September 30, 2010

Puritanism: Alive and well

It seems that the Cincinnati Reds offended some people by smoking a few cigars after clinching the National League Central Division:

Impressionable utes weren't the only ones watching when Cincinnati Reds owner Bob Castellini (right) passed out victory cigars and then lit up after his team clinched the NL Central title at Great American Ball Park on Tuesday.

Also watching at home on television were at least five whistle-blowers who noted that the Reds were violating Ohio's indoor-smoking ban. They called Cincinnati's health department to report the team and now the Cincinnati Enquirer reports the club is under investigation.

No one will actually be punished for this horrible infraction since health inspectors must actually catch the offender in the act in order for the horrible criminals to be prosecuted.

It's bad enough that people could be fined for smoking in a private room not open to the public, but they were celebrating a great accomplishment which many of them may never see again. What's even worse that at least five people who were taking the time to watch a team celebrate a victory took the time to call and file complaints about them smoking.

Puritanism has been defined as the fear that someone, somewhere might be having a good time. It's clearly still alive and well, at least in Cincinnati.

Posted by PaulSmithJr at 09:33 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

R.T.T.T. stress -- and more

Saw this story over at Joanne Jacobs' edu-blog:

An elementary school teacher from South Gate who mysteriously disappeared last week was found dead about 9 a.m. Sunday in the Angeles National Forest, authorities have confirmed.

The Coroner confirmed the body found by a search and rescue team near Big Tujunga Canyon Road is that of Rigoberto Ruelas, 39, a fifth grade teacher at Miramonte Elementary School.

Authorities said it is a suicide, but did not say how he killed himself. An autopsy is scheduled for Monday.

Friends and family said he was feeling stressed about work and a recent teacher evaluation report printed in the Los Angeles Times.

"He kept saying that there's stress at work," said Ruelas' brother, Alejandro.

In my opinion, Ruelas had problems that went beyond just the reporting of his teacher rating in the paper. The report in the LA Times was this. The paper used a "value-added" analysis which "estimates the effectiveness of a teacher by looking at the test scores of his students."

Each student's past test performance is used to project his performance in the future. The difference between the child's actual and projected results is the estimated "value" that the teacher added or subtracted during the year. The teacher's rating reflects his average results after teaching a statistically reliable number of students.

But then we read this under the "What are some of the limitations of the value-added approach?" section:

Scholars continue to debate the reliability of various statistical models used for value-added estimates. Each has an inherent error rate that is difficult to measure. Value-added estimates may be influenced by students not being randomly assigned to classes, or by students moving from class to class during a single year. Likewise, they could be misleading for teachers who team-teach. Even many critics of the approach, however, say value-added is a vast improvement on the current evaluation system, in which principals make subjective judgments based on brief pre-announced classroom visits every few years.

I don't know how many times I've opined here and elsewhere on the idea of basing teacher evaluations solely on student test scores; if you (the public) want that to be the way your teachers get evaluated on their "effectiveness," so be it. You pay our salaries, after all. But the Times itself admits, this value-added method has its skeptics -- there's plenty of debate on its use -- yet it still thought it a good idea to publish the supposed "effectiveness" of all area 3rd, 4th and 5th grade teachers via the method. And even though, through its article FAQ, it notes the limitations of "value-added," how many people would actually take the time to comb through it? Or (more likely) will parents and others merely head for the "Find A Teacher" and "Find A School" menus and take what the results say as gospel? For me, this is essentially the same as a biased newspaper headline -- people see the headline, and barely scan the actual article.

I've also opined that I have little difficulty with such assessments if they're well thought-out and fair. In Ruelas' case, I was left wondering (and perhaps I missed something from the various pages of the Times story) about the across-grade comparison. For example, say a student has truly excellent teachers in 3rd and 4th grade. But then when they reached Ruelas in 5th grade, their test scores dipped -- because, say, Ruelas was just slightly "worse" a teacher than his 3rd and 4th grade counterparts. Contrariwise, Ruelas rating would be the opposite if his 3rd and 4th grade colleagues weren't very adequate; his rating would be positive since when they got to him the students' scores went up a bit. In other words, it is highly dependent on the teachers that precede you for your rating. Not very good teachers preceding you can "mask" another bad teacher, and very good teachers can "mask" another very good teacher.

Delaware is moving in this direction, and trust me -- if you know anyone in education in the first state, they probably don't know much about Race to the Top (RTTT) and, specifically, how it will affect them yet. But it's here now. Don't'cha think they should know (by now)?

In my case, I teach a first-year course. What would be my baseline? There's no teachers in the pipeline before me that teach the subject. Should I assume that I'll always get an "effective" (or "highly effective") rating since it's essentially inevitable that my students will show progress ... because they've never had the subject before me? I don't know! Apparently, we have to have a baseline test in place by next school year. What is it? I don't know. How will I be measured? I don't know. What exactly is on this test? I don't know.

And so on. Yet, this will be part of my job evaluation.

That's why I titled this post what I did. Again, ask educators across the state if they're 1) anxious, 2) uncertain, 3) stressed beyond belief, 4) scared, and 5) very worried. I bet all five will be an "affirmative." I've never seen a school year begin like this. But I will tell you that if things had been concretely laid out and teachers knew what to expect -- and how they'll be evaluated ... well, it'd be a whole different story.

Par for the course for the state? Don't get me started.

Posted by Hube at 07:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 29, 2010

Edu-nonsense hits lower Delaware

Protesters Demand Indian River Schools Hire More Minorities.

About two-dozen people protested outside a school board meeting Tuesday night demanding the Indian River School District do more to hire minorities.

Of the 498 employees in the school district, fewer of 50 of them are minority in terms of race, Pastor Claudia Waters said. Waters, who conducted that research on her own, helped organize the rally.

Waters said hiring more minorities would help bridge the achievement gap by enhancing diversity and culture in the classroom.

Pastor Marvin Morris said students need teachers of all races in order to receive a proper education.

To Ms. Waters: Really? Let's see the research on how "enhancing diversity and culture" reduces the achievement gap.

To Mr. Morris: Define "proper."

Call me silly, but I thought that hiring the most qualified teachers would be the most beneficial thing for students.

Posted by Hube at 09:46 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Aside from the fact that they elected him!

Former operative for President Barack Obama as “Deputy Field Organizer” at Obama for America: "White people have simply gone sheer f***ing insane."

Posted by Hube at 05:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

It's only "destructive" when you disagree with me

Yesterday we saw how our illustrious leader called Fox News "destructive" for daring to have opinions he doesn't share; as if on cue, we see whose opinions The Messiah admires:

[WH deputy press secretary Bill] Burton added that Obama does want to make sure that people on the left and right know that the administration's "done a lot" and that "we've got a lot more to do." He then lauded the efforts of MSNBC's top liberal hosts.

"And if you're on the left, if you're somebody like Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow or one of the folks who helps to keep our government honest and pushes and prods to make sure that folks are true to progressive values," Burton continued, "then he thinks that those folks provide an invaluable service. But at the same time, we need to focus our energy and our efforts on the choice that Americans have this fall."

Yeah -- "keeping our government honest" means "parroting every f***ing thing we say" Burton actually meant.

Posted by Hube at 05:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

And now, a fisking

It's been a while but it's time for a Fisking:

Castle Should Run

Now I’m all for people speaking their mind.

So far so good. He's at odds with the partisans who want everyone to shut up (execpt themselves of course)

I’m all for supporting the majority.

Be wary of the majority. Slavery was once the opinion of the majority. Principles and majority opinion are frequently at odds.

And like the founding fathers, I have implicit faith in the ability of the people to sort out our problems and separate wheat from the chaff… if not the first time, then definitely over time.

Why then do you align yourself to a party that is so bent on control?

Most ordinary people I know have far more wisdom than any leader I’ve had the privilege to share conversation with.

There may be hope yet.

Therefore I believe in the sanctity of the people’s choice. If the people voted him in, he’s there for a reason.

Ah but as we'll see that sanctity only extends to the preferred candidate. If he loses that sanctity goes out the window.

But that’s only if the election was fair. If someone padded the ballot box, or switched vote totals, than obviously this premise wouldn’t apply for the very reason that the choice of the people was not the person who was actually representing them.

Ah, so we have a suggestion that the election was not fair. That there was some fraud. It couldn't be otherwise. Not possible.

Mike was bushwhacked, sort of like the US was at Pearl Harbor or on 09/11

And we're off the cliff. Comparing the acts of war and terrorism that murdered Americans to a 40 year politician losing his job is simply beyond the pale.

…Reading his interview yesterday in the News Journal, one gets a sense that perhaps this was not a fair fight….

What does that mean? How was it "unfair"? Unfair is one of liberalisms favorite words because it's a slippery concept. Ask a liberal to define fairness and you'll never get a straight answer.

By election laws it was, and we all have to accept the primary results. However, if Mike doesn’t run as a write-in, he is putting himself in the same position as if the United States did nothing after Pearl Harbor or 9/11….

Now that alleged sanctity of the people's choice is now equated to Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Got that Delaware? You are either Imperial Japanese Kamikazi pilots or Islamic Terrorists, take your pick.

And with Mike, it is not about winning, although winning would be nice.

Completely wrong. It's ALL ABOUT winning. That is it. Nothing else matters. The only thing Mike Castle has never waivered on is his firm belief that Mike Castle needs to be in office.

It would be about whether good or evil triumphed.

Once again, either Christine O'Donnell is evil or the sanctity of the people's choice is evil. O'Donnell is not merely wrong, no that's not enough. She is evil. By extention the people of Delaware are fans of evil since they voted for her.

Polls say it’s Mike’s race to lose.

It appears he's already lost by not making it on to the ballot. I have yet to see a poll that claims Mike Castle can win as a write in. The only reason he'd do that is to hurt O'Donnell.

He actually has enough money to send every voter a personal card telling them exactly how much he’s done for them,

Which is not likely to impress too many people.

how that will soon change for the worse,

What with the RINO out and an actual Republican in.

and explain how to write in his name and send the evil perpetrators back to their cardboard boxes.

There's that word again. EVIL. The "perpatrators" are the voters of Delaware.

If Mike doesn’t do this…. exactly then, what is he saying to future generations of Americans? ?

Oh, maybe that nobody should be in political offices for 40 years? That you should actually respect the will of the voters? That the polical process actually works? That new people in goverment is a good idea? Heaven forfend?

That we should just give up when hit from behind with a baseball bat?

Voting is now equivalent to felony assault. Well, at least it's no longer terrorist murder so I guess that's progress.

That it’s the American way to lay down and bend over?

How do you bend over when you're already laying down?

That being a man, is knowing when to run away and hide?

Or being a man means knowing how to lose gracefully?

That brutality and tastelessness are the new American Way?

Voting is downgraded again to brutal and tasteless. If this goes on any longer we may be back into the positive.

That perhaps Christine was right?

Careful, you're straying close to the truth. Quick, say something absurd and get back on track!

Castle has no man pants on?

He never did. He's milquetoast in a rumpled suit.

That the wishes of Delawareans don’t matter; we’ll stop immediately and do what Californians tell us?

Um...what? Are Californians now driving to Delaware to vote in our primaries? Is it some sort of mind beams that zombify Delawareans? Frankly I can't believe I've found a liberal who doesn't want California to tell us what to do.

That how we brush off defeat is a better mark of character, than coming back strong and punishing the evil that befell us?

More evil. I missed the step where the sanctity of the people's choice morphed into evil. I guess it's only evil when they don't vote for RINO's and Democrats.

And sentences keep coming one after another… the list keeps going on…

I know it's weird, right?

But if I were in Mike Castles shoes, and if it were me looking over the entire scene before me… I would have no choice but to say I’m in… Oh yes, I would wait till the last minute of September 30th to do so… and I would create a smoke cloud beforehand by pretending to roll over and let bygones be bygones… …. …. and from somewhere out of the fog, then overwhelmingly, I’d strike.

I think someone needs to look up the definition of "sanctity".

I wouldn’t hold back.. It’d be my last race, it would be the one I pulled all my stops for. Every person I’d ever helped would get a personal appeal from me. Unconditional Surrender would be our rallying cry, just like for the troops of WWII… Our goal would be not just to win, but destroy the O’Tea Party forever.

Unconditional Surrender is Obama's foreign policy. I don't think he'd appreciate Castle using it for his campaign. Castle misunderestimated O'Donnell. Either way, this is his last race. Write in or not, he's done and he knows it. Any campaign now is scorched earth. A more fitting slogan I'd say.

Ok, Hannity O’Tea Partiers: so you were secretly prepared and yes, you overran Poland, and yes, you then went on to incorporate the Low Countries, Denmark and Norway, and even surprised France pushing their ally Britain into the water… But this time, you went too far.. You’ve taken on the United States. You’ve pissed off someone five times your size. We will Normandize you, Elbetize you, Dresdenize you, give you a Kolnectomy, Rhineantipuovertize you, Remagenisque you, and even liposuctionize your Battle of the Bulge. We will Pattontize you, Bradleydice you, and Marshall you into a corner from where you can’t maneuver.. We will take average civilians and turn them into a fighting force the world has never seen…

So now Americans are Nazis. Godwin's law violation. Why are Tea Partiers not "average civilians"?

We will do so for the honor of America.

Translation: the only way to honor America is to firebomb our fellow Americans who want to vote. For the wrong people.

What kind of an America? An America where truth wins out, where decency prevails, where honesty and hard work eventually win out over trickery, skulduggery, and political assassination.

Now voting is "trickery, skulduggery and political assassination".

You wanted to play dirty?

The MSM is calling O'Donnell a self confessed whore and you're saying they're playing dirty?

We’ll show you how it’s done

Of that I have no doubt. See; Maher, Bill; Axelrod, David et al.

… In doing so we will show the world that modernism prevails

Threats of violence and fighting dirty is modernism?

, that decent people still run America.

You just told me I'm a Nazi, you're going to firebomb me and fight dirty and you call yourself decent?

that the “Boehner Bullshit” is just that.

See Boehner has nothing to do with the Tea Party. I think he's smart enough to know that he either needs to get on that bandwagon or it's going to run him over but that's about it.

It’s time to show the world what we’ve known all along.. That in America, it’s the people who run politics..Not the Politics who run the people…..

OK you started off by telling me that the people should choose. Then you said that you respect that choice. Unless they choose O'Donnell over Castle in which case they are terrorist murders. And Nazis. And that the good, decent people will fight them. Dirty. And firebomb them with no quarter until they are destroyed.

I’d tell every Delawarean… Do yourself a favor… Turn off your TV’s.. You got a question? Call me or my staff directly! We’ll talk to you… try talking back to their commercials! Where will that get you?

Um...people don't call their politicans because they know they're going to get a line of bullshit regardless of party. Who exactly is talking back to commercials?

That stuff they’re airing? That’s not Delaware talking, That’s California money talking

Again, hatin' on California. Weird for a liberal. If I say something about Delaware that is true and I'm in California at the time does that mean it's no longer true? Does this rule apply to Mike Castle? How can he work in DC if truth about Delaware is confined to Delaware.

… That’s rich bitch snitch drug money being laundried to throw a Senate seat into supporting their snatching up of all your money

I was afraid we weren't going to get slandered with drug lord references but Kavips pulls it out at the last minute. Nice save. About the money: 1. I don't have any more money and neither do you. Obama spent it all on the stimulus that didn't work. And my kids money. And their kids' money. 2. The entire point of the Tea Party is to not take your money. They want you to keep your money so Washington has to do without and you don't.

… You want to keep some of your money? Call me. Call my staff… That’s Delaware talking.

Such a statement coming from anyone supporting either the stimulus or the health care plan is delusional.

Do you want reason to take on ins’hannity?

I'm usually a fan of puns but this is bad. Hannity isn't a Tea Party guy. He's a conservative.

Well, it’s on. Support me. You can’t let the devil win… “

Now O'Donnell or the Tea Party or the people of Delaware are the devil.

Well anyway, if I were Castle, that’s exactly what I’d do. And I would do it selflessly, not to win, but to give Delawarean another alternative between a Democrat and our equivalent of the brown shirts of the Nazi Party.

Wow. Harsh criticism for Democrats. He wants an alternative to Democrats! Oh, and you're still a Nazi.

Yes, if there is still good left in America, then Castle needs to run.
If the doesn’t, then the America that came back after Pearl Harbor……. is gone

In case you didn't get the first 55 examples. Either we vote for Castle or we're Nazi terrorist evil drug lord devils from California or something.

Posted by Duffy at 05:40 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Still more evidence the Left doesn't understand the Constitution

And on it rolls. First, when opponents of the Ground Zero mosque expressed -- get it? Merely expressed -- their disagreement over its location, The Messiah and his willing cohorts in the MSM attempted to make the case that it was all about "freedom of religion." Of course, the vast majority of the mosque opponents understand what freedom of religion is all about; they just don't want the mosque located where it's planned. That's all. That's called "freedom of expression."

Back in June, several evangelists were arrested at an Arab cultural festival for "disorderly conduct" for -- gasp!! -- handing out Christian literature. Thankfully, they were recently acquitted of the charges. (Check out the video at the second link to see how "disorderly" they were.) If the First Amendment wasn't stepped on enough by these folks' arrest, Dearborn Mayor Jack O'Reilly added insult to injury by opining

"It's really about a hatred of Muslims. That is what the whole heart of this is ... Their idea is that there is no place for Muslims in America. They fail to understand the Constitution."

Uh, no, Jack -- you clearly fail to understand the Constitution. The public should recall your sorry ass immediately for not being able to grasp this most rudimentary of constitutional rights.

Posted by Hube at 05:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 28, 2010

Obama shows how he's a true progressive

And that is by calling points of view different from his own "destructive":

Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press. We’ve got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated. The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints. I think Fox is part of that tradition — it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it’s that Fox is very successful.

The question is, just how far can The Messiah go to prove how out of touch he is with the country? Polls show that FNC is the most watched and most trusted news source today. Obama's sinking in the polls with Election Day right around the corner -- and this is what he offers up? Didn't the constant attacks on the Tea Party teach him and his fellow progressives (like MSNBC) anything? -- that it's only gonna backfire? And c'mon, "destructive?" Like a true "progressive," it isn't enough to merely disagree. Your opponent must be deemed EEEEEVIL!!

My buddy Brent e-mails me "I love the last paragraph. It's not like we're still looking for Bin Laden or anything right?!"

Ace writes:

Call me when Fox News has put this country on a path to fiscal ruin. Call me when Fox News has endangered the health care of nearly every American. And call me when Fox News has sold out freedom loving allies to authoritarian thugs.

Until then Mr. President...shut the fu** up.

Oh one other thought...this "golden age of an objective press" Obama misses so much? Yeah, that's when the mainstream media consisted of the 3 networks regurgitating what they read in the liberal NY Times earlier in the day. All this holding liberal propaganda to some competition and fact checking is so darn destructive to the country.

Indeed. And what's more destructive, Mr. President -- Fox News or, say, a Justice Department that consciously violates the Voting Rights Act?

Posted by Hube at 06:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Conservative "orthodoxy" equals ... communism?

Heard on Al Mascitti's WDEL show (circa 9:25am): The difference between liberals and conservatives is that for the former, "their ideas don't have to meet a test of orthodoxy."

Oh, really?

C'mon. The premise is laughable on its face. Just off the top of my head I could ask "Ever been on an American campus?" Don't tell me there's "no test of orthodoxy" among the left there. Just scour FIRE's archives for myriad instances of such. And anyone recall the imbroglio over the University of Delaware's "Residence Life" program? Yeah, "no test of orthodoxy there," either.

Wanna run for [higher] Democrat office? Better be pro-choice. Better be for affirmative action. Better be for gun control. Etc, etc.

OK, you might wanna quibble that such "progressive" stances don't necessarily equate to "Democrat." True. But much more often than not they do.

Mascitti also quoted from China-loving NY Times columnist Tom Friedman's latest China-praising column and argued that pure, laissez-faire capitalism isn't necessarily superior, as the world's most populous nation has shown. (Friedman cites numerous examples of how China is prospering, doing things quickly, and leading the way in certain areas of innovation.) However, conservatives, according to Mascitti, will refuse to accept this due to their ingrained [capitalist] dogma.

Except that, let's take a gander:

  • Empire State Building: 410 days to build.
  • Rockefeller Center (14 buildings): nine years—of which Radio City Music Hall was done in the first two years and 30 Rock in three.
  • Golden Gate Bridge: four years.
  • Hoover Dam: five years.
  • North American P-51 Mustang fighter: 119 days.
  • The Pentagon: two years.
  • Manhattan Project: three years.
  • Gateway Arch: two years.
  • Apollo Program: eight years.

Note, some of these are private, some are government-built, some are private contractors building for the government. So that's not the key vector, is it? So, Friedman, what's the key factor here? Might it be regulation and the ability of small groups to tie up large projects through politics? If so, how do you square that with your advocacy of an increasingly large, progressive state? Or do you think our already large state just needs more power and will? If that's the case, how do you disentangle yourself from association with the Continental, particularly German political-philosophical schools who followed that to some very troubling ends in Germany, Russia, Italy, etc.?

Indeed, as noted above, it seems the US is already making use of varying manifestations of capitalism and/or socialism (for lack of a better term) and has been for decades, despite Mascitti's contention that Republicans' desire for only the former is somehow stagnating our country when it comes to competing with China. I mean, also as noted above, might the culprit not be "regulation and the ability of small groups to tie up large projects through politics?" The difference between China and us in this regard is that the former's government doesn't give a sh** about any of that when it comes to doing something and getting it done. The US can't -- and won't -- not give a sh** about because the very structure of our politcal system won't allow it. And even so -- which philosophy favors increased regulation and the ability of small groups to so influence [economic] projects? It sure ain't the conservative/Republican one, that's for sure.

Lastly, Mascitti laughingly ascribed the supposed conservative/GOP rigid orthodoxy as being analogous to ... communism. That's right -- because nothing in the old Soviet Union was permissible unless it met the strict philosophical guidelines of the Politburo. Of course, as just outlined, what's more communistic -- innumerable barriers to growth and advancement ... or less? And which political party favors which approach here?

I wrote two months ago that Al is essentially "forcing it" -- he's trying too hard to be a rigid progressive and it really doesn't suit him. Making ridiculous comments like conservative orthodoxy = communism ... well, that's LGOMB stuff.

Posted by Hube at 05:48 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 27, 2010

MSNBC "really" branching out

... not to mention "really" caring about improving its ratings.

Tonight is the debut of frequent-insane-tirade-launcher Lawrence O'Donnell's show, "The Last Word." As to celebrate, Newsbusters has compiled some of Lar's most memorable breakdowns on air for your entertainment!

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

I wasn't yet a customer; now I definitely won't become one

Netflix CEO: Americans are 'self-absorbed.'

In a recent interview, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings responded to a question whether his American customers were likely to be disgruntled about the cheaper deal Netflix is offering Canadians: “How much has it been your experience that Americans follow what happens in the world? It's something we'll monitor, but Americans are somewhat self-absorbed.”

Reeeeeaaaal smart there, Reed. 'Ya'd think a CEO of a service industry just might be smart enough not to piss off customers, current and potential.

Cretin.

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

Some of the news that's fit to print

"Liberal Groups Planning to Rally on National Mall" is a headline in yesterday's NY Times. In it we read:

Hoping to overshadow last month’s large rally led by Glenn Beck that drew many Tea Party advocates and other conservatives, a coalition of liberal groups plan to descend on Washington on Saturday to make the case that they, and not the ascendant right, speak for America’s embattled middle class.

Predicting a crowd of more than 100,000, some 300 liberal groups — including the N.A.A.C.P., the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the National Council of La Raza and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force — are sponsoring a march on Saturday in the hope of transforming the national conversation so it focuses less on the Tea Party.

“The Tea Party has been getting much more media attention than it deserves, and it’s been saying it represents the voice of middle-class America,” said George Gresham, president of 1199 S.E.I.U., a New York health care union local, who says his union has chartered 500 buses to carry 25,000 union members to the rally. “A lot of us feel we have to get a different voice out there speaking for working people, one respecting the diversity of this country, which the Tea Party does not.”

Uh huh. What the Times doesn't tell you about (h/t to Jonah G.) are some of the other groups sponsoring the event. Let's take a look, shall we?

  • ANSWER
  • Communist Party USA (CPUSA)
  • Democratic Socialists of America
  • Detroit Democratic Socialists of America
  • Friends of the Earth
  • Humanist Party, New York City Chapter
  • International Socialist Organization
  • Mass Transgender Political Coalition
  • National Center for Transgender Equality
  • National Immigrant Solidarity Network
  • New York City Democratic Socialists of America
  • US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation
  • Welfare Rights Committee

Indeed. These groups are speaking for you and me -- average, working, middle-class Americans.

No freakin' wonder the Times omitted them. I doubt, however, that if some far-right groups were supporting a Beck rally, the Times would have any qualms about printing their support.

Posted by Hube at 04:48 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

No sh**, Sherlock

Obama: D.C. schools don't measure up to his daughters' private school.

And why would that be, Mr. President? Why would let lapse a voucher program for DC students ... so that they might get a semblance of the same education your own daughters get for $31,000 per year??

Ye gad. Hurry up, 2012.

Posted by Hube at 04:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Halp us Jon Kerry...

John Kerry: Democrats’ woes stem from uninformed voters: “We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening,” Kerry told reporters after touring the Boston Medical Center yesterday."

Yeah. Simple slogans like "Yes We Can!" and "Hope!" and "Change!"

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

September 26, 2010

"Nice white lady"

Edu-blogger Joanne Jacobs notes an article about the Hollywood formula of "white knight" teachers that come in to "save the day" for tough, urban schools. I had written about precisely this almost four years ago (and to which Joanne linked) and noted a few stand-out flicks that focus on outstanding minority teachers (who're those usually in the trenches at tough, urban schools) such as "Lean on Me," "187" and "Stand and Deliver."

But the best part of Jacobs' post is the link provided in the comments by the ever-awesome Michael Lopez (a former edu-blogger himself) to a video from "Mad TV" titled "Nice White Lady" -- a hilarious satire of that aforementioned Hollywood formula.

Posted by Hube at 11:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Watcher's Council results

First place in the Council category was The Razor with Does Islam Tolerate Secularism?

First place in the non-Council category was Caroline Glick with Who Lost Turkey?

Full results are here.

Posted by Hube at 09:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 25, 2010

Ye gad

John Rosenberg (whom I consider my blog "godfather" for inspiring me to get into blogging) has yet another unintentionally funny essay up about "diversity-mania" in higher education. This time, diversophiles are concerned that "not enough" minorities are signing up for study abroad programs.

Well, rat's bit. Looks like my program back in the mid-80s (in Costa Rica) was in "violation." Of the thirteen of us, there was only one minority (a black male). That's about seven and a half percent. Oh, wait -- since black males make up roughly six percent of the general population, does this mean this group was over-represented in our study abroad program? Or, do we include the total African-American population (approx. 12%) and conclude that this group was under-represented? (Of course, if you know anything about the philosophy of diversophiles, over-representation of minorities isn't of any concern.)

Thus, the continuing inanity of "diversity" and "proportionate representation" rocks on ...

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds knows: "It’s only a diversity problem if the gap goes the other way. Duh." He said this in reference to the huge gender gap in higher education.

Posted by Hube at 11:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Castle "50/50 chance" of mounting write-in campaign?

Jim Geraghty reports:

One of my Delaware guys — very plugged into state Republican circles, closer to the Mike Castle fans than the Christine O’Donnell fans — sends me a bombshell:
I am hearing from a credible source that Castle’s odds of mounting a write-in campaign are as high as 50-50. They believe they can win, and lots of anecdotal evidence that I can share tells me this: most independents and even many Democrats are very unhappy with the choice between O’Donnell and Coons. People are telling me:

O’Donnell is awful on personal character but right on the public policy issues.

Coons has outstanding character who will be a rubber stamp for Obama-Biden.

I would surmise that key operatives in Republican circles would give Castle a wink and a nod: either Castle wins or O’Donnell wins in a three-way; O’Donnell cannot win in a two-way – so a write-in is worth a roll of the dice. Castle’s team plans to run him as a moderate and then promise to caucus with the GOP to reassure some of the Republican base.

The conventional wisdom seems to be that a Castle third option would guarantee either a Castle or O'Donnell victory. In the entire scheme of things, this is the preferable outcome, in my view; however, I've already opined that Castle doing this is just blatant egotism and disloyalty. Where does it end?

I dunno. But I do know this: Coons is certainly the worst option of the three.


Posted by Hube at 11:29 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

How unserious are Congressional Democrats?

As you're no doubt aware, Stephen Colbert testified (in character) before a Congressional committee yesterday. Some have speculated that this testimony was a distraction designed to draw attention away from the testimony for the former head of the Department of Justice's Voting Rights Section Christopher Coates who exposed the Obama Administration's history of racially based administration of justice.

I'm not sure that's true. It's not like the media would be rushing to cover a scandal embarrassing to Obama, especially this close to an election. Still that leaves us with possibilities:

  1. The speculation is true and Congressional Democrats invited a fictional character to testify before Congress in an attempt to cover up politically damaging testimony of potentially illegal behavior by the administration.
  2. Democrats actually believed it would be a good use of time and money to have a fictional character come testify before Congress and attempt to enter pictures from his colonscopy into the record. (At least he understood how little respect the hearings deserved.)

Either way, the Democrats are continuing to show they're not up to the task of leadership.

UPDATE (10:25 AM): In case I wasn't clear earlier, the testimony of Mr. Coates was to the US Commission on Civil Rights, not before Congress.

Posted by PaulSmithJr at 09:47 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

September 24, 2010

Is this what's it come to?

"She was a whore by her own admission. She was an alcoholic. She owed her college $5,000 for 10 years – they had to sue her. The IRS levied an $11,000 tax lien against her. I mean, do I need to go on?"

Hold on; she was a whore by her own admission!? An alcoholic? WTF? I've been following this race and I don't remember hearing ANYTHING of the sort. I'm not O'Donnell's biggest fan but this is far beyond the pale. It is slanderous and if I were her, I'd sue.

I'm so tired of this crap. If this were Fox....yeah, we know. The only excuse for this woman not being pilloried Democrats for her statements is that nobody watches Joy Behar.

You wonder why good people don't go into politics? There you go.

Posted by Duffy at 12:01 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

September 23, 2010

He's at it again

It's Delaware Douche at the LGOMB hoping that, if Mike Castle decides to mount a write-in campaign for Senate, O'Donnell's supporters react with violence:

I would love for them to react violently, for it means we could put an end to them by force, just like George Washington did during the Whiskey Rebellion.

Of course, this is the dirtbag who wanted all Republicans rounded up and shot, so this latest should come as no surprise. In addition, you can be sure that if this were radical Muslims potentially engaging in yet another act of terrorism, or a group of minorities rioting over what they saw as an unjust verdict against an excessive force-using cop, Douche and/or his cohorts would be screaming and yelling about the general public's "overreaction" and/or the justification of such violence.

Posted by Hube at 05:45 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Youtube of the day

This is pretty good:

When the Daily Show has turned against Unions, the gig is up:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Working Stiffed
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorTea Party

A collection of quotes that make me wonder if I should be reconsidering just how sympathetic to Marxism the Left really is:

Chris Matthew has a rare moment of sanity:

On a lighter note, here's an awesome taxi

FPS IRL

Nerdy awesome:


Posted by Duffy at 05:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Yeah -- it'll be a sure hit

Via Big Hollywood: The "Matrix" trilogy creators' new film features a gay American soldier who falls for an Iraqi soldier who then both conspire to assassinate President Bush.

I'm sure the public will be knocking down the cinema doors to see this one.

Posted by Hube at 04:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Dopey WNJ Letter of the Week

Harold Minkwitz of Dover seems to like playing the moral equivalence card when it comes to fundie Muslims and fundie Christians. No additional commentary is needed; just savor his utter dopiness.

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

It's "weird"

One of Christine's O'Donnell's more sensible statements was regarding legislation, should she become Delaware's next senator. But Slate's Dahlia Lithwick doesn't see it that way:

I have been fascinated by Christine O’Donnell’s constitutional worldview since her debate with her opponent Chris Coons last week. O’Donnell explained that “when I go to Washington, D.C., the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it is constitutional.” How weird is that, I thought. Isn’t it a court’s job to determine whether or not something is, in fact, constitutional? And isn’t that sort of provided for in, well, the Constitution?

David Bernstein notes:

Short answer: Senators swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. Of course they are obligated to determine whether a bill they are considering is constitutional. Where did Lithwick get the idea that courts, and only courts, should be concerned with the constitutionality of legislation?

Somewhat longer answer: The Constitution doesn’t vest the authority to determine the constitutionality of legislation in any single branch of the government. In fact, not only does the Constitution not grant the judiciary the exclusive power to consider the constitutionality of legislation, it doesn’t speak of judicial review at all. I think that judicial review is implicit in the Constitution, for the reasons stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. But there is no contradiction between allowing the Court to exercise its authority in its own sphere (i.e., when a lawsuit comes before the Court) while the other branches determine the constitutionality of legislation in their own spheres.

Ye gads. Doesn't Ms. O'Donnell have enough baggage without idiot [liberal] pundits attempting to dissect -- and make fun of -- her completely rational statements?

Related: Newsweek's Ben Adler thinks the GOP's "promise to ensure that legislation must be constitutional before it is passed" is "dangerous" because it would be an "encroachment" on the judiciary.

Sheesh.

Posted by Hube at 03:40 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

It's OK -- she's a Democrat

Via Ace: California Rep. Loretta Sanchez is scared that a Vietnamese may take her seat:

That "Vietnamese" is Van Tran, and his website is here.

UPDATE: Jesse Jackson Jr. also shows how, if you're a Democrat, racial insults are OK:

He didn't like questions about the mysterious Indian-American businessmen. The Indians had allegedly offered to raise millions for then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich. All Blagojevich had to do was nominate Jackson to the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President Barack Obama.

"I'm not alone at the meeting," Jackson said on WLS-AM's "Don Wade & Roma" program last week. "Then another gentleman showed up and started having another conversation practically in Hindu. Now, I don't speak Hindu and I don't speak Smarmi and I didn't participate in any of that part of the conversation, nor do I remember hearing it."

Hindu? That's not a language. Hindi is the language. But Smarmi? What the heck is Smarmi?

Hindu, Hindi ... Swami, Swarmi ... c'mon, y'know!

Maybe he should call Veep Joe Biden on advice on how to refer to those from India, eh?

Posted by Hube at 03:36 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 22, 2010

Dumb, stupid move

Mike Castle hasn't ruled out a write-in campaign:

The Delaware Republican said he was considering the option, though he "probably" would not run. He has until Sept. 30 to make a final decision.

Three words, Mike: Don't. Do. It. You'll make yourself look like a power-hungry, entitled, pompous ass. (See: Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.) As I mentioned in a previous post, though I don't have to feel obligated to back Christine O'Donnell, Castle sure should -- since the GOP supported him for most of his [political] life.

Ironically, as Ace notes, a Castle write-in effort may actually serve to benefit O'Donnell:

Advantage O'Donnell? Buzz points out that in practice this may not be such a bad thing. Bear in mind, Castle will bleed off a hell of lot more Coons voters than O'Donnell voters. In fact, I imagine it would be something like 80/20.

That will bring Coons well under 50% (assuming that Castle gets 10-15%). And then O'Donnell can sneak in with a win at 43% or so.

Posted by Hube at 08:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Direct TV commercial's inspiration?

I totally crack up at the dude in this Direct TV commerical:

"I jump in it." LOL!!

I sincerely believe the inspiration for him comes from John Malkovich's classic portrayal of Teddy "KGB" from 1998's "Rounders" (warning: some profanity):


Posted by Hube at 08:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

More on O'Donnell

(Conservative) John Podhoretz on Ms. O'D:

Her standing as a kid pundit is crucial to understanding the reasons why she became a sacrificial-lamb candidate for the Delaware GOP for two cycles before 2010 -- because she had some kind of name and some kind of media experience. She was obscure but had a catchy resume. And as a result of that and other things, she was present to catch a wave against Mike Castle, the mainstream liberal Republican who was the perfect foe for an insurgent movement with passion and seriousness of purpose behind it.

Unfortunately, as O'Donnell's behavior 15 years ago and now attest, there is little evidence of seriousness of purpose (like her workplace lawsuit in particular against the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, in which she demanded damages because she had trouble sleeping) and a great deal of evidence of her fundamental silliness. Booking and canceling television interviews and bouncing around confusedly in the wake of her victory have not inspired confidence in the voters of Delaware. After the election, assuming the tsunami doesn't manage miraculously to carry her over, she will have a second career on the conservative circuit blaming the mainstream media for harming her candidacy.

The only rather "catchy" part of her resume is what Podhoretz writes earlier in his essay -- that O'Donnell was one of a new class of media "pundits who looked and acted like the cast of 'Friends'." Still, O'Donnell and everyone else should know that the MSM will give her no "break" whatsoever, as the silly fixation on her "witchcraft" comments from years ago shows. (Please -- an innocent high school dalliance? Cripes, it wasn't drugs or violent protests, after all!)

But Christine shouldn't complain overmuch -- her predilection for any sort of camera face time in her early days is one of the only "real" jobs she's ever had!

Posted by Hube at 06:34 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Watcher's Council nominations

* The Colossus of Rhodey - “She is a con artist”
* VA Right – Obama Baits Tea Party: Be Specific on Cuts (Like Hope and Change?)
* The Razor – Does Islam Tolerate Secularism?
* Right Truth – Why?
* Snapped Shot – Slow Mo Sighting
* Rhymes With Right – A Whiff of Anti-Semitism
* GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD – Little Satan’s Next War
* Bookworm Room – Being forgiven for our past sins — or, maybe, O’Donnell has grown up
* The Glittering Eye – The Partisan Explanation
* JoshuaPundit – The Obama White House’s Bold New Idea “Hey, Let’s Bash Sarah Palin!!”

And don't forget the non-Council nominations here!

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

September 21, 2010

Is this what you call "pandering to an audience?"

That extremely educated, incredibly smart commander-in-chief:

"Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. The British and French, the Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared the same land," President Obama told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

RealClearPolitics notes: Mexico declared its independence on September 16, 1810. It was recognized on September 27, 1821. The United States of America declared its independence in 1776.

"Long before ..."

Posted by Hube at 09:41 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

O'Donnell's problem

... which (among others) I've mentioned numerous times: Qualifications. Check out the latest Fox News poll:

Regardless of how you plan to vote, do you think Chris Coons is qualified to be a U.S. Senator?

59% Yes
27% No
14% Not sure

Regardless of how you plan to vote, do you think Christine O’Donnell is qualified to be a U.S. Senator?

33% Yes
60% No
8% Not sure

The key is "regardless of how you plan to vote." I'd say "yes" to the former and "no" to the latter myself. Sure doesn't mean I in any way favor Coons' policies and ideas, though!

Look, a guy with just a high school diploma, who's worked manual labor for 15-20 years and successfully raised a family would be more qualified to run for Senate than Christine O'Donnell, in my book. At least the guy's worked, for one thing, and the fact that he's [successfully] raised a family means he's paid his bills and hasn't d***ed around on his obligations.

If such a person was running for Senate, I'd pull the switch for him in a heartbeat.

Posted by Hube at 05:31 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

Whoops

Maybe they're talking about health class?

(h/t to The Corner.)

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

Name the party

What liberal media?

Today, eight city council members were arrested in Bell, California for what Los Angeles County District Attorney labeled "corruption on steroids." Thus far, every major news outlet that has reported on the story has omitted the fact that all eight individuals arrested are Democrats.

These glaring omissions come only weeks after NewsBusters reported that of the 351 stories on the then-brewing controversy, 350 had omitted party affiliations, and one had mentioned they were Democrats only in apologizing for not doing so sooner.

ABC, CBS, the Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, Bloomberg, USA Today, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and the San Francisco Chronicle all reported on the arrests today without mentioning party affiliations.

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

Silly, but effective

This [Delaware GOP House candidate] Glen Urquhart radio jingle has been on local Delaware radio for weeks now. I think it's totally cheesy and silly ... but I can't get the damn thing out of my head! And that's what makes it effective!


Posted by Hube at 04:25 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Our national shame

Read this article. This needs to go viral. I warn you in all seriousness this is not for the feint of heart or weak stomachs.

I was shaking with anger by the end.

Posted by Duffy at 03:25 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Pass the popcorn

First up: Red on Red. Try criticizing the most unpopular Democrat in history and you'll get pilloried. The real fun is in the comments. If you ever needed proof that they're uninterested in anything other than an echo chamber of unending praise for anything labeled "Democrat" look no further.

Andrew Brietbart tries to get union lemmings to explain their protest. Their response? Flee!

See what happens when you don't meekly knuckle under? Know what you're talking about and have cameras and they scurry.

Posted by Duffy at 11:30 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 20, 2010

Something to watch

Best play of the weekend? "Little Giants".

Let's talk about grammar:


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

A few things

Mexico has given us no small amount of grief over the proposed border fence. They've lectured and hectored us ad nauseum. For some reason, it's OK for them to build their own wall with Guatamala. I'm certain they'll tell you it's not raaaaaaaaaacist because brown people can discriminate against other brown people. Or something.

Speaking of Mexico? How bad are things down there? Oh, bad enough that the local newspaper has rolled over and is begging for mercy. They fully acknowledge that the Mexican government is no longer in charge. They are backseaters to the drug lords.

But remember, a border fence is not necessary for our security.

In the "Further Erosion (no pun intended) of Your Rights" section; it is now illegal to build sandcastles on the beach lest someone find out the truth about the oil spill in the gulf. Didja read that again. It. Is. Illegal. To. Build. A. Sandcastle. It is illegal for a reporter to do his job because he might find something that challenges the Official Story. This is the provenance of dictators. It is un-American.

The Teamsters have been in dire straits for some time now. Dwindling membership and diminished clout. How to rejuvenate their numbers? Let pot growers join the union. Kudos to California for being the giant crazy cousin in the attic of all the 50 states.

This thing has the potential to be a game changer. See law enforcement doing something they ought not to be doing? Hit the button and it's uploaded to the web. Even if they take it from you, it's too late. Put these on soldiers and you'd have an information deluge that if you could manage would give you an incalculable advantage in information warfare. Think of Iraq if you had 100,000 cameras engaged and a supercomputer that collate all that information into a knowledge map of who is where and when. Build in facial recognition software and you'd have a surveillance package that would make the Stasi blush.

Posted by Duffy at 05:51 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Here's stuff you need to know about Chris Coons

Stephen Spruiell has a backgrounder on Democrat Senate candidate Chris Coons that all Delawareans, in particular, need to read. Some highlights:

  • “I’m someone who would broadly support the agenda of our president, Coons told a group of supporters. “I think we need more folks in the Senate of the United States who are . . . willing to work in responsible partnership with an administration that I think made the right choice on health care, on the stimulus, on the jobs bill.”

  • "His support for taxpayer-funded abortion and partial-birth abortion earned him a 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America. He favors amnesty for immigrants who are here illegally. His statements on the economy indicate that he thinks we need another stimulus bill."

  • "In 2004, when he was elected county executive of New Castle County, Coons inherited a budget surplus and promised not to raise taxes. He proceeded to break that promise three times between 2006 and 2010, raising property taxes by 5, then 17.5, then 25 percent. When asked about the tax hikes at a recent debate with O’Donnell, Coons said, as reported by the Wilmington News Journal, that 'Without a tax increase, he would have been forced to lay off police and close parks and libraries.'”

While opponent Christine O'Donnell's personal ethics and background are risible, Coons' actual policies and ideas are just loathsome.

Delaware sure has some choice, eh?

Posted by Hube at 05:20 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Patterico on Chris Coons

Commenter "kidney" tipped me to my former "Oh, THAT Liberal Media" blog colleague Patterico's post on Chris Coons' apparent dust-up with far-lefty Alan Muller of Green Delaware:

Tonight I spoke with Alan Muller, who runs a site at Green Delaware — and thinks Chris Coons should be defeated. Mr. Muller wrote a blog post about how he had been harassed by Chris Coons for his local political efforts — in actions that Muller terms evil in a small place:
This is about evil. It could be a lot worse. . . . But it’s evil enough in [its] own little way and the person currently causing our problems, New Castle County Executive Chris Coons, wants to be a United States Senator and apparently has the support of many people who don’t know what he really is.

A key point I want to make is that Coons, a rich boy with a law degree and a Master’s in Ethics from Yale Divinity School, is actually a much nastier, more manipulative, more dangerous, more special-interest-serving person than his thuggish predecessor Tom Gordon.

Patterico continues with Muller saying to him: “I am one of those people who thinks the world is safer with the Democrats in control of the Senate, but I could never support Coons, because he is personally malicious.” He said that Coons is “very bright and he knows how to jerk off the public while representing special interests.”

I highly recommend reading the rest of Patterico's post; however, I'd be a bit wary of taking Muller's word for anything so readily. Fellow Muller far-lefty Dana Garrett begin_of_the_skype_highlighting     end_of_the_skype_highlighting of the Delaware Watch blog has documented instances of Muller's own thuggishness. For instance, Muller

was specifically excluded from the Citizens' Solid Waste Task Force sponsored by Common Cause of Delaware and the Environmentalists for Truth. The reason cited by members of the group is Muller’s tendency not to work well with others. Some have alleged to me that Muller has difficulty tolerating views and approaches other than his own, that he is given to angry outbursts and has a tendency to quit when he doesn’t get his way, as well as a penchant for verbally abusing others. (Link.)

Muller's behavior was an issue with his dismissal from the "Progressive Voices" radio program.

In addition, Green Delaware had trashed Common Cause/Environmentalists for Truth Task Force in e-mails related to issues surrounding the Delaware Solid Waste Authority -- so much so that Dana Garrett felt it necessary to make it known that, although he supports the overall goals of Green Delaware, its actions here were detestable.

Again, I don't yet know enough of the precise facts on Coons' supposed harassment of Muller to make an informed judgment one way or another, Patterico's post included. However, it is clear that Muller himself doesn't have a very sterling personal reputation, and though Chris Coons may "suffer" not having far-lefty Alan Muller in his corner, Muller himself certainly has earned the ire of his fellow far-leftists as well.

UPDATE: Patterico responds to this post.

Posted by Hube at 04:12 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 19, 2010

My bet: Expect this to be a trend

O'Donnell backs out on news shows.

She even backed out on a "friendly" forum, Fox News Sunday, citing exhaustion and scheduling conflicts.

Right.

Posted by Hube at 10:06 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

If she were black, it'd be racism

The LGOMB resorts to birtherism with Christine O'Donnell.

What a hoot.

Posted by Hube at 09:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 18, 2010

Tuesday and the GOP's Chances in November

While much of the analysis of Tuesday's primary elections rightly focused on Christine O'Donnell's huge upset of Mike Castle in the Republican Senate race, there were a number of interesting results further down the ballot that provide evidence that Tuesday's election (and therefore like November's) were the result of anti-establishment feeling among all voters, not just Republicans.

Let's look at some of the results that stood out for me (Unofficial results from Commissioner of Elections):

  • O'Donnell over Castle: This one's obvious. We all know about this.
  • Urquhart over Rollins: Again, we all know about this.
  • Flowers over Jones-Potter: In this race, the incumbent (albeit un-elected) State Treasurer went down to defeat. Although Governor Markell never officially endorsed Jones-Potter, does anyone actually believe he was interested in seeing his hand-picked successor defeated? If nothing else it makes him look a little weak. Also Jones-Potter is a long-time favorite of the establishment, even getting a $150/hour contract from the City of Wilmington to improve morale among employees. Additionally, her husband is a City Councilman.
  • Booth over Bodenweiser: Even though the incumbent won in this case, the fact is he won by less than three points.
  • Bolden over Plant: City Councilwoman Stephanie Bolden took our 5-term incument Hazel Plant, whose husband had held the seat for years before her. Plant was also supported by many of the Democrat hierarchy.
  • Keeley over Bovell: Again, the incumbent won, but this time only by eleven percent over perennial candidate Robert Bovell, who has run for offices under all three major banners: Democrat, Republican and Independent.
  • Smith over Poloquin: The establishment choice won here as well, but by a mere 14 votes. Poloquin's chances might have been helped by contacts and name id from his prior run for State Treasurer.
  • Kilpatrick over Protack: Once again, the establishment choice did much worse than could have been expected against a perennial candidate.
  • Navarro over Walsh: This one's a little trickier, but even though Navarro barely received the party's endorsement over the long-time incumbent Walsh, he still took out a long-time incumbent.

This is likely just a partial list. There were a number of races where I simply had no idea who the establishment candidate was so I couldn't add them to the list above. (For example, I think Matlusky was the favored candidate for State Auditor on the Democrat side, but I wasn't 100% sure so I didn't include that race.) This actually bodes well for Republicans this fall. At a time when the Democrats control the Presidency, both houses of Congress, plus the Governorship and both houses of the Delaware legislature, it should be fairly simple for them to cast themselves as the anti-establishment party in the eyes of the voters. Ironically, the losses by Castle and Rollins may aid in the branding effort.

In addition, many of the upsets and close calls on Tuesday came against those who stood for larger government (Castle, Rollins) or were seen in some way as benefiting from government connections or perks (Jones-Potter, Walsh). Those trends would seem to favor the Republicans given that we are in a fairly solid Democrat state and the Republicans have few ties to the government any more.

Republicans can still benefit from the anger of the voters if they move on from the losses that occurred on Tuesday and remind the voters that they are the change.

Posted by PaulSmithJr at 07:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Nixon is back

As in Tyler Nixon, over at Delaware Libertarian. And you must read his latest on the tax-raising limousine liberal known as Democrat US Senate candidate Chris Coons.

Posted by Hube at 05:56 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

¿Cómo se dice "douchebag?"

Michael Moore: McDonald's at Ground Zero Killed More People Than 9/11 Hijackers.

Posted by Hube at 01:21 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

And on a lighter note ...

I haven't done one of these in years on Colossus. It's the 'ol "Blog Meme" thingamajig. This time it's Which of the Following Flicks Have You Seen, and rumor is that if you've seen 85+, you have no life (which probably includes me, regardless).

( ) Rocky Horror Picture Show
(x) Grease
( ) Pirates of the Caribbean
( ) Pirates of the Caribbean 2: Dead Man's Chest
( ) Boondock Saints
(x) Fight Club
( ) Starsky and Hutch
( ) Neverending Story
(x) Blazing Saddles
(x) Airplane
( ) The Princess Bride
( ) AnchorMan
( ) Napoleon Dynamite
( ) Labyrinth
(x) Saw
(x) Saw II
( ) White Noise
( ) White Oleander
( ) Anger Management
( ) 50 First Dates
( ) The Princess Diaries
( ) The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement
( ) Scream
( ) Scream 2
( ) Scream 3
( ) Scary Movie
( ) Scary Movie 2
( ) Scary Movie 3
( ) Scary Movie 4
(x) American Pie
(x) American Pie 2
(x) American Pie The Wedding
(x) American Pie Band Camp
( ) Harry Potter 1
( ) Harry Potter 2
( ) Harry Potter 3
( ) Harry Potter 4
( ) Resident Evil 1
( ) Resident Evil 2
(x) The Wedding Singer
( ) Little Black Book
( ) The Village
( ) Lilo & Stitch
( ) Finding Nemo
( ) Finding Neverland
( ) Signs
( ) The Grinch
(x) Texas Chainsaw Massacre
( ) Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning
( ) White Chicks
(x) Butterfly Effect
( ) 13 Going on 30
(x) I, Robot
( ) Robots
( ) Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story
(x) Universal Soldier
( ) Lemony Snicket: A Series Of Unfortunate Events
(x) Along Came Polly
(x) Deep Impact
(x) KingPin
( ) Never Been Kissed
(x) Meet The Parents
( ) Meet the Fockers
( ) Eight Crazy Nights
( ) Joe Dirt
( ) King Kong
( ) A Cinderella Story
( ) The Terminal
( ) The Lizzie McGuire Movie
( ) Passport to Paris
(x) Dumb & Dumber
( ) Dumber & Dumberer
( ) Final Destination
( ) Final Destination 2
( ) Final Destination 3
(x) Halloween
( ) The Ring
( ) The Ring 2
( ) Surviving X-MAS
( ) Flubber
( ) Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle
( ) Practical Magic
( ) Chicago
( ) Ghost Ship
( ) From Hell
( ) Hellboy
( ) Secret Window
( ) I Am Sam
( )The Whole Nine Yards
( ) The Whole Ten Yards
(x) The Day After Tomorrow
( ) Child's Play
( ) Seed of Chucky
( ) Bride of Chucky
( ) Ten Things I Hate About You
( ) Just Married
( ) Gothika
(x) Nightmare on Elm Street
(x) Sixteen Candles
(x) Remember the Titans
( ) Coach Carter
( ) The Grudge
( ) The Grudge 2
(x) The Mask
( ) Son Of The Mask
( ) Bad Boys
( ) Bad Boys 2
(x) Joy Ride
( ) Lucky Number Slevin
(x) Ocean's Eleven
( ) Ocean's Twelve
( ) Bourne Identity
( ) Bourne Supremecy
( ) Lone Star
(x) Bedazzled
(x) Predator I
(x) Predator II
(x) The Fog
( ) Ice Age
( ) Ice Age 2: The Meltdown
( ) Curious George
(x) Independence Day
(x) Cujo
( ) A Bronx Tale
( ) Darkness Falls
(x) Christine
(x) ET
( ) Children of the Corn
( ) My Bosses Daughter
( ) Maid in Manhattan
(x) War of the Worlds
( ) Rush Hour
( ) Rush Hour 2
( ) Best Bet
( ) How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days
( ) She's All That
( ) Calendar Girls
( ) Sideways
(x) Mars Attacks
(x) Event Horizon
( ) Ever After
(x) Wizard of Oz
(x) Forrest Gump
( ) Big Trouble in Little China
(x) The Terminator
(x) The Terminator 2
(x) The Terminator 3
(x) X-Men
(x) X-2
(x) X-3
(x) Spider-Man
(x) Spider-Man 2
(x) Sky High
( ) Jeepers Creepers
( ) Jeepers Creepers 2
( ) Catch Me If You Can
( ) The Little Mermaid
( ) Freaky Friday
(x) Reign of Fire
( ) The Skulls
( ) Cruel Intentions
( ) Cruel Intentions 2
( ) The Hot Chick
(x) Shrek
( ) Shrek 2
( ) Swimfan
( ) Miracle on 34th street
( ) Old School
( ) The Notebook
( ) K-Pax
( ) Krippendorf's Tribe
( ) A Walk to Remember
( ) Ice Castles
( ) Boogeyman
( ) The 40-year-old Virgin
( ) Lord of the Rings Fellowship of the Ring
( ) Lord of the Rings The Two Towers
( ) Lord of the Rings Return Of the King
(x) Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark
(x) Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
(x) Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
(x) Baseketball
(x) Hostel
( ) Waiting for Guffman
( ) House of 1000 Corpses
( ) Devils Rejects
( ) Elf
( ) Highlander
( ) Mothman Prophecies
(x) American History X
( ) Three
( ) The Jacket
( ) Kung Fu Hustle
( ) Shaolin Soccer
( ) Night Watch
( ) Monsters Inc.
( ) Titanic
(x) Monty Python and the Holy Grail
( ) Shaun Of the Dead
(x) Willard
( ) High Tension
( ) Club Dread
(x) Hulk
(x) Dawn Of the Dead
( ) Hook
( ) Chronicles Of Narnia The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe
(x) 28 days later
( ) Orgazmo
( ) Phantasm
(x) Waterworld
( ) Kill Bill vol 1
( ) Kill Bill vol 2
( ) Mortal Kombat
(x) Wolf Creek
( ) Kingdom of Heaven
( ) The Hills Have Eyes
( ) I Spit on Your Grave aka the Day of the Woman
( ) The Last House on the Left
(x) Re-Animator
( ) Army of Darkness
(x) Star Wars Ep. I The Phantom Menace
(x) Star Wars Ep. II Attack of the Clones
(x) Star Wars Ep. III Revenge of the Sith
(x) Star Wars Ep. IV A New Hope
(x) Star Wars Ep. V The Empire Strikes Back
(x) Star Wars Ep. VI Return of the Jedi
( ) Ewoks Caravan Of Courage
( ) Ewoks The Battle For Endor
(x) The Matrix
(x) The Matrix Reloaded
(x) The Matrix Revolutions
(x) Animatrix
( ) Evil Dead
( ) Evil Dead 2
( ) Team America: World Police
( ) Red Dragon
(x) Silence of the Lambs
(x) Hannibal

Posted by Hube at 07:52 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

September 17, 2010

I admit it -- I'm seriously considering it too

Former GOP insider and prolific First State blogger Dave Burris has left the Republican Party to become an Independent:

After much thought, I left the Republican Party today and became an Independent. That's all I have to say on the subject at this time.

Me? I remain a GOPer. For now.

Posted by Hube at 09:54 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Chris Coons denies being creepy and disturbing ...

... after Senate Leader Harry Reid calls Coons his 'pet.'

Hans Bader e-mails me the following:

Liberal Delaware Senate candidate "Chris Coons insists that his relationship with Harry Reid is not creepy and disturbing," reports New York Magazine. This comes after Senate Majority Leader Reid called Coons his "pet" ("He's my pet," Reid said twice for emphasis), and suggested that Coons would be "a stooge" for Washington insiders.

"He's my pet. He's my favorite candidate," Reid said. "I just think the world of him. He's my pet." (Coons' own past description of himself as a "bearded Marxist" may also be highlighted in the race).

Harry Reid's remarks have handed conservative Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell her first potential general election ad on a silver platter. O'Donnell defeated moderate Mike Castle, who would have had a much better chance of winning the general election, in the September 14 GOP primary. O'Donnell previously appeared to have no chance of winning in staunchly liberal Delaware. But Reid's remarks, coupled with the fact that O'Donnell has raised well over a million dollars in just the last few days, have given her a small but real chance of winning.

Pollster Rasmussen shows Coons leading O'Donnell by eleven points. He is still heavily favored to win the election -- one pollster gave O'Donnell a 17 percent chance of winning -- but it is no longer a certainty.

The rest of Hans' article is here.

Posted by Hube at 09:44 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Watcher's Council results

First place in the Council category was yours truly, The Colossus of Rhodey, with Gotta love the hypocrisy.

First place in the non-Council category was Chandlers Watch with Violence: Bible vs Koran … Apples and Oranges.

Full results are here.

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

Can't have him walking behind an American -- and especially a Jew!

Egyptian papers photoshop pic of Obama and Middle East leaders.

Posted by Hube at 06:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Whew!

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer clarifies his earlier remarks that burning a Koran might not be protected speech:

CNN’s Larry King: There’s no doubt that Pastor Jones, little church in Florida, had the right, he has the right to burn the Quran, doesn’t he?

Breyer: Yeah, I said it depends on what analogy you use, but the most one analogous case is that there was — you have the right to burn an American flag as a symbol....

King: ... Does [the flag burning decision] make us a great country?

Breyer: It helps. It helps.... [W]hat we’re saying is we protect expression that we hate. And protecting expression that we hate is not the only good thing in the world, but it is one good thing in the world. And when you have a country of 300 million different people who think different things, it is helpful. It is helpful to tell everyone, you can think what you want.

King: Hard for other people to comprehend why Nazis can march —

Breyer: There they are. You know, it’s so often I hear people say — and particularly this is a college students, sir. Well, that’s just so terrible what he’s saying. I say, oh, you think that free speech is only for people who don’t say things that are terrible.... (Link.)

Here's hoping he sticks with that view if it ever really matters.

Posted by Hube at 06:58 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Krauthammer on O'Donnell

I won't go paragraph by paragraph dissecting the respected conservative columnist's article (I do highly recommend you read the entire thing, though); however, the following paragraph is highly relevant in light of many of the comments I've been getting on my recent posts:

Nor is opposition to O'Donnell's candidacy a sign of hostility or disrespect to the Tea Party. Many of those who wanted to see Castle nominated in Delaware have from the beginning defended the Tea Party movement from the mainstream media's scurrilous portrayal of it as a racist rabble of resentful lumpenproletarians. Indeed, it is among the most vigorous and salutary grass-roots movements of our time, dedicated to a genuine constitutionalism from which the country has strayed far.

If you're even vaguely familiar with what I've written here at Colossus, you know my defense of Tea Partiers, especially against the rantings of the MSM and "progressive" pundit lunkheads, is second to none. But I am hardly alone among those on the right who have myriad reservations about O'Donnell. After all, as I've said already here, why has her candidacy alone among Tea Party favorites across the land so split conservatives? It's a combination of the belief that she cannot win in the general election (whereas Mike Castle could -- no, would) and her highly suspect personal background.

If you feel I am [fill in an adjective] for not pulling the lever for O'Donnell this November, so be it. (I'm certainly not pulling it for Coons, either, please keep in mind.) When I know nothing of candidates in a race I don't pull a lever -- because I don't think that's fair. Similarly, if I am so turned off by both candidates, I won't pull it either.

(Thanks to Soccer Dad for the tip.)

Posted by Hube at 06:53 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 16, 2010

Maybe she didn't pay her phone bill now?

Mike Castle says he has yet to speak with Christine O'Donnell, since her campaign numbers are "out of service":

She has since indicated she would take Castle’s endorsement, but Castle and O’Donnell have not yet spoken. Castle said that his campaign had two phone numbers for her – one a mobile phone, the other a home phone – and that both were out of service Tuesday and Wednesday. He said that on Thursday morning he called the general campaign phone number and left a message saying he was trying to call.

Perhaps the phone company got fed up with waiting for payment? Hey, the trend certainly is there ...

Nevertheless, I agree with Daniel Foster when he says that Castle should endorse O'Donnell (I said so here, this morning):

Mike Castle should endorse Christine O’Donnell, by the way. Even if all he does is release a formulaic statement and then is never heard from again on the subject, it’s the right thing to do. Primaries get personal, that’s the nature of the beast. He shouldn’t let O’Donnell calling him “unmanly” stop him from backing the fairly-chosen winner of his party’s nomination.

Castle has benefitted most of his adult life from the GOP and he owes to them to "unify," no matter how distasteful it may be for him. That doesn't mean, however, that I and other Joe Six-Packs have to endorse and/or vote for O'Donnell. And as I said, I don't plan to.

Posted by Hube at 08:22 PM | Comments (18) | TrackBack

"She is a con artist"

Yeah, I think that's an apt adjective. Politico on GOP Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell:

She first made her mark in the 1990s as the founder of the Savior's Alliance for Lifting the Truth. The group's aim was to lobby Congress on issues important to the religious right, but its biggest impact may have come from landing O'Donnell a spot on Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect." It was during a 1998 discussion on the show - the subject was Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky - that O'Donnell said that lies and exaggeration are always acts of "disrespect."

Read that line carefully. "Always acts of disrespect."

Sorry, Christine -- you're just another sorry politician whose words mean a lot more than your actual actions. Karl Rove, who recently was criticized by O'Donnell as a "so-called political guru" (yesterday on "Good Morning America") not to mention by others in conservative punditry-land (like Rush Limbaugh) for daring to question the nominee's background, was not knuckling under the pressure. He was on Greta Van Susteren's show last evening still reiterating the suspension of disbelief one must possess if you buy O'Donnell's lies and excuses for her many ... "irregularities." Once again:

Kristin Murray, a Republican who served two months as O'Donnell's campaign manager in 2008, called the candidate a "complete fraud." Murray said she quit working for O'Donnell in 2008 after discovering that she didn't have a college degree, had failed to make payments on her mortgage and was using the campaign debit card for personal expenses.

Four years ago, O'Donnell's campaign website identified her as a "graduate of Fairleigh Dickinson University." In fact, O'Donnell officially earned her college degree from the Madison N.J., university just two weeks ago.

O'Donnell campaign manager Matt Moran said O'Donnell "fulfilled the last course requirement this summer. It was just a general elective course."

But earlier this year, O'Donnell told the Delaware News Journal that she had already finished her coursework at FDU. The university, she said then, was withholding her diploma because she still had student loans to pay. History was apparently repeating itself: As the News Journal has reported, the school sued her in 1994 for around $4,000 in unpaid tuition. The paper said O'Donnell satisfied that debt in 2003.

It sure seems Ms. O'Donnell engages in a LOT of "disrespect."

According to the News Journal, O'Donnell's mortgage company sued her during her 2008 Senate run, alleging that she'd stopped making payments on her home loan. "It received a judgment and the home was set to go to sheriff's sale, according to court documents," the paper reported. "She sold it days before to her then-boyfriend, who was acting as her campaign legal counsel, she said."

"O'Donnell said she sold the house to fund her campaign. She has denied that she was ever sued by her mortgage company or that a foreclosure sale date had been set," the article said.

Except that, these documents clearly show otherwise. More "disrespect," Christine?

The paper also reported that the IRS filed a lien against O'Donnell earlier this year over "more than $11,000 in unpaid income taxes and fees." The paper said the lien was lifted shortly after it was filed — and that O'Donnell has dismissed the issue as a computer glitch that was fixed after she paid "an amount that she did not disclose."

If it was a "glitch," why did she pay any fees? And again, how does such an "explanation" jibe with the actual facts? Still more "disrespect," Christine?

Then there's the [in]famous lawsuit she filed against the Wilmington-based Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) for almost $7 million. In it, she claimed she

was and is profoundly humiliated by this demotion of being asked to perform clerical and administrative tasks, after appearing on national television as a media and public relations expert and spokeswoman, for a man who was hired straight out of college as ISI's receptionist and clerical assistant, and whom she had been asked to train previously . . . .

"For at least six months after being fired, Miss O'Donnell suffered enormous pain, cried frequently at the sense of personal loss and failure caused by ISI, and at the sense of injustice, and could not sleep at night, often wide-awake, replaying the whole scene in her mind, until 5:30 am, and has suffered from understandable and resulting depression."

As Politico notes, "a $6.9 million gender discrimination/mental anguish suit doesn't fit well in a party that rails against lawsuit abuse." And gosh -- doing administrative and clerical tasks is "humiliating?" Because she was on TV before? What a prima-freakin' donna. Some "conservative values." In addition, O'Donnell's lawyers argued that ISI "violated its promise to allow Miss ODonnell time to take Master's degree classes at Princeton." Except, that, O'Donnell had not even earned her Bachelor's degree yet. When CNN asked Christine about the Master's course matter, she denied it and claimed it was merely "these false accusations that they are trying to throw out there at the last minute."

Still more "disrespect," Ms. O'Donnell?

O'Donnell eventually dropped the ISI suit citing lack of funds to continue. But as Ted Frank notes at PointofLaw.com, "any successful Title VII suit will win attorneys' fees, so the only time employment-law attorneys insist on payment in advance is when they have no confidence in the case."

In other words, her "case" was total B.S., but she's sticking with her "hard luck" mantra. Just still more "disrespect."

Many folks have opined that O'Donnell can "relate" to the average person because, like in these economic hard times, financial difficulties aren't uncommon. While the latter is certainly true, the former is laughable. "Principled conservatives" work hard to satisfy their obligations and do not make excuse after excuse to get around them. Nor do they attempt to cash in on an easy meal ticket by filing a frivolous lawsuit.

It's been reported that in just one day (yesterday), the O'Donnell campaign has raked in over $500,000. "We have surpassed our earlier goal of $500,000. What do you think? Can we hit $750,000?" O'Donnell wrote via Twitter.

Keep an eye on that cash. It just may be somehow utilized for her "salary" in the years to come.

Posted by Hube at 05:02 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

Let them eat cake

When going to a "green" rally, probably best not to arrive in two of the largest SUVs on the planet.


Posted by Duffy at 09:22 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

What would Ronnie say?


Posted by Duffy at 09:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 15, 2010

New Jersey Public Transit Employee Fired for ... Blasphemy??

Here's the deal: Between SCOTUS Justice Breyer's "wondering" about an "incitement" provision in the First Amendment for Koran desecration and now this nonsense, here's all Americans need to do to get what they want -- act like [radical] Muslims.

In other words, if someone burns, say, the American flag? Riot, threaten, cause general mayhem, maim and kill. If that becomes as commonplace as what the idiot Islamists routinely do, maybe Breyer and co. would see the folly of their theories.

Naaaaah. Who am I kiddin'?

We'd merely be lectured on the utmost importance of the First Amendment, as well as our subsequent "need" to be "sensitive" to religious minorities. Thus, Koran burning might not be protected expression.

Sounds intriguingly like a popular far-left legal theory ...

Posted by Hube at 09:23 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Watcher's Council nominations

* The Colossus of Rhodey – Gotta love the hypocrisy
* Rhymes With Right – An Alternate History Nightmare
* Wolf Howling – Thugocracy In Action
* Right Truth – Peeling the layers of Imam Rauf
* GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD – Afghan Studyless Group
* VA Right – Vote Republican Because We Suck Less
* Bookworm Room – Carly Fiorina — with luck, California’s next U.S. Senator
* The Razor – Educating Erasmus
* Snapped Shot – The Media on Human Rights
* Joshuapundit - 9/11 – Shame, Honor and Remembrance
* The Glittering Eye – Turning Points

And the non-Council nominations are here!

Posted by Hube at 04:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

What the O'Donnell victory means (to me and otherwise)

It really says something when a race so splits the conservative punditry. And no race did that (to my knowledge) more than the Delaware Senate primary between Mike Castle and Christine O'Donnell. The question remains, even after O'Donnell's victory yesterday: Why? Conservatives across the land have been virtually united backing "upstart" candidates (usually supported by Tea Parties) across the country. What makes Delaware an exception to this?

It all comes down to one simple answer: O'Donnell is a lousy candidate with a lousy background.

It means something when popular conservative media outlets like the National Review and the Weekly Standard pan you. You think these magazines are big fans of Mike Castle? Hah!! You can bet your bottom dollar had there been even a marginally more qualified candidate than O'Donnell they'd be in his/her corner in a heartbeat. But there wasn't another candidate. So we were left with someone who cannot tell even the simplest of truths, who's had the sketchiest of "jobs" over the course of her adult life, and, contrary to conservative "values," initiated a meritless gender discrimination lawsuit against a Wilmington-based think tank (the ISI) for millions of dollars. Though Mike Castle's campaign manager was quite tactless when he said O'Donnell's qualifications are only good enough to "run for dog catcher," his sentiment is well-taken. O'Donnell is grossly unqualified to be a senator.

Here's the deal: If a candidate and/or a candidate's advisors/managers/whatever treat potential constituents like complete sh** because of a mere difference of opinion, I don't care if they are running for the GOP. Like perennial state GOP office candidate Mike Protack (who thankfully lost his primary last night, this time for New Castle County Council) in the past on the Delaware blogs, O'Donnell's goons have acted like nothing but cheap thugs towards those who expressed a difference of opinion -- in this case, a willingness to vote for Mike Castle. Therefore, why in the hell should they get my vote?

Therefore, I am either leaving the US Senate spot blank on my November ballot, or I'll do a write-in vote.

Posted by Hube at 03:00 PM | Comments (25) | TrackBack

September 14, 2010

Daniel Foster on O'Donnell

On NRO:

Christine O’Donnell has $20,374 cash-on-hand. [Chris] Coons has $944,230. O’Donnell will surely see cash come in after tonight but. . .

–CNN’s Mark Preston quotes an unnamed GOP official: “Until she demonstrates some viability in the polls we are not going to have any money for her.” The official said it is now incumbent on Jim DeMint, Sarah Palin, and the Tea Party Express to support O’Donnell. “They got her here.”

–From a Public Policy Poll on the Delaware general scheduled to drop tomorrow AM:

* Only 31% of Delaware voters think Christine O’Donnell is fit to hold public office.
* O’Donnell’s favorable/unfavorable split is 29/50.
* Castle primary voters supports Coons over O’Donnell 44-28 in the general election.

–Stu Rothenberg of Rothenberg Political Reports has already moved the Delaware Senate race from Lean Republican to Lean Democratic, bypassing toss-up all together.

–O’Donnell’s victory, paired with a win by Ovide LaMontagne in New Hampshire, reduces the GOP’s chance of taking the Senate from 30 percent to 16 percent, according to the most accurate model going.

Scott Brown didn’t have a chance of beating Martha Coakley in December 2009, and we know how that worked out. So goodness knows, anything can happen in Delaware.

But it sure looks like the First State is preparing to send Washington another vote for Harry Reid.

Posted by Hube at 10:33 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Breaking: O'Donnell wins GOP Senate nod; state Democrats rejoice

Via WDEL's Twitter.

Posted by Hube at 09:18 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Were you ...

... asked to show ID when you voted today?

I wasn't. I was actually disappointed. If I'm not in the general, I'll ask why.

Posted by Hube at 06:49 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Further proof: Progressives only care about free speech if they like the speech

George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "Good Morning America" wonders if we should reconsider the First Amendment in light of the nutty pastor who threatened to burn the Koran:

You know, when we spoke several years ago, you talked about how the process of globalization was changing our understanding of the law. When you think about the internet and when you think about the possibility that, you know, a pastor in Florida with a flock of 30, can threaten to burn the Koran and that leads to riots and killings in Afghanistan, does that pose a challenge to the First Amendment, to how you interpret it? Does it change the nature of what we can allow and protect?

Georgie was speaking to SCOTUS Justice Stephen Breyer -- whose answer is potentially even scarier:

Well, in a sense, yes. In a sense, no. People can express their views in debate. No matter how awful those views are. In debate. A conversation. People exchanging ideas. That's the model. So that, in fact, we are better informed when we cast that ballot. Those core values remain. How they apply can ...

Indeed. And you can say, with the internet, you can say this. Holmes said, it doesn't mean you can shout fire in a crowded theater. Well, what is it? Why? Well people will be trampled to death. What is the crowded theater today? What is-

Yes. Well, perhaps that will be answered by- if it's answered, by our court. It will be answered over time, in a series of cases, which force people to think carefully. That's the virtue of cases.

Let's see -- Americans should perhaps cede their First Amendment rights because a bunch of uneducated, barbaric a-holes might go on a rampage in some God-forsaken corner of the world? That burning our very own flag is permitted as free expression, but burning a religion's holy book might not be?

I'd be really flummoxed by Stephie's and Breyer's replies, except that "progressives" -- despite their perpetual bluster about "dissent is patriotic" and "free speech" -- really mean nothing of the sort. They just want speech to be permitted with which THEY concur. Period.

Posted by Hube at 06:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 13, 2010

Yooo dude ... Islamophobia

Aussie law prof smokes joint from a page of the Koran.

Posted by Hube at 09:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

"Moderates"

Breaking: Close associate of Imam Rauf is a 9/11 Truther.

A founding member of an organization run by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the driving force behind the planned mosque near Ground Zero, claims that the 9/11 attacks were an "inside job" and that Muslims have been made scapegoats, The Post has learned.

Faiz Khan -- who has preached at least twice at the former Burlington Coat Factory building, the site of the proposed mosque -- was for years Rauf's partner in the American Society for the Advancement of Muslims, which is dedicated to promoting a better understanding of Islam.

Khan also serves on the advisory board of Muslims for 9/11 Truth and is a founder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth, known as MUJCA.

On MUJCA's Web site, Khan wrote that "the inescapable fact [is] that 9/11 was an inside job."

"The prime factor for the success of the criminal mission known as 9/11 did not come from the quarter known as 'militant Islam,' although the phenomenon known as 'militant Islamic networks' may have played a partial role, or even a less than partial role -- perhaps the role of patsy and scapegoat," he wrote in documents uncovered by the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

Khan was listed as one of three directors of the American Society for the Advancement of Muslims in its 1997 incorporation papers, when it went by the name of the American Sufi Muslim Association.

But just remember -- Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a "moderate" and the proposed community center/mosque is to be a "monument to peace."

Posted by Hube at 08:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

I have an idea

I think we need a sport that is a combination of Simon Says, military style marching, and oh, I don't know, Fashion Week in New York. What's that? They already have it in Japan? Of course they do.

Update: Skip ahead to about 1:35 for it to begin.

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

Tea Party Express delivers Delaware Senate seat to the Democrats

Hans Bader e-mails me his Washington Examiner column today. I suggest DE (Republican) voters read and take heed:

Most people will pick half a loaf over no loaf. Not the Tea Party Express. It would rather end up with no loaf rather than compromising with reality and getting half a loaf.

Thanks to it and others, Delaware's GOP will nominate a conservative who probably can't win in November (Christine O'Donnell), over a moderate who would easily win the November election (Mike Castle) in tomorrow's Republican Primary. One reason the conservative can't win (and it's only one of the reasons) is that Delaware is a very liberal state. It's so liberal that while Bush won reelection in 2004, he lost by a large margin in Delaware.

Veteran moderate Republican Congressman Mike Castle has a hefty lead over liberal Democrat Chris Coons heading into the November election. By contrast, polls consistently show liberal Coons with a hefty lead over conservative Christine O'Donnell, who has never won an election. GOP leaders in Delaware back Castle.

(Ironically, O'Donnell, the self-described conservative, once brought a meritless $7 million lawsuit against a conservative organization she had worked for).

Other Tea Party groups, like FreedomWorks, have wisely refused to endorse O'Donnell. Supporters of Castle have argued that opposing him out of ideological purity is as silly as opposing Scott Brown of Massachusetts, whose liberal positions on some issues enabled him to win in that state despite being a Republican.

Nevertheless, a recent poll from PPP shows O'Donnell leading Castle by 3 points among likely voters in Delaware's GOP Senate primary. Castle's impending loss means an almost certain Democratic victory in November, and an iron-clad guarantee that the Democrats will retain control of the Senate, making it easier for them to enact more liberal legislation and takeovers of the economy, and easier to confirm liberal judges.

Castle voted against ObamaCare and the stimulus package, although he voted for cap-and-trade. Democrat Coons would have voted for all three.

The Tea Party Express also intervened in Nevada, where it helped Sharron Angle get nominated for a Senate seat over candidates who would have won quite easily in November, like Sue Lowden and Danny Tarkanian (candidates who were more conservative than Delaware's Mike Castle). As a result, the GOP may well lose a Senate seat it otherwise would surely have taken. Angle now runs slightly behind Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in polls, whereas Lowden led Reid in the polls. (Angle, unlike O'Donnell, had actually won an election in the past -- for a state legislative seat in a conservative bastion -- and Angle had a demonstrated conservative track record in the state legislature.

Many conservative activists and bloggers think that there is a silent majority of conservatives in every state, based on the fact that their own circle of friends is overwhelmingly conservative. Unfortunately, that's just not true. Most people don't have much ideology at all, and most that do have an ideology are not conservative. Obama's low poll results are the product of a bad economy, not some great conservative awakening. The public is not outraged enough at Obama to vote for anyone who opposes him, no matter how conservative. Indeed, the public finds certain principled conservative positions disturbing, just as it finds certain Obama liberal positions disturbing. People who think the country is conservative beneath the surface -- or even firmly "center-right" -- are living in a bubble, just like the Obama supporters were deluding themselves when they came to the conclusion that the country had become staunchly liberal just because Obama won in 2008 based on the bad economy.

Read the rest here.

Posted by Hube at 04:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 12, 2010

Watcher's Council results

First place in the Council category was Snapped Shot with Happy Al-Quds Day!

First place in the non-Council category was Iowahawk with Barack, Can we Talk?

Full results are here.

Posted by Hube at 10:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 11, 2010


Posted by Hube at 11:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The idiocy and double standard of the MSM

Check out a-hole Tony Auth's latest cartoon in the Philly Inquirer.

Oh, so NOW it's important for guys (however stupid and vacuous) to keep zipped lips (figuratively and literally), eh? Now that Democrats are in charge in the White House and Congress!

I wonder how many cartoons Auth devoted to people like Nancy Pelosi calling the Iraq War a "failure?" Or Harry Reid? Or when Dick Durbin equated US troops to Nazis?

How many US troops' lives were put in danger by these reckless comments, Mr. Auth?

At least we'll all have the last laugh as Auth will soon be out of work as his paper continues to sink into ideological oblivion.

Posted by Hube at 10:30 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Earth to DeMint

Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.):

“Americans across the country are looking for leaders like Christine O’Donnell who will stand up for them and stop the reckless spending in Washington. She is committed to getting our economy back on track by balancing our budget, lowering taxes, and ending the bailouts and takeovers.”

Newsflash, senator: Christine O'Donnell can't even balance her own budget.

Posted by Hube at 09:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Amazingly, this was on CNN

2 Muslims travel 13,000 miles across America, find an embracing nation.

Well, of course they did. But if you believe what the MSM (including CNN) spews forth everyday, you'd think that the US was little better than al Qaeda in terms of tolerance!

Far from the media frenzy dominating headlines, from the so-called "ground zero mosque" to a pastor's planned Quran burning, Aman Ali and Bassam Tariq traveled more than 13,000 miles into the heart of America over the last month, visiting 30 mosques in 30 days for Ramadan.

They began in New York, headed south and then cut across the country to California before making their way back, ending today in Michigan in the nation's largest Muslim community.

The fisherman in Montana became the embodiment of their trip -- Ali and Tariq were embraced nearly everywhere they went, from a Confederate souvenir shop in Georgia to the streets of Las Vegas, Nevada, to the hills of North Dakota where the nation's first mosque was built in 1929.

"It's really made America feel like home to me in a way that I've never felt before. The America that we think about [as immigrants] is still actually there. I've seen it! And I'm seeing it still."

Quick: send word to NBC, especially, since this obviously doesn't fit how they believe the news should be "set up" (quotes used on purpose).

Posted by Hube at 09:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 10, 2010

Speaking of idiots ...

The LGOMB's "pandora" posts about a "senior GOP official" in Delaware receiving an e-mailed death threat. To which, in the comments, fellow LGOMB member "liberal geek" writes,

I wish that I were surprised, but I’m sure that it’s just a lone wolf or that the tree of liberty needs watering or something…

I wonder how many people have to die for Christine O’Donnell to be a Senator.

Now, keep in mind that these pathetic creatures knowingly and willingly blog with a guy who wrote this.

Posted by Hube at 05:08 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Idiots Deluxe

That would be Pat Buchanan and Donny Deutsch on MSNBC today for advocating that the [potential] Koran-burning pastor, Terry Jones, be arrested and thrown in jail for potentially burning the Muslim holy book:

Unbelievable.

Posted by Hube at 03:45 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 09, 2010

Ground Zero mosque imam resorts to blackmail

Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf:

"If we move from that location, the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse," Rauf told CNN. "The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack.

"There is a certain anger here [in America], no doubt," he said later in the interview. "But if we don't do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world. If we don't do things correctly, this crisis could become much bigger than the Danish cartoon crisis [over images depicting the Prophet Mohammed], which resulted in attacks on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world. And we have a much bigger footprint in the Muslim world."

Is this what we're going to resort to? Buckling under ... giving in, abrogating our constitutional rights because people of the "religion of peace" may explode in anger and resort to violence (never mind the oxymoron)?? The nutty pastor who was to burn a Koran has relented (in part due to pressure from our own government). He was (and we were) told that if he followed through the Muslim world would get upset and violence could occur. Now, the imam is utilizing the same "logic."

Or, as James Taranto says,

What was initially marketed as a gesture of conciliation has turned into a protection racket: Give Rauf what he wants, he tells us, or there's no telling what those angry Muslim extremists might do. Rauf's outrageous comments ought to erase all doubt that the construction of the Ground Zero mosque would be a victory for terrorism.
Posted by Hube at 06:53 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Limbaugh and Hannity repeat O'Donnell lies

Jim Geraghty:

Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh said, He voted for the stimulus, and the people are saying, ‘Well, we need to get control of the Senate, Rush, and if it’s gonna take a guy like Mike Castle in Delaware to get control of the Senate, then we’re going to have to go for that, we’re going to have to do it.’”

I suppose Rush may have been referring to the 2008 stimulus and not the more well-known 2009 one, but the earlier one passed 81–16 and quite a few staunchly conservative senators voted for it ...

Then, while discussing this race with Michelle Malkin last night, Sean Hannity said, “We have another case emerging next Tuesday, Delaware. Christine O’Donnell, the establishment is trying to assassinate her character, smear her. Mike Castle voted for Obamacare, TARP, cap and tax, the establishment wants him. What can we interpret from that?”

Except that Castle voted against Obamacare. You can argue that his don’t-bother-until-we-have-a-GOP-president stance on repeal is wrongheaded or squishy, but don’t attribute a vote to him that he didn’t make.

Posted by Hube at 06:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Fun With Liberals

The LGOMB never fails to disappoint, and the idiot "pandora" is back at it again, trying to associate isolated nutjobs any way she can to conservatives and the GOP -- even when it directly contradicts their own (silly) logic.

“Pastor” Jones is only a symptom of the real problem:

Speaking just now on MSNBC James Zogby made a very good point — and pressed Andrea Mitchell on it. His point was that sure, this Pastor Jones fool is one guy, who’s managed to get worldwide attention for his stunt. But you cannot separate him, as I noted below, from the whole climate of hate speech and anti-Muslim agitation from the Newt Gingriches and the Sarah Palins and the rest of them.

At that point, Mitchell jumped in and said, wait, Palin said she disagrees with the Koran burning. To which Zogby replied, something to the effect of ‘C’mon’. And that’s just the right reply.

Thaaaaaat's right -- only liberals are able to make use of their First Amendment rights (because, after all, they are rights) without being accused of fostering a "climate of hate" and hence leading to some lone nut doing something stupid. Contrariwise, no one should attempt to equate progressive speech with a guy who straps explosives to himself in an attempt to blow up a cable network now, right?

This nut pastor, Jones, plans to merely burn a book. Burning the American flag is protected speech; so what's the big deal over burning a book? pandora and the rest of the LGOMB would be screaming at the top of their lungs if the Right attempted to thwart someone buring our flag. But burning our Old Glory doesn't offend "progressive" sensibilities, though. Constitutional rights and protections are only worth preserving for those "worthy" of having them.

UPDATE: Good "progressives" stick together. CNN's Rick Sanchez asks former NY governor Rick Pataki "Do you feel in any way that some of this backlash...led by some fine gentlemen like yourself...has kind of paved the way for that controversy, and if so, do you feel guilty at all?"

Arianna Huffington, so similar to the LGOMB's Jason "Trust Fund" Scott in both politics and background, says that Ground Zero mosque supporters are like the Koran-burning pastor.

On the "Today" show today, a Council on American-Islamic Relations representative equated the GZ mosque protest to internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II and even slavery.

CBS's Harry Smith followed suit with the narrative as well.

I'll say it again: And people wonder why so many Americans are royally fed up?

Posted by Hube at 04:53 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

In case you needed another reason

to hate the Mets

Key quote: Luis Castillo, renowned for dropping balls then wondering why he doesn’t play, had this gem: “Sometimes you see people with no legs, no arms. I don’t like to see that.”

All class Castillo. I hope you choke on your money.

Posted by Duffy at 04:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Maybe the GOP isn't that bad off

Just when I thought Christine O'Donnell was the worst person on the ballot anywhere comes this guy:

He's half crazy person, half sweating frothing at the mouth preacher.

Take heart Delaware GOP -- you're actually better off than Stark County GOP if only marginally.

Posted by Duffy at 04:22 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Now this is "tolerance!"

Loyal Colossus reader Fred Gregory informs us of what religious "tolerance" according to North Carolina liberals is like. Via the Spag Report:

Greensboro Rabbi Fred Guttman called into the Brad and Britt Show this morning and analogized that the Koran burning preacher might be a fair target to be shot for the greater good. He also suggested that the preacher be sued to prevent the Koran burning - something that would violate the First Amendment. Host Brad Krantz who has been among the liberal crowd attacking opponents of the mosque at Ground Zero (often citing the First Amendment) let Guttman's comments pass without challenge.

On [his] blog, Guttman again invoked the Jewish value of Pikuach Nefesh which means "the greater good". This was the same value Guttman raised on the Brad and Britt Show when he argued that sometimes it is necessary to take a life to preserve more lives- the "greater good". He used a war time analogy on the Brad & Britt Show about how shooting someone could be justified for the "greater good". He then stated something to the effect of "I'm not saying this pastor should be shot...maybe he should be".

The pastor should be shot for the "greater good," huh? Gee, that sounds AWFULLY familiar now, doesn't it?

Just yet another little nugget of proof that demonstrates that the REAL intolerant, insensitive haters are "progressives" ... so much so that they wanna kill you for disagreeing with them.

Posted by Hube at 04:18 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

And some wonder why people are fed up?

Capitol Hill employees owed $9.3 million in back taxes last year.

Posted by Hube at 01:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

And my daughter is only a couple years away from college

God help her:

The United States Student Association is looking for national board members — of a certain sexual orientation.

The Board has not met the diversity guidelines stipulated in the Constitution, which require that 30 percent of the Board identify as openly queer.

30%? So much for "proportionate representation," huh? I mean, it's estimated that only 10% or so of the general public is gay, so what's up with that figure of 30%? Well, I do know what's up -- proportionate representation is only important when it applies to certain groups, namely whites and males. Higher than proportionate figures for "historically oppressed" groups are just fine and dandy.

But that aside, get a good laugh at how this idiot group USSA twists itself into a pretzel concerning its "Voting Members":

“3. Whenever the representation of people of color on the board of directors is less than fifty percent (50%), the NPCSC shall elect students at-large to compensate for the difference. Whenever the representation of women on the board is less than fifty percent (50%), the NWSC shall elect students at-large to compensate for the difference. Whenever the representation of openly lesbian gay, bisexual and transgender students on the board of directors is less than thirty percent (30%), NQSC shall elect students at-large to compensate for the difference, at least fifty percent (50%) of their representatives must be people of color and fifty percent (50%) must be women.”

And it gets better. Here's its "Delegate Selection and Diversity Guidelines":

“10. For the purposes of these guidelines, delegates will self-identify with caucuses and affiliates. Self-identification shall mean that a delegate identifies with a particular community to the extent that they feel it is comfortable and appropriate to attend the closed, safe space of a caucus or affiliate meeting. For the purpose of credentialing, a delegate’s declared identity will not be subject to question or review by any means.

11. For the purposes of these guidelines, a delegate shall be said to identify as a person of color only if they identify with NPCSC, Women of Color Caucus, or National Queer Students of Color Caucus. A delegate shall be said to identify as a woman if they identify with NWSC or Women of Color Caucus. A delegate shall be said to identify as queer if they identify with NQSC or National Queer Students of Color Caucus. All other identities shall be determined by identification with the corresponding caucus.”

The hilarious thing about this is that these bozos take this crap seriously! I'd love to be a college undergrad today; I'd love to apply as a delegate to this group, especially based on the above. I'd say "I 'identify' with the NPCSC." Even though I am not actually a member of a minority group, there's nothing based on the above guidelines that states that I cannot identify with such a group, right? And if some shlub in the Association is skeptical of me, I'll merely point out that "a delegate’s declared identity will not be subject to question or review by any means!"

So there!

Posted by Hube at 12:30 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Simple driving advice -- for dunces

Is it me or has driving become increasingly nutso over the last few years? I mean, I suppose what prompted me to write this post was an incident that happened to me yesterday. I was driving south to my girlfriend's place in Bear. I took 495 south, and then connected to 95 at Churchman's Marsh. Everything was fine. Traffic was moving smoothly.

But soon after I merged onto 95, the car that was in front of me braked suddenly to get into the right lane so as to make the next exit. But as I passed this car, the woman began shouting at me and gave me the finger!! Like ... why?? I didn't do a blessed thing! The only thing I could even remotely consider was that maybe I was tailgating her ... but I wasn't! Even so, with the amount of traffic on the highway at that time (4:45) all the cars on the road were pretty tightly packed together. Yeesh. Whatever.

Is asininity becoming as common as stupidity on the road nowadays? It seems like it.

Look, here's a few tips for the clueless:

  • The left lane is for passing, not (slowly) cruising. The usual culprits here are northern Delaware geriatrics and Pennsylvania drivers of any age. If you wanna go the speed limit on I-95, do it in the right f'in lane, OK?

  • On a four-lane road (two lanes going each way), if a school bus stops to drop off or pick up kids, the cars in the opposite direction do not have to stop!! I've gotten beeped at when I've continued through a bus light in such a situation, and yelled at by drivers at a subsequent stoplight. My reaction was basically to roll down my window and tell the idiot "to learn the rules of driving." Until then, keep your f'in mouth shut.

  • If you insist on talking on your cell phone while driving, a couple things: One, at least go the damn speed limit, huh? Why do so many cell phone gabbers tend to go upwards of 20 miles an hour under the posted limit? What, is your conversation that interesting? If so, pull the hell over and then continue the convo. And two, try to stay on the road while on your on the phone. I've often thought I was behind a severely inebriated person (often at mid-day) when I eventually discovered they were just gabbing on their cell.

  • If you text while driving (excepting being stopped temporarily at a stoplight), you're a complete menace on the road and should have your license suspended for a year.

Feel free to add your own helpful suggestions in the comments. :-)

Posted by Hube at 10:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 08, 2010

Gotta love the hypocrisy

Oppose a mosque being built near Ground Zero? "You don't believe in American values ... and you're letting the terrorists win!" So says our esteemed Ruling Class and MSM.

Oppose the burning of a Koran by a pastor on 9/11? "You're for tolerance and understanding, and you won't inflame the terrorists!" So says our esteemed Ruling Class and MSM.

Gotta love the double standard.

Remember: Imam Rauf in New York City has the RIGHT to build that mosque/cultural center/whatever where he wants. It's his constitutional right to do so. However, so too does Pastor Terry Jones have the RIGHT to burn a Koran if he wants to. But ... why then isn't the White House and its cohorts defending Jones' right to free expression?

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the administration hoped that more Americans would stand up and condemn the church's plan. "We think that these are provocative acts," Crowley said. "We would like to see more Americans stand up and say that this is inconsistent with our American values; in fact, these actions themselves are un-American."

Protest is "un-American"? Exercising one's First Amendment rights is "un-American"? I mean, setting ablaze the American Flag is protected First Amendment expression; would Crowley call that "un-American?" Or: are his harsh words -- and those of everyone else who is likewise speaking out -- for Pastor Jones as forceful as they are because they know that Muslims worldwide will go berserk over Jones' actions ... while if it was "merely" him burning an American flag, or someone submerging a crucifix in urine, or someone doing something similar towards Christians or Jews, Crowley wouldn't even be involved. Because Christians and Jews don't have a tendency to go berserk if someone burns a Bible or a Torah, threatening the culprit with a death sentence.

As I've stated previously, I happen to believe that Imam Rauf has the RIGHT to build his community center/mosque near Ground Zero. I also believe that people can protest his decision peacefully, in an attempt to persuade him otherwise.

I happen to believe that Pastor Jones has the RIGHT to burn a Koran on 9/11 if he desires, in protest of [radical] Islam. I also happen to think he's going way overboard in his approach, that what he plans is offensive, and I believe that people should protest his decision and his actions.

But the Ruling Class and the MSM feel differently.

And this is why their influence is steadily declining day after day ... which partly explains why the GOP is slated to clobber the Democrats in November. It comes down to the essence of contemporary progressivism -- and its penchant for moral equivalence, [faux] diversity and [faux] tolerance. "Progressives" always side with the "underdog;" in this case, Muslims. Why? Their countries are poor, underdeveloped, and hardly democratic. But keep in mind -- don't try to blame Muslims themselves for this predicament. Western imperialism (the West being dominated by Christians and Jews, after all) is the main culprit.

Fortunately, us "benighted" average people see right through this steaming pile of bullsh**.

UPDATE: W.R. Chandler echoes my thoughts on this whole issue.

Posted by Hube at 07:10 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

September 07, 2010

The Dangers of Ideology

The great conservative philosopher Russell Kirk famously defined conservatism as "the negation of ideology." By this he meant in part that any true conservative must recognize continuity in practice and people's inherent preferences for stability.

It is the ideological who reject such concerns for the interests and welfare of the people. They put their beliefs over what is in the interest of the people or what the people believe is in their interest. There are many examples of this through out history. One example is the French Revolution. A movement that began as a revolution "for the people" quickly devolved into a movement that killed "the people" because they resisted the ideology of the leaders of the Revolution. Another example would be the American Revolution. The Revolution began over Parliament's desire to impose taxes on the colonies, which had never been done before. (The colonists claimed that only the King could take such action; whoever was right, Parliament's action, so out of continuity with past behavior prompted a war.)

A more recent example is one we're going through right now. The President and Congress have repeatedly ignored the will of the people in pursuing their ideological agenda, raising annual budget deficits to unprecedented levels for the next decade (at least), increasing government spending to again unprecedented levels, passing a very unpopular health care bill over the clear will of the American people, among other acts. Unlike the two prior examples, though, this hasn't led to blood being shed. The response from the American people so far has been what looks to be a Republican tidal wave this November. The ideological rigidness of the Democrats will likely cost them the ability to further bend the government and law to their desires. Another way of viewing this point is to remember that a leader doesn't get too far out in front of his people, even when he's trying to take them somewhere they don't want to. A true leader, will bring them along step by step rather than impose his will like a tyrant.

Unfortunately, it seems that many who style themselves conservatives are about to make the same mistake as the Democrats: holding fast to an ideological rigidness that will prevent them from being able to achieve their political goals. Insisting on getting their way, these so-called "conservatives" are insisting on ideological purity, regardless of the cost, brooking no compromise, even expedient compromise as they seek to get their way.

This may cost conservatives the chance to defeat the incumbent Senate Majority Leader in Nevada due to the Republican Primary voters picking a candidate who appears to be out of the mainstream of Nevada voters. While the polls are still close out there, they are certainly closer than they would be had a candidate more in tune with Nevada voters received the nomination.

A way of thinking about this is to remember that you could never elect Ron Paul in Massachusetts or Ted Kennedy in Texas. (For all the acclamation Scott Brown received upon his election in Massachusetts, many considered him to have immediately become the most liberal member of the Republican Senate caucus.) Those who wish to seriously impact the political direction of this country have to keep in mind the temperament of the electorate in the district in which they are competing. Anything else is just tilting at windmills: convincing yourself you're doing good while accomplishing nothing of practical value. Nominating a solid conservative in the Massachusetts special election would have resulted in the election of Martha Coakley and the Democrats still having a filibuster proof majority to this day: the essence of tilting at windmills.

Now we see many Delaware conservatives are more interested in tilting at windmills than in positively influencing the political direction of our nation. They seek to nominate Christine O'Donnell over Mike Castle for United States Senate. Mike Castle has served two terms as Governor, one term as Lieutenant Governor, and has been our statewide Congressman since 1993. He's proven time after time that he can win elections by a commanding margin. O'Donnell, meanwhile, has a proven ability to lose elections and given her troubles as reported in the media looks certain to continue her losing streak. Unsatisfied with Castle's (admittedly disappointing) 56% American Conservative Union rating(in 2009, 52% for his career), they would risk electing someone who ratings would be in the teens, if we're lucky. To make matters worse, the balance of power in the Senate could come down to this seat, so not only would these people elect a liberal Democrat over a moderate Republican, but also potentially keep the Democrats in the majority of the Senate giving them control over the agenda and all the committees.

While I much prefer O'Donnell's political stances on the issues and find her to be a much nicer person than Castle (although her supporters leave a lot to be desired in the way they treat those who disagree with them), she's unfortunately not electable statewide in Delaware. Extending the Scott Brown discussion above, we can't win with a solid conservative in Delaware, we need to nominate someone who would be more of a Scott Brown type than a Ron Paul type. Failing to understand that is a failure to understand the Delaware landscape and a failure to the conservative political movement.

Hube has done a good job posting arguments from many conservatives cataloging why O'Donnell is not the right choice for Delaware Republicans. Hopefully, this post has provided a sense of why supporting the conservative is the un-conservative action in this situation.

Posted by PaulSmithJr at 10:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

More conservatives on Castle-O'Donnell

Jonah Goldberg:

I am for the most conservative candidate electable. Determining who is electable, of course, is a matter of analysis not hope. I don’t know that much about Delaware, but people I trust say that Castle may well be the best we can hope for there. If Castle’s the one to give Republicans control of the Senate or if he rounds out the sweep of the Obama-Reid-Biden seats, that would be awesome news.

Also, it’s worth pointing out that we want more liberal Republicans, we just want them to replace Democrats. If Northeast Republicans have to be more liberal than Southwest ones to win, that’s okay. A majority party must have a diversity of views in it, almost by definition.

Andrew Stuttaford:

If it comes to a choice, I’d rather have 60 Republicans in the Senate, however squishy some of the views of some in their ranks, than 60 Democrats who are all certain of theirs. Anyone who truly believes in limited government ought to understand that voting against can be as valid as voting for. If it takes a few Specters to see off a Democratic majority, so be it. As for the idea that reducing the GOP to a rump of true believers (whatever that might actually mean: there are plenty on the right who interpret the terms “limited government” and “free people” in very different ways) is the essential first step in a Republican restoration, it is, I am afraid, a bad mistake. Wildernesses are, almost always, for losers.

Daniel Foster:

But in each micro instance — in this case, Delaware — conservative voters have to ask themselves whether they’d rather have a purplish Republican like Mike Castle or take a shot backing a deeply-flawed, but more ideologically simpatico, candidate like O’Donnell, who at this point would need a lot of help to win a general.

And a reader pointing out what separates the flawed O’Donnell candidacy from other conservative insurgencies:

  • This is a remarkably foolish debate. Pat Toomey is Harvard educated, a former Congressman who honored his previous term limit pledge, and former leader of The Club for Growth. These credentials chase Arlen Specter from the party.
  • Mike Lee used to clerk for Alito. He chased out a moderate who backed an individual mandate for healthcare, who also failed to honor his term limit pledge when he first ran for Senate (Bob Bennett).
  • Joe Miller’s claims to fame are his bronze star, West Point degree, and Yale law school intelligence. Lisa Murkowski’s claim to fame is her last name.
  • Marco Rubio has held public office before and has a wonderful back story. He also is tremendously coherent on the stump. No wonder he chased Charlie Crist out of the party.

  • I would argue that these “insurgents” have won their primaries in largest part because of whom they are. A throw the bums out mentality has some to do with it, but not as much as some want to believe.

  • Did O’Donnell clerk for Scalia and is holding that knowledge secret for a last weekend push? Serve in the Army? Attend two of the most competitive schools in the world? Hold the speakership of her state house? Run an important conservative think tank/PAC? What exactly in her record says she has earned a vote for Senate? And so what if Mike Castle is not going to vote the conservative line 100% of the time. Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu aren’t the most liberal members of their caucus. They still voted for healthcare, didn’t they? We could use a couple useful idiots on our side, too.

I'll be keeping you up to date on "the other side" of the national aspect of this race this coming week.

Posted by Hube at 06:22 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

"Alien" prequel(s)?

Surely they have the potential to become blockbusters, but they could also royally screw up the franchise a thousandfold. Director of the original classic, Ridley Scott:

It's set in 2085, about 30 years before Sigourney [Weaver's character Ellen Ripley]. It's fundamentally about going out to find out 'Who the hell was that Space Jockey?' The guy who was sitting in the chair in the alien vehicle — there was a giant fellow sitting in a seat on what looked to be either a piece of technology or an astronomer's chair. Remember that?

And our man [Tom Skerritt as Captain Dallas] climbs up and says "There's been an explosion in his chest from the inside out — what was that?" I'm basically explaining who that Space Jockey — we call him the Space Jockey — I'm explaining who the space jockeys were.

First, I don't believe any of the "Alien" films ever gave a definitive time-frame in which they took place (meaning, the year). Could we have the sort of technology "Alien" supposes in 75 years? Maybe, ultimately it's not that important.

Second, obviously a human element has to be part of any prequel. No one wants to see a film with just the "Space Jockey" race and Aliens. So, the question that follows is, how is the human element added? Den of Geek offers up some intriguing possibilities; however, consistent with the blog's namesake, I think they get bogged down by too much minutiae. Let's consider what we know of the original "Alien" and its sequel, "Aliens," first.

THE NOSTROMO. The mining vessel that carried Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) and crew in the original film had intercepted a signal and was hence diverted to a planet that had on it the [seemingly] crash-landed Space Jockey vessel and its cargo of Alien eggs. We know that there was a special directive from "The Company" that the crew was to secure a[n] Alien specimen at all costs, "crew expendable." The science officer, Ash, was revealed to be a robot, having had replaced the usual science officer a mere two days before the Nostromo left Earth. This clearly seems to indicate that The Company knew in advance of the Space Jockey's vessel's signal/warning before the Nostromo left on its mining mission.

THE "SPACE JOCKEY." As mentioned above, the Jockey is the creature that was seated in the "chair" in the derelict alien spaceship that three of the Nostromo's crew discovered on their exploration mission (after the Nostromo landed on planet LV-426). The Jockey's vessel contained thousands of Alien eggs in the bowels of its ship. Why? Director Scott has hinted that the Jockey's race used the Aliens as bio-weapons -- instead of dropping bombs, they would unleash the Alien scourge upon a planet.

TERRAFORMING LV-426. In "Aliens," director James Cameron seemingly forgot about The Company knowing about the Space Jockey's signal ... or did he? Recall that in the sequel, lone Nostromo survivor Ripley was rescued 57 years later and was questioned by The Company about her ordeal. She told the incredulous assembled Company personnel that her ship was sent to planet LV-426 on their orders but no clue is given in the film to The Company actually having knowledge of these orders. Because, in fact, a human colony has been on the planet for over 20 years now! It's not until Ripley herself reveals the information about the derelict Space Jockey vessel that the devious Burke communicates with the LV-426 colony asking them to investigate. And we know what happened after that!

So ... if The Company sent the Nostromo to LV-426 to retrieve an Alien, how come Burke and co. had no knowledge of this 57 years later?

Good question. But Den of Geek (linked above) has a good suggestion. The Company, after all, is comprised of very devious individuals all looking for a quick buck and rapid succession up the corporate ladder. There could have been a cadre of Company men acting unilaterally within The Company itself that had deciphered the Space Jockey's signal/warning, replaced the usual science officer with Ash, and then had the Nostromo diverted on its return to Earth. When this ultimately failed, no "official" record of what happened remained.

So how does this set up a prequel (or two, which Scott has mentioned)? To include the necessary human element, The Company (or a cadre within, or even some new, third group) is going to have to have known about the Space Jockey's vessel before the Nostromo mission. Something went wrong (not very hard to buy considering the nature of the Aliens!) and eventually the Nostromo was used as a follow-up (in "Alien"). Obviously, as Scott mentioned, there will be a more in-depth examination of the Space Jockey's race, and hopefully, a resolution as to the Aliens' origins. Are they genetically engineered bio-weapons? A transplanted species from a harsh world? How long have they existed?

Hopefully we'll have answers late next year.

Posted by Hube at 04:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 06, 2010

National Review on Christine O'Donnell

NRO's Jim Geraghty doesn't think much of Ms. O:

1) She’s running around telling voters she won two of three counties in her last Senate race. It’s not true. One county wasn’t even close. It’s not merely that it’s not true; it’s that it’s easily and quickly disproven. This isn’t merely a lie; it’s a stupid lie.

2) Sure, the radio interview is hostile. But it doesn’t take long for her to mention to the host that she often defends him from the allegation that he’s on the take from Mike Castle. Her campaign suggests that Scott Rasmussen’s polls aren’t to be trusted because the RNC and NRSC got to him. This is a half-step away from full-blown conspiracy theories. When she doesn’t like what somebody’s telling her, she attacks the messenger.

3) I am remarkably curious as to how she lived on an income of $5,800 in 2009. If she had additional income, she lied on her financial-disclosure forms and has violated the law. I need a response better than, “Well, Biden did it, too.”

This isn’t even getting into her former employees beginning a project whose first act is to accuse Mike Castle of being gay; this is what caused Erick Erickson of RedState to head for the exits. Is Erick a bad conservative, too? Do true conservatives shrug their shoulders and avert their eyes when a candidate’s associates pull stunts like this?

This primary, to me, is a perfect example of how "change for the sake of change" is in no way a good thing. O'Donnell is in many ways the female Mike "Backtrack" Protack -- perpetually running for elected office and possessing a nasty habit of badmouthing any criticism whatsoever ... to the point of inane conspiracy theories. (Any recall Protack's hilarious "theft of wireless Internet signal" claims from a few years ago?)

I don't think I've seen/read about a GOP candidate anywhere else in the country getting as much negative reaction from conservatives/Republicans than O'Donnell has. And that says something.

Posted by Hube at 12:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 04, 2010

Fun with liberals

While the LGOMB is happily having fun with the Mike Castle-Christine O'Donnell primary battle, one has to give kudos to one of their usual commenters, anonone, an admitted far-lefty who is happy to hold the LGOMB accountable for their laughable hypocrisy:

And I make no apologies for being on the far left.

Funny how a blog that used to criticize the President all the time when it was Bush rarely even blogs about Obomba at all. Why bother, I guess, when y’all can blog about more important topics like O’Donnell and baseball?

So I am sure that you’ll continue with your name-calling, attempts at ridicule, and your passionate defense of the status quo, but you’re not defining others; you’re only defining yourself.

To which moonbat poster MJ responds:

A1 – maybe when you show some respect for the President and use his correct name, you’ll get some respect on here. Until then, you are considered a lefteagging troll.

And so much for your philosophical blather (translation – I know you are but what am I?). Blah, blah, blah.

You couldn't ask for a better retort. "Respect for the president?" That phrase was considered hate speech at the LGOMB during the last administration. "Get some respect" ... from the LGOMB? That's like getting respect from a full trash can that's been left out in the August heat all day.

Posted by Hube at 08:45 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

So what if Mike Castle is a RINO

Via Prof. Bainbridge by way of Allahpundit:

There is a reason to prefer Castle — very, very grudgingly — but we’ve already hashed that out. For further thoughts, see Gabe Malor, who wonders why any righty would rather see a Democrat win than a RINO, particularly when it could mean the difference between Democratic and Republican control of all-important Senate committees next year. The response to that argument is usually some variation on the idea that we’re one crushing defeat away from total victory — that if blue states aren’t ready to elect “true conservatives” yet, well, then it’s better to leave Democrats in control so that they can ruin the country even more and eventually produce a real conservative backlash. (Which, I guess, means we shouldn’t have supported RINO Scott Brown in January, since he spoiled Obama’s filibuster-proof majority.) The flaw in this reasoning, of course, is that some things are bound to go right for Democrats despite their dumbest efforts to prevent that from happening. The economy will start to speed up again, even with The One keeping his foot on the brake of the engine of growth (note the car metaphor!), and if the Democrats control Congress when it does, they’ll get plenty of credit from voters. You’re simply not going to get a map that’s completely red, any more than the idiot liberals who were high on Hopenchange two years ago were ever going to get a map that’s completely blue. And as I said yesterday, however much they may irritate you, RINOs are marginally better than Democrats. I recommend re-reading this Doctor Zero post from last year on that subject, after Glenn Beck suggested that McCain would have been worse for the country than Obama. Ain’t so, although it certainly is comforting to believe it.

Yep. Dave Burris and crew over at Delaware Tomorrow pretty much wrote the local script on this race. And Bainbridge commenter "Demosthenes" articulates the situation in a nutshell:

Being a conservative myself, my strategy for supporting candidates is as follows. One should always support the most conservative candidate who fits the following criteria:

1) S/he is not obviously a nutjob
2) S/he can win in November

Articulation of policy positions is a plus, but not necessary. Not EVERY representative must be able to eloquently and originally defend conservatism, as long as some decent number of them are.

The activist right has changed my mind on who to support in several races -- most notably in Florida, with Marco Rubio, who is a principled articulate serious conservative with a good chance to win. But proceeding from my viewpoint, I can't help but disagree with any conservative who thinks O'Donnell worth supporting. She clearly fails both prongs of my test, and she's ALSO not articulate. Where's the benefit?

Posted by Hube at 05:47 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

Scare tactics

One question: You think the News Journal would ever write something like "Against a backdrop of aggressive Muslim terrorism ..."? Yeah, right.

From today's front page (online version):

"Aggressive anti-Islamic sentiment?" How is it "aggressive?" People -- GASP! -- voicing their displeasure at a mosque being built near Ground Zero? I'll certainly buy that burning Korans is more "aggressive" (as a Florida church plans to do in Sept. 11); however, it's certainly no more aggressive than burning an American flag ... and that's legally protected First Amendment expression. And if article writer Gary Soulsman actually bothered to do any research, he would find that anti-Muslim hate crimes have decreased (significantly) since 2001.

That's "aggressive?"

To the contrary -- it's just your typical, elitist, politically correct big media outlet continuing to contribute to its own demise. And all the while wondering why in the process.

Posted by Hube at 11:30 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 03, 2010

Painful

I agree with Delaware Politics' David Anderson: Listening to this [GOP Senate candidate] Christine O'Donnell interview is downright painful.

The only reason this incredibly vacuous woman is even close to Mike Castle is because 1) Castle has been in office so long, and 2) Castle is hardly considered a conservative. But Castle can beat Democrat Chris Coons, and that is of prime importance ... not to mention Castle's intellect is light-years beyond O'Donnell's.

Posted by Hube at 12:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Only in America

Gang Members Blast City, Police Policies.

At a news conference organized by self-identified gang members Thursday morning, several speakers complained that police and city officials do not respect them, and that the only way to curb violence is to provide jobs and improve their community.

The men who spoke out Thursday morning blamed poverty, drugs and a lack of jobs for the problems in the streets. They also said that Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis' meeting with so-called gang leaders was a waste of time.

But when asked what could be done right now to stop the daily barrage of bullets on Chicago streets, they didn't have an answer.

Of COURSE they didn't have an answer. Of COURSE they thought the meeting with the police chief was a waste of time. Of COURSE they blame anything and everything -- but themselves -- for the problems in their community.

THEY'RE GANG MEMBERS.

Sheesh.

(h/t to NB.)

Posted by Hube at 11:26 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Dopey WNJ Letter of the Week

Linda Haring of Newark wins the trophy this time out with this brain fart:

Last Saturday’s letter comparing the tea party movement to a cult is on the mark. But, I also wish to add Fox News, with Glenn Beck, as leaders of this cult movement.

The people who buy into these ideas are nothing more than brainwashed sheep, following mindlessly, to the preachings of these cult leaders. They preach doom, gloom and hate. Above all, they are against anything President Obama says or does.

That’s anti-American, if you ask me. But, alas, the sad part is how many seemingly smart people become cult followers!

Right. As one commenter to the letter wrote, "Insert "Obama" where you describe "Beck" and you have national politics 2 yrs ago." Indeed.

Look, there are some nuts among the Tea Partiers, but Haring is simply nothing more than what she claims the TPers are -- a brainwashed sheep. All she regurgitates is what the MSM and lefty pundits spew every. Single. Day. No, there's NO possible way the general public could be miffed at the country's hard-left turn over the past couple years. I mean, gee -- it happened in 1994, after all, and remember the result. At least, then, Bill Clinton wised up -- he followed the advice of advisor Dick Morris and moved back to the center. That, in concert with the new GOP Congress, resulted in some pretty good outcomes.

Posted by Hube at 11:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Harry Reid Soundboard

A great time waster and chuckle-inducer.

Posted by Hube at 10:27 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Watcher's Council results

First place in the Council category was VA Right with NYC Cabbie Slashed by Drunken Nutjob – Left Wing Media Makes Up the Rest.

First place in the non-Council category was RedState with A Free Society And The Muslim Conundrum.

Full results are here.

Posted by Hube at 09:16 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 01, 2010

Thugs

Check out Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell's thug squad led by goon Evan Queitsch:

Yeah man -- that's the way to win people to your side. Act like complete a-holes.

Mike Castle for Senate.

Posted by Hube at 05:18 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

I blame the hate rhetoric ...

... generated by hate sites like this for this guy's actions:

A gunman with a possible explosive device strapped to himself entered the Discovery Communications building in Silver Spring, Md., Wednesday afternoon and was holding a “small number” of hostages, police said.

James Jae Lee appears to have posted environmental and population-control demands online, saying humans are ruining the planet and that Discovery should develop programs to sound the alarm.

“I want Discovery Communications to broadcast on their channels to the world their new program lineup and I want proof they are doing so. I want the new shows started by asking the public for inventive solution ideas to save the planet and the remaining wildlife on it,” the alleged manifesto reads, adding: "Nothing is more important than saving ... the Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels. The humans? The planet does not need humans.”

In addition, I blame the heated rhetoric from outlets like MSNBC, the big three networks, and the Obama administration.

Posted by Hube at 04:27 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Is Feisal Abdul Rauf Really ‘Moderate’?

Katrina Trinko asks what I've been asking for weeks now.

Posted by Hube at 04:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Watcher's Council nominations

* The Colossus of Rhodey – Islamophobia
* Right Truth – Look For Another Lawsuit or Two
* Bookworm Room - Zoning, religion, guns and the Bill of Rights
* VA Right – NYC Cabbie Slashed by Drunken Nutjob – Left Wing Media Makes Up the Rest
* Rhymes With Right – Fisking Bloomberg
* Joshuapundit - ‘Progressives Need A Palin Of Their Own?’
* The Glittering Eye – The Conflict Between Egalitarian Policies and Abandoning Commodity Products
* Snapped Shot – Back!
* Wolf Howling – Obama Prostrates America before the UN Human Rights Council

And, of course, there's the non-Council nominations too!

Posted by Hube at 03:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

More please

I know I'll get flak for this one. The ad is too mealy mouthed or vague but hell, I liked it. A welcome break from all the posturing and shouting. Simple, short effective. Broad appeal. I don't know anything about his politics but the ad is very well done.


Posted by Duffy at 09:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack