March 31, 2010

Liberal hate rhetoric

Hey -- remember the feeble-minded dolts who made such hay out of Sarah Palin's Facebook page with the "targeting" map? Dolts like the NY Times' Paul Krugman and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, leader of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee?

Krugman:

All of this goes far beyond politics as usual…you’ll search in vain for anything comparably menacing, anything that even hinted at an appeal to violence, from members of Congress, let alone senior party officials….to find anything like what we’re seeing now you have to go back to the last time a Democrat was president.

Van Hollen:

I really think that that is crossing a line…In this particular environment I think it’s really dangerous to try and make your point in that particular way because there are people who are taking that kind of thing seriously.

It's rather amazing that Krugman said what he said in this modern Internet Age. For, here we see a map from the Democratic Leadership Committee website from 2004:

So, waddya say Krugman and Van Hollen, among others? Ah, nevermind ... for it D.F.T.N. -- Doesn't Fit The Narrative.

Posted by Hube at 03:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Liberal hate rhetoric (and actions)

In the comments in this post, Jeff the Baptist reminds us all of a past incident involving Karl Rove -- one that didn't get nationwide attention (or, if it did, you can bet it was sympathetic ... but not to Rove):

Several hundred protesters arrived at the home of Karl Rove, Bush’s top political adviser, on Sunday afternoon to call for educational opportunities for immigrants.

One week after hundreds of thousands of demonstrators took to the streets to protest the first anniversary of the Iraq invasion, several hundred people protested in Washington DC this weekend to call for educational opportunities for immigrants.

The protesters took the streets on Sunday afternoon. But they didn’t march down Pennsylvania Avenue or the Mall, instead – they went to Karl Rove’s house.

Several hundred protesters arrived at Rove’s house in school buses on Sunday afternoon calling for Bush to advocate the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, known as DREAM.

Of course, when a Democrat congressman get a few protesters outside his residence, it's a national scandal!! The congressman's children were home, after all! Guess what? So were Rove's: "He (Rove) told us how that we come to his house and we had disturbed his two children, a 10-year-old and 14-year-old. They said they were crying."

But get this: Rove agreed to meet with his protesters. After the initial situation was calmed down, he invited several protesters into his garage for a meeting! What was Democrat Congressman Dan Driehaus' reaction to his protesters?

Said Driehaus, in a phone interview from his home on a dead-end street: "The other side has waged a campaign of misinformation and fear, and that's what people are reacting to. I understand people are going to criticize my decisions -- I'm an elected official -- but my wife, my kids, my neighbors are out of bounds."

Yeah -- an elected public official won't meet with protesters, even outside his home, but a non-elected advisor will.

Just remember four letters when it comes to the MSM coverage of such events: D.F.T.N. -- Doesn't Fit The Narrative.

Posted by Hube at 03:24 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 30, 2010

Liberal hate rhetoric (and actions)

Karl Rove speech cut short by anti-war protesters:

About 100 Rove supporters watched Monday as Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans walked toward him with handcuffs, calling him a war criminal and saying she was making a citizen's arrest.

I blame the hateful rhetoric generated by the likes of the folks at MSNBC and Democrat members of Congress, to name but a few.

Posted by Hube at 09:31 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Five Captain America stories that Chris Evans needs to read

Chris ... who? Evans played the Human Torch in the Fastastic Four movies. And now, he's been cast to play the Star Spangled Avenger, Capt. America. My fave entertainment site Screen Rant has a list of five Cap stories that Evans must read in preparing for the role:

1) Captain America Comics #1, 1941. The first-ever story, and one that S.R. says is a must for Evans to capture the essence of Steve Rogers (Cap's real ID) -- and to understand the mood and ambience of the country as it entered into World War II.

2) Tales of Suspense #63-71, 1965. In-depth flashback coverage of Cap's exploits against the Nazis during WW II.

3) Captain America #298-300, 1984. These issues detail the origin of the Red Skull, Cap's arch-nemesis.

4) Captain America #332-350, 1987. One of my favorite series of issues of any character, these editions have Steve Rogers ousted as Capt. America and replaced by John Walker, formerly the Super Patriot. Worthy because it explores the role the US government should have in controlling Cap who was, after all, a government creation.

5) The Ultimates Vol. 1, 2002. This updated version of the classic Avengers #4 is the perfect modern telling of Cap's joining Earth's Mightiest Heroes. I personally highly recommend the first volume of The Ultimates if you're an Avengers fan.

I might've picked a different set of issues, but I think these five offer a well-reasoned rationale.


Posted by Hube at 09:02 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Irony Dept.

The "globally respected environmental thinker and independent scientist who developed the Gaia theory" thinks humans are too stupid to prevent global warming. And check out this winner of a quote:

One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is "modern democracy", he added. "Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while."

Lovely.

Posted by Hube at 06:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Liberal hate rhetoric

This is how far we've gone: Race monger Al Sharpton said last night that he saw the non-existent tape of Tea Partiers calling black members of Congress the "N" word:

Thankfully, Bill O'Reilly called him on it, but not as forcefully as he should have, given the incendiary nature of the lie. So first we had the MSM completely taking the word of these congressmen without a shred of evidence (and it's still going on today); now, I bet we'll see some following Sharpton on claiming they've "seen the tape."

Further, Sharpton's race hustling self was in full display as he sought to connect the Tea Partiers with racists, but then was in full deflect mode when confronted with the extremists within in his own organization. David Paul Kuhn makes about as much sense as anyone else in pointing out the more-than-obvious: It's not about race.

Gratuitous charges of racism are no sideshow. They capture an enduring mistake of modern liberalism. And that mistake disserves liberals most.

Disregard centuries of furious debate over the role of government. Disregard the Great Recession, historic economic anxiety, this hyper-partisan era, or the comparable vitriol Bill Clinton knew. It's not about an average man who sees rich guys and poor guys getting the big breaks from big government. No, [the NY Times' Frank] Rich explains, it's whites who want to "take our country back" from a black president.

What then shall we make of Howard Dean? Over and over, fiery Dean railed during the 2004 campaign, "It's time to take our country back!"

There are 187 million white adults in the United States. Only 39 percent of whites approve of Obama, according to Gallup. That means about 114 million white adults do not approve of this president. The largest Tea Party rally represented .0006 percent of these whites.

Only one-third of white women and white men approve of the health care law, according to Quinnipiac. If Rich is correct, and opposition to the healthcare overhaul concerns race, then the roughly 125 million white adults who do not approve of the legislation are racists.

A fraction of extremists are said to explain 125 million whites who do not back this health care law.

For decades, leading liberals explained white concerns about urban upheaval, crime, welfare, school bussing, affirmative action and more recently, illegal immigration, as rooted in racism. Not safer streets or safer schools. Not working class whites concerned that they were paying for things so others wouldn't have to. Not job competition or economic class. Instead, liberals constantly saw the color of the issue as the issue.

The same fringe on the right that dogged Clinton dogs Obama - just as the fringe on the left hounded George W. Bush for eight years with an unseemly obsession. It's not race. It's our politics.

Indeed. "Just as the fringe on the left ..." But there are MSM types who will steadfastly refuse to believe this, despite the overwhelming, preponderous, prodigious, monolithic quantity of evidence.

Posted by Hube at 06:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Iowa town ditches Good Friday

... but quickly gets it back after citizen outrage. And why not? The folks who wanted to change it to "Spring Holiday" are idiots:

Taking a recommendation by the Davenport Civil Rights Commission to change the holiday's name to something more ecumenical, City Administrator Craig Malin sent a memo to municipal employees announcing Good Friday would officially be known as "Spring Holiday."

The Civil Rights Commission said it recommended changing the name to better reflect the city's diversity and maintain a separation of church and state when it came to official municipal holidays.

"We merely made a recommendation that the name be changed to something other than Good Friday," said Tim Hart, the commission's chairman. "Our Constitution calls for separation of church and state. Davenport touts itself as a diverse city and given all the different types of religious and ethnic backgrounds we represent, we suggested the change."

It never ceases to amaze me that in the so-called "calls for diversity," the majority always seems to lose out. But consider the civic brain power of Commissioner Hart -- he says the US Constitution "calls for a separation of church and state." It does not. The phrase originates from Thomas Jefferson's famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. Worth noting is that "Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with [individual] state establishment of religion -- only of establishment on the national level." So, even using Jefferson's original letter doesn't back up Commissioner Hart now, does it?

And did Hart ever stop to wonder that, if the Constitution actually said "separation of church and state" (which, again, it does not), why do holidays like Good Friday, Christmas and Easter still exist as holidays across the land? Would they not have been litigated long ago -- and successfully? (This isn't to say that some haven't so litigated, like the lawsuit-happy Mike Newdow, but the legal track record of success obviously has been pretty dismal.)

Posted by Hube at 02:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 29, 2010

The Sarcastic "NO WAY!" News of the Day

Ricky Martin is gay.

Flashback "Sarcastic 'NO WAY!' News of the Day" from 1998: George Michael is gay.

Posted by Hube at 06:03 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Amazing -- yet a typical illustration of our MSM

Right now our illustrious News Journal has an article on a Tennessee guy who had his car rammed because he had on it an Obama bumper sticker ... but absolutely no coverage of the death threats against GOP Rep. Eric Cantor -- the perpetrator of which lives in local northeast Philadelphia!

Surprising? Ha.

Posted by Hube at 05:44 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

The Complete List of Obama Statement Expiration Dates

Jim Geraghty has 'em all, and well worth your time!

Posted by Hube at 05:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Liberal hate rhetoric

Sarah Palin getting death threats on Twitter:

@sEaTtLe_MeTrO Death 2 Palin family them retarded hillbillies take teabaggers w/ you hateful bitch

We cant expect gov to intervene we must shoot Gen. Palin on site be 4 her troops strike again!

@interactionswst one word racism choose sides plain and simply that bitch Palin launch an attack, she need 2 b shot on site!

@Palin360 you need 2 b assassinated soon we ll settle 4 one of the family if not u!

maybe it takes a murder or 2 2 get the point across take aim at radical TP members

And there's many more ... from a supposed "progressive." I blame the hateful rhetoric generated by the likes of the folks at MSNBC and Democrat members of Congress, to name but a few.

Posted by Hube at 03:51 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Liberal hate rhetoric (and actions)

From Philly.com: Phila. man charged with threatening GOP’s No. 2 in Congress.

A Philadelphia man has been arrested and charged with threatening to kill the Republican party whip in the U.S. House of Representatives, officials announced today.

The FBI says Norman Leboon, 38, told investigators he was the "son of the god of Enoch" and that he had posted a video on the Internet threatening the lives of Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia and his family.

An FBI affidavit makes no mention of an incident last Tuesday when a bullet smashed through a window at Cantor's campaign office in Richmond ab out 1 a.m. Police have said their investigation indicated the bullet was a stray from a randomly fired handgun.

According to the affidavit, Leboon allegedly said in the video: "Remember Eric . . . our judgment time, the final Yom Kippur has been given. You are a liar, you're a Lucifer, you're a pig, a greedy [expletive] pig. You're an abomination. You receive my bullets in your office. Remember they will be placed in your heads. You and your children are Lucifer's abominations."

Leboon must have been "incited" by the hateful rhetoric generated by the likes of the folks at MSNBC and Democrat members of Congress, to name but a few.

Posted by Hube at 03:38 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 28, 2010

Something to run on

The Democrats -- the party that hired thousands of new IRS agents to make sure YOU pay your "fair share" in health care!! And if NY Rep. Anthony Weiner's reply below is indicative of how the Dems will answer questions about it, [more] good luck to them come November:

Look, O'Reilly can be a big-time blowhard, but the faux anger on Weiner's expression is just that -- FAKE ... because he knows O'Reilly is dead-on but he can't allow that to be understood!

Posted by Hube at 01:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Liberal hate rhetoric

A trip down memory lane, courtesy of Newsbusters.

Posted by Hube at 11:45 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Liberal hate rhetoric

Check out The Messiah from almost two years ago:

Mobster wisdom tells us never to bring a knife to a gun fight. But what does political wisdom say about bringing a gun to a knife fight?

That’s exactly what Barack Obama said he would do to counter Republican attacks. “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

What was The Messiah thinking using this sort of hateful, inciting rhetoric? Doesn't he know how it might "set someone off"?

Then there's Harry Reid using a rifle. What sort of message does this image send? I mean, that's what the Christian Science Monitor told us about Sarah Palin merely holding a gun, not even shooting it, like Reid!

(h/t to Insty.)

Posted by Hube at 10:20 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Our exemplary foreign policy

Well, it seems as if the "special relationship" the US has enjoyed with the UK since time immemorial is now dead -- but it ain't just the Messiah's fault:

BRITAIN’S special relationship with the US — forged by Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt in the second world war — no longer exists, says a committee of influential MPs.

Instead, America’s relationship with Britain is no more special than with its other main allies, according to a report by the Commons foreign affairs committee published today.

The report also warns that the perception of the UK after the Iraq war as America’s “subservient poodle” has been highly damaging to Britain’s reputation and interests around the world. The MPs conclude that British prime ministers have to learn to be less deferential to US presidents and be “willing to say no” to America.

Meanwhile, the current administration is taking naïveté to a whole new level:

The Obama strategy on Iran is working, Valerie Jarrett, senior adviser to the President, said this morning in an exclusive This Week interview. She insisted that “Iran will back down.”

Asked about reports this morning that Iran is “is preparing to build” new nuclear facilities, Jarrett said the administration would continue to use diplomatic tools to push Iran into compliance with United Nations resolutions.

And we've already seen how The Messiah is oh-so vigorous in thrashing a close ally.

Posted by Hube at 10:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Spot the Associated Press stupidity

The AP reporting on the Nevada Tea Party yesterday:

Conservative columnist Andrew Breitbart disputed accounts that tea party activists in Washington shouted racial epithets at black members of Congress amid the health care debate, although he didn't provide any evidence.

"I know you're not a racist group," he told the crowd.

How 'bout that? Breitbart has to provide evidence ... for something for which there IS no evidence!!

Or, the AP wants Breitbart to prove a negative.

Posted by Hube at 09:39 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 27, 2010

Liberal hate rhetoric

Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU:

Did he say ... "blow up"??? Where is the MSM in covering this hateful, inciting speech?

(h/t: WSB.)

Posted by Hube at 03:25 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Liberal hate rhetoric (with actions)

What has Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid done to incite this?

Supporters of Senator Harry Reid have just thrown eggs at the Tea Party Express bus caravan - striking at least one of the three buses (the red Tea Party Express bus) with multiple eggs.

About 35 Reid supporters had lined Highway 95 in front of the Nugget Casino in Searchlight where they were attempting a counter-demonstration the tens of thousands of tea party supporters who are gathering for the "Showdown in Searchlight."

Normally, I'd wait until there was video or audio proof of something like this; however, that standard has been quite altered.

(h/t to Insty.)

Posted by Hube at 03:18 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Understatement headline of the week

Priest describes abusing boys: ‘I went too far.’

Just curious -- by "too far" is he actually implying there was a "right distance"??

Posted by Hube at 10:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Liberal hate rhetoric

"Progressive" talk radio host Mike Malloy has called for the deaths of conservative talkers:

"You rat bastards are going to cause another Murrah federal building explosion," said Malloy. "[M]aybe at that point Beck will do the honorable thing and blow his brains out."

He disgustingly continued, "Maybe at that point, Limbaugh will do the honorable thing and just gobble up enough - enough Viagra that he becomes absolutely rigid and keels over dead."

And continued, "Maybe then O'Reilly will just drink a vat of that poison he spews out on America every night and choke to death."

I'm sure the MSM will pick up on this and discuss it for about a week or so ... especially since there's actual audio evidence!! Nahh ...

Posted by Hube at 10:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Keep going, please

Via The Corner: WaPo's Colbert King continues the "progressive" meme:

The angry faces at Tea Party rallies are eerily familiar. They resemble faces of protesters lining the street at the University of Alabama in 1956 as Autherine Lucy, the school's first black student, bravely tried to walk to class.

Those same jeering faces could be seen gathered around the Arkansas National Guard troopers who blocked nine black children from entering Little Rock's Central High School in 1957.

Hence, an explanation for the familiarity of faces: today's Tea Party adherents are George Wallace legacies.

Keep it up. The "Boy Who Cried Wolf" scenario has reached such a fever pitch that it must means one thing: Real racism is virtually extinct. But that cat can't be let out of the bag because 1) people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton need employment, and 2) modern "progressives'" would lose their a recruitment tool and political weapon.


Posted by Hube at 09:59 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 26, 2010

Marine commandant: Gays should be housed separately

Back on the 19th I asked if gays were allowed to serve openly in the US military, should they be housed in separate barracks from straights? The Marine Corps commandant now says "yes":

The Marine Corps' commandant said he won't force his troops to bunk with gays on base and would give them separate rooms if Congress votes to allow openly gay service.

The comment, by Gen. James Conway, is the latest pushback by a small but vocal faction of senior military leaders opposed to a repeal of the 1993 law known as "don't ask, don't tell."

"I would not ask our Marines to live with someone who is homosexual if we can possibly avoid it," he said.

"And to me that means we have to build BEQs (bachelor enlisted quarters) and have single rooms," he said.

I still haven't heard from anyone as to why this would be unnecessary, given that men and women are housed separately ...

Posted by Hube at 08:18 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Liberal hate rhetoric

Michelle Malkin has a prodigious round up of "How the Left fakes the hate."

Posted by Hube at 07:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Liberal hate rhetoric

You'd really think the MSM would wise up in this Internet Age that they just can't get away with "it's only the GOP that's threatening and defaming people" mantra.

And we're gonna do our part right here to prove this point.

We're gonna inform you of each and every instance of "progressive"/liberal/Democrat hate that we can get our hands on to absolutely and thoroughly tear asunder the ridiculous MSM premise. Just keep looking for the "Liberal Hate Rhetoric" post title and new category.

Here's our inaugural post: Democratic New Hampshire state rep. Nickolas Levasseur lists on his MySpace page the following "interests":

Medicine, biology, mathematics, anything that doesn't involve Organic Chemistry, cars that don't begin with "Ford" and end with "Aspire", HBO series, Bill Mahar [sic], politics, the hunting of neo-conservative Reaganites (a shooting sport brought to you by the republican [sic] party in more ways than one!), sleeping (it is sad when necessary life takes become occational [sic] hobbies).

(h/t to Insty and Riehl.)

Posted by Hube at 07:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Breitbart's offer

A few days ago I noted (as did many others) that there has been NO video or audio evidence to back up the assertions of numerous Democratic members of Congress who claimed they were the victims of racial and homophobic slurs.

Now, upping the ante is Andrew Breitbart who is $10,000 for such evidence:

If we let them get away with Saturday’s stunt — using the imagery of the Civil Rights era and hurtful lies to cast aspersions upon the tea party whole — then they really will have won the day.

It’s time for the allegedly pristine character of Rep. John Lewis to put up or shut up. Therefore, I am offering $10,000 of my own money to provide hard evidence that the N- word was hurled at him not 15 times, as his colleague reported, but just once. Surely one of those two cameras wielded by members of his entourage will prove his point.

And surely if those cameras did not capture such abhorrence, then someone from the mainstream media — those who printed and broadcast his assertions without any reasonable questioning or investigation — must themselves surely have it on camera. Of course we already know they don’t. If they did, you’d have seen it by now.

THOUSANDS OF TIMES.

Probably more, I'd say.

Posted by Hube at 06:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A word from the Angry Left

Via the Newsbusters e-mail tipline, which goes out to all contributors, not just myself:

Hey I got a scoop for you guys. Your [sic] a bunch of deuschbag [sic] morons with a colective [sic] IQ of 35. You and your archaic Republican corporate whore party are a fucking joke. Lie Lie Lie [sic] It's all you scumbag corporate boot lickers have. Republican pussies!. Closet fags. Do America a favor and die now.

Well, how 'bout that! But according to the MSM it's only liberals getting nasty e-mails and threats! But ... "Do America a favor and die now"?? How "progressive" is that? And using an anti-gay slur? Homophobia, too! (As for the "colective" IQ quip, I'll let that stand on its own considering the spelling and grammar!)

Posted by Hube at 05:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Well, good!

Local clean energy buff Tom Noyes is concerned that the U.S. is falling behind China in investing in clean energy:

For the first time, China led the United States and other G-20 members in 2009 clean energy investments and finance, according to data released today by The Pew Charitable Trusts. Last year, China invested $34.6 billion in the clean energy economy – nearly double the United States’ total of $18.6 billion.

Well, isn't that a good thing? After all, when's the last time you saw an American city have a pollution problem like this? Or this? Or this? Or see an American have to wear this?

China needs to spend more than us. They have a bigger pollution problem! Eleven of the twenty worst polluted cities on the planet are in China, and it leads the world in CO2 emissions.

Posted by Hube at 05:00 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Watcher's Council results

First place in the Council category was Bookworm Room with Tom Hanks shows stunning ignorance when he claims Americans were engaged in racial genocide against the Japanese during WWII.

First Place in the non-Council category was Abe Greenwald / Contentions with Outsmarting history.

Full results are here.

Posted by Hube at 04:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The inanity of the rest of the West

On Wednesday night I caught a segment on O'Reilly's show where he interviewed a reporter from Canada about Ann Coulter's attempt to give a talk at the University of Ottawa. It was indeed interesting to listen to the differences between the concept of "freedom" -- specifically freedom of speech -- in Canada and the US. Us Yanks have to keep in mind that to our north (and over in Europe, too) there is no First Amendment-like right to free expression.

It should be stupefying to us Yanks that the provost of the University of Ottawa had threatened Ann Coulter with prosecution before she had even entered the country. As Coulter said of her trip:

This has never, ever, ever happened before — even at the stupidest American university... Since I've arrived in Canada, I've been denounced on the floor of Parliament — which, by the way, is on my bucket list — my posters have been banned, I've been accused of committing a crime in a speech that I have not yet given, I was banned by the student council. So welcome to Canada!

François Houle, the idiot aforementioned provost, had written a letter to Coulter about "educating" herself on Canada's domestic laws (regarding speech). Dean Steacy, lead investigator of the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission, said he didn't give the [American] First Amendment "any value." Canadian feminist Susan Cole said that Canadians don't have "the religion of free speech" that Americans have. So, it shouldn't be a suprise that Guy Earle, a Canadian comedian, was charged with "homophobia" by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal after he reacted to two hecklers with some "lesbian jokes."

Across the pond, remember those Mohammed cartoons? (I know, who could forget?) Why was that even an issue in Europe? Well, like the Canucks, the Euros don't have the equivalent of our First Amendment:

When it comes to hate crime and defamation laws, there is no homogenous approach in Europe. Britain, for example, has long had a more tolerant approach to free speech than countries like Germany, France, and Austria, where Holocaust denial is a crime. "It's a mixed bag, a patchwork of practices and experiences in Europe," says Agnes Callamard, director of Article 19, a global freedom-of- expression campaign group. "It's very difficult to pretend there is a common position on hate speech."

But Europe is generally warier of free speech than is the US, with its First Amendment. Laws against inciting hatred and violence have sprung up in countries such as France, the Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark, resulting in criminal cases, convictions, and, in the case of foreigners, expulsions. (Source.)

Britain refused to allow Geert Wilders of the Dutch Parliament to show his film "Fitna," about the Islamization of Europe and terrorist-supporting aspects of the Koran. Holland itself ordered his criminal prosecution. In Austria, Susanne Winter was similarly prosecuted for the "crime" of saying “in today’s system” the Prophet Muhammad would be considered a “child molester.” And who can forget Oriana Fallaci in Italy, taken to court for daring to write that Islam “brings hate instead of love and slavery instead of freedom.” And further,

in France, novelist Michel Houellebecq was taken to court for calling Islam “the stupidest religion.” He was acquitted in October 2002. More recently, animal rights activist Brigitte Bardot was convicted in June 2008 by a Paris court for “inciting racial hatred” for demanding that Muslims anaesthetize animals before slaughtering them.

Europe and Canada have myriad laws that limit speech and expression. And yet, it was these very same countries that were loudest in their complaints against the Bush administration's efforts in the War on Terror, clamoring for going beyond the actual text of things like the Geneva Conventions in their desire to "show" how "civilized" and "dedicated to the rule of law" they were. (Even our own Supreme Court majority, slim though it may have been, agreed with some of this.)

Now think about this: The Canadians and Euros go to lengths to criminalize voiced opinions -- opinions that some may find offensive -- yet at the same time demand that detained terrorists be given rights and privileges beyond that which have already been agreed to. The Yanks, on the other hand, cherish their First Amendment and most would find abhorrent the notion of jailing someone who might say something like "Islam sucks." And despite the constant bluster from the Left and the MSM, the Bush administration's efforts against terrorism since Sept. 2001, controversial thought they may have been, did attempt to utilize every available legal basis.

Which sounds more "free" to you? Which is truer to the Western tradition?

Also think about how the West, excepting the US (though maybe not currently as Obama seems to be "Euro-izing" our approach), largely treats Israel. It doesn't matter that the Jewish state itself was founded -- legally -- by that entity so beloved by the Euros, the United Nations. It doesn't matter that Israel's neighbors have attacked it three "major" times, with many more "minor" instances. It doesn't matter that Israel's attackers have one thing in mind -- total annihilation. No, what matters to the "progressive" Euros and Canadians is that Israel must give back land it rightly acquired in a defensive war. Not to mention that Israel is somehow to blame for the plight of the Palestinians even though it was Egypt and Jordan that promptly gobbled up the land set aside for the Palestinians in the original UN Partition Plan.

Aside from the aforementioned freedom aspect (or lack thereof), there is this bordering-on-the ridiculous predilection of "progressives" to "root for the underdog" no matter the basis in reality. Or morality, for that matter.

For "progressives" the absolute certainty of the rightness of their beliefs and actions overrides all.

Recently, related here back at home, our "progressive" politicians and their more-than-willing accomplices in the mainstream media are aghast -- AGHAST! -- at the incidents of violence against some members of Congress that voted in favor of the ObamaCare bill. Time's Alex Altman wrote that Republicans "implicitly validate the anger spurring these incidents" ... because they've spoken out against ObamaCare. CNN's Rick Sanchez asked on his Twitter account "are our fundamentalist zealots different than the ones we fight in afghan and iraq?" The day before he blamed conservatve talk radio for the violence against Congressfolk who voted for the health care bill. The list goes on and on and on.

But the double standard the MSM applies is beyond blatant.

ABC's "Good Morning America" highlighted recent threats against Rep. Bart Stupak, but didn't seem to care when before his pro-ObamaCare vote he received threats from the other side. CNN (aside from Rick Sanchez) has been vigorously covering the recent lawmaker threats; however, "over three years earlier helped promote a controversial 2006 movie which forwarded an imaginary assassination attempt against then-President George W. Bush." MSNBC's Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz both have "joked" (ha ha) about hypothetical violence against conservatives -- Matthews about Rush Limbaugh ("at some point somebody's going to jam a CO2 pellet into [Rush Limbaugh's] head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp"), and Schultz once posited that he'd like to urinate on [conservative talker/blogger] Hugh Hewitt, not to mention desiring the death of Dick Cheney. The Washington Post's Courtland Milloy wrote that he'd like to "knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of [the] Cro-Magnon heads" of ObamaCare protesters. The New York Times' Paul Krugman ridiculously denounces as "far beyond politics as usual" Sarah Palin using the term "target" for Democratic politicians whom the GOP ought to seek to challenge in November (get it? "Target" means someone might actually target them in, say, a gun scope!), yet he wrote this back when CT Senator Joe Lieberman defected from his old party: "A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy.” And hey -- don't have an actual story about conservative violence against pro-ObamaCare politicians? Just make one up!

There are many, many more such stories at the always-vigilant Newsbusters site.

Again, is this what the West wants? Is this the Western tradition? Where actual hardcore terrorists are given the same rights as common, law-abiding citizens -- yet your speech can get you jail time because it may offend some government bureaucrat's sense of what is "right?" This is how the American mainstream media is emulating the Euros/Canadians: They attempt to relate, or at the worse equate, legitimate political speech to actual violence ... and they do it selectively -- as in only against conservatives/Republicans.

Y'know, I thought "progressives" would have tried to determine the "root causes" behind the anger of the Tea Partiers and others upset with the passage of ObamaCare. Isn't that what they do with groups like al Qaeda and other such terrorists? "Why do they do what they do?" "progressives" ask. "Why are they angry?" And isn't usually something WE have done to "provoke" their hatred and/or terrorism? "The US is too beholden to Israel." "It's the US's and Israel's fault because of what they 'do' to the Palestinians." "The US shouldn't be in Islamic countries" (even if they've, y'know, invited us). Etc. You see again the preposterous moral ineptitude these "progressives" demonstrate. Heinous, barbarous killers' actions have to be understood in the context of how the West "caused" them; however, sending a harmless white powder to a representative's office is just "pure political hatred" that's fostered by disgruntled minority party politicians, and which has to be stamped out at any cost. There's no "understanding" the motives of these folks (continual, massive expansion of the federal government, loss of freedoms) nor would there be any "understanding" if the action was merely the prank of a jokester.

Posted by Hube at 04:32 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 24, 2010

"Control the People"

Uh huh. And some call the Tea Partiers nuts?

Check out Michigan Rep. John Dingell talking about how ObamaCare will eventually "control the people":

Y'see? And there's audio evidence of Dingell saying this ... unlike what still is being repeated as gospel in the MSM about epithets being hurled at some members of Congress. (Going on four days now, by the way ...)

Posted by Hube at 07:34 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

Teachers and student test scores

Colossus R&D man Gooch sends me this link about a Florida state senator who wants to base teacher firing/promotion primarily on student test scores:

The bill, sponsored by state Sen. John Thrasher, the new head of Florida’s Republican Party, would require that school systems evaluate and pay teachers primarily on the basis of student test scores. What would not factor into teacher pay would be advanced degrees and professional credentials, including National Board Certification, which requires teachers to pass a competitive series of tests that is considered the gold standard for educators.

It gets worse: Experience in the classroom wouldn’t matter either. And student test results would determine which teachers get targeted when layoffs are necessary.

Would it be fair, say, to fire doctors because his/her patients failed to follow his/her directions in taking their medication (meaning their health got worse)? If not, how is this radically different from Thrasher's proposal?

I once went back and forth via e-mail with DE state Senator Dave Sokola about this very issue (among others). I never did get a worthy response. Sokola's reply consisted of him explaining that he "knows what he's talking about" because he did a year-long stint as a substitute teacher back in the day, and that teachers are really not different from a company. Regarding the latter, I had asked Sokola how teachers aren't different from private companies as they do not control the factors or production. They have to "produce" a product solely based on what they're given -- whether they want the "factors of production" or not. Can companies do this? Sokola retorted that a person at a manufacturing co. could get canned if one of the co.'s suppliers didn't come through with some materials needed to build a [finished] product (on time). Well, perhaps. But that co. could easily ditch that supplier for another, not to mention make amends (monetarily or materially) to whomever for the lateness of the company's finished product.

In addition, Sokola could offer no explanation as to how it was fair that a then-proposed state teacher evaluation system that based 20% of every school's teacher's evaluation on test scores -- tests that were, like the current DSTP, reading, writing, and math. So how is that fair to teachers who don't teach those subjects? 20% of an art teacher's evaluation ... based on students' math scores?? Say whaaaa ...?

Hey look, those who know me know that I am hardly a hardcore union type who is against any sort of education reform. Indeed, one proposal from the article I don't have much of a hassle with (at a cursory glance, however, to be sure) is "Newly hired teachers would be on probation for five years and then work on annual contracts for the rest of their careers." (Right now, in Delaware, teachers usually are on a probationary period for three years and then get tenure that next year. And contrary to popular belief, tenure does not mean a teacher cannot be fired; it ensures certain steps must be followed and can, admittedly, prolong the process and make it difficult to ax a lemon teacher.) Annual contracts are what many charter schools utilize, so I don't see many reasons why they couldn't be used in public schools. (As long as the primary basis for a firing isn't student test scores, that is!)

Also, I am not one who seeks to blame everyone but teachers and schools for lousy performance. Clearly, teachers (and schools) play a big role in shaping students' lives. Lemon teachers can clearly exacerbate even more the problems of students who already have myriad issues, and great teachers can assist in alleviating [some] of these. But ultimately, a teacher would have to be "in control," for lack of a better term, of a student's life for much more than the 45-to-60 minutes per day that he/she sees him/her (and that's all individual teachers see students per day, especially 6th grade and up -- not the full 7 and a half hours that critics claim) to make "student test score teacher evaluations" fair.

What would be a "fair" evaluation system for teachers? The way the system is currently set up across the country, [school] administration does teacher evaluations based on a few classroom visits. (Again, keep in mind that the frequency of these visits vary from not only state to state, but district to district and not all states/districts may use such methods.) The inherent problem with this is, while administrators may be well versed in general pedagogy, they may not know a whit about the actual subject matter. I'd recommend assembling a small cadre of veteran (good) teachers, one for each subject area in both elementary and secondary levels, that would periodically visit teachers' classrooms for evaluations. This would ensure that the evaluators would actually know something about the course being taught. (This idea doesn't address the issue of cost; however, various districts might be able to pay EPER -- Extra Pay for Extra Responsibility -- or offer "clock hours" towards recertification, which are required by the state.)

As for counting students' test results towards evaluations, I've little problem with it as long as it makes logical sense. Sokola's and the former DE legislature's inane 20% for all teachers regardless of subject matter certainly doesn't qualify. The DSTP goes a step towards the right direction in that since children are tested every year, one can see progress up or down, and somewhat correlate it to the teacher. By "somewhat," I mean it is not clear cut. For example, a student may have never been taught (or taught properly) his times tables in elementary school, so why should that reflect [moreso] on a subsequent teacher whose primary job is to teach him middle school algebra? An 8th grade algebra teacher's evaluation who had such a child may be more negative than that of another algebra teacher who had children who benefitted from an excellent past teacher of multiplication ... even though the former may be a superb algebra teacher. One of Thrasher's ideas in Florida is to test students in every subject every year not already done so by state or other assessments. That's a good idea, if you can come up with such [good] assessments. (Band? Chorus? Art? Shop?) And for introductory classes, what would be the baseline assessment?

There are many, many questions involved in utilizing student test scores for teacher evaluations, pay, and hire/fire decisions.

Posted by Hube at 06:36 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Our education secretary

The Chicago Tribune reports on how a "shadowy appeals system" under former Chicago Schools chief-now US Education Secretary Arne Duncan gave preference to the politically connected:

Whispers have long swirled that some children get spots in the city's premier schools based on whom their parents know. But a list maintained over several years in Duncan's office and obtained by the Tribune lends further evidence to those charges. Duncan is now secretary of education under President Barack Obama.

The log is a compilation of politicians and influential business people who interceded on behalf of children during Duncan's tenure. It includes 25 aldermen, Mayor Richard Daley's office, House Speaker Michael Madigan, his daughter Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, former White House social secretary Desiree Rogers and former U.S. Sen. Carol Moseley Braun.

Non-connected parents, such as those who sought spots for their special-needs child or who were new to the city, also appear on the log. But the politically connected make up about three-quarters of those making requests in the documents obtained by the Tribune.

The Chicago Way. Or, as James Taranto states it: "This is 'the aristocracy of pull,' in Ayn Rand's memorable phrase. Its existence is probably inevitable inasmuch as government's is, but its extent can only increase with the power and reach of government."

Posted by Hube at 06:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 23, 2010

Obama Awarded Airport Grants to Stupak’s District Two Days Before Health Care Vote

Surprised? Hah:

Three airports in the district of infamous fence-sitting and ultimately kowtowing Democrat Bart Stupak were awarded $726,409 in grants by the Obama Administration just two days before a vote on Obama and Pelosi’s government takeover of healthcare.

Did Stupak compromise his supposed principled stand against taxpayer funding of abortion in exchange for taxpayer dollars for pet projects?

Oh, I dunno. Does a bear sh** in the woods?

Posted by Hube at 04:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

And you think Birthers and 9/11 Truthers are bad?

Then there's Delaware's own substantial Nancy Willing, who wants you to think that the current Tea Party movement has its roots in, well, I'll let her describe it:

Is The Legacy Of A Violent, Modern, Rightwing 'Tea Party Rebellion' Rooted In Bush Family Fascist Traditions?

"There was a scheme in the 30's and Prescott Bush was one of the leaders of this scheme, an industrialist who admired fascism and thought that was a good idea - to have a coup in the United States along the lines of the coup they saw taking place in Italy and Germany," said [author Namoi] Wolf, referring to the testimony of Marine Corps Maj.-Gen. Smedley Butler, who was approached by a wealthy and secretive group of industrialists and bankers, including Prescott Bush - the current President's grandfather, who asked him to command a 500,000 strong rogue army of veterans that would help stage a coup to topple then President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

"The family history is that you can make so much money uniting corporate interests with a fascist state that violently represses people, that's why when I saw the recycling of so much Nazi language, Nazi tactics, Nazi strategies, Nazi imagery in the Bush White House and then finally belatedly people brought to me this history of Prescott Bush's attempted coup and Smedley Butler's revelations - it gives me absolute chills," said Wolf.

Hey Nance -- next, why don'tcha look into Joe Kennedy's dealings with the Nazis ... and his opinion about Jews? Did they have any influence on his sons? If not, why? Why do Prescott Bush's past actions reflect on his son and grandson?

Posted by Hube at 04:02 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 22, 2010

ObamaCare opponents: Five Reasons Not to Despair

Courtesy Rich Lowry:

Public opinion. Democrats were never able to convince the public of the merits of their reform — despite having the highest-profile platforms in American politics, including a president who wore out his teleprompter-festooned bully pulpit for a solid year.

Structured so can it be overturned. The classic play in entitlement politics is to hook people on the benefits, making repeal impossible and growth inevitable. Obamacare is built so the major benefits, the subsidies, don’t kick in for years.

A moment of clarity. Democrats generally win national elections by posing as moderates. In 2006, congressional Democrats sounded like a reasonable alternative to a corrupt Republican party that was losing a major war. In 2008, Obama usually portrayed himself as a moderate post-partisan; if the nature of Obama’s governance had been blatantly forecast back then, he might not have won, despite the financial crisis, the unpopularity of Bush, and the weakness of McCain’s campaign.

The truth will out. Obama has been saying things about his bill that are untrue: It won’t make premiums go down; it won’t control costs; it won’t allow everyone who likes their current insurance arrangements to keep them.

The GOP has been better than expected. I remember listening to a Republican congressional leader answer questions about health care at an off-the-record event back in early 2009, and feeling profoundly depressed. He sounded as if he’d already given up. It’s been a very pleasant surprise how Republicans rose to the occasion over the last year.

He has more under each reason at the link, so as they say, "read the whole thing."

Posted by Hube at 06:32 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Does anyone recall the nets and papers headlining the worst of anti-war protests?

Nah, I don't either. Let's see -- was that because a Republican was in the White House and they didn't want Iraq War protestors to come off looking bad? Count on it. But now that the reverse is the case (Democrat in the White House, people protesting health care reform), well ... let's take a look:

ABC's Diane Sawyer last night stated that there were “protesters roaming Washington, some of them increasingly emotional, yelling slurs and epithets.” David Kerley reported that, “surrounded by angry protesters at the Capitol, someone yelled the N-word at” Congressman John Lewis” and “a few steps below, Representative Emanuel Cleaver was spat on,” while “as openly gay Representative Barney Frank walked the halls, a homophobic slur.”

You might think there'd be an accompanying video to, y'know, back up what ABC was reporting. Nope. But they did have an old video of 1960s-era civil rights protests to somehow "equate" what Rep. Lewis supposedly went through yesterday with his past struggles!

CBS's Bob Schieffer was just as bad:

Demonstrators protesting the bill poured into the halls of Congress shouting “Kill the bill!” and “Made in the USSR.” And as tempers rose, they hurled racial epithets, even at civil rights icon John Lewis of Georgia, and sexual slurs at Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank.

Elsewhere, the Washington Post plastered the supposed nasty behavior right on page one. The New York Times couldn't be left out. Same with MSNBC, of course.

Wouldn't you think, in the YouTube and cell phone age, that someone would have video evidence of these nasty attacks? Well someone did -- and the proof doesn't back up the MSM:

With all this being said, it would not surprise me if a few nutjobs did say something like what was claimed in the reports. But were these the norm? Were they widespread? Of course they weren't. For, if they were, video evidence of their slurs would be widely available. But that's not the narrative the MSM wants people to hear. They want the public to believe that the vast majority of health care protesters and Tea Partiers are far-right racists and homophobes. Fortunately, Politico's report of one of the supposed incidents proves the media narrative wrong:

It was a tense scene outside a meeting of Democratic lawmakers as a 100 or so protesters chanted "kill the bill," and one man launching a homophobic slur at Rep. Barney Frank.

Frank, who is gay, was leaving the Longworth House Office Building when a man yelled a charged homophobic slur at the Massachusetts lawmaker.

Other protesters quickly admonished the shouter, with one woman yelling back, "We don't need that."

Are these incidents akin to the shouts of "Kill Obama" during that Sarah Palin rally? Shouts that, as the Secret Service later noted, had no foundation in fact?

Alas, back to the title of this post: Has the MSM ever led off, or even done a story about hateful comments towards Republicans/conservatives at anti-war protests? If so, where are they? How many are there? The only real place to view such shenanigans is on the 'net and via conservative media.

Related: How the Southern Poverty Law Center uses supposed racism to stifle dissent. Does the SPLC have actual criteria by which they designate folks as "hate groups?" Nope:

Heidi Beirich, research director of the group, acknowledged "we do not have a formal written criteria."

When a radio host asked her in late 2007 how an organization qualifies for the label, Beirich offered this explanation. "You qualify as a hate group if you treat an entire group of people for their internal characteristics, or their inherent characteristics, as less, or you demean them in some way." A definition this flexible and imprecise could summon the SPLC Hate Patrol to the door of nearly any group of football fans, political activists, or Apple computer enthusiasts.

Also related: The New York Times today (with h/t to The Corner) equates the protests Rep. Lewis et. al. had to "endure" recently with those of the civil rights era:

Forty-five years ago, John Lewis began the third of what became society-shifting civil rights marches from Selma to Montgomery, Ala. On Sunday, the anniversary of that famous trek, he joined hands with fellow House Democrats and marched past jeering protesters into the Capitol to remake the nation’s health care system.

Indeed. Protesters complaining about more federal government intrusion into their private affairs where a few MAY have uttered inappropriate remarks is akin to violent, hardcore racists who desired that black Americans not be given the same rights as everybody else in the country.

Got it. Be prepared to see a LOT more of this crap leading up to November.

Posted by Hube at 03:19 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

March 21, 2010

Everyone throwing a Health Care Bill Party?

If so, this may make for some "fun" viewing. It just shows that Bart Stupak's concerns about abortion in the bill were all just a bunch of bunk:


Posted by Hube at 09:00 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 20, 2010

But ObamaCare will reduce the deficit!

F-35 fighter fleet's price may be double forecast.

Posted by Hube at 09:12 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Dopey Philly Inquirer Letter of the Week

John R. Powers of Ocean City has a problem with the Jooooooos:

When Hillary Clinton states emphatically that "we have an absolute commitment to Israel's security" (Wednesday), she puts the United States and all of its citizens squarely in the crosshairs of Arab anger.

We have been fostering a peace process between Israel and the Palestinians since Jimmy Carter was president, and it is time to realize that this is pure illusion on the part of Israelis.

As long as the United States backs Israel unconditionally, nothing will happen except to put American soldiers and marines and U.S. citizens at greater risk. It is a mystery why no one realizes what a great recruiting tool Israel is for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Muslim terrorist nations.

It is time for the United States to let Israel go it alone, and this means not only cutting off the billions of dollars in aid to a very rich nation, but also letting Israelis stand alone and face the threats they create with their intransigence.

I see, John. Like the "intransigence" of, say, wanting to exist? The "intransigence" of being fed up of being constantly attacked -- no matter WHAT they do? The "intransigence" of making concession after concession ... and getting rockets launched at you in return? And Israel is a "recruiting tool" for barbarians like al Qaeda? SO THE F*** WHAT!! Does anyone actually believe that even if Israel packed up immediately from the West Bank and Golan Heights and confined itself to its 1948 borders that groups like the Taliban and al Qaeda would cease calling for the destruction of the country and its inhabitants? If you do, then you must also believe that Barack Obama will erase the US's debt by the time he leaves office.

I could go on and on and on.

Ye gad, I'll just never comprehend moral (and mental) midgets like Powers.

Posted by Hube at 08:16 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

*Yawn* Philly Inquirer repeats an old wives tale

In their editorial today on "Equal Pay," the Inquirer repeats a tired, old canard:

Despite gains to narrow the pay gap, women on average make 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. In 1963, women were paid 59 cents for every dollar paid to men. The disparity is even wider for women of color.

It's bad enough a major paper repeats a ridiculous stat without the real reason behind it; it's worse, of course, when they throw in the "women, minorities hardest hit" addendum. Just yet another reason the dinosaur media continues its road to extinction.

Here's the real story behind that "77 cents to the dollar" bit:

The 74 (77 now, according to Obama) percent figure is derived by comparing the average median wage of all full-time working men and women. To obtain figures for individual states, average wages of men and women within that state are compared. So older workers are compared to younger, social workers to police officers, and, since full-time means any number of hours above 35 a week (and sometimes fewer), those working 60-hour weeks are compared with those working 35-hour weeks. These estimates fail to consider key factors in determining wages, including education, age, experience, and, perhaps most importantly, consecutive years in the workforce.

But this average wage gap, as it is known, says nothing about whether individuals with the same qualifications who are in the same jobs are discriminated against.

How much less do equally-qualified women make? Surprisingly, given all the misused statistics to the contrary, they make about the same. Economists have long known that the adjusted wage gap between men and women--the difference in wages adjusted for occupation, age, experience, education, and time in the workforce--is far smaller than the average wage gap.

The wage gap shrinks dramatically when multiple factors are considered. Women with similar levels of education and experience earn as much as their male counterparts. Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, economics professor June O'Neill found that, among people ages twenty-seven to thirty-three who have never had a child, women's earnings are close to 98 percent of men's.

In addition, the editorial, in making its case to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, states "The measure would toughen laws to assure fair treatment for all workers, particularly women shortchanged of equal pay for equal work." Now that's an interesting phrase. There are teachers who're paid more than I, but we do "equal work" (hell, I might even do more). When I was a credit card collector, there were collectors who made more than myself even though we did "equal work."

*Sigh* Again, see the above blockquote. The Inquirer wants you to think it's all a very simple matter of discrimination.

It's clearly not.

Posted by Hube at 07:59 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 19, 2010

Clear as mud

Jim Clyburn, the No. 3 House Democrat, on how ObamaCare will save us all over $100 billion in the long run:

Question: But Congressman, you know, speaking of actually the first 10 years, I think when ordinary Americans look at this and they hear this is a bill that will cost $940 billion but will reduce the deficit $138 billion, they don't understand how those two things go together. Can you just explain how you have to spend almost a trillion dollars to save $138 billion?

Clyburn: Well, because -- sure. If you look at, as I said, the kind of savings that you build into the system, what it will save the federal government when you get people into these private insurance plans -- the cost-shifting, all of that, out of the system. So if you got 32 million people coming onto insurance plans, that's 32 million people coming out of emergency rooms; that's 32 billion [sic] people that you don't have to pay for in all the cost-shifting that takes place in the system. When my wife had bypass surgery, I looked on her bill. We paid $15 for one aspirin. Then that takes all of that out of the system, and that's how you get that kind of savings, when you multiply that by the number of people that are getting primary care out of emergency rooms, you won't be doing that. That's the kind of stuff.

'Ya follow? "That's the kind of stuff."

Posted by Hube at 05:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

What a surprise. Not.

Yeah -- health care reform will "lower" the deficit:

Democrats are planning to introduce legislation later this spring that would permanently repeal annual Medicare cuts to doctors, but are warning lawmakers not to talk about it for fear that it will complicate their push to pass comprehensive health reform. The plans undercut the party's message that reform lowers the deficit, according to a memo obtained by POLITICO.

Democrats removed the so-called doc fix from the reform legislation last year because its $371-billion price tag would have made it impossible for Democrats to claim that their bill reduces the deficit. Republicans have argued for months that by stripping the doc fix from the bill, Democrats were playing a shell game.

For those with their heads perpetually in the stuck in the sand, 'ya think that this will make 'em take it out?

Nah.

Posted by Hube at 02:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Watcher's Council winners

First place in the Council category was Wolf Howling with AP Goes APE Over Texas School Book Changes.

First Place in the non-Council category was Walter Russell Mead’s Blog/The American Interest with Is this Lobby different from all others?

Full results are here.

Posted by Hube at 02:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Now this is interesting

U.S. Marine Gen. John Sheehan testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that "the Dutch policy of allowing gays to serve openly in its military was partly to blame for its failure to halt the largest genocide in Europe since World War II":

Dutch soldiers accounted for most of the U.N. peacekeeping force in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica in 1995 when Serb forces overran what was supposed to be a United Nations "safe zone" and systematically executed 8,000 Muslim men and boys.

Several senators listening to Sheehan's testimony were incredulous. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., asked him, "Did the Dutch leaders tell you it (the fall of Srebrenica) was because there were gay soldiers there?"

"Yes," Sheehan responded. "They included that as part of the problem." He said the former chief of staff of the Dutch army had told him.

The Dutch Embassy and Ministry of Defense hotly dispute Sheehan's testimony, the former issuing a statement which said "The military mission of Dutch U.N. soldiers at Srebrenica has been exhaustively studied and evaluated, nationally and internationally. There is nothing in these reports that suggests any relationship between gays serving in the military and the mass murder of Bosnian Muslims."

Now I've little problem with allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces as gay Americans should have the same constitutional rights as anyone else. However, I've asked the following question numerous times in various forums and never have gotten a logical response from liberals/"progressives" (who tend to reflexively favor overturning the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy): Why, if gays are permitted to serve openly in our armed forces, should they not be housed separately from heterosexuals? After all, if men and women should be segregated, then why not gays and straights?

The usual (visceral) replies are along the lines of "It's homophobic to imply that gays 'cannot control themselves' if housed with straights." Well, OK ... but then why isn't it heterophobic to segregate [straight] men and women from each other?? Can't straights "control themselves?" Either house ALL those who serve together in the same barracks, or segregate EVERYONE.

Fair enough?

Posted by Hube at 02:12 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

If this had been a Tea Party, it'd be racism

Via AOL News:

Protesting the imminent firing of all 74 of the teachers at a failing Rhode Island high school, an instructor hung a doll of President Barack Obama from its feet in his classroom.

The effigy, which was discovered Monday, was accompanied by a sign reading "Fire Central Falls teachers."

Central Falls school officials as well as the teachers union have denounced the symbolic gesture. The union said the teacher, whose name was not released, said he planned to use the figure as part of the day's lessons, although it wasn't clear how.

Oh, but you see, since teachers (and their unions) are usually huge supporters of Democrats/liberals/Obama, the dreaded "R" word was, I'm sure, carefully avoided by the MSM ... !

Posted by Hube at 02:09 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 17, 2010

CNN ponders how Israel is endangering US troops

To follow up on this post from five days ago in which my local Wilmington News Journal agreed with Joe Biden that Israel is "endangering" US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan by announcing new settlements in East Jerusalem, CNN's Rick Sanchez had on a former adviser to Yasser Arafat to discuss the very same premise.

So, once again, as I said in that previous post:

Where were your enlightened selves (and you too, Mr. Biden) when people like Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, John Murtha, John Kerry and myriad other Democrat politicians were clamoring that our efforts in Iraq (and elsewhere) were "Nazi-like," that the war "was lost," that US troops killed "innocent civilians in cold blood," and that our soliders were going into Iraqis' homes "in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children," hmm?? Oh, but when the Jooooos do something, "it's no longer just a gaffe."

UPDATE: Maureen Dowd, of all people, makes [some] sense on the matter:

On St. Patrick’s Day, of all days, we wouldn’t want to think that our president did not know how to pick his donnybrooks.

The American government did unfortunately apologize to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, who got mad when a State Department spokesman correctly observed that the Libyan leader doesn’t always make sense. But in the case of a defiant Israel, the White House has not yet retreated into its usual compromising crouch.

The Iranian mullahs must be laughing at the Americans and Israelis arguing about who insulted whom, while they are busy screwing their nuclear bombs together.

Elsewhere, the LGOMB is all miffed at Israel for making their god-on-Earth look bad:

I would have loved to be a fly on the wall as Hillary Clinton reemed Bibi a new one for 45 consecutive minutes. Israel needs to be reminded on which side its bread is buttered. Israel would not exist but for the United States. It is the junior partner in its relationship with the United States, not vice versa. It is high time Israel realizes there are consequences to their actions, and it is time Israel treats the United States with respect.

Would that we'd read such a display about Hamas, Hizbollah, Qaddafi, the Iranian mullahs, Chávez, Castro, the North Koreans ...

But alas, when the Jooooos announce the construction of "new" settlements, it is a "peace breaker" and a danger to the whole freakin' planet. Constant terrorism by Israel's neighbors, however, doesn't seem to be the peace breaker that settlements are, though, eh? And what's our administration's answer to these regimes? "Engagement." Don't wanna be seen as "interfering." And don't forget apologizing (see Qaddafi, above).

Posted by Hube at 03:57 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Democrats and constitutional priorities

The Next Right ponders:

When reading about Eric Holder suggesting we read the Miranda warnings to the corpse of Osama Bin Laden, an idea struck me.

When do Democrats think the Constitution really matters?

If a foreign national tries to bomb a plane out of the sky on behalf of Al-Queda, the constitution matters a great deal, since we will make sure he gets a full civilian trial.

If one of that guy's bosses is seized on an Afghan battlefield, why yes, let's give him a show trial at Foley Square.

Indeed, the best way to get a top job at the present Department of Justice is to have served as legal counsel to enemy terror detainees.

And locally, the two Chris's -- Chris Dodd and Chris Murphy -- have gone into fits of apolexy just thinking that Al Queda phone calls might have been tapped before a warrant was properly issued.

You see, when it comes to our enemies, the Constitution matters a great deal.

Now, as for this section of the Constitution, well the Democratic Party seems to be a bit less adamant about protecting its provisions.

In a less controversial note, there's also been a buzz about Glenn Beck getting a hold of a "secret" audio of NY Senator Chuck Schumer addressing a group of "progressives" about whether the Senate majority would actually have to abide by a 1975 [Senate] rule that requires a two-thirds majority to enact any changes to [Senate] rules.

Many conservative blogs are screaming about Schumer trying to "subvert" the Constitution. But I see no such thing. It's a legitimate question as to whether the constitutional power of the Senate to determine its own rules means that such a rule -- enacted so that two-thirds of the body is now required to change the rules -- cannot then be overridden by a simple majority vote at a later time. Heck, even GOP Senator Orrin Hatch seems to agree with what Schumer was pondering. However, Roll Call thinks the two-thirds [rule] requirement will stand.

Posted by Hube at 03:42 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

March 16, 2010

A word from the Angry Left

Via the Newsbusters e-mail tipline, which goes out to all contributors, not just myself:

Are you for real? I heard the name of your site on "Countdown" and I could not believe the garbage and lies that you are promoting. One visit is enough for me. You are a group of nasty and hateful people. If you hate the government and the Democrats who are in the majority right now, why don't you leave?????

Got that? Someone who watches "Countdown" actually has the cojones to call someone else "nasty" and "hateful."

Oh, and since when do "progressives" tell people who protest their government to "love it or leave it"?

Posted by Hube at 09:36 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

The Altar

Wilmington News Journal report about a robbery at the Dollar Tree at Tri-State Mall:

The armed suspect is described as about 5 feet 5,135 to 150 pounds and wearing a black hooded jacket, black jeans, black shoes and a black-and-white checkered wool scarf. The second suspect was described as about 6 feet 3, 160 to 180 pounds and wearing a black jacket with a gray hooded sweat shirt, black jeans and wool cap, and brown boots. He also had a full beard.

WDEL.com report of the same incident. Spot the added info:

The suspects are identified as two black males, one of whom was armed with a handgun. The man with the gun is described as 5'4" to 5'6", 135 to 150 pounds. The second suspect is said to be 6'2" to 6'4", 160 to 180 pounds with a full beard.

And so it goes ...


Posted by Hube at 06:26 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

I'm just a bill ...


Posted by Hube at 06:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

VDH on the administration vs. Israel

A must read. An excerpt:

I wish this administration had at least said something as curt to the Syrians or Iranians for their past support for chronic infiltrations across their borders into Iraq to kill American soldiers, rather than pondering whether to build apartment buildings in Jerusalem endangers American soldiers. Whether Israel and the Palestinians, or the British again in the Falklands, or the Columbians, or the Hondurans, or the Poles and Czechs, there is no particular advantage in being a pro-American democratic ally; attention and outreach instead come from being our antithesis.

(Nit: Hanson habitually spells "Colombia[n]" wrong.)

Posted by Hube at 05:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Transparency

Uh huh:

... the Obama administration has denied Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests 466,872 times during the 2009 budget year, up from 312,683 under Bush's last full budget year in 2008. More specifically, federal agencies have denied 70,779 FOIA requests under an exemption that allows the government to hide details of its decision-making process, despite public directives from Obama that agencies cut back on the use of that exemption. During the last year of the Bush administration, the exemption was used just 47,395 times.

"Hope" and "Change."

Posted by Hube at 05:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

And the P.C. played on

An AP report on new HIV infections:

New HIV infections are increasing among homosexuals, drug users and prostitutes who don't seek help because of laws that criminalize these practices, the head of the U.N. AIDS agency said Monday. Michel Sidibe, the head of UNAIDS, said "it is unacceptable" that 85 countries still have laws criminalizing same sex relations among adults, including seven that impose the death penalty for homosexual practices.

Let's see -- how are new infections related to anti-gay laws that may cause homosexuals to not seek help ... after they've become infected? In other words, how do anti-gay laws prevent male homosexuals from purchasing condoms?

Even in the United States, where laws are not restrictive and the gay community was the first to tackle AIDS, Sidibe said it is "shocking" that more than 50 percent of new HIV infections last year occurred among homosexuals.

Whaaa ...? Well, so much for that theory, eh Mr. Sidibe (and the AP)?

In addition to failing to adequately deliver the right messages about AIDS prevention, Sidibe blamed complacency in a new generation that has access to treatment.

Sidibe called for "a prevention revolution" including a campaign in major cities around the world like the anti-smoking campaigns launched in recent years.

At least Sidibe [common sensically] added that middle part. And please, let's face it -- if you don't know how to protect yourself from contracting HIV by now, you've either been living on a deserted island for the last 25 years, or, simply put, you're a moron.

Posted by Hube at 05:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 15, 2010

On the Texas textbook controversy

So much has been made in the MSM of the Texas social studies textbook "controversy" the last few weeks. The Associated Press, to name just one, wrote that a "far-right faction wielded its power to shape the lessons." To be sure, some of the changes made caused a question mark to appear over my head (excising a reference about the US being founded on the principle of religious freedom, ditching Thomas Jefferson in referencing the Enlightenment); however, have you ever seen stories about textbooks changes garner so much attention ... when leftist groups are the most influential? Of course not. Unless you read conservative media.

Let's take a quick gander at what the AP wrote:

... it agreed to strengthen nods to Christianity by adding references to "laws of nature and nature's God" to a section in U.S. history that requires students to explain major political ideas.
So?
They also agreed to strike the word "democratic" in references to the form of U.S. government, opting instead to call it a "constitutional republic."
Again, so?
In addition to learning the Bill of Rights, the board specified a reference to the Second Amendment right to bear arms in a section about citizenship in a U.S. government class and agreed to require economics students to "analyze the decline of the U.S. dollar including abandonment of the gold standard."
Once again -- so? Have you heard in the AP (or other MSM) any of the following instances?
An unelected review panel, not the elected members of Texas State Board of Education (SBOE), attempted to push through a number of highly questionable changes to the standards – removing Independence Day, Neil Armstrong, Daniel Boone, and Christopher Columbus – from them. They even dumped Christmas and replaced it with Diwali. You can’t make this stuff up! After a huge outcry from citizens and strong leadership by conservatives on the Texas State Board of Education, each of these changes was reversed.

Sadly, the attacks didn’t stop there. Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison were removed from World History, yet Mary Kay and Wallace Amos (of Famous Amos Cookies) were added, it appears, for more “diversity.” That’s unbelievable. Edison is the greatest inventor in American history with over 1,000 patents; oh, and by the way, that Einstein guy was pretty successful too!

I didn't think so. And that's the point.

A decade ago several other teachers and myself formed a committee, supported by the Delaware Association of Scholars, to examine several American and world history texts. Addressing us at our inaugural meeting was Gilbert Sewall, director of the American Textbook Council. Sewall was concerned about the mid-90s' proposal of American and world history standards that were, essentially, the reverse of the present-day [media] worry. (Back then, the MSM reaction was only conservatives' reaction about these proposals -- "They're only trying to get more diversity etc. etc. etc. into our texts which are long overdue ..." they clamored.) To note:

What the public and elected officials didn't like about these new standards was their failure to affirm or celebrate the nation or the Western tradition. Just the reverse. Like a muffled drum through the U.S. history standards, African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, gay Americans, and women face and overcome centuries of oppression, neglect, and adversity. Students meet Speckled Snake and Dolores Huerta, Mahmud al-Kati and Madonna. These people were, according to the drift of the curriculum, the real American heroes. They and others replaced such white patriarchs as Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Jonas Salk, and Albert Einstein. The defining reform institutions of the future? Political phalanxes like La Raza Unida and the National Organization of Women.

The standards reinvented the European discovery of the New World, changing a once triumphal Columbian conquest into a three-way "encounter" of Europeans, Africans, and Native Americans. From the beginning, disease-carrying Europeans encounter and enslave innocent people of color. Older paradigms of federalism, industrialism, and expansionism were minimized, along with heroic figures and their achievements. Hamilton end Jefferson, the Erie Canal, Gettysburg, and Promontory Point did not exactly vanish, but they were not much savored either. Teachers and students inherited a solemn, often bitter chronicle of unfulfilled national promise. Historical sufferers and victim groups receive belated recognition and redress. Participation in history becomes an empathetic act. By sharing the pain of exploited groups and learning the gloomy "truth" of the U.S. past, students presumably learn to become more virtuous and sensitive.

The world history standards pushed Western civilization to the side, straining throughout for equivalence of cultures. "Drawing on archaeological evidence for the growth of Jenne-jeno, interpret the commercial importance of this city in West African history," states one suggested activity. "How did the commercial importance of Jenne-jeno in this era compare with that of contemporary western European commercial centers such as early Venice?" The cultural achievements of Classical Greece, the Abbasid Caliphate "as a center of cultural innovation and hub of interregional trade in the 8th-10th centuries," and "the civilization of Kush" receive equal weight in the standards. The miracles of Western science and public health are sidelined in favor of recherche topics interesting only to university specialists. In order to demonstrate historical understanding, eighth-graders could "create a summary evaluation of the Zagwe dynasty of Ethiopia from the view of an Egyptian Coptic Christian" and ask "How would a Muslim from Adal have evaluated the Zagwe history? "

Ancient Rome, Judeo-Christian theology, the Enlightenment, and the Industrial Revolution all suffered from inattention, as new attention was paid to Gupta India, Coptic Ethiopia, and Bantu culture. Old military heroes like Hannibal and Wellington disappear from the historical scene. Now Julius Caesar and Marcus Aurelius, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther and John Calvin, Catherine the Great and Louis XIV, Charles Darwin and Sigmund Freud play supporting roles, and are no longer considered dominating figures of their respective historical ages.

This is what has been the norm in late-20th century and early 21st century textbooks, not what just occurred down in Texas. If this has been going on for decades, is it not inevitable that some people -- like the board in Texas -- will react?

The question isn't whether there should be "diversity" in such texts (there should), but whether the need for such diversity outweighs basic common sense. After all, should the Kush civilization really be given equal weight to the achievements of the ancient Greeks ... just because of "diversity?" Should the Columbian conquest be reduced to "a three-way encounter" between Europeans, Native Americans and Africans when it was only the Europeans doing the actual "encountering" ... just because it may show some "superiority" of the European side?

This doesn't mean that such history should be whitewashed, of course. The horrors of slavery, the decimation of the Native Americans, and the long, brutal struggle for civil rights for all Americans should be covered -- and covered well in our textbooks. But not to the exclusion of [many] other significant topics and not without discussion of the ongoing battles for remedies for past wrongs. Many texts have become denigrations of virtually anything Western, while anything not Western is celebrated. (Which, as you might expect, just might leave middle and high schoolers pondering just why the heck the Western world has been so damn successful!)

At any rate, good history teachers will know how to supplement textbooks -- and may only use them at a minimum anyway. And why should it matter to the rest of the country what Texas does? Why do publishers have to use the standards that Texas adopts for other texts? Why don't other states complain and demand to use different standards and/or books? Education should be a local matter (though I know that sentiment is not exactly en vogue at present). Honestly, if liberal enclaves across the nation want to teach that the Columbian conquest was "an equal encounter" or whatever, then let 'em. And if Texas wishes to stress Christianity's influence in the Founding, so be it. At the very most at the federal level (if anything) only extremely basic standard outlines for the subject should be available.

Posted by Hube at 04:03 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

Clarence Thomas should be impeached ...

... based on what his wife does (according to the "geniuses" over at the LGOMB); however, who Eric Holder hires at the DOJ should be beyond reproach. Just yet more ridiculous double standards of modern-day "progressives."

The New York Times mentions "McCarthyism" because some (on the right) have questioned the past cases (involving defense of terrorists) of some of those at the Justice Dept. However, Glenn Reynolds is exactly right when he writes this: "... if John Ashcroft had staffed the Civil Rights Division with a lot of folks who had represented white supremacists, I know what the narrative would be."

Do you think the Times would then editorialize "It is not nearly enough to say that these lawyers did nothing wrong. In fact, they upheld the highest standards of their profession and advanced the cause of democratic justice. The Justice Department is right to stand up to this ugly bullying"?

Heh. Nope, I don't either.

Let's just take a quick gander at some of the things these now-DOJ lawyers did:

  • The Gitmo Bar — in gross violation of the conditions of access to the enemy combatants — provided al Qaeda detainees with a propaganda brochure that instructed them on how falsely to claim that they had been tortured and abused. As the Gitmo commander put it, "The very nature of this document gives tremendous moral support to those who would strike out against our country.... It is not a factual report. Instead it is filled with second and third hand accounts, photos of protests that were staged, inflammatory photos from Iraq and provocative story captions."
  • The Gitmo Bar fomented a detainee hunger strike that disrupted security at the camp and set the stage for fabricated reports that the detainees were being tortured and force-fed.

  • The Gitmo Bar provided the detainees with virulently anti-American rhetoric that compared military physicians to Nazi Josef Mengele, labeled DOJ lawyers "desk torturers," and informed the detainees about the Abu Ghraib abuses and the potential for framing President Bush as a war criminal.

  • The Gitmo Bar provided the enemy combatant terrorists with a hand-drawn map of the detention camp's lay-out, including guard towers.

  • The Gitmo Bar incited the detainees against the military guards.

  • The Gtimo Bar posted photos of Guantanamo security badges on the Internet in a transparent effort to identify U.S. security personnel.

  • The Gitmo Bar facilitated enemy combatants in communicating messages and interviews to their confederates and the outside world.

  • The Gitmo Bar provided a detainee with a list identifying all the other detainees in custody.

  • The Gitmo Bar provided the detainees with news accounts about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, including reports that U.S. forces were sustaining devastating casualities from IED attacks. (Again, it was a court-ordered condition of the lawyers' access to these war prisoners that they not be given information relating to military operations, intelligence, arrests, political news and current events, and the names of U.S. government personnel.)

  • The Gitmo Bar provided KSM and the 9/11 plotters — i.e., the murderers of 3000 Americans — with photographs of covert CIA officers in an effort to identify them as interrogators. (Leftist lawyers are attempting to have these interrogators indicted for torture and war crimes.)

  • The Gitmo Bar brags about its role in the release of enemy combatants who have returned to the jihad against American troops and the American people.

And yet these attorneys are now in the position of making and enacting policy on terrorist detainees.

Posted by Hube at 03:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Today in "What is Racist and What is Not"

Milwaukee "Coffee Party" event resembles Tea Parties -- at least in how the MSM portray them:

One final note. The tea party movement has been criticized for being "racist" because of the alleged lack of minority participation. The Milwaukee coffee party that I attended did not have a single member of any minority group, although I strongly suspect that the alternative lifestyles community was well represented.

Sorta like MSNBC, which may be the biggest complainer of the supposed monochrome of the Tea Parties!

Elsewhere, the AP makes note of the "real" reason ACORN agreed to a settlement to vamoose from the state of Ohio:

An ACORN spokesman says that its opponents are lying in an effort to keep down the black vote and prevent organizing in low-income areas.

If the group ACORN made the settlement with is "lying," then why did it even make the settlement by which it, in part, has to scram from Ohio?

Locally, the substantial Nancy Unwilling titles a recent post "Cali GOP Calls For Environmental Law Roll-Backs And Severe Anti-Illegal Immigration Proposals Thought Sure To Anger Independents And Latino Voters" quoting from a San Fran Chronicle article. Yeah, since "illegal immigrants" somehow equate to "Latino voters," I'm certain that the millions of law-abiding Hispanics in the nation's most populous state will become very angry. Yeesh.

Also locally, looks like the investigation into South Philly High is a bit wanting:

Interviews with six Asian students and a legal complaint obtained by the newspaper show:

The students say investigators ignored crucial portions of their accounts of the violence.

Youths insist that interviewers cut off their attempts to place the Dec. 3 violence in the context of years of assaults against Asian students.

At least 26 separate assaults against Asian students occurred during the 2008-09 school year alone, the complaint says.

SPH is "combating the problem with diversity training for staff and students."

Yeah, that'll help.

Posted by Hube at 03:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 12, 2010

Wonder if the Post would use this headline under a GOP administration

WaPo headline (h/t to Taranto): "Rise in Washington Area Unemployment Seen as Good Sign for Economy's Recovery."

Unemployment rates rose in the District, Maryland and Virginia in January, a shift that economists said could be a positive sign for the economy because it suggests that discouraged job-seekers are feeling more optimistic about their prospects and have resumed looking for work.

Uh, yeah.

Posted by Hube at 06:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The "Slaughter Rule" is unconstitutional

Newsweek on the so-called Slaughter Rule:

Rep. Louise Slaughter is chair of the House Rules committee, and as such, figured out that the House could momentarily change its rules to say that the House doesn’t need to pass the Senate bill since both bills are pretty similar anyway (in that they’re about the same subject). That way, Democratic members reticent about voting for the Senate bill technically wouldn’t have to be on record voting for it. They would just have to vote not to stop it from passing. It’s effectively a shift from active passage of the bill to passive. Then, after this rule passed, the Senate bill would go straight to the president, he would sign it, and then both chambers would start working on a few fixes through reconciliation.

Except that, there's just a "minor" problem with Slaughter's, Cantor's and whoever else's "interepretation" that this "could work":

Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution requires that "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States."

I'm no lawyer, but I somehow doubt that the constitutional right of each legislative body to determine its own rules doesn't supercede this very plainly worded provision.

Posted by Hube at 06:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Watcher's Council results

First place in the Council category was JoshuaPundit with Obama Tells Israel They Have No Right To Their Religious Shrines.

First place in the non-Council category was Joel J. Sprayregen/ American Thinker with Obama’s Iran Policy Collapses to the Accompaniment of Mockery Around the Globe.

Full results are here.

Posted by Hube at 05:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Oh, now American soldiers' lives are at risk!

Wilmington News Journal editorial on the Israelis announcing new settlements in eastern Jerusalem, titled "Upstaging Biden was more than just diplomatic gaffe":

Later a leading newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, reported Mr. Biden privately told officials actions like that were putting American lives in danger in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's no longer just a gaffe.

Oh, is that so, News Journal?

Where were your enlightened selves (and you too, Mr. Biden) when people like Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, John Murtha, John Kerry and myriad other Democrat politicians were clamoring that our efforts in Iraq (and elsewhere) were "Nazi-like," that the war "was lost," that US troops killed "innocent civilians in cold blood," and that our soliders were going into Iraqis' homes "in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children," hmm?? Oh, but when the Jooooos do something, "it's no longer just a gaffe."

Disgusting.

Semi-related: Former Executive Editor of the NY Times Howell Raines bitches and moans about how Fox News is so "unjournalistic" and "outright biased." Or, to translate for Raines, "I'm pissed off that the self-righteous Left doesn't have a monopoly on presenting the news anymore."

UPDATE (March 15 at 9:04pm): The blog In Context gives us a geography lesson on "East Jerusalem." Would that we all heed it.

Posted by Hube at 05:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 11, 2010

Spot the error

Unbelievable.

Posted by Hube at 08:16 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

The Altar

Wilmington News Journal report of a bank robbery in Hockessin:

On Tuesday, the man, dressed in a black Philadelphia Flyers sweatshirt with an orange-lined hood, black hat and sunglasses, brandished a revolver and ordered customers to the ground. The bandit got cash from tellers and fled into nearby woods, state police Sgt. Walter Newton said. The bandit got cash from tellers and fled into nearby woods, state police Sgt. Walter Newton said. The man is described as 30 to 40 years old and about 6 feet tall.

WDEL.com report of the same incident:

The suspect is white, between 30 and 40 years old, 5-11 to 6-2 with a large build, and wore a dark hat, black sunglasses, a dark cloth over the lower half of his face, dark gloves, khaki work pants and dark shoes in addition to his Flyers gear.


Posted by Hube at 04:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Quick -- name the movie that this scenario is from

Via Reason.com:

Several Oregon government and law enforcement agencies are patting themselves on the back for preventing a possible mass shooting incident by sending a SWAT team to arrest a recently laid-off employee of the state's Department of Transportation. A news release from the Medford, Oregon, police department (yes, they put out a news release announcing their good work) says the man purchased three guns after his dismissal, and that former colleagues described him as "very disgruntled." He was taken to a mental hospital for evaluation.

The problem is that the man doesn't appear to have committed any actual crimes. Authorities have filed no charges against him. He did recently buy three guns, but he purchased all three of them legally. A spokesman for the Oregon State Police told South Oregon's Mail Tribune newspaper, "Instead of being reactive, we took a proactive approach."

Reason titles this blog post "Oregon Officials Consult Precogs, Arrest Man for Bloody Shooting Spree That Killed Four Next Week." Which sounds like it comes from what very good scifi film?

Posted by Hube at 04:23 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Surprise, surprise

"A new study shows that diversity training programs have roundly failed to eliminate bias and increase the number of minorities in management, despite the fact that many corporations have spent increasing amounts of money on them since the 1990s."

“For the past 40 years companies have tried to increase diversity, spending millions of dollars a year on any number of programs without actually stopping to determine whether or not their efforts have been worth it,”[professor of sociology Frank] Dobbin says. “Certainly in the case of diversity training, the answer is no. The only truly effective way to increase the presence of minorities and women in managerial positions is through programs that create organizational responsibility. If no one is specifically charged with the task of increasing diversity, then the buck inevitably gets passed ad infinitum. To increase diversity, executives must treat it like any other business goal.”

I wonder how that will affect sites like Diversity Inc.? Just check out the gazillion articles they have devoted to diversity training.

I'm still fairly dumbfounded at how common sense doesn't point out the obvious -- that by engaging in stereotypes (diversity training), bias won't be eliminated. I mean, in my field (education), we're treated (in "workshops") to constant negative stereotypes about whites ("all whites are racist") whereas only positive stereotypes about minorities (their communication is "personal, emotional and 'process-oriented'”). The resentment -- which is logical outcome of such utter nonsense -- is always lost on the "progressive" edu-babblers who present it.

Posted by Hube at 04:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Today in "What is Racist and What is Not"

Los Angeles Angels outfielder Torii Hunter claims Dominican and Venezuelan baseball players are "imposters" -- racial imposters, that is:

"People see dark faces out there, and the perception is that they're African American ... They're not us. They're impostors."

"Even people I know come up and say, 'Hey, what color is Vladimir Guerrero? Is he a black player?' I say, 'Come on, he's Dominican. He's not black.' " [...]

"As African-American players, we have a theory that baseball can go get an imitator and pass them off as us," Hunter says. "It's like they had to get some kind of dark faces, so they go to the Dominican or Venezuela because you can get them cheaper. It's like, 'Why should I get this kid from the South Side of Chicago and have Scott Boras represent him and pay him $5 million when you can get a Dominican guy for a bag of chips?'

"I'm telling you, it's sad."

Apparently Hunter has no idea that people of African descent exist throughout the Americas, not just North America. And, apparently the term "African-American" is too exclusive a term for some people, eh?

Elsewhere, it seems ABC has a beef with white parents adopting black children:

... inspired by current efforts to adopt orphans in Haiti, correspondent Ron Claiborne filed a report promoting the view that black children may be harmed psychologically from being adopted and raised by white parents. Claiborne focused on the case of black filmmaker Phil Bertelsen who complains that "he and other black adoptees tell a similar tale, of feeling estranged, cut off from their own racial identity and culture."

ABC also noted how "black social workers used to 'condemn' interracial adoptions as 'cultural genocide.'"

Hey -- what would the MSM reaction be if some heterosexual social workers voiced their concerns about homosexuals adopting straight kids?

In politics, the New Jersey state Democrat Party is calling Tea Partiers "racist":

Last week, newly minted Democratic Chairman John Wisniewski blasted the recall campaign as extremist, saying that it was no accident that it was targeting Menendez, the only Hispanic in the Senate.

“The attempt to recall Sen. Menendez is an affront to the voters of New Jersey and has no standing in law. One day these folks are trying to disprove human evolution, the next day they are challenging the constitutionality of the Constitution,” Wisniewski said in the statement, making a not-so-veiled reference to Salanitri, who has spoken out against the theory of evolution. “These are radical people who chose Menendez off of a list of Democrats because of the sound of his last name.”

Still elsewhere, we have some terrific reasoning from the CDC regarding the black genital herpes infection rate:

[The CDC's John] Douglas said the increased rate of infection in blacks is not do [sic] to increased risk behavior but likely due to biological factors that make women more susceptible as well as the higher rate of infection within black communities.

As James Taranto notes, "'The higher rate of infection within black communities' is causing 'the increased rate of infection in blacks'"? Man, that some serious science!

Posted by Hube at 03:24 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 10, 2010

"Iron Man 2" is less than two months away ...

... so that means periodically yours truly will be providing you with some background and assorted trivia about the various characters in the flick.

As you may have heard, the main villain will be Whiplash, played by Mickey Rourke. But Rourke's character will actually incorporate aspects of two classic Iron Man bad guys -- Whiplash and the Crimson Dynamo. Indeed, Rourke's name in the film is Anton Vanko, who was the very first Dynamo (introduced in 1963 in Tales of Suspense #46). The Dynamo was originally a Cold War Soviet analogue to the United States' Iron Man.

Whiplash first appeared years later, in 1968 (Tales of Suspense #97, below). The original 'lash (Mark Scarlotti) was a former employee of Stark's company. He appeared many times in the Marvel Universe over the course of 30 years, until being killed by Iron Man in 2000 (Iron Man volume 3, #28). (It wasn't Tony Stark in the armor then, for what it's worth; the Iron Man armor was actually operating on its own at the time.)

Check out this pic of Rourke as Whiplash. He neatly makes use of the coolest aspects of both Iron Man baddies!


Posted by Hube at 03:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Arne Duncan will fail

Joshua Dunn notes why Education Secretary Duncan's proposed civil rights "reinforcement" is not only misguided, but will ultimately lose in the courts if it comes to that:

This is the same Department of Education that can’t support a voucher program in Washington DC to help minority children escape the grinding incompetence of the DC school system. Now it wants to spend its resources determining whether schools in Fairfax County or Westchester have a disproportionate number of white kids in college prep classes. Someone’s priorities seem misplaced. Even Nixon would blush.

Second, it’s hard to see how Duncan can do this without running into headlong into the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. 1. Duncan plans on relying on “disparate impact” analysis to show for instance that school districts with a disproportionate number of white students in advanced placement classes are guilty of discrimination. The cure for that disparate impact will be “robust remedies” like early intervention programs. But if (white) parents discover that their children have been denied access to an AP class to ensure racial balancing, they will likely bring suit just like the parents from Seattle in Parents Involved. And chances are, they will win. After all, Justice Kennedy, in his controlling opinion, singled out identifying students based solely on race as unconstitutional.

Of course, you might wonder "Well, why not just add more AP classes instead of denying some kids access (for balance)?" A legitimate query. However, now consider if your school district/state has the funds to add more teachers. Dunn then notes "One can easily envision school districts putting unprepared students in AP classes simply to satisfy the Department of Education." This is precisely what I wrote yesterday. Which is the bigger educational tragedy -- lack of minority faces (except Asian, of course) in AP classes, or putting more minorities in those classes and watching them fail at high rates because they're not adequately prepared?

In Missouri v. Jenkins, when the court and its self-appointed experts tried to improve the quality of education for African American children in Kansas City they structured their reforms around what they thought middle-class white children would want. As a result, after spending more than $2 billion, educational outcomes declined and African American parents became outraged and actually led the effort to end the court’s attempt to help them. Focusing on college prep classes when many minority children are trapped in dysfunctional and failing urban school system will likely be met with a giant “huh?” from many parents.

For the locals that may be reading this, does this sound familiar? As in New Castle County desegregation from 1978-1996? After almost 20 years of federally-enforced busing, the results were virtually identical to those seen in Kansas City -- no net improvement in minority academic achievement, and many [black] parents lamented the disintegration of the Wilmington School District and the corresponding local control of schools.

Posted by Hube at 03:37 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

March 09, 2010

Today in "What is Racist and What is Not"

Israelis are "racist" for not liking Barack Obama much, according to the NY Times' Ethan Bronner and MSDNC's Chrissy Matthews. It just couldn't be the fact that Barack hasn't visited Israel yet not even once as president, but has visited ... how many Muslim countries again??

Next, actor Tom Hanks (why is what he says important?) thinks we're battling terrorists merely because "they're different from us":

Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?

Newsflash, Tom: We didn't want to annihilate the Japanese because they "were different." They, like, sort of attacked us on a certain December morning in an attempt to smash our Pacific naval fleet. Y'know, to prevent us from thwarting their expansionist, imperialist plans throughout Asia. And now the terrorists? We want to obliterate al Qaeda because they're merely ... "different?" Who knew? I thought it was because they want to subjugate or kill everyone who doesn't subscribe to their militant form of Islam, not to mention that they too attacked us (like the Japanese, and killed more Americans, to boot) on a certain September morning.

More proof that being a good actor doesn't mean you have intelligence to match.

Lastly, count how many times Rachel Maddow or her guest last night use the term "white":

And the sheriff chose 200 people, 195 of the 200 are white men ...

See, the 195 white guys in town who were just given guns by the sheriff ...

I don't take kindly to looking at a bunch of old white guys about my age with pot bellies grabbing 50-millimeter machine guns and putting them on pickup trucks ...

... so we give a 50-cal. machine gun to some old white guy on a pickup truck and some shotguns to some good old boys and I guess they'll take care of it ...

We don't trust them to do their job and so, you know, we'll get some crazy old white coot on a pickup with a 50-cal. machine gun cruising his neighborhood to do God knows what ...

Wow! I wonder what Maddow's reaction would have been had, say, Glenn Beck and a guest made similar statements ... but substituted "black" for "white." Any takers?

Posted by Hube at 04:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Speaking of parents ...

Latest results in a Philly Daily News poll which asks "Who most needs to step up for today's students?" As of right now, 87% say "parents," 11.7% say "students themselves," and a mere 1.3% say "teachers."

Related in the Daily News: The founder of the Mathematics, Civics & Sciences Charter School, Veronica Joyner, says that "teachers need to 'step up' and do whatever is necessary for kids -- even combing their hair, washing their clothes, and bringing them prescription glasses. "When a parent wasn't involved, it gave me more motivation to do a better job," Joyner said of her days as a teacher. "They're blaming the parent when they're the professional."

Wow, eh? Funny, then, that this same Ms. Joyner seemed to have quite a different attitude about a decade ago when she booted a kid from her school because he may -- may -- have suffered from ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). Joyner said her school "was not equipped to deal with [such] a child."

So much for doing "all that is necessary," huh Ms. Joyner? Guessed you "blamed the parents even though YOU were the professional" ... ?

Or, in other words, folks, beware false prophets.

Also related: Bill Cosby says "Parents at fault."

Posted by Hube at 04:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

How utterly ridiculous can you get?

Check out the headline at the Huffington Post: Palin Crossed Border For Canadian Health Care. Now, the "story":

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- who has gone to great lengths to hype the supposed dangers of a big government takeover of American health care -- admitted over the weekend that she used to get her treatment in Canada's single-payer system.

"We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada," Palin said in her first Canadian appearance since stepping down as governor of Alaska. "And I think now, isn't that ironic?"

The irony, one guesses, is that Palin now views Canada's health care system as revolting: with its government-run administration and 'death-panel'-like rationing. Clearly, however, she and her family once found it more alluring than, at the very least, the coverage available in rural Alaska. Up to the age of six, Palin lived in a remote town near the closest Canadian city, Whitehorse.

"She and her family..."?? She was age SIX! How did the young Palin find Canadian health care "more alluring?" SHE. WAS. SIX. YEARS. OLD!!!

Folks, talk about your PDS -- Palin Derangement Syndrome. Even the [liberal] commenters at this article are chuckling at this journalistic idiocy.

Posted by Hube at 03:40 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Opening the door for more flight from the public schools

As mentioned yesterday, the Obama administration is going to begin looking "more intently" at civil rights in our public schools, notably disproportionate discipline rates, [lack] of access to college prep courses, and that 'ol "disparate impact" nonsense. Roger Clegg, who's usually dead-on about the effects of ... stuff like this, notes:

...the easy way out for schools -- and what school bureaucrat won't prefer the easy way out -- is to make sure the numbers pass muster, i.e., to make discipline decisions based not solely on the merits, but also on the basis of race. And since administrators aren't likely to mete out punishment just to balance the numbers, they will balance them by going easier on black students because they are black.

As a result, school discipline will be further eroded, making it increasinigly difficult for students of all races to learn.

Maddeningly, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan gave an address about all this at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, "scene of the 'Bloody Sunday' civil-rights confrontation 45 years ago." As Power Line's Paul Mirengoff says, "... did the civil rights protesters of the 1960s really march so that school administrator's would be intimidated into not disciplining black students who violate the rules?" Highly unlikely. Which just goes to show you how preposterously the civil rights movement has been altered. The right to attend the same schools as everyone else has now been transformed to the "right" to equal discipline rates (despite the number and severity of offenses). The right to equal educational opportunity has been transformed into the "right" to take, for example, Advanced Placement classes (even if you're in no way prepared for the rigor of such classes).

Regarding the latter, I (and hopefully everyone else) sincerely want more minorities (that would be sans Asians, who're already well represented) in such courses; however, much like universities, which almost stop at nothing to recruit minorities to "show" that they care about "diversity," how is it beneficial to these students to be put in classes/situations for which they are woefully prepared? And then they fail (or drop out)? Bean counting administrators feel good about themselves for "propping up their numbers;" no one really counts the successes of this bean counting, however.

And who was it recently that was complaining about groups suing public entities -- and the prohibitive cost of a defense? See what Clegg says above. Not only will school districts "fudge their [discipline] numbers" to avoid a costly lawsuit, but the spectre of being labeled "racist" is, of course, destructive PR. And the inevitable result -- deteriorating building discipline -- will result in families, of ALL races, fleeing public schools for private and parochial.

John Rosenberg [rightly] ponders: "Does anyone really believe that 'one of the largest' problems of American education today is rampant, pervasive discrimination against minorities?"

Posted by Hube at 03:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 08, 2010

Why I decided against coaching (again)

Friday, as I laid on the couch recovering from one of the nastier sinus infections I've had in a while, I got a call from our school's athletic director. "Hey Hube -- the softball coach had to quit due to injury -- you wanna do it again?" Now I had just finished coaching with our A.D. this past basketball season -- sort of last minute thing being that the former assistant had moved to another school. And, I had coached softball with this person for five years previously. I said "I'd mull over" the softball gig and call the A.D. back.

At first I was very much leaning towards taking the job. The girls that we keep on the team are usually very nice and easygoing. Then a friend and I went out to eat yesterday at a local restaurant ...

We got there fairly early (around 4:30) so it wasn't too crowded. However, there was a table of about four couples and some of their kids on the other side of the room. During our entire meal two of the kids (ages around 7 and 5) were running around the restaurant while playing "hide and seek." The parents? Completely oblivious. Not even once did they even look in the kids' direction to see what they were up to. I could have grabbed one of the kids and whisked them out of the place, were I a demented predator. Yep, the entire time we were there these kids were running, jumping, yelling and engaging in other assorted non-restaurant behavior. Many of the staff were looking on with dumbfounded grimaces on their faces.

And this is what helped me make my decision ...

Do I want, after my regular school day is essentially over, to deal with similar parents? The restaurant kids were allowed to do as they wished. Do I want a similar atmosphere about my team? Do I want to field phone calls from them upset that their child didn't make the cut? Do I want to hear how their child is an all-star in their local league, and that there's no reason for her not to make the team (despite the fact that our school draws from virtually all over the northern part of the county)? Do I want to persistently be asked about "playing time" during games? Do I want my team rules (like everyone has to sit in the dugout during games) to be questioned all the time?

Now, granted, such parents are [usually] a minority, but they are a distinct minority. They can take the "wind out of a coach's sails" in a microsecond. After-school sports are extra-curricular activities, yet too often they are viewed as just another "right" that a kid has. They have a "right" to be on the team, and once on the team they have a "right" to play -- when and where they want.

So, sorry -- I don't need that headache and aggravation. Not at this point in my career.

(And if I wasn't already sufficiently clear, such parents [and kids] are still, in my opinion, in the minority. But -- it is getting worse. It has every year since I've been teaching.)

So you parents at that restaurant yesterday? Next time, get a freakin' clue and realize that there are other people in the restaurant who are paying for their food and trying to enjoy their meal. They did not come to have their senses assaulted by your children being unsupervised, because you're too damned lazy to discipline them.

Thank you.

Related, from the archives: Why I don't (and won't) coach anymore; Sounds VERY familiar!.

Posted by Hube at 07:30 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Today in "What is Racist and What is Not"

Dan Rather isn't racist, apparently, even after uttering this whopper:

Listen he (Barack Obama) just hasn't been, look at the health care bill. It was his number one priority. It took him forever to get it through and he had to compromise it to death. Listen he's a nice person, he's very articulate ... this is what's been used against him, but he couldn't sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.

Yep -- "articulate" and "watermelons" in the same sentence! But no one, even "Mr. Racially Sensitive" Chris Matthews, just shurgs his shoulders.

Next up, MSDNC's David Shuster thinks that those who refer to Charlie Rangel as a "crooked, Harlem Democrat" are -- yep -- racist for saying so. Even though, well, Rangel represents Harlem!

They could have called him the crooked New York Democrat. They could have called him a crooked Democrat. Why crooked Harlem Democrat? And did you see that as being racially tinged?"

Next, we see more of what the Obama administration is really about (if you've already skirted past or just ignored so many of his ridiculous appointees). Soon we're going to be treated to investigations of school districts via the 'ol "disparate impact" theory of discrimination. As Roger Clegg notes:

The Wall Street Journal article I cited in my earlier post this morning highlights, in particular, the Obama administration’s interest in school systems where there are racial disparities in disciplining students. So let’s look at that.

If school systems know that they are going to face a federal investigation whenever there is a numerical disparity in the races of students being disciplined, then what will they do? Well, if they are deliberately discriminating against, say, Latino students, then they may stop that. That’s great — but if the discrimination is deliberate, then you don’t need to attack it with the “disparate impact” approach.

The disparate-impact approach will also pressure school systems who are not engaged in actual discrimination to get their numbers right, so they won’t be investigated. And how will they do that? There are two ways: Either they will start to discipline, say, Asian students who are not really deserving of such discipline, or they will forego disciplining, say, black students who really ought to be disciplined. The former is merely unfair; the latter, which is the more likely outcome, will be disastrous for all children in the school system, of whatever color.

The administration will also be looking at things like the different rates (among races) in graduation and participation in advanced placement classes. Of course, if schools are somehow "discriminating" against minorities for not only disciplining them more often and/or more severely, but also for preventing them from graduating and/or adequately preparing them academically, does this mean that at the same time schools are discriminating in favor of Asian students?

Lastly comes word via a Newsbusters tipster about the new HBO documentary "Magic and Bird" -- about the rivalry between the Lakers' Magic Johnson and the Celtics' Larry Bird. He writes:

In discussing the racial divide among NBA fans in the 1980s (whites liked Bird and the Celtics; blacks liked Magic and the Lakers -- even in Boston), HBO couldn't help but lay some of the blame at Reagan's feet. They showed a clip of him giving a speech from the Oval Office with a voiceover stating: "part of the reason for the racial divide was how conservative the country had become in the 1980s."

Now, I haven't seen the show for myself so I cannot comment on its accuracy. Maybe someone can chime in and confirm or deny this line. (It wouldn't surprise me a bit if HBO inserted something like this nonsense into the documentary; they had Bryant Gumbel on the network long enough uttering preposterous racial idiocies.) But consider: Back then the Celtics were the 76ers biggest rivals. Philly fans hated Boston. When the Celtics met the Lakers in the NBA finals, everyone I knew -- that is, everyone white that I knew -- rooted for the Lakers. Because they hated Boston. Period. They could've cared freakin' less if Larry Bird was white!

Yeesh.

And that's today's edition of "What is Racist and What is Not!"

Posted by Hube at 03:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 07, 2010

kavips' light bulb flicks on ... unfortunately he applies it quite selectively

DE blogger kavips says that the NRA is about to get its first bloody nose. Make note of some of the things he states:

The NRA has threatened the four public housing authorities of Delaware with lawsuits if they do not rescind their bans on guns… (The News Journal).

What that means, … is that if the three “other” public housing authorities, The Wilmington Housing Authority, The Delaware State Housing Authority, and The Dover Housing Authority, all fail to cave in like the yellow bellied, weak knee’d Newark Public Housing Authority, and pull the ban from out of their rules and regulations, a moribund solicitor in the full employment of the NRA will park his car in the union built garage, step out, lock his vehicle, go into the courthouse, pass through the security frisking, and file a few papers… It doesn’t cost the NRA a penny… His parking ticket even gets validated!

Bottom line, filing costs the NRA nothing, and costs taxpayers tremendous amounts of money…

Aw no! The NRA can file lawsuits that cost people and organizations money to defend against? Wow! That sounds almost exactly like what the ACLU does, along with the People for the American Way, Center for American Progress, the Alliance for Justice, et. al. Why isn't legitimate for advocates of the 2nd Amendment to do precisely what liberal "advocacy groups" do?

Now for the scary part:

That is how you take the fight to the NRA. Make them live in with the same stresses and fears that those living in public housing face everyday. Make them look over their shoulders every minute of their existence. Make them fear for their lives, because somewhere out there there’s a crazy…. someone who wants to kill them, who has a gun and you know, thanks to the NRA, there is nothing anyone can do about it…

Oh, that's real nice, kavips. Let's see -- has kavips, I wonder, advocated similar actions against the ACLU for suing "on behalf" of public housing residents ... in order to allow people previously banned from the housing units the right to [re]enter? What if some of these people are [deadly] dangerous? What about the ACLU suing "on behalf" of said residents who face eviction for drug use, or having drugs used in their apartments? Oh, one might argue that some of the people on the "ban" list were there erroneously ... or that a tenant may not have known someone was using drugs in his apt. But by the same token, kavips would deny law-abiding citizens the right to defend themselves with a firearm -- just because they're residing in a federal (or state) housing complex.

But what if these dastardly drug users and pushers have ... guns? Well, does anybody really think that a housing project restriction on gun possession will deter these criminals?? If so, you're thick. Such restrictions/bans only affect those who actually follow the law.

It is perfectly within every American’s God given right to ban the use of guns on his property if he so desires.. That.. is what America is all about…

The Housing Authorities have every right to maintain the safety of their confines in anyway they see fit. If enforcing a gun ban protects citizen’s lives, then they have every right to do just that… Every innkeeper is allowed to make rules for his tenants. After all, it is his property.

Is that so? Does an innkeeper have the right to deny black Americans service (or vice versa -- or to any ethnic group)? Because, in kavips' words, "after all, it is his property." Obviously, as noted above, Housing Authorities' rules alone weren't sufficient reason enough to prevent groups like the ACLU from suing them.

It's nice to see kavips embrace a bit of libertarianism. However, the difference here is that Housing Authorities are arms of government. They are not parts of the private sector. If the latter was the case, kavips' argument would make more [legal] sense. (At least it would in the "old" days when the private sector had more freedoms from government intrusion.) But since HA's are governmental entities, they are keenly subject to constitutional protections, including those of free speech, religion, and ... the right to bear arms. And since the 14th Amendment "applies" the Bill of Rights to the states, state HAs should have to comply similarly. )At least that's how it should work if the law is consistent, and we'll find out soon enough).

To sit in some cubicle far, far away talking smack, and having tons of tax payers money being spent on a frivalous [sic] lawsuit, is not the American way. For one, it is too cowardly to be considered American. For two, it goes against the doctrine that a man’s home is his castle… For three, removing the only protection those tenants of these domiclies have against gun violence from getting out of control, should be downright criminal.

Again, 1) try applying that same complaint against the ACLU, et. al. If it is "not American," maybe you (kavips) should suggest to them that they remove the word "American" from their groups' names. 2) If a "man's home is his castle," then why isn't he permitted to own a device that helps protect it? 3) The banning of guns is the "only protection" against gun violence getting out of control? Again, I'm sure law-abiding citizens are very happy to hear you say that. In the meantime, criminals and thugs who care not one whit about the law get their firearms illegally and continue to wreak havoc in the HAs (and elsewhere).

What was that again about "sit[ting] in some cubicle far, far away talking smack"? Indeed! Or, in kavips' case, sitting in his comfy domicile with his laptop, acting all "high and mighty" in the "defense" of Housing Authority residents.

I'm sure they're most grateful.

UPDATE: Delaware Douche chimes in with this laugher:

You see, the NRA was caught in their deception, and now cannot abide by the normal legislative process, so now they resort to beating up on a financially strapped public agency. It is typical.

Oh, gee! You mean like how the ACLU "beats up" on, say, school boards across the country for things like moments of silence? Oh no ... a moment of silence means a student or teacher might -- repeat might pray!! In a public school!! The HORROR! Or what about how groups "cannot abide by the legislative process" in the matter of gay "marriage?" Popular referenda, legislatures that pass bans on gay "marriage" ... yet there are the upset groups -- going to court.

The LGOMB is just WAAAAAY too easy. As always.

Posted by Hube at 11:36 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

Gotta love government health care

From the annals of Nationalized Healthcare Is Great:

A man of 22 died in agony of dehydration after three days in a leading teaching hospital. Kane Gorny was so desperate for a drink that he rang police to beg for their help. They arrived on the ward only to be told by doctors that everything was under control. The next day his mother Rita Cronin found him delirious and he died within hours.

She said nurses had failed to give him vital drugs which controlled fluid levels in his body. 'He was totally dependent on the nurses to help him and they totally betrayed him.'

A coroner has such grave concerns about the case that it has been referred to police. Sources say they are investigating the possibility of a corporate manslaughter charge against St George's Hospital in Tooting, South London.

Although he had stressed to staff how important his medication was, she said, no one gave him the drugs.

She said that two days after his hip operation, while Miss Cronin was at work, he became severely dehydrated but his requests for water were refused. He became aggressive and nurses called in security guards to restrain him.
After they had left, he rang the police from his bed to demand their help.

Miss Cronin, who is divorced from her son's father Peter, said: 'The police told me he'd said, "Please help me. All I want is a drink and no one is helping me". 'By this time my son was confused due to his lack of medication and I think the nurses just ignored him because they thought he was just being badly behaved.

(h/t to Insty.)

Posted by Hube at 10:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 06, 2010

More "logic" from that wisher of death upon Republicans

Of course I am speaking of that "lovely" human being (term used very loosely) who recently directed his ... anger at (surprise!) conservatives for not allowing gay men to donate blood:

Back in the early 1980’s, the wonderous Reagan Administration, and society as a whole, did a bang up job in reacting to the AIDS outbreak. One of the reactionary responses was to prohibit gay men who had sex after 1977 from donating blood.

Of course, being that politics means more to Delaware Dunce than common sense or basic decency, for those of us who actually remember the 1980's AIDS scare remember that at one point back then:

  • we didn't know for sure exactly how AIDS (caused by the HIV virus) was spread;
  • we didn't know exactly why gay men were infected at such a much higher rate than other groups;
  • so since we weren't certain of all the means of transmission, and that gay men were so infected at a much higher rate, what does one do to protect the nation's blood supply?

But, DD is merely [re]echoing a lot of the sentiment of the Left from back then. His blog supported a school board candidate who explicitly blamed Ronald Reagan for the deaths of AIDS victims during the 80s. Not the high-risk behavior of those who became infected. And not the derision and outright ignoring of basic, common sense health measures by same when such became necessary.

But I digress ...

So, wait a minute. What the F**K! It would be one thing if this policy had not been reviewed since its enactment since 1983, although I would wonder why the Clinton Administration did not review it, since we knew in the 1990’s how to test for HIV. But the policy was reviewed in 2006 during the Bush Administration, and those sick fucks decided to keep the ban in place!!??!!

DD "would wonder why the Clinton Administration ..."? Hmm, let's see:

A recent meeting of the Blood Products Advisory Committee of the FDA addressed this question. At the start of the meeting, the committee agreed that the permanent ban on gay men seemed discriminatory, lacked a firm foundation in science, and should be changed.

The FDA proposed changing the lifetime ban to five years, bringing the gay ban in line with the length of time organ or tissue transplant recipients are barred from blood donation.

Since that information from that link is dated December 2000, this means that the FDA meeting in question occurred ... during the Clinton Administration.

But then ... why wasn't that five year ban enacted over the still-enforced lifetime ban for gay men wishing to donate blood?

The committee seemed poised to recommend a change in the gay donation policy, but then the slides on herpes virus 8 were presented. Human herpes virus 8 (HHV-8) is a newly discovered virus thought to be the cause of Kaposi's sarcoma (KS). HHV-8 is also widespread among gay men, which helps explain the early, baffling concentration of KS among gay AIDS patients but not heterosexual ones. Although KS in gay men is almost always the result of infection with both HIV and HHV-8, there have been a few isolated cases of KS in gay men with HHV-8 alone. Data emerging on HHV-8 show that it shares a similar epidemiological profile with HIV. Gay men begin acquiring HHV-8 during late adolescence when sexual activity begins, and its incidence accelerates through early adulthood. By age 40, about one-third of gay men seem to be infected with HHV-8.

HHV-8 is most likely transmitted orally, but no blood test is routinely available to detect those who have it.

The uncertainty associated with HHV-8 is ultimately what caused the committee to change its mind.

Now, granted, just over nine years later, surely detection techniques have improved. (Although, after much searching, I found little information on whether HHV-8 continues to be a concern for blood banks.) Still, despite HHV-8 concerns, there are still many medical reasons to be wary of a complete revocation of the ban on gay men donating blood. To do so would only be to buckle under the very same politically correct pressures we saw in the late 1980s in response to AIDS -- things like "everyone is at risk" when, of course, everyone was not at risk. But hey, we couldn't in any way stigmatize an historically oppressed group, no matter the medical necessity now, could we?

Just take a look at the numerous restrictions on donating blood. Hell, last summer I was disalllowed from donating blood for a full year -- because I spent three days outside of San José, Costa Rica ... at a beach resort. A beach resort! The reason? Worry of malaria infection. Aren't their detection methods for this malady? Sure there are. So, if I must wait a full year, you mean to tell me that the health risks associated with unprotected [male] gay sex aren't worthy of at least similar consideration?

Republicans and conservatives in general really need to get over their homophobia already.

No, actually what "progressives" need to do is stop letting ridiculous PC concerns dictate sensible health policy.

Posted by Hube at 05:54 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

GOP policies to blame for Haiti (again)

Yesterday it was Joe Conason; today it's uber-moonbat Michael Moore, who said "in Haiti, where there are no building codes, no regulations -- a Republican’s paradise -- a quarter of a million people died."

Unbelievable. Well, not really. And one thing I forgot to note in yesterday's Conason post: moonbats are rarely wanting when it comes to reminding us how the CIA deposed a far-leftist government in Chile in 1973 (Salvador Allende) and replaced him with a rightist dictator (Augusto Pinochet). But ... Pinochet, despite the failings that go along with any dictatorship, utilized free market economic policies ... to a degree that makes many American free marketeers envious (especially its private social security system). But even right-leaners recognize that Chile's economic policies aren't purely free market/capitalist, just like our own aren't. For example, Pinochet kept the country's huge copper industry under state control.

Moore, like Conason, massively inflate the notion of what conservatives/small government types desire to do precisely what they so complained about during the last administration -- scare people. As I wrote yesterday, Moore does know (because he's not stupid) that "with the exception of the most radical (or reactionary) of them [rightists] (which exist in every ideology), they're not out there saying ALL government is evil and that ALL taxes are theft." I mean, who the hell does Moore think he's talking to? Does he really believe that those who think our federal government is bloated beyond belief and want it drastically downsized in scope would want a society/economy like Haiti's??

Right. The US economy and infrastructure was better than Haiti's [current one's] a century ago, when many of our current [government] regulations didn't exist.

No, you're not stupid, Mike -- you're just a total tool.

Posted by Hube at 07:42 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

You really think ObamaCare will reduce costs (and the deficit)?

Then "delusional" isn't an adequate adjective ...

Of course, there’s another reason besides balancing revenue and spending to push the start of an entitlement back, and that’s to make the ten-year cost look much smaller than it really is. Recall that the president promised in his address to Congress last September to deliver a bill that costs only “$900 billion” over a decade. The new entitlements the Democrats want to create would cost much, much more than $90 billion per year. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says they will cost about $200 billion per year by 2019. And so, to get the media to now say his plan costs only “$1 trillion” (what’s $100 billion among friends!), the administration delays the coverage expansion provisions until 2014. Never mind that the president also says the uninsured can’t wait a day longer for the legislation. Once enacted, he would make them wait — for four years.

Read the whole thing.

Posted by Hube at 07:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 05, 2010

Matthews: "acts of war not bad in themselves"

He then went on to say "We never said that in our country's history," and that a civilian-oriented attack like 9/11 isn't an act of war but "a criminal act of terrorism." (In other words, treat al Qaeda like common criminals.)


Posted by Hube at 06:41 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Our "improving" economy

... and a message the Democrats can run with:


Posted by Hube at 03:32 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Watcher's Council winners

First place in the Council category was Wolf Howling with Public Sector Unions: A Toxin, A Crisis & An Opportunity.

First place in the non-Council category was Chicago Boyz with Why Alternative Power Is and Will Remain Useless.

Full results are here.

Posted by Hube at 03:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Will increased funding actually help?

I mean, if they made it to college and spell like this:

Ah, but perhaps I shouldn't be so hard on them. After all, their just exercising there First Amendment writes!

UPDATE: Semi-related -- Detroit school board President demonstrates his writing "skills."

My. God.

Posted by Hube at 10:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

And so it goes ...

South Philadelphia High School violence report gets an "Incomplete."

Posted by Hube at 09:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Doesn't fit the narrative

Imagine if this guy was a Tea Partier. The usual suspects would be screaming, hollering, and making sweeping "connections" with the subsequent all-encompassing denouncements.

There's a simple reason for that: They're idiots.

Posted by Hube at 09:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

First global warming is to blame for practically everything ...

... now Tea Partiers are. Here's "progressive" Joe Conason:

If the earthquakes in Chile and Haiti carry any message for those of us fortunate enough not to live in those places, perhaps it is that government regulation could save your life — while right-wing ideology may kill you someday.

For those of us unfamiliar with geological terminology, it may come as a shock that the Chilean quake, rated 8.8 on the Richter scale, was roughly 500 times more powerful than the Haitian quake in January, which rated 7.0. Yet in Haiti, probably more than 200,000 lives were lost; in Chile, the number of dead is estimated at about 800. While that is still a terrible tragedy, the Chilean death toll is far less than 1 percent of that in Haiti.

Here in the United States, however, anti-government ideology is a pandemic mental tic that has now developed into a virulent disorder afflicting a large number of citizens — including many of our self-styled conservatives. Infuriated because their party cannot permanently control the White House and the Congress, they have gradually persuaded themselves that all government is evil, that all taxation is theft and that all regulation is tyranny. Or at least that is the tone of their rhetoric.

If the Chileans had adopted this kind of manic and reflexive attitude, many more of them would undoubtedly be dead today. The "free market" extremists who call themselves conservative probably wouldn't worry much about the loss of life, because they are far more concerned with ideological consistency than with practical effects.

First, I suppose that brutal poverty -- the worst in the Western hemisphere -- has nothing to do with Haiti's much worse situation, post-earthquake. No, it's the "Haitian Tea Party" mentality that is responsible for the country's pathetic infrastructure! Second, if Conason actually knew something about Tea Partiers (and libertarians, for that matter), he might realize that, with the exception of the most radical (or reactionary) of them (which exist in every ideology), they're not out there saying ALL government is evil and that ALL taxes are theft. They clearly recognize that some of those things is required for a functioning society (like for police, fire, etc.). What "progressive" ideologues like Conason do, however, is use their arguments against the bloated government and bloated taxes that we have currently as a ridiculous attack on their morality -- that their views will result in utter devastation.

It's total bullsh**.

Posted by Hube at 09:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Colleges always seem to discover the Constitution ...

... when it's a minority/oppressed/radical/fringe group causing a stir. Case in point:

A college atheist group is offering students pornography in exchange for Bibles.

Atheist Agenda calls the exchange "Smut for Smut," prompting prayers and protests from Christian students at the University of Texas San Antonio campus.

Student Monica Cornado says it's offensive to compare pornography to "the Word of God."

University officials say the atheist group has the right to conduct the swap.

UTSA spokesman David Gabler says, "As long as students are not violating laws or violating the Constitution, they have the freedom of speech and assembly."

Mr. Gabler is absolutely correct. But it is refreshing to see/hear a university gabber actually speak up for the right of free speech (and protest). Something tells me, however, that if the situation was reversed, campus officials might be more inclined to elevate the supposed right to "not be offended" and pontificate about "hate speech" more than American constitutional principles.

Posted by Hube at 09:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 03, 2010

The SPLC has to justify its existence, after all

... just like dudes like Jackson, Sharpton, etc.

The Southern Poverty Law Center "issued an 'alarming report'" that said

an astonishing 363 new Patriot groups appeared in 2009, with the totals going from 149 groups (including 42 militias) to 512 (127 of them militias) - a 244% jump" from 2008.

The American Spectator Blog notes

OK, so who are these dangerous "new Patriot groups" we are warned about? The SPLC's roster includes 48 separate listings of a group called "We the People." This a non-profit organization founded by Robert Schultz, a hyper-litigious critic of the Internal Revenue Service. "We the People" appears to be generally libertarian in orientation: 2004 Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik addressed the group's 2009 "Constitutional Convention," and Schultz himself was a guest (along with libertarian figures like Reason magazine editor Nick Gillespie and Rep. Ron Paul) on an August 2009 broadcast of Judge Andrew Napolitano's Fox News TV program.

After finding the Web site of the Alabama chapter of "We the People," I phoned Huntsville resident Lesha Martin, one of the members listed on the site. Is "We the People" some kind of violent militia-type outfit?

"Good heavens, no," said Ms. Martin, an admirer of Ron Paul who described herself as devoted to individual freedom and "resurrecting the Constitution."

Did'ja ever wonder ever wonder if the SPLC is the "extremist" organization? I mean, for instance, if you can label (rightly) the Jewish Defense League and Westboro Baptist Church as "active US hate groups" but not a single extremist Muslim group, that says something. Namely, "you have an agenda." Be sure to read the entire above [linked] report.

Posted by Hube at 03:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 02, 2010

Is this what they call the "bigotry of low expectations?"

John Rosenberg notes:

I have MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on to provide background noise, and I just heard (about 7:45 AM) Sen. Dick Durbin give a breathtakingly novel defense of why Rep. Charlie Rangel should keep his chairmanship. You have to understand, Durbin said, that when Rangel went in the army he was assigned to a segregated barracks, and that’s why we have to keep him.

John said he'd have a transcript when available; I'll do that better -- here's the video (fast forward to approx. 8:35). Though Durbin doesn't say that because Rangel served in a segregated unit he should therefore keep his post, he sure does appear to use it as some sort of an excuse. And just look at his reaction to Joe Scarborough's question regarding Rangel not knowing about $500,000! Unreal.

Later that day, Democrat strategist Steve McMahon offered up a similar defense:

I think Charlie Rangel deserves his day in court, if you will. This is somebody who served in the Korean war, was put in a segregated unit, fought in a segregated unit, came home to serve his country, and has been there for a long, long time.

McMahon is a bit more critical of Rangel than Durbin, but the point remains: Why even bring up Rangel's segregated unit in Korea at all? Do they mean to argue that since Rangel once faced the burden of segregation and discrimination that he therefore does not have to follow rules? Or the law? Or, as Rosenberg notes (always more succinctly than I ever could),

a) that the House needs the “diversity” that having a Ways and Means chairman who experienced segregation can provide;

b) that Rangel deserves compensation in the form of suspending rules and regulations that apply to other Congressmen; or

c) that those who personally experienced segregation have been so damaged by their experience that they cannot be expected to meet the same legal and ethical standards expected of others (but they can be trusted to write the tax laws that others must obey) ...?

Posted by Hube at 08:08 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Heh

As Mary Katharine Ham says, "But don't worry about medical innovation. It'll be just fine."

The Senate Finance Committee's website is optimized for Netscape 4 or Internet Explorer 4.

The Secret Service's computers work only 60 percent of the time and many programs run on a 1980s-style mainframe.

When State Department employees complained that they couldn't download Firefox, they were told it was because of the "expense"...of the free program.

And regarding the federal investigation of Toyota, Senator [Jay] Rockefeller said that "NHTSA (National Highway Transportation Safety Board) would rather focus on floor mats than microchips because they understand floor mats.”

Repeat: "But don't worry about medical innovation. It'll be just fine."

Posted by Hube at 06:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Dopey WNJ Letter of the Week

No elaboration necessary; just look at the author. Yep, it's 'ol Mr. "Never Put In A Hard Day's Work" himself!

Posted by Hube at 05:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Chuckle-inducing

Unstable Mental State writes over at the LGOMB:

Move Over Tea Party, Welcome To The Coffee Party.

Within a few weeks, 36,000 people have already joined. If you’re on Facebook, you can become a fan or you can join at the Coffee Party website. This is a true grass roots movement, unlike the Tea Party movement which was hyped endlessly by Fox News and astroturf groups. Hopefully this movement will be successful at holding Democrats accountable. Our democracy can’t continue to function if neither party is willing to do anything.

Yeah, a "true grass roots movement," eh? Let's see:

The New York Times and Washington Post are promoting a group called the "Coffee Party" organized by filmmaker Annabel Park.

In fact, a simple internet search (which the NY Times apparently is not capable of doing) reveals that Park organized the Coffee Party for the specific purpose of undermining the Tea Party movement.

Park is a former Strategy Analyst at the NY Times who was one of organizers and operators of the United for Obama video channel at YouTube.

Be sure to check out more of Park's involvement in the Obama campaign and then say with a straight face that the Coffee Party movement is "grassroots" ... and on the other hand that the Tea Party is just a tool of Fox News, the fringe right, clandestine Nazis, the KKK, Hitler Youth, skinheads, the New Bundists, the Il Duce Fan Club, and the Martin Bormann Telethon. (Bonus pts. for anyone who knows where that last reference comes from!)

Hey, why not join the Cocoa Party??

Posted by Hube at 04:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 01, 2010

A word from the Angry (and Stupid) Left

Via the Newsbusters e-mail tipline, which goes out to all contributors, not just myself:

The so-called "tea party" members are all idiots and hypocrites. Maybe they should ship off from Boston harbor back to merry old England, where they seem to think only the "true" Americans came from.

Uh, yeah, that makes sense. For some reason I seem to recall the Boston Tea Partiers protesting against the British, and going back to "merry old England" was the last thing on their minds ...

Posted by Hube at 08:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

What a "great" idea

Think the Tea Party effect has been fairly, well, effective already given the past townhall protests and the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts? Think the Democrat Party is currently in danger of losing BIG this November? Well, Stan Isaacs has a "terrific" idea:

This may come as a surprise to some people, but the U.S. Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court.

So if nine justices is not writ in stone, the embattled President Obama should deal with this hostile conservative/reactionary court by adding three members.

Yes, absolutely brilliant. Piss off the electorate to the Nth degree -- much more than they already are -- and be prepared to see a GOP majority in the House and Senate for years, possibly decades to come, not to mention in the White House after 2012.

Then there's this bit of further brilliance:

The court's recent controversial decision equating corporations with individuals turned an already overly money-influenced campaign system into a veritable free-for-all of propaganda for corporate and vested interests. It was met with criticism by most legal scholars, praised only by corporate mouthpieces.

Even Barack "Can't We All Get Along?" Obama criticized the decision in his State of the Union speech. A lot of good that will do. The court has four hard-liners who are against what Obama strives for, and a so-called swing voter, Anthony Kennedy, who votes with them in the big cases.

Indeed -- the solution to a disliked SCOTUS decision isn't a constitutional amendment, as is the usual procedure for a checks and balance, it's to pack the high court with political hack lawyers who'll do your bidding!

Amazingly, Isaacs proposes this, even though he notes how FDR's attempt at such ultimately was aborted -- because the public reacted very negatively to it. Genius!

He ends his "thoughtful" essay thusly: "It would be a tumultuous fight, but it would be for a change we could believe in."

"We?" Speak for yourself, Stan.

Posted by Hube at 08:03 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Words of wisdom

By one of my favorite education pundits, Michael Lopez:

It’s not fashionable to say this… but I suspect that there would be a lot fewer discipline problems that actually needed to be addressed if students could lose their public school privileges.

Students who act out in class are implicitly representing that they don’t *value* the educational experience. People have a funny way of suddenly valuing things when they are taken away, or even when it’s possible that they will be taken away.

I’m all for public schools, in much the same way I’m for public highways. But we take away the driving privileges of people who don’t value the highway system. And the fact that we *can* take away someone’s driving privileges keeps most people in line.

Brilliant, as Michael's comments usually are. Unfortunately, this makes too much sense, and public ed. is usually found wanting in that realm ...

Posted by Hube at 04:58 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Hube's Spanish Language Video of the Week

Los Amigos Invisibles' latest: "Sueño Erótico" ("Erotic Dream") off of their latest disc, Commerical. (N-exactly-SFW.)


Posted by Hube at 03:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Bill Maher is "smarter" than all of us, sure ...

... and I bet he'll keep insisting on that even as he fails to sell tickets to his shows:

Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly did a show at Westbury in January. So did Bill Maher. Westbury is on Long Island and the theatre is small, perhaps 3000 seats. It is theatre in the round and sometimes they run it as half round.

The Beck/O'Reilly show started out 1/2 round and sold out in minutes. People called for hours wanting tickets. Then Westbury decided to go full round the next day and the rest sold out within an hour. People called for weeks wanting tickets.

On the other hand, the Bill Maher show only sold about 70% of the 1/2 round at Westbury. The show sold so poorly that they closed the back seats and moved people forward to make it look better.

Yeah, but y'know -- Beck and O'Reilly just "appeal to the worst in us," while Maher is so very intellectual -- so much so that "dumb" America must just not "get him." And don't take my word for it -- he said so himself!

Posted by Hube at 03:44 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Based on "progressive" "logic" we should be wary of possible leftist terrorists at all costs!!

Via the Smoking Gun:

After the Department of Justice last month formally closed its probe of the 2001 anthrax attacks, the FBI released the first batch of documents detailing the years-long investigation that ended with officials concluding that Bruce Ivins, a government scientist who committed suicide in July 2008, was responsible for the mailings that killed five victims.

He (an FBI supervisor) then noted that agents searching his basement would find a "bag of material that he uses to 'cross-dress,'" according to an interview report. During a January 2008 meeting with agents, Ivins described his bizarre decades-long "obsession" with the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority, and detailed how he broke into two KKG chapters to steal ritual books used by the group. He also told of "another of his obsessions, blindfolding or bondage." Three months before his suicide, surveillance agents sifted through trash Ivins left at his curb and discovered that the beleaguered scientist was disposing of pornographic magazines, fetish titles, and 15 pairs of stained women's panties.

In a July 2008 e-mail, Ivins wrote that "Dick Cheney scares me. The Patriot Act is so unconstitutional it's not even funny." He added, "I'm voting for Obama!"

"Progressive" "logic" thus dictates, as the post's title says, that we should be very vigilant of Obama supporters as potential terrorists. Not only that, but cross-dressing men into sexual fetishes!

UPDATE: Maybe Al Gore should be blamed for these suicide pact deaths.

Posted by Hube at 03:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Dopey Philly Daily News Letter of the Week

Lora Neal of Philadelphia seems to have a bit of cognitive dissonance:

I'm in total agreement with [a previous letter writer] concerning this country being so racist and bigoted toward President Obama.

George W. Bush ruined this country, and he was never held liable for it because he was a white man living in a white world. But Obama will come out on top because he has the Lord on his side.

If the people in this country would stop being so caught up in the color of a person's skin and follow the lead of the great Martin Luther King Jr. and judge a person by the content of his character, this world would be a better place to live in.

If I've heard that a Republican has "ruined this country" or something similar once, I've heard it a thousand times. Nevertheless, how wasn't Bush held liable? His party suffered a catastrophic defeat in 2008! Nevertheless, Neal's "logic" disintegrates because she wants everyone to "judge a person by the content of his character," yet she calls the country "racist" against Barack Obama ... why, precisely? Because he's been criticized? B-b-b-but ... I thought we were supposed to judge a person by the content of his character!! But since President Obama is [half] black, that criticism is ... racist?

But ... I thought were supposed to judge a person by the content of his character ... !! But ... !!

Yeesh.

Posted by Hube at 03:23 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack