 'routinely went beyond a recitation of his case to a heart-wrenching plea to jurors to listen to the unspoken voices of injured children,' according to a comprehensive analysis of Edwards' legal career by The Boston Globe in 2003.

"The Globe cited an example of Edwards' oratorical skills from a medical malpractice trial in 1985. Edwards had alleged that a doctor and a hospital had been responsible for the cerebral palsy afflicting then-five-year-old Jennifer Campbell.

"'I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her (Jennifer), I feel her presence,' Edwards told the jury according to court records. '[Jennifer's] inside me and she's talking to you ... And this is what she says to you. She says, 'I don't ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don't ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage.''

"Edwards' emotional plea worked. Jennifer Campbell's family won a record jury verdict of $6.5 million against the hospital where the girl was born -- a judgment reduced later to $2.75 million on appeal. Edwards also settled with Jennifer's obstetrician for $1.5 million.

"Legal expert Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of the book, The Rule of Lawyers, said Edwards' success in court was due in large part to his mastery of one important trait.

"'Edwards was clearly very good at managing the emotional tenor of a trial and that turns out to be at least as important as any particular skill in the sense of researching the fine points of law,' Olson told CNSNews.com .

"'These are the skills that you find in successful trial lawyers. They can tell a story that produces a certain emotional response. It's a gift,' Olson added.

"However, Olson believes trial lawyers 'have been getting away with an awful lot in cerebral palsy litigation,' by excluding certain scientific evidence.

"'[Trial lawyers] have been cashing in on cases where the doctor's conduct probably did not make any difference at all -- cases where the child was doomed to this condition based on things that happened before they ever got to the delivery room,' Olson said."

Read the rest of the "scientifically unfounded" article.

Here's a report from Trial Lawyers Inc., detailing the truth about our lawsuit culture (from 2003). You can see why someone would want to get into the trial lawyer business after reading this - seems like an easy way to make a quick buck - or, a quick million bucks, as the case may be.

More from National Review, from when Edwards was named Kerry's running mate in 2004:

"... 19 of Edwards's top 20 donors were plaintiffs' lawyers, 86 percent of his Senate campaign contributions came from personal-injury lawyers, and almost two-thirds of his field-leading presidential-campaign contributions last spring came from trial lawyers, their families, and their staffs. The Edwards campaign has even enjoyed the use of four private jets owned by his trial-lawyer buddies.

"The trial lawyers know their compatriot well. Since his election to the Senate, Edwards has voted consistently with their interests — against class-action reforms, against medical-malpractice reforms, against solutions to the asbestos bankruptcy crisis, even against proposed limitations on personal-injury lawsuits in the event of a terrorist attack."

Fantastic.

But there are more issues besides how Edwards achieved financial success and subsequently financed his political campaigns. Like, for instance, the Iraq War.

This is his Washington Post Op-ed piece in November 2005, where he famously declared "I was wrong." Here's the opening:

"Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda."

"What we were told"??? David Limbaugh's Bankrupt:

"Senator John Edwards said, 'Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons.' Later Edwards said he had made a mistake in supporting the Iraq war resolution and sharply criticized President Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld - a clear attempt, which was successful - to get himself back in the good graces of his party's leftist antiwar base."

Who has a political agenda NOW? As for whether or not Iraq had WMD before the war, Limbaugh cites evidence that WMD that Saddam Hussein bought from the Russians were moved to Syria and Lebanon before the war started. It also appears that WMD were even found IN IRAQ. (see pages 23 - 28 of Bankrupt).

The AP likened Edwards to Martin Luther King when he called out Hillary Clinton, saying "Silence is betrayal, and I believe it is a betrayal not to speak out against the escalation of the war in Iraq." Of course, at the time, Hillary was in Iraq and Afghanistan and unable to respond...interesting...not sure if Edwards has ever visited the troops? If he does, hopefully his opponents on the left won't use the opportunity to attack him without ability to responds, as he did to Hillary.

On other issues:

Abortion: He believes it is a constitutionally protected right, he voted no on banning even partial-birth abortions, he has a 100% favorability rating with NARAL, and he wants expanded embryonic stem cell research.

Minimum Wage: an increase, naturally. More reason not to support a minimum wage hike coming in a later post.

Civil Rights: Can this guy spin or what? An excerpt from a New York Times 2004 bio (there's that "mill town" reference again in the title - registration may be necessary):

"At times he can be blunt. Two young lesbians at the University of New Hampshire challenged him on why he does not support marriage for gay couples, a stance that might seem at odds with his support for affirmative action and civil rights generally. 'I don't think America's ready for that,' the senator replied. 'It's very simple.'

"He paused, seeing the crestfallen looks on their faces. 'It is heartbreaking,' he said. 'There is no question about that.'"

He doesn't say that it's heartbreaking that he doesn't support gay marriage - it's heart-breaking that "America isn't ready for it."

WOW.

Well, that concludes part III. Part IV - Mitt Romney...

On This Day...

2007-01-22T13:55:00.000-05:00

...the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Tragic.

Odd statistics here from Life Site News, including "...43 percent of women obtaining repeat abortions, both those with children and those without, said they wanted to have (more) children..."

Here's the full report on "Repeat Abortion in the United States."

Sound like "safe, legal, and rare?"

If this is rare...

Why do women have abortions? Here are the results of one poll - not always in cases of extreme physical danger or rape, as many abortion advocates would like you to believe.

Despite this evidence, NARAL Pro-Choice America gives the nation as a whole a D- when it comes to "women's reproductive rights"...

What more could they possibly want??? Their website says that the organization is "fighting to protect the pro-choice values of freedom and privacy." They also say they are advocates of "common ground" and resent President Bush's inability to capitulate to their platform but instead "cave to political pressure from the right wing." Just so we're clear, "common ground" is code language for "pro-abortion" ("pro-choice" also means "pro-abortion") and "cave to political pressure from the right wing" really means that Bush chooses judicial nominees based on the entire spectrum of political issues, not just abortion.

(By the way, if these NARAL-type groups want to call me "anti-choice," fine. I AM ANTI-CHOICE. But I should be able to call you "pro-abortion."...that's when people get all up in arms and go back to Clinton's "safe, legal and rare" crap. "Pro-choice" is nothing but "pro-abortion"...no sort of semantic spin can hide that.)

Hopefully we won't have to celebrate a 35th year anniversary next year...but I don't see that happening...

Leaving you with a provocative piece from the National Center and more from LaShawn Barber.

Free Suu Kyi?

2007-01-16T19:56:00.000-05:00

Worthy of its own post...let's hope freedom comes soon.

Via CNN.

Who to Vote for in 2008? Part II

2007-01-16T19:45:00.000-05:00

Hillary Clinton

Should we even go here??? Absolutely…

Amanda Carpenter’s must-read Dossier on Hillary Clinton details the following:

1) Foreign Money Sources…

…potentially available for Hillary to use for a 2008 presidential run (though, foreign money technically cannot support a domestic campaign – from Democracy Matters: “American law is governed by a clear principle that foreign governments, political parties, corporations, and individuals should not directly or indirectly influence any election. This principle is even extended to domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations, who are allowed to only give contributions that come from domestic profits…”) include, but presumably are not limited to, the following:

a) Johnny Chung - $366,000 total donation to the Democratic National Convention
b) The Australian Council for the Peaceful Reunification of China - $300,000 invitation to Bill Clinton to speak at a 2002 conference
c) The Dabbagh Group - $475,000 given to Bill Clinton for two speeches in 2002
d) Markson Sparks - $925,000 given to Bill Clinton for seven appearances between 2001 and 2002
e) CLSA Ltd. - $500,000 given to Bill Clinton for two events in 2001 and 2002
f) DNM Strategies - $200,000 for a thirty-minute speech given May 23, 2002
g) DaimlerChrysler - $500,000 pledged to Bill Clinton and Ted Turner to build a “peace park” in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea (Ugh. Sounds like Ann Coulter’s “give them a basketball” logic)

2) Other Suspicious Donors

a) the Peter Paul Scandal
i) first, I recommend you become familiar with the “Cuban Coffee Caper” – here’s the gist: Cuba’s economy was failing in the late 1970s, so, in order to alleviate some economic pressure, Russia had agreed to buy Cuban coffee at a price higher than what it was selling on the world market. Karl Fessler, a commodities broker from Germany, initiated a fraudulent sale of $8.7 million dollars worth of “Barahona” Arabic blend coffee which never existed. One of Fessler’s main cohorts in the scam was Peter Paul, who, at the time, was president of the Miami World Trade Center. Paul later pled guilty to conspiring to defraud the Cuban government.
ii) Fast forward to 2000, when Peter Paul hosts fundraising events for Hillary Clinton’s first run for the U.S. Senate. Though campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson claimed “we will not be accepting any contributions from [Peter Paul],” the evidence seems to show otherwise. Seems as if Hillary didn’t report about $2 million dollars she received in contributions.

b) Willie Tan – Clinton accepted $8,000 from this “sweatshop owner” (via Pacific Magazine, which paints a now-rosy picture):

“Tan helped launch the garment industry in Saipan 20 years ago, and in those days the Saipan factories deserved to be labeled as "sweat shops." Tan's-and other companies'-factories were hot, full of fabric dust and crowded. In recent years, however, the three Tan Holdings factories have cleaned up their act: They are mostly air conditioned and no longer fodder for New York Times' exposés about the exploitation of Asian workers.” (see Byron York for more)

c) John Burgess – slimeball owner of International Profit Associates (bio here). Who exactly is John Burgess? According to the New York Times in May 2006, he is “a disbarred New York lawyer with a criminal record for attempted larceny and patronizing a sixteen-year-old prostitute.” Reportedly, Hillary accepted $157,000 in campaign donations from the organization, which, unlike most politicians, she did not give back. Incidentally, Bill Clinton received $125,000 from the same organization in 2001.

3) Tax Cuts

a) voted against the Bush Tax Cuts four separate times in 2001 and 2003
b) voted against capital gains tax cuts four separate times between 2001 and 2006

4) Pork Barrel Spending Schemes – the following laundry list represents Hillary’s ideology of the government, rather than its citizens, offers the best chance at economic growth:

a) $350,000 allocated for a regional survey by Albany’s Center for Economic Growth
b) $4 million dollars allocated for Rochester’s National Center for Excellence (see the bottom of the page)
c) $250,000 allocated for the Metropolitan Development Authority of Syracuse and Central New York’s “Vision 2010 Economic Development Strategy”
d) $250,000 allocated for Rural Opportunities, Inc.
e) $250,000 allocated for Broome-Tioga Works

Ugh. Sound like a lot of spending to you?

5) Hillary Care

From World Net Daily:
“In the 1990s, the idea of universal health care was called Hillary Care because Hillary Clinton orchestrated the assembly of a national universal health-care program that was promoted to the American people and proposed to Congress.

“It would have assembled a complicated set of payment procedures for individuals and companies, and then mandated various coverage levels and circumstances. Congress ultimately rejected the proposal out of hand, saying it could not be repaired enough to make it workable.

“However, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney just a few months ago signed into law the proposal from that state's Legislature launching a new mandatory universal health insurance program.

“That specific program requires all uninsured adults to buy that insurance by July 1, 2007 – and prove it on their income tax returns – or face fines that could range into the thousands of dollars.”

Nice to know we can ALWAYS count on Massachusetts to take the lead, even with Republicans at the helm. How does this sound – buy from the government, or else??? That’s what Hillary wants – do you?

6) Illegal Immigration
Michelle Malkin documents her flip-flops here.

7) Iraq War
Here is her flip-flop on that, too.

Wow, Obama’s looking better by the day, isn’t he? And there’s more out there on Hillary, sure to come! Next up: John Edwards…

While I Was Gone...

2007-01-16T19:12:00.001-05:00

Catch-up items:

1) George Bush in the Wall Street Journal. Two important points of emphasis:

On the Iraq War: "But we can help Iraq defeat the extremists inside and outside of Iraq--and we can help provide the necessary breathing space for this young government to meet its responsibilities. If democracy fails and the extremists prevail in Iraq, America's enemies will be stronger, more lethal, and emboldened by our defeat. Leaders in both parties understand the stakes in this struggle. We now have the opportunity to build a bipartisan consensus to fight and win the war."

On the economy: "It is also a fact that our tax cuts have fueled robust economic growth and record revenues. Because revenues have grown and we've done a better job of holding the line on domestic spending, we met our goal of cutting the deficit in half three years ahead of schedule. By continuing these policies, we can balance the federal budget by 2012 while funding our priorities and making the tax cuts permanent. In early February, I will submit a budget that does exactly that. The bottom line is tax relief and spending restraint are good for the American worker, good for the American taxpayer, and good for the federal budget. Now is not the time to raise taxes on the American people."

I think the success of the economy, particularly recently, has gone FAR under the radar, for a couple reasons. One, I think many in the media are reluctant to give Bush any credit for any successes during his presidency. Two, though, and perhaps more importantly, I don't think Bush himself has publicized his achievements on this front enough. Everyone is so concerned about the war that any news absent from it becomes almost unimportant.

Democrats wanting to raise taxes and the minimum wage when the Dow keeps setting records, day after day? Doesn't make sense...

2) The Twenty Most Annoying Liberals in the United States, via Right Wing News. Some good ones here - aren't even liberals annoyed with these people? I'd like to hear from you. And Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton didn't even make the cut!

3) Oriana Fallaci, as portrayed by Atlantic Monthly, via Mark Steyn. Read it in full.

More on her life and works here.

Tributes here and here.

4) It's official. I refer you to Part I to find out where Obama stands on key issues. I'll keep digging and update with more info.

5) Deb Saunders tells Barbara Boxer to "cork it."

Good stuff.

There may be a couple more of these "catch-up" type posts in the upcoming days as I sort through all I want to write about. Feel free to comment on any of the above, and I'll try to respond.

Who Is John Galt?

2007-01-16T19:07:00.001-05:00

Find out. Consider it a must.

More here and here.

New Links!

2007-01-16T18:40:00.000-05:00

I'm back! If anyone's still reading...

I had trouble with the website for a few weeks, but everything seems to be okay now - I'm still new at this!

A few new links I want to point out. First, the books I'm reading (none of which I'm finished yet - it takes a long time to get through some of this stuff!):

1) High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton by Ann Coulter. So far, a pretty scathing dissection of the goings-on in the White House during the Monica Lewinsky mess. It illustrates pretty clearly how morality has gone out the window in this country, why "sex doesn't matter," and why committing perjury against oneself not only is no big deal, but will advance your presidency and increase your popularity afterwards...which, to me, is indescribable.

2) Musclehead Revolution by Kevin McCullough. A fairly standard "why liberalism sucks" publication with more emphasis on God and religion. So far, nothing overly original, but pretty good.

3) In Defense of Internment by Michelle Malkin. Pretty fascinating stuff, if you're a history buff - otherwise, it may be a bit dry. The book attempts to make a case for the internment of ethnic Japanese during WWII and applies it to the potential necessity for the same ethnic profiling today to fight the War on Terror. If you can read this objectively (meaning, don't cry "Racism!" because the author tackles an unpopular and delicate topic), it's worth it...especially since the point of view is far different from the one presented in your 11th grade history class.

4) The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 by Lawrence Wright. Honestly I haven't gotten far enough in this one to make a comment. I'll post about it later.

5) The Enemy Within by Michael Savage. Again, another in the line of "why liberalism sucks." So far, I'd rate this one ahead of McCullough's, and Savage has not come off as hard as he can. Good read.

Here are the other two new site links:

1) American Congress for Truth. From the website, American Congress for Truth is "a non profit organization dedicated to educating millions of uninformed Americans about the threat of radical Islam to world peace and national security."

Find out why Brigitte Gabriel is one of the most fearless women in the world today.

2) Irshad Manji. I've linked her under "Blogs" but it's much more just a website. Here you can learn about "Project Ijtihad," which, according to Manji, is "Islam's lost tradition of independent thinking."

Manji helps reinforce the idea that there are Muslims craving reform within their own religion. So few of them, however, speak out...or, if they do, they don't receive much attention. Manji has popularized the Muslim reform movement - check it out.

Hopefully the website will keep growing with the more research that I do. I encourage you to pass on any suggestions for additional links - thanks!

Who to Vote for in 2008? Part I

2006-12-28T13:28:00.000-05:00

I hope to post a series of potential presidential resumes in the hopes of raising awareness of the candidates and their beliefs. Hopefully someone will emerge and inspire me, but, so far, nobody has. Up first...

Barack Obama

Read Ben Shapiro's dissection of Obama's The Audacity of Hope to discover what Obama really stands for, and what he admires. I'll highlight the key aspects of Shapiro's piece:

"Obama is a fervent believer in global warming and wants to dramatically raise fuel efficiency standards as well as taxes on oil companies. He wants to raise minimum wage and expand the Earned Income Tax Credit. Though he says he's for free trade, he voted against CAFTA. He wants to spend billions more dollars on early education, though Head Start has been a debacle. He wants to heavily regulate health care and, in doing so, essentially nationalize it. He wants to raise taxes across the board.

"He cites as his economic guru Warren Buffett and quotes him as stating, '[Billionaires] have this idea that it's 'their money' and they deserve to keep every penny of it. What they don't factor in is all the public investment that lets us live the way we do.' (191) This is Marxist trash. 'Capital is therefore not a personal, it is a social power,' Marx wrote in 'The Communist Manifesto.' Viewing private property as social property is a mandate to tyranny. Yet that's precisely how Obama views private property: 'I simply believe that those of us who have benefited most from this new economy can best afford to shoulder the obligation of ensuring every American child has a chance for that same success.' (193)"

Here is where he stands on abortion - and he calls himself a man of faith? Supporting Roe v. Wade, approving of embryonic stem cell research, and voting in favor of $100 million essentially to be allocated to promote underage promiscuity does NOT strike me as being overly religious...

He's okay with the idea of flag burning.

He voted against the Bush tax cuts which have resulted in the DOW setting multiple record highs this year, along with the lowest unemployment rate in 5 years, back in October. He's also against personal retirement accounts to reform a disastrous Social Security program.

He voted against the appointment of Justice Sam Alito, supposedly on the basis of his record of siding with "the powerful over the powerless." Read up on Sam Alito at The Moderate Voice and let me know if it sounds like someone you can get behind - sounds good to me.

He voted against re-authorization of the Patriot Act - you know, because he doesn't want to infringe upon our individual rights...and I guess implementation of the Patriot Act hasn't been successful since 9/11, right?

He loves illegal aliens.

He favors universal health care, Hillary's pet project. That sounds rosy, right?...well, here's the truth from John Stossel.

After reviewing all this material, I'm not so sure Obama's a moderate - sounds like a loony lefty to me. More profiles to come - as always, additional information is always welcome.

What’s In A Name?

2006-12-28T13:03:00.000-05:00

I’ll start this game…how about “Mohammed” (and its derivatives)? (from America Alone by Mark Steyn):

“…Not long after September 11, I said, just as an aside, that these days whenever something goofy turns up on the news chances are it involves some fellow called Mohammed. It was a throwaway line, but if you want to compile chapter and verse, you can add to the list every week.

“A plane flies into the World Trade Center? Mohammed Atta.

“A sniper starts killing gas station customers around Washington, D.C.? John Allen Muhammed (CH: the “Biography” shows the timeline of the murders).

“A guy fatally stabs a Dutch movie director? Mohammed Bouyeri.

“A gunman shoots up the El Al counter at Los Angeles airport? Hesham Mohamed Hedayet.

“A terrorist slaughters dozens in Bali? Noordin Mohamed.

“A British subject self-detonates in a Tel Aviv bar? Asif Mohammed Hanif.

“A terrorist cell bombs the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? Ali Mohamed.

“A gang rapist preys on the women of Sydney? Mohammed Skaf.

“A group of Dearborn, Michigan, men charged with cigarette racketeering in order to fund Hezbollah? Fadi Mohamad-Musbah Hammoud, Mohammed Fawzi Zeidan, and Imad Mohamad-Musbah Hammoud.

“A Canadian terror cell is arrested for plotting to bomb Ottawa and behead the prime minister? Mohammed Dirie, Amin Mohamed Durrani, and Yasim Abdi Mohamed….

“…when I made my observation about multiple Mohammeds in the news, Merle Ricklefs, a professor at the National University of Singapore and South-East Asian editor of the sixteen-volume Encyclopedia of Islam, remarked sarcastically, ‘Deep thinking, indeed.’ Well, gosh, maybe it’s not terribly sophisticated. But then again, when you’re dealing with fellows who decapitate female aid workers in Iraq and engage in mass slaughter of Russian schoolchildren, maybe sophistication isn’t always helpful. Particularly when sophistication seems mostly to be a form of obfuscation by experts wedded to the notion that Islam is something that simply can’t be understood unless you’ve read all sixteen volumes of their Encyclopedia, or, better yet, written them. For those of us who aren’t professors of Islamic studies, the obvious course is to step back and try to work from first principles: What’s happening? Who’s doing it? The five-thousand-guys-named-Mo routine meets the ‘reasonable man’ test: it’s the first thing an averagely well-informed person who’s not a muticulti apologist notices – here’s the evening news and here comes another Mohammed.”

Well…glad to know SOMEONE thinks I’m a “reasonable man”…

What do you suppose is now the most common baby boy's name in Britain?...

MOHAMMED.

I think it's fitting to throw in another endorsement for sensible Melanie Phillips' Londonistan.

Who’s got another name?

Should John Kerry be Thrown in Jail?

2006-12-17T17:58:00.001-05:00

First, a little background as to why this question may be legitimate: the text of the Logan Act:

“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned no more than three years, or both.

“This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.”

Follow the link for more of the historical background of the act. There seem to be no prosecutions under the act, with some historical references. But, in this time of war, I wonder if the act will gain more prominence…here’s why:

1) John Kerry is planning to begin his own “Middle East Tour: 2006” with stops in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel. The purpose of the trip? According to The Boston Globe, “he will meet with the head(s) of state in all of those countries.” Hmmm…I wonder if he will discuss “any disputes or controversies” those countries have had with the United States recently…

Just look at the way liberals gush over him on his website. A few samples:

“Not surprisingly, those fine folks currently inhabiting the West Wing don't like this latest example of Senator Kerry working hard to carry out the wishes of the American people one little bit.”

“The more that Dems like Senator Kerry can show that the U.S. is NOT George Bush, the more we can show a different, better vision for how America can be in the world, the better it will be for America, and - hopefully - the more likely more Americans will wake up and continue to elect thinking, rational, mature people (usually Democrats) to run the country.”

“This is the sort of leadership I long to see in our country. This is the reason why the rest of the world respects John Kerry. It's one of the many reasons I respect him. I'm glad that we have people like him out there trying to neutralize some of the damage our president has done to our ability to get along with the rest of the world. It's a dangerous trip, and Senator Kerry has my utmost appreciation for undertaking it.”

Ugh. Were these people raised on Kool-Aid or what? (or maybe just this book – via Mary Katharine Ham)

Note that Kerry cites Ronald Reagan’s negotiating with Soviets after referring to them as the “evil empire”…ummm, quick point here: REAGAN WAS THE PRESIDENT. Nice try.

2) Bill Richardson of New Mexico meets with North Korean officials. What is going on here? The news brief plainly states: “Richardson will not be acting as an official representative of the Bush administration at Friday's meeting.” Okay – then it’s a VIOLATION OF THE LAW. Plain and simple! Unintentionally or not, the piece makes it quite clear that Richardson’s main motivation for the meeting is to bolster his chances for a presidential run in 2008. This makes me sick – turning your back on the United States in the hopes of representing it as President? What sense does this make?

Despite claims that he won’t make an official decision until January, there’s reason to believe that he’s running – he said so. Apparently, his two distinct advantages are his “diplomatic skill” and his “Hispanic heritage” – from Fox News:

“‘I am Hispanic, which I believe is an asset,’ Richardson said. ‘But I'm not running as an Hispanic, I am running as an American who is proud to be Hispanic.’”

We’ll see about that when the campaign starts – I’m sure he’ll provide us with plenty of material.

I don’t know what will come of either of these meetings. But, as far as I’m concerned, the results of the meetings really are not the point. What’s more important to recognize is that these two Democratic representatives are undermining the role of the Commander-in-Chief and taking foreign policy into their own hands. Since they are both doing so without consent from the United States, they should be punished accordingly, under the Logan Act.

Isn’t it clear that people like Kerry and Richardson DON’T have the interests of the American people at heart? Political posturing at the potential expense of our national security is an absolute disgrace and should be viewed as such. Let’s hope other Dems don’t follow in their footsteps the second they get a whiff of power…

Do Moonbats Fly North?

2006-12-13T21:09:00.001-05:00

After Obama-mania left New Hampshire, Howie Carr points out the evidence:

“New Hampshire is Blue Hampshire. It’s gone from the Granite State to the Granola State. From Live Free or Die to just plain Live Free. No wonder the Old Man of the Mountain toppled over. Who would have ever predicted that New Hampshire would someday send clones of Bernie Sanders and Cindy Sheehan to Congress?

“This is all very depressing to the Massachusetts natives who fled north thinking they could escape the insanity. ‘Where do I go next?’ one of them moaned to me Monday

“In 2004, many New Hampshire Republicans thought the state was stolen from George Bush by busloads of Bay State students who allegedly took advantage of notoriously lax same-day registration.

“Now the moonbats will be heading north, and they’ll be staying, at least until the presidential primary.

“But there is a silver lining to this dark cloud. This blue tidal wave should save the New Hampshire primary. New Hampshire is no longer out of the mainstream. It’s as nutty as everywhere else.”

I wasn’t too convinced after reading this piece, so I went looking for answers – and I found some.

1) They certainly teach in New Hampshire. Nutty Professor William Woodward “teaches” at the University of New Hampshire, spouting wild conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 – at a public university, funded by taxpayer money. He’s a member of the unhinged wacko group “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” whose main contention is that 9/11 was an inside job. Peruse the website and try not to vomit. Here is one article that I HAD to read (and no I did NOT write it – can you TELL?):

“If the official story is wrong, then what did happen? As you might expect, there's quite a bit of dissension on this point. Like any movement, the Truth Movement is beset by internecine fights between different factions: those who subscribe to what are termed LIHOP theories (that the government "let it happen on purpose") and the more radical MIHOP ("made it happen on purpose") contingent. Even within these groups, there are divisions: Some believe the WTC was detonated with explosives after the planes hit and some don't even think there were any planes.

“To the extent that there is a unified theory of the nature of the conspiracy, it is based, in part, on the precedent of the Reichstag fire in Germany in the 1930s. The idea is that just as the Nazis staged a fire in the Reichstag in order to frighten the populace and consolidate power, the Bush Administration, military contractors, oil barons and the CIA staged 9/11 so as to provide cause and latitude to pursue its imperial ambitions unfettered by dissent and criticism.”

There’s that whole “Bush is a Nazi” thing again…

Here is more on Woodward’s moonbat antics.

2) They certainly vote that way in New Hampshire. Take a look at this op-ed from the Washington Post. The figures point to a staggering voting trend in New Hampshire – the inclination to vote Democrat. Hmmm…wonder why that is, since, as the column points out, the state hasn’t been under complete Democratic control since 1874…

Maybe because…

3) People from Massachusetts DO move there! Look at this staggering statistic:

“…on net, 78,201 former Massachusetts residents fled to the Granite State between 1990 and 2002 - with a sharp acceleration in movement over the last five years. In 1997-98, on net, the Bay State lost 5,014 residents; that number almost doubled to 9,953 by 2001-2002, a 98.5% increase.”

And we all know how blue a state Massachusetts is. But has the moonbattery affected all New Hampshire residents?

4) I don’t think so, but hopefully Republicans don’t follow the logic of Mary Maxwell, who calls herself a “Republican” – thankfully, she only won 11% of the vote in the Republican primary. From her website:

a) she is against increases in defense (read: “military”) spending
b) she is against the Patriot Act
c) she thinks, no, IS CERTAIN, that 9/11 was an inside job
d) she thinks Donald Rumsfeld is sociopathic

Sound like a Republican to you? More like a moonbat to me…

But at least now we know: Moonbats do indeed fly North…now, what to do about it…

Who Is Aung San Suu Kyi?

2006-12-11T09:36:00.003-05:00

You should know. More from CNN.

Some quick facts:

1) She was freely elected by the Burmese people with an overwhelming 82% majority in 1990 – a general election called for by the military junta in power. The party she represented is called the National League for Democracy.

2) The military did not recognize her victory, instead putting Suu Kyi under house arrest.

3) She was the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 – her sons accepted the honor on her behalf in Oslo, Norway.

4) She has not seen her children since 1999, as they live in the United Kingdom, and she is again under house arrest.

5) Suu Kyi was supposed to be granted freedom from house arrest in May of this year, but the Burmese government extended the house arrest for another year – she is still being held under Burma’s State Protection Act.

Myanmar has drawn comparisons to North Korea, primarily for three reasons: geographic location, military rule, and closed economies. But some hope:

“Unlike North Korea, however, Burma's military government (which refers to the country as Myanmar) faces a significant opposition movement. Likewise, the military junta, which has failed to recognize the 1990 elections won by the opposition National League for Democracy (NLD), appears to be on the threshold of reintroducing some measure of democracy.

“Although opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi remains under house arrest and the NLD has boycotted the national convention, the 1,000- plus delegates at the convention plan to complete a new constitution by year's end as part of the government's ‘seven-stage path to democracy.’

“The government promises to put the new constitution to a vote in a national referendum followed by multiparty elections that reserve a certain portion of seats in the new parliament for the government party.”

More reason for a newly elected government? Human rights abuse and underage military service (from the same source):

“…critics of the regime describe a dismal human rights situation. Human Rights Watch has cited the regime for the detention of 1,300 political prisoners, the killing of protesters, and the use of 70,000 child soldiers, which is the largest concentration of under-18 conscripts in the world.

“According to Jeremy Woodrum of the U.S. Campaign for Burma, ‘over a million refugees, most of them from eastern Burma along the border with Thailand and China, are fleeing because the regime has burned down 3,000 villages over the last 10 years’ as part of an effort to target civilian populations in areas that provide a base for ethnic armies.

“This flow of refugees, as well as drug trafficking and the spread of infectious diseases, has made it very difficult for Asia to ignore Burma. These problems extend beyond the region as well. ‘Burma presents a serious security threat to the region and requires attention from the United States and the U.N. Security Council,’ argued Green, citing how the Security Council is moving forward to address Burma's rights record.”

So what has the United States been doing? As recently as September, First Lady Laura Bush called for Suu Kyi’s release, while also asking for action from the U.N. Security Council – action which has been slow. Here’s why (emphasis mine):

“‘It's really important for Burma's neighbors to speak with one voice,’ the first lady said. While the United States believes strong sanctions are the best way to force change in the country, others favor discussions with the generals.”

Discussions with hostile regimes…sound familiar?

More on U.S. policy towards Myanmar, as well as comparisons to North Korea, here.

The European Union has also tried to crack down on Myanmar. So has Amnesty International.

Also, this past November, Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy Party asked for U.N. help, though there have been claims from both China and Russia that Myanmar represents no threat to stability in the Southeast Asian region…

Really? I suppose China and Russia don’t consider money-laundering a threat. Or a potential AIDS pandemic. Or the outflow of Burmese refugees to neighboring countries, numbering in the millions… primarily for the sex trade industry.

I’ll continue to track her story. I’ll leave you with her Nobel Prize acceptance speech from 1991. Who could predict that “Burma's long struggle for peace, freedom and democracy” would reach such epic proportions…

The Dennis Prager Mess

2006-12-11T09:36:00.001-05:00

Here is the column that started it all. Keith Ellison, newly elected Democratic Congressman in Minnesota, is a Muslim.

Who cares, right? No big deal. First Muslim Congressman – great for diversity, multiculturalism, blah blah blah…

Ellison has stated that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the Koran.

BIG PROBLEM.

Last time I checked, this country was not founded on Islamic principles – but Judeo-Christian ones (check out Bill O’Reilly’s Culture Warrior). Therefore, if Ellison is going to swear to uphold the principles of THIS COUNTRY (and NOT of any religion), then his oath should be taken on the Bible. This is not a religious issue, but a values issue. It is not being disrespectful to Islam, the Koran, or Keith Ellison himself. He is free to practice his religion and serve the people of Minnesota.

But he has to recognize that this country comes first – and he was elected to uphold, rather than subvert, its values. It also shows, yet again, a lack of assimilation. If you live in the United States – play by the rules. Or we should kick you out.

So who, exactly, is Keith Ellison? Power line did some digging:

“Keith Ellison is the endorsed Democratic candidate for Congress in Minnesota's solidly Democratic Fifth District (Minneapolis). Ellison's local leadership of the Nation of Islam, his defense of the ‘truth’ of an attack on Minneapolis Jews as ‘the most racist white people,’ his affiliation with convicted murderer and Vice Lords gang leader Sharif Willis, his support of the Vice Lords gangbangers charged (and subsequently convicted) with the murder of Minneapolis police officer Jerry Haaf, his outrageous attacks on law enforcement authorities, his demand that Symbionese Liberation Army terrorist Sara Jane Olson be freed, his concern for the continuing freedom of convicted cop-killer Assata Shakur on the lam in Havana -- not one of these elements of Ellison's public record has seen the light of day in the local media.”

More background from the Washington Times, which highlights Democratic disapproval with Ellison’s ties to CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations):

“But it is top Democrats who have issued some of the most stinging rebukes of CAIR. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's second-leading Democrat, has said that CAIR ‘is unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its association with groups that are suspect.’ Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, has stated flatly that CAIR ‘has ties to terrorism.’ Mr. Schumer has special disdain for Mr. Awad and CAIR's other co-founder, Omar Ahmad, saying in a 2003 hearing that both men have ‘intimate connections with Hamas.’"

If you need to be reminded about Hamas, read this.

So what will happen if Ellison takes his oath on the Koran, instead of the Bible?

Prager’s take: “Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.”

This is dead on. As Monica Crowley has repeatedly noted on her radio program, radical Islamists are patient. Any small step into infiltrating American culture will be viewed as a huge victory. As I’ve blogged about before, whether it’s “Flying While Muslim!”, not being allowed to pray while at the gym, or not taking an oath of office on a Bible, the wheels are in motion – not for “tolerance”, but radical takeover.

Here is Prager’s follow-up responding to the original outrage over the first column:

“Why wouldn't Ellison bring a Bible along with the Koran? That he chose not to is the narcissism of multiculturalism that I referred to: The individual's culture trumps the national culture.

“You don't have to be Christian to acknowledge that the Bible is the source of America's values. Virtually every founder of this country knew that and acknowledged it. The argument that founders such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were deists, even if accurate (it is greatly exaggerated), makes my point, not my opponents'. The founders who were not believing Christians venerated the Bible as the source of America's values just as much as practicing Christians did.

“America derives its laws from its Constitution. It derives its values from the Bible. We don't get inalienable rights from the Constitution; we get them from God. Which is exactly what the signers of the Declaration of Independence wrote: We are endowed with inalienable rights by our Creator, not by government and not by any man-made document. And that Creator and those inalienable rights emanate from the Bible. Keith Ellison's freedom to openly believe and practice Islam and to run for elective office as a Muslim is a direct result of a society molded by the Bible and the people who believed in it, a fact he should be willing to honor as he is sworn in.”
Keith Ellison is forcing the issue here. Bring both books if you want, but stop crying racism and Islamophobia every time someone wants to stand up for America.

I praise Dennis Prager – do you?

Debunking Global Warming

2006-12-11T09:35:00.002-05:00

Here it is.

I’m in the process of reading it and will probably highlight some stuff later. I just hope I don’t fall asleep while doing so (thanks Tim for that link).

How A Gym Becomes A Mosque

2006-12-11T09:35:00.001-05:00

Via Debbie Schlussel.

The headline in the Detroit News Online makes sure to mention that Wardeh Sultan, the woman who was interrupted while praying at a gym and complained about it, is a “Dearborn resident.” Okay, so she’s a United States citizen. Great. Now that that has been established, we’re going to complain about civil rights abuse:

“Fitness USA, a gym chain, is investigating an alleged civil rights violation involving a local Muslim woman who says her afternoon prayer was interrupted by a fellow patron, and that her complaint to management about the situation was rejected.

“‘The manager told me, 'You have to respect her (the patron), but she does not have to respect your God,' said Wardeh Sultan of Dearborn. ‘I’ve had my membership for seven or eight years, and I've never had a problem with praying there.’

“‘I told that manager, 'I can't believe you said that,' Sultan said. ‘Honestly, I feel humiliated and I feel ashamed, right now, to go back to Fitness USA.’”

Here’s the response from the gym (emphasis mine):

“‘We will, as we will with any complaint involving our staff and a member, be doing a full and thorough investigation of the matter and take any appropriate action we need to take,’ said Jodi Berry, executive director of Fitness USA. ‘We want every member to get a good exercise experience every time they come to the club.’"

An EXERCISE experience – not a PRAYER experience. But here’s the clincher of the article, the last thought columnist Gregg Krupa leaves for his audience:

“‘We're here in the great United States and for this happening, it truly breaks my heart,’ she said. ‘You know, things are starting to change backwards, instead of frontward. We need to keep this United States, our country, up on our shoulders. We don't want it to go down.’”

Well, Sultan did get one thing right – things ARE starting to change BACKWARDS. And it starts with people like her. Now, I’m not overly familiar with the Muslim faith, but I would venture a guess and say that there’s no requirement for someone of that faith to pray in a gym. I can certainly sympathize with adhering to your religion, praying five times a day, and all that. But AT THE GYM?

Sultan’s defender, Imad Hamad, regional director of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, says that it’s okay for Christians and Jews to pray openly and publicly, but not Muslims. If anyone has ever seen a Christian or a Jew pray openly in a gym, please let me know. As Schlussel notes, if she saw ANYONE openly praying at a gym, regardless of faith, that would disturb her.

Why? Because it’s a GYM – not a house of worship.

Don’t be surprised if this gym designates a “non-denominational” prayer room, or something like that, to appease these whiners.

Is there any such thing as assimilation anymore?

Global Warming Madness – Maybe I was RIGHT?

2006-12-05T19:28:00.001-05:00

Look what I found via the Washington Times. Here’s the most important excerpt (emphasis mine):

"’Senator Inhofe believes that poorly conceived policy decisions will result from the media's nonstop hyping of 'extreme scenarios' and dire climate predictions,’ said committee Communications Director Marc Morano. ‘This hearing will serve to advance the interests of sound science and encourage rational policy decisions.’"

What “nonstop hyping”??? Well, let’s see what causes global warming:

1) The sun causes global warming.
2) Trees cause global warming.
3) Deforestation also causes global warming.
4) Humans (in particular, President Bush) cause global warming – ESPECIALLY when there are too many of them.
5) Power plants, cars, airplanes, and buildings cause global warming.
6) Agriculture causes global warming.
7) Watching TV or listening to a stereo cause global warming.
8) Cigarette smoking causes global warming.
9) Dandruff causes global warming.
10) Flatulent sheep (I can’t make this up) cause global warming.

This seems to be only a partial list! The world is doomed – just look at what global warming DOES:

1) worsens allergies
2) increases stress levels
3) destroys bananas (but, fortunately, also helps to grow them)
4) causes bubonic plague
5) causes blizzards
6) leads the Earth to spin out of control
7) destroys gene pools
8) reduces fertility in humans (which has to be a good thing, right? Too many of us already…)
9) no maple syrup???
10) changes the sex of an animal

Again – there’s WAY more that global warming does (see Spiked) according to…well, everyone.

I’m very much looking forward to this hearing – aren’t you?

What's the Point of the Pope's Visit?

2006-11-30T19:43:00.001-05:00

It seems as if the Muslim and Catholic worlds are light years apart. I try to understand where the Muslim faith is coming from, but I can't help but be bombarded by the actions of so-called Muslim extremists, especially in response to outreach efforts by the non-Muslim world, but in particular, Pope Benedict XVI.

As I see it, the firestorm essentially began back in September, when the Pope delivered a speech in Regensburg, Germany. Here's the excerpt which angered many Muslims (I tried to contextualize it as much as possible, so it is rather dense and extensive. Emphasis mine):

"ON HOLY WAR

"I was reminded of all this recently, when I read... of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.

"In the seventh conversation...the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the 'Book' and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: 'Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'

"The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. 'God,' he says, 'is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.'

"ON RELIGION AND REASON

"The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.

"At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?" (via BBC - full text here)

After reviewing the speech in full, it seems to me that the Pope's main point was to attempt to distance religion from extremist behavior (in particular, violence) because it is intrinsically against God's will. Also, the union of religion and reason should draw people to come to this conclusion naturally, by themselves. What's wrong with that?

Let's see if Muslim extremists are combining religion with reason - since they belong to the "religion of peace":

1) Not when they attack the Vatican website. The quote that follows is from an Al-Qaeda website, encouraging violence, as noted in the article:

"With Allah's blessing, the attack will succeed thanks to the help of our brothers if we all attack simultaneously. We ask all our brothers to be present at the hour of the attack for a joint action, because they (Catholics) have struck our religion. They must be fought and deserve to be attacked and not only on their Internet site.”

How peaceful is this? The conclusion that Catholics "have struck our religion" is preposterous and shows no room for reason. The Pope has even reached out to Islam, which I'll get to later.

2) Not when they circulate defamed pictures of the Pope all over Al-Qaeda websites. Of particular noteworthiness, the translation of the script in the picture calls for the Pope's beheading. Cries to behead seem popular among Muslim extremists - just look here, here, and here. Now, that can't be considered reasonable, can it?

3) Not when, in response, Muslim extremists shoot and murder an Italian nun, execution style. Sister Leonella served in Somalia, working at a children's hospital in the capital of Mogadishu. Since 2002, she worked at the SOS Kindergarten hospital in Mogadishu. She was shot three times, execution style, was heard uttering her pardons as her last words, and died at the hospital. If anyone is questioning whether this is a reactionary killing, Sober Truth has the sober truth:

"Sister Leonella has now made quite a statement of her own. Has she not voiced agreement with the Pope through her death? Is it not unreasonable to kill a servant of mercy in Mogadishu in response to being offended by something the Pope said at a lecture in Germany? And what if her death proves not to be linked to B-16’s speech? Is it not, then, even more unreasonable for this servant to have been killed simply because she was not a Muslim?"

Spot. On. I couldn't have said it better myself.

4) Not when they threaten suicide attacks and dismiss apologies from the Pope. Personally, I don't feel that the Pope should have apologized at all - but he felt compelled to acknowledge that he offended some in the Muslim community, and apologized for that.

Apparently, that is not nearly enough for Muslim extremists. Or the New York Times, for that matter. Muslim extremists expected a personal apology for their own misinterpretation - that's just going too far. The Pope recognized that some Muslims were outraged at his words, and addressed them appropriately - implicitly asking for a true understanding of what he said.

But they will have none of it. The "religion of peace" threatens suicide attacks on his life.

Real reasonable.

As I said before, the Pope has made a concerted effort to reach out to the religion of Islam. According to the AP (via CNN) , the Pope has encouraged Turkey's efforts to become the first Muslim country of the European Union, and made sure to take off his shoes before entering one of Turkey's most famous mosques. He even called the divide among Christian denominations as a "scandal to the world" (be on the lookout for radical Christians calling for beheadings, slaying nuns...)...

But the most important call Pope Benedict XVI may have made was for the idea of "'reciprocity' -- that Muslim demands for greater respect in the West must be matched by increased tolerance and freedoms for Christians in Islamic nations." I don't know that there's any concept more valuable than this. But how do you begin to attempt achieving this goal with so much conflict?

Not with Al-Qaeda:

"A statement claiming to be from al Qaeda in Iraq denounced the pope's visit as part of a 'crusader campaign' against Islam and an attempt to 'extinguish the burning ember of Islam' in Turkey. Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi said the declaration -- posted on several Islamic militant Web sites -- shows the need for faiths to fight 'violence in the name of God.'"

Again, I ask: What's the point of the Pope's visit?

I've come no closer to that answer.

New Title!

2006-11-30T19:39:00.000-05:00

Admittedly, my title was boring.

So I've changed it to try to spurn discussion among readers who disagree...though, it seeems as if all my readers disagree with ME! There's so much I want to talk about, and I don't have the time to respond to every comment that's left, so I'm using the title as an open invitation to those who actually DO agree with me to voice their opinion in support and help the debate. If nobody does in fact agree with me, naturally I'll continue to have to defend myself! (which I obviously don't mind doing)

Of course, there would be no debate if people didn't disagree, so, those who have been commenting, I appreciate it! It makes the blog much better and more interesting, and hopefully useful.

Thanks everyone!

Abortion, Personal Freedoms, and the Breakdown of the Family...

2006-11-29T19:52:00.000-05:00

Does anyone care about "family" anymore? Or is it all about "personal freedom"?

I'm disturbed to think it's the latter...why? A few reasons.

For one, abortion has lost its stigma. This, according to the medical editor of London's Telegraph. This article is so ridiculous. Here's the first gem (emphasis mine):

"Ms [Anne] Furedi [the chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service - BPAS] said there had been a shift in public opinion about parenthood. The stigma of abortion had diminished but there was now concern about being a poor parent. 'Parenting is considered to be very important and is taken seriously these days,' she said. 'The idea of just drifting into unplanned motherhood is seen not to be a good thing and you could argue that among many groups of people in society abortion is seen as a more responsible response to being a victim of uncontrolled fertility,' she said.

A victim of uncontrolled fertility? This is so absurd, I can barely even address it. Who are these "many groups of people in society" who think that women get uncontrollably pregnant and must have abortions? I wonder if there's a stigma associated with adoption? I'm just glad Ms. Furedi explains that "parenting is considered...very important...these days..."...because you know, in the past, parents shirked their duties all the time - she says this as if it's a revelation among this generation! LUDICROUS.

Actually, it seems, "these days", everybody is a "victim" of something!

Is anyone a victim of abortion, though? Just checking...

Gem #2 (emphasis mine):

"The BPAS says that the opportunity to get pregnant is greater as more women are sexually active for longer, with no intention of starting a family. Contraception could fail and couples would sometimes fail to use contraception."

Okay, doesn't "failing" to use something imply that an attempt was made to use it in the first place? Did the couple try to buy condoms but have no cash? Could the woman not swallow the morning-after pill? I just don't get this...

Gem #3, in two parts:

"Abortion figures continue to rise year on year. Latest figures show that there are about 165,500 abortions for British residents a year....

"BPAS...says the law should be changed to make abortion easier."

Apparently, 165,500 abortions are NOT ENOUGH for BPAS - they need more...the article concludes that abortions are on the rise! How much easier does it have to be?

Of course, when women decide to "go through" with the pregnancy, odds are more likely that the child will be born out of wedlock...bringing me to my second reason why "family" doesn't matter anymore.

We're back in the U.S. now. Here is the latest report from government health officials on out-of-wedlock births. The mind-blowing stat? 37% of all births are now out-of-wedlock.

The argument? Those who don't see marriage as an important institution anymore feel that co-habitation or single-parenting are at the very least acceptable, if not preferrable, to marriage.

The argument is wrong.

Here's a study on co-habitation and its effects. Among its findings:

1) The types of people who cohabit or more inclined to be risk-takers and have little interest in commitment
2) people who cohabit may consider the situation a "trial marriage"
3) decisions about bills and routines are different
4) it's not definite that marriage is in the future

Here's another study, this one from Ohio State. A quick excerpt on some of its findings:

"Fewer than one-third of the couples (32 percent) concurred that they had definite plans to marry. Another 42 percent disagreed about the future of their relationship. Others either agreed they wouldn’t marry or thought they would eventually marry.

“'Our results indicate that couples who use cohabitation as a trial period to test compatibility are far less likely to marry than couples who agree that there are definite marriage plans and a specific wedding date,'” [OSU Professor Sharon] Sassler said."

The idea of a "trial marriage" scares me. One would think it would involve "trial in-laws", "trial children" and "trial parenting."

What happens when the trial is over?

That's where the 37% figure comes from. Again, family doesn't matter anymore. Personal freedom trumps everything else in our society.

In defense of this statistic, at least the children are born, rather than aborted. Abortion - the ultimate personal freedom, right?

Let's debunk...

1) "It's my body." It's not. It's a body within the womb of a woman. Isn't this undeniable?
2) "I'm not "pro-abortion" - I'm "pro-choice"...ummm - you're pro-abortion. Plain and simple. You can call me anti-choice all you want. As far as abortion goes, I am both pro-life and anti-choice. Those who are "pro-choice" are also "pro-abortion"
3) "safe, legal and rare" - look earlier to this post. If 165,500 abortions in Britain alone in one year is rare...I'd hate to know the definition of "common"...
4) "but abortion should be a last resort" - well, if you're not aborting a human life, why should it matter when you have an abortion? If there is no moral attachment, and abortion is purely a physical procedure, then all forms of abortion should be legal. But, oftentimes, that's not the case. Why? Proponents refuse to acknowledge publicly the moral component, that's why. But they limit the types of abortion (i.e., partial-birth, late-term) to seem sympathetic when all they're really doing is killing the baby earlier.
5) "I have freedom to do what I want - the government can't tell me what to do" - this is true. The government can't tell you that you can't get pregnant. The government can't say you can't get pregnant out of wedlock. But the government can legislate based on moral absolutes - this is one of them: MURDER

Okay, that's enough for now. I realize this post is a bit disjointed, I may clean it up a bit. But lastly, I want to leave you with the highly disturbing story of Amy Richards (I believe registration to the New York Times may be required - it's free. DO IT) and the euphemism of "selective reduction"...

If you've gotten this far, this is the most important part of the entire post. I hope that you're OUTRAGED...

Rampant Racism, Part 2...

2006-11-29T18:29:00.000-05:00

First, more on the Sean Bell case...

Let's see, how to fight perceived racism...

With violence? And relieving oneself of blame before the violence even begins?...

That doesn't sound like a reasonable, viable option, does it?...

But it is, according to NYC Councilman Charles Barron. He's been quoted as saying "...don't blame me if there's an explosion in our community" and "I'm not asking my people to do anything passive anymore....We're not the only ones that can bleed."

Who are "his people"...I wonder...those who instigate and perpetuate violence and absolve themselves of wrongdoing or responsibility? Are those "his people"?

Maybe it's people who believe in reparations. Millions for Reparations.

Barron submitted a "resolution" back in 2002 to the New York City Council proposing the creation of a Reparations Commission. (See this on his website as well - under "Track Record") Also, here's the text of a resloution he co-sponsored in 2005 for two separate reparations claims.

The reparations site's slogan: "They Stole Us, They Sold Us, They Owe Us! Reparations Now."

A quote from Malcolm X, taken from the website (assuming this is a philosophy of the organization):

"If you are the son of a man who had a wealthy estate and you inherit your father's estate, you have to pay off the debts that your father incurred before he died. The only reason that the present generation of white Americans are in a position of economic strength...is because their fathers worked our fathers for over 400 years with no pay...We were sold from plantation to plantation like you sell a horse, or a cow, or a chicken, or a bushel of wheat...All that money...is what gives the present generation of American whites the ability to walk around the earth with their chest out...like they have some kind of economic ingenuity. Your father isn't here to pay. My father isn't here to collect. But I'm here to collect and you're here to pay."

Is this broad enough for anyone? I didn't realize every white person in America today is a descendant of a slaveowner, and every black person, the descendant of a slave. I'd like to see the proof of that...

What is provable is that black people owned slaves, too.

Millions for Reparations also exploits its own cause by enabling viewers to download images of slaves to use as tools of propaganda - isn't that great?

Here's a reasonable take on the reparations issue from Thomas Sowell.

Enough about Barron. Let's move back to the Bell case...

Also representing the Bell family is Al Sharpton, notorious for popping up whenever black people are victimized. Debbie Schlussel reminds us of his penchant for inciting violence and racist beliefs. His partner in crime, Jesse Jackson, claims this was a "civil rights violation." (Schlussel comments on him as well).

If these are the people the Bell family want representing them, that's fine. But here's what Bell's father has to say:

"Bell's father, William, spoke to NY1 Tuesday night. He says while his son's death has left him shattered, he doesn't think the shooting was racially motivated.

'"I want to make sure that's clear, Color has nothing to do with it. It's the human being that got lost, not the color of his skin,' he said."

Amen to that.

Who knows, maybe Sharpton, Jackson, and Barron will surprise me. If their pasts are any indication, they won't. But I can hope...

Mind you, I'm not against a review of this case - far from it. Fifty shots seems excessive, especially if reports are true that the men were unarmed. But much controversy surrounds this case, including the actions of the victims with police before the shooting, as I noted earlier. Let's not let accusations of racism cloud the job that should be done here - an investigation of this specific case, absent of color.

Third stop: Boston. Boston University's College Republicans are stirring up controversy with a schloarship for white students...

Here's what the student body president has to say:

"Brooke Feldman, student body president at BU, said that the Student Union would not move to censor the College Republicans, but that it would probably hold a forum next month on race-based programs that includes representatives from all sides of the issue.

'"I don't believe we have a right to endorse or censor a group,' she said. 'We want to have an open discussion on the implication of the scholarship and a larger conversation on affirmative action.'"

I wonder what that conversation on affirmative action would include - maybe, that it's wrong? That it's racist? That it's not really about "redressing past wrongs" but about "lowering standards"???

Probably not.

It does seem that people around the U.S. are taking notice, however, of the wrongs of affirmative action. Here's the result of a Michigan ballot initiative to ban the consideration of race and gender in "college admissions, public hiring and contracting." And Roger Williams University offered "white" scholarships before BU, back in 2004.

I understand some Republicans have distanced themselves from supporting the BU scholarship. I don't personally think the scholarship is a good idea. But if it results in ignoring racial factors altogether, then I can say it was worth it.

Thoughts?

Rampant Racism...

2006-11-28T21:15:00.000-05:00

Racism is everywhere these days, isn't it?

First stop: New York City. The tragic story of Sean Bell. Unfortunate set of circumstances leading to an untimely death? Absolutely. Excessive forced used? Mayor Bloomberg thinks so.

Racist? Debatable. Keep in mind the backgrounds of the officers: two black, two white, one Hispanic.

Linked to Michael Richards' rant at a comedy club? ABSURD.

No surprise Amnesty International is weighing in:

"Police violence has shown its ugly face in New York yet again. This tragedy is not an isolated incident -- it is part of a pattern of questionable police tactics and abuse. The question should not be 'is this case another Amadou Diallo?' but 'why is the NYPD still shooting unarmed black men?'"

Is Amnesty International right? I don't think so...what's really going on here?

Here seems to be a good round-up from New York Daily News. Note that the names of only the white officers on duty have been released.

Also, take note of the criminal records of the victims. The New York Times explains that Joseph Guzman, present with Sean Bell that night, "has a criminal record including convictions for robbery, criminal possession of a weapon and criminal sale of a controlled substance." (emphasis mine). And, according to Wikipedia, Sean Bell was a criminal four times over... It's also being reported that Mr. Bell used his vehicle as a weapon by "(ramming) into an undercover officer and then (hitting) an unmarked NYPD minivan twice." as a precursor to the shooting outside the nightclub.

Justification for 50 shots being fired? Not sure anyone could defend that...

Racism?

Debatable...

Second stop: Minneapolis. Six Muslims cry "flying while Muslim!" after being removed from a flight last Monday from Minneapolis, bound for Phoenix.

Racism!!! Islamophobia!!!

Really? Kirsten Powers (a Democrat, no less!) doesn't think so. If the imams' actions were only religious, as Kirsten says, they may have a case - I can honestly agree with that. Maybe public prayer should be kept silent in respect for other people, but that's not a debate I'm going to have here. It doesn't appear that religion was their only motivation, however...it seems as if the "Minneapolis Six" did at least the following (via Sister Toldjah):

1) "switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks,"
2) "spoke in Arabic and English, criticizing the war in Iraq and President Bush, and talking about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden."
3) "asked for seat-belt extenders, although two flight attendants told police the men were not oversized."

Also, of note, the six tickets were one-way tickets.

To me, regardless of your religion, race, sex, whatever - these actions are at the very least, suspicious, and should be treated as such. It seems to be the classic case of "threat profiling" versus "racial profiling". All the factors I listed above constituted a threat to the safety of everyone on that flight, and the crew responded appropriately.

What's the response of the Democrats? Let's hope Sheila Jackson-Lee's is not typical:

"(the September 11 terrorist attacks) cannot be permitted to be used to justify racial profiling, harassment and discrimination of Muslim and Arab Americans...Understandably, the imams felt profiled, humiliated, and discriminated against by their treatment."

Like she has the right to talk, being banned from Continental Airlines and all...

As for Omar Shahin, the "leader" of the Minneapolis Six? Well, he has ties to KindHearts, a Muslim charitable organization whose assets have been frozen by the U.S. Treasury Department.

Why? They have provided funding to Hamas.

Why is that problematic? Because Hamas does things like this. And this. And this. And this.

AND MUCH MORE.

Robert Spencer's take, via Front Page Mag:

"If America is to survive, it is eventually going to have to choose national security over political correctness. Shahin has complained that he was 'humiliated' and that the way the imams were treated was 'terrible.' Indeed. It is terrible. It is terrible that he and the other imams who were taken off the plane, as well as other Islamic leaders in America, have allowed those who commit violence in the name of their religion to do so unimpeded and unchallenged. It is terrible that these and other Islamic scholars have responded only with vilification when asked about the teachings of their faith that promote violence, instead of with honest dialogue and attempts to reform those teachings. It is terrible that, if they were indeed removed from the plane for praying, they are among those who have allowed their religion to become so associated with violence that American citizens on an airplane become alarmed at the sight of Islamic prayer.

"In a sane world, officials would tell the imams that if they’re upset about being taken off the plane, they should redouble their anti-terror efforts in the Muslim community in the U.S. – which are sorely deficient in any case. They would ascribe their inconveniencing to the sacrifices that are incumbent upon all of us during wartime. But instead, they are compared to Rosa Parks, and it is likely that their canonization is just beginning.

"Osama bin Laden, who predicted after 9/11 that soon many more planes would be falling out of the skies, is no doubt enjoying the spectacle."

Finally, here's Mona Charen's take.

Racism? Nope.

Threat profiling? ABSOLUTELY.

More Global Warming Madness...

2006-11-28T20:08:00.000-05:00

We're all going to die!!!

Well, not all of us...

500 million of us will survive - according to a claim from "controversial climate scientist" James Lovelock. If you're a Darwiniac, better get to the gym!

I have to admit - I'm seeing signs of global warming everywhere, though.

Like here. And here. And here. And here.

Great piece from Mary Katharine Ham on the whole nonsense, making a fantastic distinction between "global warming" and the more in-vogue "climate change" (need to cover all your bases, right?).

Interestingly, what is one of James Lovelock's main solutions to combat the global warming crisis? Nuclear power.

Hmmm...how do liberals feel about nuclear power? We know they are all for saving the planet, right?

Let's see - AlterNet calls it "madness." Al Gore doesn't see it as a solution.

Apparently, they are out of touch with 61% of the American population. But is that anything new? According to a 2001 poll conducted by the Associated Press, "Republicans were twice as likely as Democrats to support (nuclear power)."

Maybe Republicans are more "in touch"? John McCain is.

Though, Democrats like Hillary Clinton (!) seem to be "warming" to the idea of nuclear power as a combatant to the impending "energy crisis." Interesting...

As far as I can see, nuclear power is the first step to energy independence. If a by-product to nuclear power is cleaning up the environment, why not?

Much more to discuss here in later posts as I gather more info - if anyone has anything, pass it along!

Something to Read

2006-11-22T15:36:00.001-05:00

Per Chris, here's an interesting article to ponder.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Tim

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006423.htm

Signing Off...

2006-11-20T22:03:00.000-05:00

I won't have internet access for about a week, so I'll be back Sunday or Monday with another entry. I'm sure much will happen in the upcoming week, leave me any ideas here!

Thanks!

Good News from Iraq?

2006-11-20T21:51:00.000-05:00

Discovered this website when reading comments posted on Mona Charen's latest article:

http://www.goodnewsiraq.com/index2.htm

A great resource to learn that not all is lost.

Two pieces I particularly enjoyed:

IA building trust with citizens they protect

and...

Soldiers Deliver Supplies to Iraqi Children

Too bad all we hear about from MSM sources are stories like this from the Washington Post which essentially blame America for 655,000 Iraqi deaths, or like this from ABC News which doesn't fail to point out the October death toll of U.S. forces in Iraq, but offers no explanation as to why that could be.

I'm sick of this war-bashing. Can't something, anything be publicized to give us hope in the mission?

http://www.goodnewsiraq.com/index2.htm

Thank God I found this website.

Much more news will be highlighted from this website in the future.

Why I Don't Really "Hate" Michael J. Fox...

2006-11-20T19:42:00.000-05:00

Apparently I need to clarify my last post to some...

1) First off, I didn't realize I linked to an article which required registration - sorry about that. The gist of the article can be found from the Life Issues website:

"One Study of Parkinson's patients showed an average improvement of sixty-one percent increase of coordination, as well as fewer symptoms after transplants of the patient's own neuronal stem cells."

Now, the quote is a bit misleading, I'll be upfront about that. The patient size was quite small, and the use of the word "patient's" makes me wonder if only one person experienced the improvement, or if all participants did, and this is just a typo in the study. Looking through the study myself, it's pretty dense, and I haven't determined that. Though, again, the results seem promising that adult stem cell therapy can produce positive results for Parkinson's patients.

2) I don't really hate Michael J. Fox - but I do hate what he did. Please note that not once did I make fun of Michael J. Fox or deny the fact that he has a right to his opinion - I actually came right out front and said he can support any candidate, and we want him to get better. I feel this is universally accepted...

The comment posted to my website, however, did make fun of Rush Limbaugh, saying he was likely "doping up or something" while apologizing for his actions against Michael J. Fox. Do I condone what Rush Limbaugh did in mimicing Fox's symptoms? No. But did he have a valid argument to make? Yes - and here's why:

a) Rush supposed that Michael J. Fox was faking his symptoms...was he? I don't know...but was it a valid question? Well, he has admitted to doing as much in his "Lucky Man" memoirs...(emphasis mine)

"Arranging life in order to be 'on' in public, and 'off' for as little time as possible, is a balancing act for any P.D.er. In my case, the gut-wrenching prospect of losing my balance, figuratively or literally, on The Late Show, say, or at a public event where there was no way to avoid close scrutiny, loomed ever larger the longer I remained in the closet.

"Learning to titrate medication so that it kicked in before an appearance or performance, sometimes within minutes of my cue, became a process of continuous tweaking and refining - lots of trial with little room for error. Timing a punchline was a joke if I hadn't timed my meds accurately. I became a virtuoso at manipulating drug intake, so that I'd peak at exactly the right time and place."

Now, this was written back in 2002, so who's to say he is still a "virtuoso" at faking his symptoms? I don't know, but, again, isn't the question worth asking?

b) Michael J. Fox admitted not reading the bill he advocated in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopolous: (per page 2 - again, emphasis mine)

"Stephanopoulos: In the ad now running in Missouri, Jim Caviezel speaks in Aramaic. It means, 'You betray me with a kiss.' And his position, his point, is that actually even though down in Missouri they say the initiative is against cloning, it's actually going to allow human cloning.

"Fox: Well, I don't think that's true. You know, I campaigned for Claire McCaskill. And so I have to qualify it by saying I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I'll agree with it in spirit, I don't know, I— On full disclosure, I haven't read it, and that's why I didn't put myself up for it distinctly."

(Quick aside: page 1 of the transcript of this interview, look at the tone of Stephanopolous's questioning, Fox's response, and the joint response following Fox:

"Stephanopoulos: Rush apologized — I guess he apologized for saying you were acting. He didn't call you, did he?

Fox: He would've had more qualifications at an AA meeting.

(LAUGHTER) "

But there's no such thing as media bias, right?)

So, now we know that Michael J. Fox was uninformed at least when he campaigned for Claire McCaskill, and possibly Ben Cardin and others. Fine. Be uniformed, misinformed, whatever - lots of voters are. But do other voters pretend they are experts in a field in which they have no expertise? Are other voters aware of their "human shield" status when entering themselves into public discussion? As Ann Coulter said about the "Jersey Girls," we have a right to respond to you...

c) Fox makes the distinction in this ABC interview between adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research, admitting common ground with Jim Talent and Michael Steele. He did not make this distinction in the campaign ad for Ben Cardin, however - here it is right on Ben Cardin's website.

Sure seems like he's posing as an expert, doesn't it? Sounds like he knows that embryonic stem cell research is the most promising, though we know it's basically been a dead-end thus far. He also says "Cardin fully supports life-saving stem cell research. It's why I support Ben Cardin." Sounds like the implication is that Michael Steele didn't support life-saving stem cell research! Who could vote for him?

People with Multiple Sclerosis could, for one.

Put in this perspective, don't Fox and Cardin seem tasteless?

3) A USA Today article from 2004 was left for me to read to make the argument that "both sides do it." Fine - I never said that only one side was guilty. But I don't see that point made in this article. Is there a slant? The article busily quotes University of Wisconsin "research pioneer" James Thomson for his viewpoint in the last section of the article. Excerpts, including the "last impression":

"If politics were not involved, 'the field of embryonic stem cell research would be much more advanced than it is today,' research pioneer Thomson says.

"It is difficult to estimate just how damaging the current restrictions have been to the field to date, but if the current restrictions are not eventually lifted, patients will suffer needlessly."

And...

"And despite all the debate, embryonic stem cells may end up offering insight that is more scientific than therapeutic, Thomson says. 'The real lasting contribution of human embryonic stem cell research may be increased knowledge of the human body, which could change human medicine even more dramatically than new transplantation therapies.'"

Where do you think USA Today stands on this issue? Need more?

Senator Sam Browback, Republican and outspoken against embryonic stem cell research, is described as "complaining" when he speaks out against the viewpoint of the President's Council. And read this excerpt attempting to highlight the two differences:

"Opponents cannot even agree on terminology. Brownback believes all cloning is reproductive, his aides say. Research supporters suggest therapeutic cloning, in which harvested stem cells are transplanted into a patient, involves research embryos that would never produce cloned children."

So, one opinion is based entirely on "belief" while another is based on "research"...what's the connotation there? And who are these research supporters, anyway? There's no support to this statement. And what exactly is a "research embryo"? I don't know, but I'm glad I wasn't labeled as such...

4) From the comment left on the last post:

"I will even say this: I don’t care if the government funds embryonic stem cell research. I recognize that there are tax payers who may not want their money contributing to something that they are morally opposed to. The private sector can, and will handle it fine without government money."

Well, I care. The moral aspect is only a part of it. If the private sector can handle it without government money, why aren't they? Because they don't have the private sector support to finance the research that scientists want to do (or, the amount of money that scientists want). Again, maybe because the research has produced no tangible results.

5) "I do understand the logic of your interpretation of these cells being 'human beings', but the fact of the matter is without further intervention this material will not become a person. In this way it becomes a kin to a woman’s eggs or a man’s sperm."

In no way is the fertilization of the woman's eggs and the man's sperm akin to the two as separate entities. When they are separated, they do not produce life itself. When they are joined, they do. It's that simple.

6) "I do have issue with your dismissal of embryonic stem cell research. First off comparing the accomplishments of adult stem cell research to embryonic stem cell research is a bit of a cheap shot."

This is no cheap shot. The distinction between the types of research has been made necessary because of people like Michael J. Fox. The merits comparing the two is a natural by-product of Fox's misrepresentation of the facts. To call my comparison a "cheap shot," I feel, is a real mischaracterization, and only defends the ideas of Fox and others (if only indirectly).

7) "I believe both should be researched, and if some one does not like the idea of the embryonic stem cell research than they should avoid any treatment which could possibly become a result of it."

This is kind of like saying "If someone doesn't agree with racism, then don't be mean to black people."...Racism itself is morally objectionable, as is creating human life for the purposes of destroying it. Racism produced great riches for those who practiced it (i.e., slaveowners), and its victims were left forever wounded...does that mean that, if you know racism is morally wrong, you should let others practice it? Of course not. The same goes for embryonic stem cell research. If you know it to be morally wrong, should you let others practice it?...

I also have to address one last topic: the fact that my ideas about when human life begins are dismissed as being "religious" and have no connection to "science". This really angers me. Science and religion can be used in conjunction with each other. This from the Pro-Life Physicians website:

"How do scientists distinguish between life and non-life?

A scientific textbook called 'Basics of Biology' gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at conception, when a sperm unites with an oocyte (life created through cloning excepted)."

Now, it does make an exception for cloning, but it doesn't say what the exception is (I wish it did, actually). But it does define "conception" and does not specify that conception has to take place in the mother's womb. Further,

"Genetically and biologically, from the moment of conception this new human being is not a part of the mother’s body. Since when does a mother’s body have male genitals, two brains, four kidneys? The preborn human being may be dependent upon the mother for nutrition, but this does not diminish his or her humanity, but proves it."...

Especially if it's being produced outside the mother's body in a petri dish!

More evidence (emphasis mine):

"...Some claim that the product of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), formed by the implantation of the nucleus of a somatic cell into an enucleated ovum, can be treated differently from a zygote, formed by the fusion of sperm and egg. The argument is made that the product of SCNT, called a "clonote," is different from a zygote because they are created differently and because they are intended for different purposes. Systems biology denies, however, that one can know what something is if one knows only where it comes from. It is also inaccurate to define something based upon its intended use. Scientifically, the key to knowing what something is, is to know what determined trajectory that something will actively follow. A zygote is clearly a determined embodied process with a human trajectory as known by the way it is manifest."

This underscores my earlier point that I didn't realize that intention was part of the definition of cloning. I don't believe it is - and it's comforting to know that others agree with me.

One more point:

"Perhaps in order to determine if a clone is a human, we should ask: was Dolly a sheep? If Dolly walked like a sheep, sounded like a sheep and looked like a sheep, then it must have been a sheep. Which is to say, it began its life as a SCNT and became a sheep.

Although SCNT is a form of asexual reproduction, once the transfer is made and a stimulus applied to effect the first cell division, that is the moment equivalent to fertilization. So, yes, a human clone is a human being. Even with the prospect of being flawed, as was suspected of Dolly."

So, now at least you know that there are some in the scientific community who see the combination of religion and science as useful in debating the "right to life" topic.

Thanks for the comments, and keep them coming.

Why I Hate Michael J. Fox...

2006-11-18T12:42:00.000-05:00

Remember Alex P. Keaton? The Republican son from Family Ties?

He's gone.

Enter: Michael J. Fox - Stem Cell Crusader.

Does Michael J. Fox have a right to support Claire McCaskill, Ben Cardin, and others for political office? No doubt...

Does he have a right to lie to the American people to persuade their vote? No way...

Here's Amendment 2. Keep in mind this is for a Constitutional Amendment - very important.

Now, you may think that the Amendment bans the idea of human cloning, as it says: "No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being."

Fair enough, right? Wrong. Here's why, from the proposed, and now passed, Amendment:

"(1) 'Blastocyst' means a small mass of cells that results from cell division, caused either by fertilization or somatic cell nuclear transfer, that has not been implanted in a uterus.

"(2) 'Clone or attempt to clone a human being' means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being."

What does the term "blastocyst" look like it means to you? Sounds like the early stages of a human being to me...and what two activities lead to the creation of a "blastocyst"? Well, one would be fertilization. We all know what fertilization leads to. What's the other one? "Somatic cell nuclear transfer"...

Hmmm...

Could that be...CLONING????

According to the bill, my conclusion is preposterous. Cloning involves implantation in a uterus...I didn't realize the definition of cloning involved "intention"...

So, if you create human life for the purposes of destroying it (to borrow a phrase from Laura Ingraham), that's not cloning. But if you implant the "product" of "somatic cell nuclear transfer" into a uterus which could result in the birth of a human being, THAT'S "cloning"...

OUTRAGEOUS.

Back to Michael J. Fox. He claimed that both Jim Talent and Michael Steele did not support life-saving stem cell research, implying that neither one of them cares about his fate. First off, does anybody know anyone who doesn't support adult stem cell research? Here is just one summary of the wonders of adult stem cell research. Real progress has been made for patients with the following (not an all-inclusive list):

1) spinal cord injuries
2) skull bone damage
3) damaged heart muscles
4) blindness
5) Crohn's disease (definition)
6) lupus
7) multiple sclerosis
8) leukemia
9) rheumatoid arthritis

and...guess what?

10) Parkinson's disease

Hopefully Michael J. Fox is aware of this.

What has embryonic stem cell research produced, in the way of cures? Ummm...nothing. But they may produce brain tumors...

I don't think we need to add that to the list of Fox's ailments...

Look, we all want Michael J. Fox to get better, right? Of course we do. But do we really want him misleading the public at large to push his own misled agenda? I don't think so...

Too bad the campaign was a success.

Why Global Warming is a CROCK...

2006-11-16T18:56:00.000-05:00

Got your attention???

Admittedly, do I know enough about global warming to prove/disprove the theory? Of course not...BUT, do I believe it is the source of intensifying hurricanes, warming temperatures, polar ice caps melting, etc.? Not yet...

And here's why.

First, just today, here's news out of Kenya, via CNN:

"Air pollution may be just the thing to fight global warming, some scientists say.

"Prominent scientists, among them a Nobel laureate, said a layer of pollution deliberately spewed into the atmosphere could act as a 'shade' from the sun's rays and help cool the planet."...

And...

"The American scientist [Tom Wigley, a senior U.S. government climatologist] said a temporary shield would give political leaders more time to reduce human dependence on fossil fuels -- main source of greenhouse gases. He said experts must more closely study the feasibility of the idea and its possible effects on stratospheric chemistry.

"Nairobi conference participants agreed.

"'Yes, by all means, do all the research,'" Indian climatologist Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of the 2,000-scientist U.N. network on climate change, said.

"But 'if human beings take it upon themselves to carry out something as massive and drastic as this, we need to be absolutely sure there are no side effects,' Pachauri said."

Of course, we must do the research!!! So how are these scientists going to fund their pollution of the Earth? Well, Britain has a great idea:

"Hard-working families face crippling new bills as the Government fights global warming with a raft of stinging taxes.

"Typical families with two children could have to pay up to £1,300 more every year, according to estimates."...

And...

"Prof Julian Morris, environmental economist at Buckingham University and director of the International Policy Network, said: “I’m afraid it will be Sun readers who will be most affected by these changes.

“'The price of their cheap flights will rise, making a short break abroad more costly.'

“'The cost of visiting their family will rise, because of increased petrol duty.'

“'And people will effectively be forced to buy energy-saving televisions and long-life lightbulbs by a nannying Government. Their whole way of life will alter forever.'”

If you're a sane person, you HAVE to find this INsane, right??? Taxing people to raise revenue to fight GLOBAL WARMING? Since when is it the role of government to raise money for scientists by taxing its citizens??? Can't scientists fund their research through the private sector like EVERYONE ELSE, instead of forcing the government to raise money for them? This echoes Missouri's Amendment 2 which inconceivably just passed and makes cloning constitutional. Embryonic stem-cell research has proven a "Bridge to Nowhere", which is why there's no private sector funding for it. Solution? Legislate it.

Disgraceful. But I digress. That topic is worthy of a LENGTHY discussion later...

Need more evidence of the craziness of global warming?

Check out Alternate Energy Sources, which claims global warming causes or increases the risk of the following:

1) lung disease
2) cardiovascular problems
3) cancer
4) injury from flying debris
5) intestinal disease
6) economic hardship
7) starvation
8) spread of infection
9) overpopulation
10) war

According to the site, it also discriminates against poor people and the elderly.

How devastating! Solution? Well, it's twofold:

"Therefore government- and private citizen policy around committed relationship, rather than individual competition, is a prime recipe for dealing with the health effects of global warming."

Yes! Eliminate competition and have the government take care of us!

If anyone cares to point out the evidence on this website, versus the supposition, please do...

Still not convinced???

The state of California SUED auto manufacturers over global warming back in September.

"'Global warming is causing significant harm to California's environment, economy, agriculture and public health. The impacts are already costing millions of dollars, and the price tag is increasing,'" Attorney General Bill Lockyer said."

Where is the EVIDENCE??? This is just another empty statement! He has no support for this claim...and, why single out six car manufacturers (as the article points out)? Why not sue people who don't "recycle, reduce and reuse?" Why not sue global warming hypocrites who roll into Berkley with a pollutant-heavy motorcade? Or, why not sue Hollywood liberals who claim to be Earth crusaders but fly around in private jets???

I feel like this is a popular topic and one that will be revisited soon. This should be enough to digest for now...

An American Hero...

2006-11-14T19:30:00.000-05:00

On the heels of Veterans' Day weekend, a story you may not be aware of, but should be...I first heard on The O'Reilly Factor...

From the Marine Corps Website...

THESE are the stories we need to hear about, and too often don't...

Jason Dunham will be the second recipient of the Medal of Honor for the Iraq War, the first Marine.

"The few. The proud." is all too appropriate. May he rest in peace. Please keep the Dunham family (Jason's parents and three siblings survive him) in your prayers...

Londonistan revisited...

2006-11-14T19:05:00.000-05:00

I didn't think it would be this soon!

But here comes Tony Blair, succumbing to world opinion. From the Times Online:

"The first cracks in the united front over Iraq between Tony Blair and President Bush appeared last night as the Prime Minister offered Iran and Syria the prospect of dialogue over the future of Iraq and the Middle East.

"Mr Blair said there could be a new 'partnership' with Iran if it stopped supporting terrorism in Iraq and gave up its nuclear ambitions. Syria and Iran could choose partnership or isolation, he said.

"The Prime Minister tried to exploit moves in Washington to rethink strategy on Iraq by holding out the prospect of engagement with two countries once dubbed by President Bush as part of the 'axis of evil'. For the first time he also explicitly ruled out military action against Iran.

"And, in words clearly directed at Mr Bush as he prepares for his final two years in power, Mr Blair called for the United States to lead a new drive towards peace in the Middle East, including peace in Palestine and the Lebanon, arguing that ultimately it was the only way to defeat al-Qaeda."

Iran, stop supporting terrorism? Hmmm...

Michelle Malkin on Iran providing long-range missiles to Hezbollah.

Here's President Ahmadenijad's solution to the Middle East Crisis, back in August.

And, Mr. Blair, how long has Iran been supporting terrorist acts?...

...oh, at least 23 years now...

When do you think Iran will stop its nuclear ambitions? I think never. From this Yahoo piece:

"The U.S. and some of its allies allege that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and are suspicious of its intentions after Tehran concealed parts of its nuclear development from U.N. inspectors for many years.

Iran claims its program is peaceful and for generating electricity."

Who believes this claim? Not me.

Let's connect the dots people. "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck."...

"Neo-Cons" and the Iraq War...

2006-11-13T18:30:00.000-05:00

What, you may ask, is a "neo-con"?

Here are 2 definitions of "neo-conservative" from dictionary.com (emphasis mine):

1) moderate political conservatism espoused or advocated by former liberals or socialists
2) an intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s

Just wanted to give you a base for where Michael Kinsley lays the blame for the Iraq war in his most recent column for Time. The title and subtitle of the article together read: "When 'Oops' Isn't Enough: Would it really kill the neocons to apologize for the Iraq war?"

Read the article. How many people does Kinsley hold responsible?

TWO - Kenneth Adelman, for two articles he contributed to the Washington Post (here and here), and Richard Perle, for claims we could overtake Iraq with 40,000 troops.

Fair case to make, I suppose, especially when considering both men recently decided to play the blame game, typical in this post-election climate...

BUT...let's revisit the headline of the article...more specifically, the subtitle:

"Would it really kill the neocons to apologize for the Iraq war?"

hmmm...

Let's see who voted for the initial Iraq War resolution:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Looks like 77 - 23, in favor.

You think all those in favor of the war in '02 were "neo-cons"? Didn't think so...unless you want to call Harry Reid and John Kerry "neo-cons"...

Of course, these "neo-cons" fall right in line with Michael Kinsley now. Here are excerpts from David Limbaugh's Bankrupt, explaining the flip-flops of both Senators:

on John Kerry:

"Democrats continued wrongly to accuse Bush of lying about WMD throughout the 2004 presidential campaign. John Kerry stuck to that strategy but had to be careful that it didn't cause him to look too dovish, especially during wartime. Though he had been soft on defense throughout his political career, he tried to prop himself up as a pro-war candidate, highlighting his 'heroic' war record - which would later be obliterated by John O'Neill and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth....

"Caught between mainstream American opinion, which supported the war, and the antiwar base of the Democratic Party, John Kerry needed to bolster his justifications for voting for the Iraq war resolution or (Howard) Dean would continue to hammer him over his vote. So Kerry repeated the false charges that Bush lied about Iraqi WMD and claimed a direct connection between Saddam and September 11. But Kerry also manufactured the story that he only voted for the resolution because President Bush promised he would not attack Iraq unless he built a broader multilateral coalition and further exhausted diplomatic avenues. This claim was convenient, but absolutely ludicrous. The resolution was unconditional. Moreover, the resolution was not just about WMD. As David Horowitz has pointed out, there were twenty-three 'whereas' clauses in the resolution 'articulating the rationale for the use of force,' only two of which mentioned WMD stockpiles. Twelve of them addressed Saddam's violation of UN resolutions.

"Kerry's lies about the conditionality of the war resolution, coupled with his refusal to support the $87 billion supplemental appropriations bill for our troops in Iraq (he voted for it before he voted against it), sufficiently mollified the base. But they were evidently not enough to convince the general electorate of his fitness for commander in chief, even with all the military hype he engineered at the Democratic Convention that culminated in his hokey salute-studded announcement: 'Reporting for Duty.'" (p. 21-22)

on Harry Reid:

"Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, in a quintessentially cynical and highly unusual move, called for a closed-door meeting of the Senate to discuss the various claims against Bush concerning Iraq. Reid claimed - deceptively - that Majority Leader Bill Frist had reneged on his pledge to investigate thoroughly whether the administration hyped the prewar intelligence....Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Pat Roberts was outraged at Reid's maneuver, relating that just twenty-four hours before Reid called for the meeting, his staff had informed Democrats on the committee that they were moving toward closure on those issues. Referring to Reid's move, Roberts said, 'If that's not politics, I'm not standing here.' Significantly, the reason the Intelligence Committee's investigation was delayed - which is supposedly what led to the frustration giving rise to Reid's stunt - was the discovery of a secret memo of Senator Jay Rockefeller revealing the Democrats' plan to exploit the committee's findings for political gain. The memo, originally reported by FOX News's Sean Hannity, discussed the Democrats' plan to time the investigation of prewar Iraqi intelligence to maximize embarrassment to the Bush administration and thereby damage the president's re-election efforts." (p. 23 - 24)

Vote for the war before voting against it? Don't use Iraq as a political football? Blame the "neo-cons"???

Nice try Mr. Kerry, Mr. Reid, Mr. Kinsley. Blame lies on BOTH sides of the political aisle...

Londonistan...

2006-11-12T19:07:00.000-05:00

With news out of London in the War on Terror getting worse, I thought it now more appropriate than ever to highlight some of the findings of Melanie Phillips, who's written a fantastic, thorough investigation of the changing climate of Britain since July 7, 2005 (with some exploration after 9/11 as well) called Londonistan. In case you're unaware of Britain's response to its growing terror threat, here's an excerpt from Wikipedia:

"In several countries outside the United Kingdom, governments and media outlets perceived that the UK was lenient towards radical Islamist militants (as long as they were involved in activities outside of the UK), as well as the UK's refusal to extradite or prosecute suspects of terror acts committed outside of the UK, led to London being sometimes called Londonistan, and have called these purported policies into question (New York Times, Le Figaro). Such policies were believed to be a cynical attempt of quid pro quo: the UK allegedly exchanged an absence of attacks on its soil against toleration."

With an increasing Muslim population (Melanie puts the figure at over 2 million), the threat of extreme terror behavior is no longer off Britain's shores, but within the country, and homegrown. From Londonistan:

"The attacks had been carried out by home-grown Muslim terrorists, suburban boys who had been educated at British schools and had degrees, jobs and comfortable families. Yet these British boys, who loved cricket and helped disabled children, had somehow been so radicalized within the British society that had nurtured them that they were prepared to murder their fellow citizens in huge numbers and to turn themselves into human bombs to do so." (p. viii, Introduction)

If this isn't a call for assimilation, I don't know what is...

In the next paragraph, Phillips postulates "How many more Muslim youths, people wondered, might similarly be planning mass murder against their fellow Britons?"

We now have an idea.

You may ask, what does this mean for the United States on the terror front? A LOT. With Democrats ALREADY urging for a withdrawal from Iraq, support on the homefront is wavering. Support is necessary from the global community. Here's Phillips' take:

"Great Britain...is America's most important ally. The 'special relationship' between the two countries is no less critical today than when they stood shoulder to shoulder against Nazi Germany. The United States may provide the muscle to defend the free world against Islamic fascism, but Britain - the originator of the values that America defends - provides the backbone. The unwavering support for the war in Iraq displayed by Prime Minister Tony Blair has been as crucial for the moral authority it has lent the United States as for any military or intelligence contribution. Britain is a champion of America to the world, using its own moral capital as a guarantor of America's good faith. And in Tony Blair the American people see the embodiment of British staunchness and resolve, along with an eloquence in putting the case for the defense of freedom and democracy which has turned him into a hero of the cause."

"But what if things in Britain are not as they seem to America? What if Mr. Blair is an aberration within his own country? What if Britain, rather than being the front line of defense against the threat of radical Islam, has become a quisling state that actually threatens to undermine that defense? What if, instead of holding the line for Western culture against the Islamic jihad, Britain is sleepwalking into the arms of the enemy?" (Introduction, p. x - xi)

What of these questions Phillips poses? According to a phone survey conducted by the leftist leaning Guardian, conducted July 2006, 63% of respondents say that Tony Blair's relationship with President Bush is "too close" and 69% say that Britain's military sources are being overstretched. Meanwhile, those surveyed do not seem sympathetic with Israel's cause, as 61% say Israel "overreacted" in its "response to the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and other threats it believes it faces from militant groups based (in Lebanon)."

More commentary on the relationship here, which notes that "...President Bush's lack of popularity worldwide is Mr. Blair's liability at home."

Not enough people have read Ms. Phillips' book, apparently. READ IT. More to come on this extensive work.

Intro...

2006-11-11T20:24:00.000-05:00

Hello everyone!

After the defeat of the GOP in both the House and the Senate this past week, I felt it was time to make my voice heard. Hence, this blog...

This is my first venture into blogging, so I don't know how good I'll be at it! The goals of this blog are many:

1) keep readers informed of daily events both of national and global significance
2) expose liberal slants in "mainstream" reporting from all media outlets (newspaper, radio, television...)
3) compare left-wing and right-wing blogs to determine reasoned versus hysterical arguments
4) recommend what I've been reading to viewers of the blog (for example, Atlas Shrugged)
5) discuss controversial topics based on their newsworthiness, including (but not limited to):
a) abortion
b) gun-control
c) gay marriage
d) the Islamic religion
e) terrorism
f) immigration
g) homeland security
h) politicians "making news"
i) taxes
j) local politics (Massachusetts)

As my foray into the unknown world of blogging begins, I know it will not be perfect. But I do hope it will be successful.

As for comments, I am always open to new ideas and suggestions from all sides of any argument. I encourage debate and hope that readers will leave enlightened and thoughtful recommendations for me to ponder and comment on in future posts.

I plan to post at least daily and hope that you take the time to see my point of view!

In the meantime, check out the links I have posted on the website so far. It will give you a good idea of where I stand on many issues.

Enjoy!