March 29, 2012

Dopey Philly.com Letter of the Week 2

One wonders where Lora Neal of Philly gets her information:

TRAYVON MARTIN was an innocent black youth, minding his own business and returning from the store to the house where his parents lived. Trayvon only looked suspicious because he was in a community where he is not supposed to live. The only crime he committed was walking while being black. Please give us a break with the self-defense when the people in their homes heard Trayvon screaming for help. George Zimmerman is a murderer and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

1) Trayvon "wasn't supposed to live" in the community? Why not? The community is quite diverse, racially speaking.

2) It's not clear just who was "screaming for help." Zimmerman says it was him; Trayvon Martin's family say it was their son.

3) Why isn't self defense a legitimate claim if Zimmerman was indeed attacked by Martin, as he claims?

4) How is Zimmerman "a murderer" when the public doesn't know exactly what happened that night, and the authorities are still piecing it together?


Posted by Hube at 08:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 28, 2012

Dopey Philly.com Letter(s) of the Week

Philly.com has already -- and predictably -- opined on the Trayvon Martin case, thus opening the way for the expected dopey letter writers. First up is Scott Washburn of Philly who writes

If I understand the Florida "stand your ground" law correctly, if Trayvon Martin had been carrying a gun, he would have been perfectly justified in shooting George Zimmerman, just as Zimmerman claims to have been justified in shooting Martin ("Debating 'castle' doctrine," Tuesday). Martin's life obviously was in danger.

Well, you don't understand the law correctly, Scott. Martin would have a lot less of a justification for firing on Zimmerman than the reverse. Consider the relevant portions of the Florida law:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Zimmerman merely following Martin hardly rises to the level of "reasonably believing" in "imminent death or great bodily harm." On the other hand, if current reports are accurate in that Martin attacked Zimmerman first, Zimmerman's claims of self defense may have merit -- based on the above ... and on this section:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Even if Zimmerman is considered the "aggressor" by his initial pursuit of Martin ("Initially provokes the use of force against himself"), there's that highlighted exception. Reports say that Zimmerman had ceased his pursuit of Martin and was returning to his truck. It is here that Martin allegedly attacked him. Part "a" above would appear to be what allows the action Zimmerman ultimately took -- shooting Martin because Martin was beating the snot out of him.

Next, Anthony J. Frascino of Swedesboro (NJ) writes:

African Americans must realize the sad truth. Old white men are passing draconian gun laws to protect their own. Florida adopted an NRA-backed gun law called "stand your ground" to make it easier for citizens to kill you if you're perceived as a threat to their survival. To many of these folks, any black face is intimidating. So any vigilante confronting you can murder you, even if you get the upper hand and don't possess a firearm.

Hmm. Usually when one says "draconian gun laws" he means gun control. Frascino seems to be saying that laws like "Stand Your Ground" are racist because it gives "old white men" an excuse to kill black people. Which is actually pretty hilarious since the aforementioned gun control actually has racist roots. "Stand your ground" applies to everyone, whereas gun control laws historically only benefitted the well-off and whites, and currently only benefit the lawless. Just take a gander at how "great" gun control laws work in big inner cities now. Whom do they hurt most?

As for the rest of Frascino's nonsense, I direct him to the appropriate sections of the Florida law noted above in response to the first letter writer.


Posted by Hube at 05:09 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

December 13, 2011

Dopey Philly.com Letter of the Week

It comes from Wendell W. Young, IV, President of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local regarding the possible privatization of Pennsylvania's "state stores" -- those that sell wine and liquor:

Turzai's original bill, HB 11, would eliminate the shops in one step. But the committee is considering other provisions that would lead to the slow destruction of thousands of jobs and the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in state revenue. These steps would greatly increase the number of stores and destroy an important and unmatched system of preventing sales to minors.

Where we now have some 620 stores, with the proposed changes to HB 11 we would have more than 10,000 sales outlets.

This system of selling wine and liquor in PA is so ridiculous -- as ridiculous as Wendell's letter. He says there will be the loss of thousands of jobs ... yet, how does a huge increase in the number of stores from 620 to over 10,000 result in a net job loss?? Not to mention, how will this massive increase in store numbers lead to a loss in state revenue?

A few weeks ago I traveled to western PA and happened to check out the front of a state store in a small burg there. They're hard to spot, by the way, if you don't know where to look. At any rate, the place was open only four days a week, and the hours it was open were hardly convenient for the average consumer. If I recall correctly, there weren't any night hours at all! No night hours -- for a liquor store?? "Silly" doesn't begin to describe such.

The real reason Mr. Young is opposed to privatization is because, if that town's state store was any indication, they have incredibly cushy jobs -- with cushy hours and with commensurate cushy pay and benefits. But Joe Consumer knows that, like any other monopoly, the service sucks, the employees are rude and incompetent, and product prices are high. (Anyone remember when AT&T was the only long distance carrier around? Anyone in northern Delaware remember when Rollins Cablevision was the only alternative to an antenna? f so, you know what I mean.)


Posted by Hube at 05:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 10, 2011

Dopey Philly.com Letter of the Week

Rus Slawter of Philly is a dope. Here's why:

I FOUND IT almost humorous that conservative talk-show host Dom Giordano stated that most of his callers are upset that Herman Cain is being picked on so much. They claim that President Clinton was not picked on like that.

First off, these Cain women were paid to keep the issue quiet. Second, I guess these people had their heads buried in the sand when their people spent millions of our tax dollars trying to have [Clinton] impeached. Clinton got [oral sex] from a consenting adult. Is that worse than sexual harassment?

Hey dope -- the issue is not Monica Lewinsky. It's 1) Paula Jones. 2) Juanita Broaddrick. And 3) Kathleen Willey. How much did the MSM care about these women, Rus? How much did it care that Clinton operatives like James Carville referred to them (well, Jones at any rate) as "trailer park trash?"

Answer: Not much. So spare us the phony comparisons.


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

August 03, 2011

Dopey Philly Inquirer Letter of the Week

Alice van Buren Kelley of Wayne wants the government to make her pay more taxes:

I am distressed at the unwillingness of Congress to consider raising taxes to help lower the deficit. My husband and I make a bit more than $250,000 a year. Both of us believe that it is only fair for us and those like us to share a larger portion of the burden of this debt than those who earn less. In the days of Reagan and Clinton, top earners were taxed at a higher rate than is the case today, and the national debt was under control.

My husband and I donate to charities, but private charities cannot offer the support for those on the brink that is given by programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Nor can they improve education, mend our infrastructure, or pay for other projects crucial to the health of our nation.

I suppose since "progressives" want government to do everything for everybody that it is not surprising they would also need it to make them pay more to the government! Hey Alice -- what precisely is preventing you (and other "progressives") from sending in extra cash to Uncle Sam right now?? Get out your freakin' checkbook and write "United States Treasury" where it says "Pay to the Order of." It's very simple ... simple enough that even a wealthy "progressive" can grasp it.

Or maybe not -- especially since Alice actually believes higher taxes would be used to pay down the deficit and debt, instead of going to the usual wasteful endeavors.


Posted by Hube at 01:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 07, 2011

Dopey Philly.com Letter of the Week

Yet another misinformed person wants to lecture us on what the landmark Brown v. Board of Ed. Supreme Court case supposedly means:

IN 1954, in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court held that our public schools had to integrate racially "with all deliberate speed." After a courageous battle, Thurgood Marshall and his team prevailed. Or did they?

On March 16, as reported by the Daily News in "School Districts on Border Patrol," students from Philadelphia public schools are still trying to find ways into suburban schools because they and their parents recognize that the education in city schools isn't equal to the education in a suburban school. Apparently, the passage of nearly 60 years still isn't long enough to satisfy the Supreme Court's requirement of "all deliberate speed."

Let's stop worrying about where my kid is going to school and let's start worrying about where our kids are going to school. Let's put the haves and have-nots in the same school. Just imagine really mixing kids of every race, creed and economic means in schools that have equal resources.

Once AGAIN, Brown v. Board of Ed. did NOT require that all schools HAD to integrate racially. What it did was sunder the barriers of LEGAL segregation; in other words, black children did not have to drive miles past a [white] school due to the requirement of attending an all-black school. All-white schools and all-black schools based on the LAW were to cease to exist. In other words, "Discrimination is forbidden, but integration is not compelled."

And letter writer Gino Benedetti is also misinformed about the supposed "kumbaya" effects of mixing children of all races and socioeconomic statuses in schools. It's been tried all over the country, most notably right here in New Castle County, Delaware, and Kansas City, Missouri. In addition, Delaware has since enacted a "school choice" law, enabling students to attend a school of their choice anywhere in the state. The fact of the matter is, it's nowhere near a panacea. Obviously, there's a lot more involved in raising the achievement of children and in what makes a "good" school.

Posted by Hube at 01:32 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 31, 2011

Dopey Philly.com Letter of the Week

Bill Franshel of Bryn Mawr apparently doesn't know what a "fact" is:

That is an ironic position for [columnist Charles] Krauthammer to take considering that he was such a champion of the Iraq war, a quagmire that the United States arrogantly and almost unilaterally entered without understanding the ramifications. The history of the last decade should make abundantly clear how foolish that approach was.

I seem to recall that, under the last president, Americans were supposed to refrain from criticizing the commander-in-chief while our troops were fighting overseas. Have the rules changed?

"Almost unilaterally," Bill? Uh huh:

Bush coalition in Iraq:

Afghanistan
Albania
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Hungary
Italy
Japan
South Korea
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

Obama coalition in Libya:

United States
France
United Kingdom
Italy
Canada
Belgium
Denmark
Norway
Qatar
Spain
Greece
Germany
Poland
Jordan
Morocco
United Arab Emirates

Oh, and Bill? The old adage is that politicians should refrain from criticizing a president's foreign policy while they're in a foreign land.

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

January 25, 2011

Dopey Philly Inquirer Letter of the Week 2

James Price of Shillington notes a "connection" between the year Tucson killer Jared Loughner was born and ... the year Rush Limbaugh came on the air as a talk show host:

Loughner was born the same year Rush Limbaugh hit the airwaves, 1988. For all his life and for millions of others his age, this climate of hate has been ever-present. Perhaps none of it caused Loughner's lunacy, but only the least reading of the blogosphere shows there are legions of Loughners out there. When the next one will act up is anybody's guess.

Perhaps reading the Inquirer didn't cause Price's nuttery, but only the least reading of its ridiculous bias shows it must have a lot of stupid readers.

Posted by Hube at 06:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Dopey Philly Inquirer Letter of the Week

Sheldon Latchiver of Philly blames the Tucson, Arizona shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords on ... people's diet:

Yes, our diet. Desensitization to violence begins in the home, when parents assure their children that chickens "give" eggs, cows "give" milk, and that pigs "give" their flesh for us to eat. The daily violence visited on these innocent animals and subsidized by us at the checkout counter gets buried in our subconscious mind.

Would it be any better for our young'ins if they were treated to the "death" of a corn stalk, a bean plant, and a tomato vine? Wouldn't that be traumatic too? SHEESH.

But hey, Shelly does bring up something which "progressives" always excuse as a motivator for guys like Jared Loughner: violent video games. "How much of a stretch is it then to spend hours on violent video games? And will that experience govern how they resolve a social confrontation?"

So Latchiver gets a small point back on the Dopey Meter for that!

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

January 12, 2011

Dopey Philly Daily News Letter of the Week

Harriet B. Brown of Philadelphia is obviously a follower of THE NARRATIVE TM:

WELL, someone has gotten hurt because of all the negativity uttered since President Obama was elected.

It was only a matter of time. Has one Tea Party person said this has to stop? It started during the health-care debate and got worse. I saw people walking around with guns every place the president was speaking, I saw Rep. John Lewis spat on and Republicans holding up the "Don't tread on me" flag.

The shooting happened in the most racist part of the country, fueled by people who don't have a clue but are driven by the Tea Party - I always knew they were just a part of the Ku Klux Klan.

They want to repeal the health care bill now - that shows you how much they care. The Republicans were voted into office by people who thought they were hurting the president, but if you think they're going to help you, just take off those rose-colored glasses.

And what's Sarah Palin said about this? They all talk about the Founding Fathers, who were nothing but slave owners. Come to Philadelphia and see the house where Washington lived and where he kept the slaves like animals.

Presented without comment. None is needed.

Posted by Hube at 03:26 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

November 15, 2010

Dopey Philly Daily News Letter of the Week

Charlotte J. Mears of Philly offers up this gem:

I JUST WANT to thank all the people who on Nov. 2 voted "Bush" back into office for literally destroying the lives of poor people all over this country. I can't believe people could be that stupid. But then I have to remember that I'm living in the United States of America.

I've never seen so much hatred and racism come out of the woodwork as I have since President Obama took office. The Tea Party should change its name to the Ku Klux Klan because that's exactly who they are!

And Sarah Palin is nothing but white trash, and a political joke that will keep us who have any intelligence laughing right into the 2012 election. Which I must add, from this so-called "historic" election, has all but guaranteed our president's re-election in 2012 - because when these Republicans get through with these racists in this country, they will be screaming to the rafters for the Democrats to take back the control that they had.

Thank you to the racists across this country. You should be ashamed of yourselves!

Just another typical faux "progressive."

Posted by Hube at 07:21 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

November 14, 2010

Dopey Philly Inquirer Letter of the Week

Kent D. Lollis of Yardley serves up the most tired excuse of the modern age -- yep, "racism":

The remorse is related to what I perceive to be the real problem with Obama's election - that race relations have not matured enough in this country to accept the president. I feared that white America, especially those from blue-collar and red-state backgrounds, would unite against a black president unlike anything we have ever seen before. Now they have found comfortable proxies for racism to attack his leadership over taxes (that most of them don't pay), the size of government (don't cut their Medicare and Social Security), and a federal budget deficit (that most of them don't understand).

If Obama does not pull the miraculous turnaround that Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan experienced following their midterm losses, it is because this country cannot accept the president because of his African American origins.

Or, contrariwise, one might say that Kent is so intellectually vacuous that no matter WHAT reason one may offer to criticize Obama, it'll ALWAYS be "racism" to Kent.

Race relations certainly matured enough in this country to elect a black man as its leader; they obviously haven't matured enough to realize that legitimate criticism does not always (or even sometimes) signify racism.

Posted by Hube at 09:56 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

August 12, 2010

Dopey Philly Inquirer Letter of the Week

Every August, there's always a few ... "know-it-alls" who come out of the woodwork to "educate" us peons that there was no reason to drop the [newly developed] atomic bombs on Japan to hasten the end of World War II. This year, one of those is Michael M. Burns, an adjunct lecturer in history at Saint Joseph's University:

The anticipated invasions, only necessary if Japan did not surrender, would likely have incurred casualties of 20,000 to 40,000 men, not between a quarter of a million to a million. Not a number to sneer at, but still far fewer than the 200,000 civilians, the majority women and children, of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Y'know, I was just watching a show on one of the History Channel cable offshoots that utterly and directly refutes this ... notion, and this is not to mention the irrefutable on-the-ground platoon-grunt facts. To say that US casualties in an invasion of Honshu (the main Japanese island), let alone the southernmost main island of Kyushu, would "only" cost 20K-40K men is simply laughable. The battle of nearby Okinawa -- a tiny "rock" in comparison -- cost the US "over 62,000 casualties of whom over 12,000 were killed or missing." And civilian casualties? Okinawa's were

estimated to be between 42,000 and 150,000 dead (more than 100,000 according to Okinawa Prefecture). The U.S. Army figures for the campaign showed a total figure of 142,058 civilian casualties, including those who were killed by artillery fire, air attacks and pressed into service by the Japanese Imperial Army.

It is just inconceivable that, given the utter, no-surrender tenacity of the Japanese on Okinawa (not to mention on Iwo Jima -- a mere eight square mile island which cost the Americans almost 7,000 dead and over 19,000 wounded) an invasion of the main Japanese islands would "only" cost the US between 20,000-40,000 men.

Burns further states (in response to a previous pro-atomic bombing article) that "[such] comments run counter to the best research of recent decades." Is that so? Maybe he ought to check out what D. M. Giangreco, editor for the US Army's professional journal, Military Review, had to say about researchers like Burns:

Now, this is particularly interesting because, in recent years, some historians have promoted the idea that Marshall's staff believed an invasion of Japan would have been essentially a walk-over. To bolster their argument, they point to highly qualified- and limited- casualty projections in a variety of documents produced in May and June 1945, roughly half a year before the first invasion operation, Olympic, was to commence. Unfortunately, the numbers in these documents- usually 30-day estimates- have been grossly misrepresented by individuals with little understanding of how the estimates were made, exactly what they represent, and how the various documents are connected. In effect, it is as if someone during World War II came across casualty estimates for the invasion of Sicily, and then declared that the numbers would represent casualties from the entire Italian campaign. Then, having gone this far, announced with complete confidence that the numbers actually represented likely casualties for the balance of the war with Germany. Of course, back then, such a notion would be dismissed as being laughably absurd, and the flow of battle would speedily move beyond the single event the original estimates- be they good or bad- were for. That, however, was fifty-plus years ago. Today, historians doing much the same thing, win the plaudits of their peers, receive copious grants, and affect the decisions of major institutions.

Be sure to check out Giangreco's assessment of what officials thought real casualty figures would be in an invasion of the Japanese home islands.

As for Burns' concern over the civilians killed in the atomic bombings, I suggest he consider the number of civilians killed by the "conventional" bombing of Tokyo in early 1945 -- which killed more people than the immediate effects of either of the atomic bombs. This isn't to say that targeting [primarily] civilian areas was a ... "good thing;" however, WWII was total war, and such targeting of civilians was applied by the Axis powers to a hugely devastating effect (see, ahem, China and the Holocaust, to name but two).

Posted by Hube at 10:59 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

June 14, 2010

Dopey Philly Daily News Letter of the Week

Previous two-time winner Hannibal Casanova offers "extraordinary insight" into ice hockey:

I'M HAPPY THAT this Flyer pandemonium is finally over.

As an African-American male, I could never identify with the culture of ice hockey. For one, I don't even know if the team or league has an African-American. [It does. -- Hube]

So why should I feel upset that they lost? Even if there was any possibility of a Jackie Robinson in the NHL, I sure don't know of one. [Because you're a racist tool. -- Hube]

The NHL is unwittingly practicing athletic apartheid as result of their white ice. I look forward to the Eagles, Sixers and Redskins season, which will give me something to culturally identify with.

Such a letter is just SO dopey that it really defies any attempt to seriously rebut it. However, I wonder if Hannibal thinks, due to the dearth of white guys in the NBA, that it is practicing "athletic apartheid?"

UPDATE: In a related note, the Chicago Sun Times' Richard Roeper laments the "lack of diversity" of the NHL fan base. He says, "I'm just saying." Which is about as substantive as saying f'in nothing.

Posted by Hube at 11:15 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Dopey Philly Inquirer Letter of the Week

Wow, Keith Nolan writes in all the way from County Leitrim, Ireland and helps to prove that Europe hasn't really learned all that much since World War II:

Bravo, Helen Thomas.

Finally, an eminent and respected former White House reporter has spoken publicly about an unpalatable truth and Israel.

Something tells me that Keith wouldn't have minded if Churchill gave in and let the Third Reich take over the British Isles ...

Posted by Hube at 10:59 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

April 15, 2010

Dopey Philly Inquirer Letter of the Week

The Rev. Sturgis Poorman of Bryn Mawr thinks that today's illegal immigrants are just like ... escaped slaves of two centuries ago:

It seems that many people who oppose immigration reform do so because it might allow those here illegally to be given a path to legal residency. They say that those who have consciously broken a law of our country should be punished, not rewarded.

One hundred and sixty years ago, Congress passed a law that also dealt with people who were in certain states illegally. It was called the Fugitive Slave Law.

The law, which required the return of escaped slaves to their masters, was, in retrospect, a bad law. Our current immigration laws, which require the return of more than 12 million illegal immigrants to their countries of origin, are similarly flawed.

The dopey aspect of this letter is more than obvious; how one can compare those brought to America in bondage seeking basic human freedom ... to people who already have their freedom but merely seek a better financial situation is beyond me. If the rev. believes that all illegals should be able to pay a fine and stay here (which he does), fine. But say so without making a comparison to those who were forcibly yanked from their homeland and sold into slavery.

The Rev. Sturgis Poorman: DOPE.

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

April 04, 2010

Dopey Philly Inquirer Letter of the Week

Francine Strauss of Philly thinks -- just like the MSM -- that the Tea Parties are no better than the "flash mobs" which have been plaguing Philadelphia recently:

After reading about flash mobs in Philadelphia, it has occurred to me that the tea-party gatherings are, in fact, flash mobs, too. Instead of using violence, although there has been some, their charismatic leaders use verbally violent speeches to incite their followers, who are essentially people angry about life in general and are being led to funnel that anger into a cause.

It is an adult flash mob, brought together by texting and the Internet, and just as dangerous as the mobs roaming South Street because they are adults buying into misinformation and misplaced anger.

Uh huh. No need for me to shred this idiot's letter -- just read the reader comments (at the link above) that follow the letters printed!

Posted by Hube at 11:23 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 20, 2010

Dopey Philly Inquirer Letter of the Week

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

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

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

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

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

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

I could go on and on and on.

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

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

March 01, 2010

Dopey Philly Daily News Letter of the Week

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeesh.

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

February 27, 2010

Dopey Philly Daily News Letter of the Week

Michael McGonigle of Philadelphia thinks he's "deconstructed conservatism":

When a conservative calls something "socialism," all they really mean is that someone other than themselves or their big-money friends stands a chance to make a portion of the profits. Liberals may be starry-eyed and naive, but at least they are not petulant and greedy.

Wrong. They're just usually greedy with other people's money.

If you want to know what the U.S. Constitution says about the duties of the president, check out Article II, Sections 2 and 3.

While it's true that the president's duties have become more complex since the Constitution went into effect in 1789, I'm not sure that just "cutting taxes" and "killing terrorists" are the president's sole duties, even if that's what [letter writer] Stuart Caesar believes.

Let's say Mr. Caesar is right - wouldn't it be really helpful to make sure the person is actually a "terrorist" before we kill him?

Maybe Mike oughta ask that of Barack Obama, whose stepped-up pilotless drone attacks on suspected al Qaeda and Taliban (that's "TAH-lee-bahn" according to Barack) don't "make sure" of that distinction at all!

But then, that means we would have to follow the legal procedures outlined in the Constitution because we are, after all, a country that prides itself on following the law.

And didn't Obama campaign largely on that premise -- "getting us back" to that after those "devastating" Bush years?

And then the typical, ridiculous fall-back position:

I ask all decent, intelligent and thoughtful Americans to stand up to these fools. We have a glorious and successful history on our side. All they have is Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.

Gad, I wish I had a nickel every time I heard/read some sadsack "progressive" bring up the names of the supposed "boogeymen" of the conservative movement -- Beck, Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity, et. al. But even if that were really the case -- that they were "all [conservatives] had," who is "all 'progressives' have?" Keith Olbermann? Rachel Maddow? Chris Matthews? Ed Schultz?

ROTFLMAO! Good luck with that!

Posted by Hube at 10:05 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

November 20, 2009

Dopey Philly Inquirer Letter of the Week

Peter A. Friedrichs, like one of the LGOMB (pandora), doesn't understand what profiling is:

Racial and ethnic profiling is morally reprehensible because it seeks to label people based solely on their race or nationality ("Fear of offending is a threat to us all," Nov. 12). It is a policy that promotes fear of anyone who doesn't look or act like "us," and it has been proven to be both costly and ineffective.

Friedrichs is clever by slipping in "racial" and "ethnic." But the article which he references (Michael Smerconish's, here) doesn't advocate singling out someone based solely on one's race or ethnicity. Indeed, Smerconish quite blatantly outlines other behaviors (by, in this case, Muslims) that triggered reactions by law enforcement and others.

As for "costly and ineffective," perhaps Friedrichs should speak to Israeli authorities about that.

(Side note: The only instance where outright racial profiling is commended seems to be when discussing so-called "white privilege." Then, it's "all whites are inherently racist" -- a blanket statement that doesn't need any supportive back-up whatsoever.)

Posted by Hube at 04:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 23, 2009

Dopey Philly Inquirer Letter of the Week

Philly's Len Mfuasi thinks, unfortunately, what a lot of folks (in academia, mostly) do -- namely, that only whites can be racist:

Much has been written about black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s arrest by a white police officer. Can we stop the bull and the overly childlike, deferential behavior and get down to the nitty gritty?

One, there is no such thing as being philosophically or socially color-blind; it's a physical condition. Two, even if one were color-blind, the ultimate historical racial division of black and white in this country would actually be even more pronounced. Three, one need only ask white antiracist writer Tim Wise and he will make the convincing argument that the only significant racism is white racism.

All this other anti-affirmative action and reverse racism stuff is nothing but linguistic hocus-pocus intended to maintain white privilege and white supremacy, and to soften the dialogue, once again, to make white people comfortable. There is only white racism - yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If African Americans had not been a resilient, determined, and courageous people, most would be dead. And, please, no more spreading the blame by trotting out the African chiefs who sold their own people. No one could have possibly known what Africans were in store for once they reached the United States.

It makes no difference if one's ancestors never owned slaves, were discriminated against for a brief period because of their own ethnicity, or were never guilty of a single racist gesture. Once all white ethnics were welcomed into whiteness, their lives and every opportunity granted them came at the expense of African Americans.

Yeesh. Who can add to that?

Posted by Hube at 04:47 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

June 03, 2009

Dopey Philly Daily News Letter of the Week

A previous winner of this prestigious honor, Hannibal Casanova, gets it again with this winner:

Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court has been met with right-wing Republican reverse psychological games by those doltishly calling her a racist.

But this pejorative phenomenon has to be manifested by the dominant ruling class in any given society (white in this case).

Judge Sotomayor is a member of a Puerto Rican minority that has no power to inflict suffering on any other group. Minorities can be prejudiced, hateful and biased, but, by definition, they don't have the power to be racist. A more appropriate criticism of her is that she is prejudiced, but accusing her of being racist is just a weak head game by the real racists.

Don't have the power to be racist -- by definition? Let's see:

rac-ism  /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ [rey-siz-uhm] –noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Look at the other entries, too. Feelings of hue superiority having "to be manifested" by the "dominant ruling class" are not necessary in order to be racist. Such a "definition" was concocted by radical edu-babblists to assuage themselves of their "inner guilt," and to absolve the "oppressed class" of responsibility for any racist beliefs they may harbor. I mean, how easy it must be: "I can't be racist -- I'm black!" Or, "I'm Hispanic, therefore I can't be a racist!"

How convenient.

Even so, Sotomayor, as a judge, sure has a LOT of power over MANY people. As a Supreme Court Justice, she'll be among the nine most powerful people in the entire country.

And I'm sure the Philadelphia Public School District was just delighted that Mr. Casanova was selected as one of six "community reviewers" for the district's K-8 social studies curriculum back in 2004!

Posted by Hube at 05:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 12, 2009

Dopey Philly Daily News Letter of the Week

Simon Dicker of Philly must suffer from hallucinations:

Flipping the TV channels, I decided it was time to call the Republicans' bluff.

My GOP relatives complain about biased liberal media, yet all I see is bias in favor of Republicans. The new administration and Congress should reinstate the fairness doctrine. I'd love to see Republicans vote against a bill designed to bring true balance to our airwaves, which, after all, are owned by all of us.

Clearly, we couldn't have government administrating the program, so an independent body would have to be set up - maybe a press-complaints authority with real power along the lines of what exists in England.

Aside from the delusional "bias in favor of Republicans" nonsense, you can BET your bottom dollar that the GOP will vote against the so-called Fairness Doctrine. I've always liked the "the airwaves are owned by all of us" complaint. Since ownership in the United States is based on capitalist free enterprise (well, that is rapidly changing!), what exactly is wrong with how the market works with the airwaves now? Answer: Nothing! And that's the rub to liberals and "progressives." Conservatives dominate the radio market. Free enterprise has worked. Period.

Hell, if you want to make even freer, get rid of the FCC. Let small companies and even individuals broadcast as they wish.

Don't be fooled. The so-called Fairness Doctrine is just a leftist power grab -- an attempt to stifle voices with which they disagree. It's straight out of the Left's playbook, people: Campus speech codes. Expansion of "hate speech" criminality. Mandatory "sensitivity" training where you're forced to "re-evaluate" your beliefs. Etc.

And don't think for a minute that the F.D. will be applied anywhere BUT radio. Because that's the only place conservatives dominate. Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews won't be forced to have a conservative "balance" their opinions. Nor will the New York or L.A. Times. And that's just dealing with opinion. Apparent "objective" news reporting certainly will be exempt from the F.D., but that's possibly even a bigger joke. Outfits like the Associated Press and others can keep labeling "Republican" to every negative aspect of a story, but omit the "Democrat" from same (see most recently here). Conservative views on policy matters can be scratched from articles. GOP politicians can be excluded from interviews and/or quotes. And so on.

And do we really want an "independent body" akin to that of England? A country afflicted with government-sanctioned political correctness magnitudes worse than our own?

No thanks.

UPDATE: Bill Clinton thinks the F.D. should come back.

Posted by Hube at 07:55 PM | Comments (19) | TrackBack

January 07, 2009

Dopey Philly Inquirer/Daily News Letter of the Week

Gary Kaminski of Buena Vista thinks the US should be “unbiased and give equal consideration” to both Israel and … Hamas(!!)

The status quo has failed. American policy toward Israel and Palestine has done nothing except prolong the suffering of the Palestinian people and enable Israel to keep an iron grip on the West Bank while at the same time sealing off Gaza and it's 1.5 million residents.

We desperately need a new American approach that is unbiased and gives equal considerations to both sides. Only then will Israel find the courage needed to make the hard decisions that will, ultimately, need to be made.

American policy has failed?? Like President Carter’s successful Camp David Accords which led to peace between Israel and Egypt? Like President Clinton’s attempt to do same between Yassir Arafat and Israel? Regarding the latter, Clinton was only “unsuccessful” because Arafat ultimately balked. In other words, it has been the policy of the Palestinians and that of many of their Arab neighbors (not to mention the UN) which has prolonged the suffering of the Palestinians. Period. If Hamas, Hizbollah and other terror groups would lay down their arms today and recognize Israel’s right to exist, peace would immediately be established, and a Palestinian state would be not far behind.

For the US to have an unbiased approach that gives “equal consideration” to both Israel and the Palestinians (in this case, their leaders Hamas) is beyond insane. Kaminski might as well argue that we should have given “equal consideration” to both the Axis and Allied powers during World War II (before Dec. 7, 1941). After all, the Nazis’ Final Solution is remarkably similar to what is stated in the Hamas Charter.

Dopey Philly News Letter (runner-up): Sal Ferraro of Havertown writes

If you had a friend who was committing suicide, would you try to stop him or help him?

Israel has ignored pleas by our last four presidents asking Israel, in order to gain true peace with their neighbors, to stop building settlements on Palestinian territory. Why are U.S. taxpayers continuing to provide billions of dollars to Israel to be used for their own destruction?

Why aren't American Jews who agree with my views forcefully speaking out in order to save Israel from destroying itself?

Yeah. Sure. If only the Jews stopped building settlements, the Palestinians and other Arab [sovereign] states would immediately cease terrorist activity and recognize the adjacent Jewish state.

And chickens have lips.

Posted by Hube at 03:46 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

December 22, 2008

Dopey Philly Daily News Letter of the Week

Hannibal Casanova of West Philly has a beef with Mayor Michael Nutter: He’s in a “slave-master relationship with the [Philly] white community.”

WHEN I FIRST heard that the Nutter administration would be cutting certain public libraries, I automatically knew the ones in the African-American communities would be targeted first (exception of the Fishtown branch).

Mayor Nutter clearly understands the consequences behind challenging the Philadelphia Eagles' multibillion-dollar football stadium, which owes the city $8 million, or targeting the Mummers Parade, which are both white-folks recreational establishments. But because this mayor has developed a slave-master relationship with the white community in this city, his tenure will forever be in a form of psychosocial obedient debt to them for electing him.

Unfortunately, resulting in the cutting of urban libraries where young African-American children go to access resources is no concern to this psychologically trained "Happy Negro" mayor.

Indeed. If the white folk can’t somehow get a white guy elected in Philly, they just resort to “psychosocial obedience” training on whichever black guy is voted in!

Posted by Hube at 04:06 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

November 29, 2008

Dopey Philly Daily News Letter of the Week

Philly's Walt Berg asks some "persnickety questions:"

HOW COME when a hurricane hits, it only takes three days for gas prices to rise? But it takes several years for prices to go down with new drilling?

Let's see, Walt ... maybe because the damage from a hurricane to oil rigs is immediate and will thus have an immediate impact on gas prices? Whereas when it comes to new [oil] drilling, companies have to research where to drill, and then construct a rig or drilling platform to get that oil. This takes years, hence the price effect of this new incoming oil takes ... years.

How come nowadays a lot of men and women don't want to get married to each other, but a lot of men want to marry men, and a lot of women want to marry women?

Maybe because most of the latter can't legally do so and ... want to?

Why is it that gas stations charge an extra 9/10ths of a cent a gallon? What's wrong 5/10ths, or no 10ths?

It's a tried and true marketing gimmick, Walt. It's akin to some supermarket item being priced at "$6.99." Why not just make it an even "$7.00?" Because your mind sees that "6" first and determines that there's a "big" difference between "6" and "7." Even though there really isn't. So when the gas price says "$1.85 and 9/10ths," think "$1.86," natch.

Posted by Hube at 10:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 27, 2008

Dopey Philly Daily News Letter of the Week

Ann Townson of Philly is a perfect demonstration of the typical Obama voter:

I FOR ONE have had it. I'm sick and tired of a bunch of idiots foaming at the mouth regarding President-elect Obama having no experience. Unless I've lost my mind, neither did Ronald Reagan. He was a Hollywood actor.

Need I say more?

No. Please -- don't. As you said, "unless I've lost my mind..." It's gone, Ann. Let me fill you in on one "small" tidbit: Reagan was governor of the most populous state in the Union for eight years.

Happy Thanksgiving.

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

December 27, 2007

Dopey Philly Inquirer Letter of the Week

Victor J. Donnay of Bryn Mawr admits he joined in the booing and hissing of American delegates to the recent Bali conference on climate change:

I am not surprised that delegates at the U.N. climate change conference in Bali booed and hissed the American delegation. I had exactly the same reaction, with some screaming in anger and frustration thrown in, when I read of the EPA's decision to prevent California and other states from enacting stricter vehicle emission standards ("Pa., N.J. to join suit over EPA rule," Dec. 21).

The federal government's claim that such local initiatives are unnecessary and interfere with the federal government's national efforts is laughable. The Bush administration has done everything in its power over the last seven years to stall and prevent meaningful action to curb climate change. To paraphrase Kevin Conrad, a delegate from Papua New Guinea at the U.N. conference, "If you are not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us. Get the hell out of the way."

Let's just see about that "stall and prevent meaningful action to curb climate change" statement, shall we?

International Energy Agency data show that over the past 7 years (2000-2006), the annual rate of increase for U.S. CO2 emissions is approximately one-third of the EU's rate of increase. Indeed, over the same period even the smaller EU-15 economy has increased its CO2 emissions in actual volume greater than the U.S. by more than 20%, even while the U.S. economy and population also grew more rapidly.

In fact, data show that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions fell by 1.3 percent in 2006 despite the fact that the U.S. economy grew by 3.3 percent that year. This is significant validation of the U.S. strategy of addressing global warming through technological innovation and market-friendly measures rather than costly, rigid emissions reduction targets. (Link.)

In addition:

The truth is that those developed nations that actually ratified Kyoto - including those countries whose diplomats booed the United States - saw their greenhouse-gas emissions go up, not down, by 4 percent from 2000 to 2004. In Germany and Britain, the only two major economies to register reductions, emissions fell due to factors having nothing to do with Kyoto or global warming.

When you remove Germany and Britain from the calculation, European emissions rose 10 percent between 1990 and 2005. (Link.)

Further:

The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.
  • Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
  • Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
  • Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
  • Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.

In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto. (Link.)

I particularly like the title of the middle article linked above -- "What the U.N. can learn from Google." I could probably title this post "What dopey letter writers can learn from Google," eh? That, or "Remember that old saying: 'Actions always speak louder than words.'" (For a few more examples, click here and here.)

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

December 18, 2007

Dopey Philly Inquirer Letter of the Week

Richard Greeley thinks he's giving Inquirer readers a history lesson in his letter criticizing Mitt Romney's speech on religion. He writes:

Your editorial "Church and state: Enlightening views" (Inquirer, Dec. 11) badly skewed Mitt Romney's speech on religion. What he did say is that he believes the Bible is the Word of God (he did not specify which bible). You also left out the major distinction between his speech and John F. Kennedy's. JFK said he believed unequivocally in the separation of church and state. Romney, on the other hand, said he believes religion should be a part of the "public square." Is that a new code phrase for putting the Ten Commandments in courthouses or does he envision every religious group placing its own maxims in public places? What a jumble of views.

In 1787, the founding fathers realized that each of the 13 colonies had, in effect, a different religious tradition. Thus the Constitution would never have been ratified if it had not specified the separation of church and state.

Let's leave religion in church, where it belongs.

Greeley is correct in that the 13 colonies had different religious traditions. But what he doesn't mention (maybe because he doesn't know) is that for years after the Constitution was ratified, many individual states still maintained their own state churches. That's right. For instance, Massachusetts didn't dismantle its state church until 1833, several decades after the Constitution was ratified. And it didn't do away with it due to some early 19th century ACLU; it was because of plain disinterest in the church. What was that about separation of church and state again, Rich?

In other words, Romney wasn't making an appeal to intertwine the [federal] state and religion at all. What he was saying is that the establishment clause doesn't disallow public displays of religion, at least as it's been determined in the last 50 years or so. Putting a Christmas tree up in front of a courthouse, or singing Christmas carols at a public school performance, for example, should not be "violations" of separation of church and state. A phrase by the way, you won't find in the Constitution.

Posted by Hube at 05:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 20, 2007

Dopey Philly Inquirer Letter of the Week

Monique Frugier of Ardmore thinks President Bush and Dick Cheney ought to be impeached. Why?

We all have blood on our hands if we do not defend and protect our Constitution, which clearly reads in Article I, Section 8, that only Congress has the power to declare war. Where is the outrage for Bush's war?

While I certainly agree that we'd all be better off if Congress demanded that it retake this very power as prescribed by the Constitution, let's examine that 2002 Iraq authorization vote: The House of Representatives passed H.J. Res. 114 (Public Law 107–243) on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133 with 81 Democrats agreeing to the resolution. The Senate, the following day, passed the resolution 77-23 with a majority of Democrats (29) agreeing to same.

With the quantity of Democrats agreeing with the resolution authorizing President Bush to use force against Iraq, that hardly makes it "Bush's war," Ms. Frugier. If the opposition party was truly against "Bush's war," they could have easily stopped it, especially in the Senate. Not to mention, especially, over this past year when the Dems took control of both the House and Senate. They could have ended the war outright by pulling the plug on funding. Why haven't they?

Posted by Hube at 03:30 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

November 07, 2007

Dopey Philly Inquirer Letter of the Week

Monsignor Francis X. Meehan of the St. Charles Seminary in Wynnewood says "We are torturers":

If there is one issue that none of us can distance ourselves from, it is torture and all dimensions of it. If there was ever an issue that pulls us into complicity, it is this ("Bush pushes to save Mukasey nomination," Nov. 2).

If our government and its agencies authorize such cruelties as waterboarding, and we do not reject this with all our might and vote and every method of resistance, then we not only authorize it, we actually do the waterboarding. We - each of us - become the torturers. There is no moral distance.

Actually, there is a moral distance, Monsignor. As I've [apparently not very persuasively] argued over at The Soapbox and Down With Absolutes, there most certainly IS a "moral distance" if our government decides to utilize something like waterboarding in order to save the lives of hundreds, thousands or perhaps even millions of Americans.

Do we as Americans look at ourselves in the mirror and "proudly" proclaim "We are moral giants! We didn't succumb to torturing anyone! It's just a shame 10,000 people were killed in that dirty bomb, though ..."??

Check out what Bret Stephens says about US "torture" (my emphasis):

"Oxygen starvation and carbon monoxide poisoning killed many; bomb shelters turned into ovens and roasted the persons inside, so that rescue workers days later found the bodies seared together in an indistinguishable mass; the molten asphalt of the streets engulfed those who fled the burning buildings." An estimated 45,000 people died this way in Hamburg. U.S. and British air forces would repeat the procedure over Dresden, Tokyo, Yokohama, Hiroshima, Nagasaki—cities of real or at least arguable military significance. Hundreds of smaller cities and towns of doubtful strategic value were also reduced to ash and rubble, bringing the total civilian death toll to about 600,000 Germans (including 75,000 children under 14) and a roughly equal number of Japanese.

The only compelling ethical defense that can be made for the bombing campaign is that it hastened Allied victory, spared at least as many lives (on both sides) as it cost, and created the conditions for a more peaceful postwar world. In other words, the question here isn't about the intrinsic morality of the bombing. It's about whether the good that flowed from the bombing outweighed the unmistakable evil of the act itself.

Would the Monsignor consider the US the equivalent of Nazis and Japanese for the actions we took against Dresden, Tokyo and ultimately Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Think about this again, people: We're actually going to call all of ourselves torturers and say there is no moral distance between we the people and those who waterboard (because we don't demand they stop it) -- even though doing so to terrorists might save countless American lives.

The debate, in the end, is about "results" — as Judge Mukasey put it in his confirmation hearing, the awful necessity of having to choose between terrible options. Stephens' conclusion:

Note the difference with the current debate over waterboarding, where opponents argue that the technique is unconscionable and inadmissible under any circumstances, even in hypothetical cases where the alternative to waterboarding is terrorist attacks resulting in mass casualties among innocent civilians. According to this view, it is possible to wage war yet avoid the classic "choice of evils" dilemmas that confronted past statesmen such as Churchill and Roosevelt. Or, to put the argument more precisely, it is possible to avoid this choice if one is also prepared to pay for it in blood—if not in one's own, than in that of kith and kin and whoever else's life must be sacrificed to keep our consciences clear.

UPDATE: Check out this from Taranto's Best of the Web (my emphasis):

Sen. Chris Dodd gave a speech in Iowa the other day, and one statement he made is worth pondering. After praising the conviction of Zacarias Moussaoui, Dodd said:
Compare that case to the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who organized the attacks of 9/11. He was held in a secret prison, where he claims he was tortured severely. Whether he is lying or not, by our actions we have allowed Khalid Mohammed to claim the moral high ground. Khalid Mohammed plays martyr to a world that is inclined to believe it.

Imagine if a U.S. senator in 1945 had given a speech denouncing the bombing of Dresden and solemnly declaring, "We have allowed Hitler to take the moral high ground." Such a statement would have seemed disloyal, and it would have been not just erroneous but monstrously so. That America's conduct in World War II fell short of moral perfection does not mitigate the fundamental evil of Nazi Germany. (Bret Stephens develops the point further in his column this week.)

Dodd does not quite have the courage of his convictions in this matter. He does not actually make the primary assertion: that KSM is morally superior to USA. Rather, he relies on a secondary claim: that unspecified other people--"a world," presumably meaning Earth--are "inclined to believe it."

Is even this secondary assertion true? Color us skeptical. Sure, a significant portion of the "world" is inclined to believe bad things about America. How much weight such opinions are due, both as a practical matter and as a moral one, is a legitimate topic for debate. But we don't recall ever hearing a serious person say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has the moral high ground vis-à-vis the U.S.

Possibly our information is incomplete and someone actually has said such a thing. Doesn't Dodd agree that this is an outrageous slander? And if America is being slandered, doesn't Dodd, as an American political leader, have an obligation to set the record straight?

Either Dodd is condoning the most vicious defamation of America or he is engaging in such defamation himself via a straw man. Whichever the case--and regardless of the merits of the policy under debate--his rhetoric is despicable.

Posted by Hube at 05:12 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 13, 2007

Dopey Philly Inquirer Letter of the Week

Adam Brown of Philadelphia thinks President George Bush "has escaped public criticism" unlike Barry Bonds:

It is troubling to me that the American media so relentlessly vilify baseball player Barry Bonds ("The record has been broken, but the taste is rancid," Aug. 9), yet President Bush has for years escaped the public criticism that so many of his actions should have provoked. Why look to a baseball player as the barometer of our nation's decline when a far more damning symbol of our worst cultural attributes presides over our government?

My emphasis. Um, in a word -- HUH??? President Bush has escaped public criticism??

In other news, Brown has just returned from Mars after a seven-year sojourn.

Posted by Hube at 09:21 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

July 05, 2007

Dopey Philly Daily News Letter of the Week

Stuart Burgh Jr. of Philly falls for the "diversity is the end-all to be-all" mantra (or whatever the heck that phrase is!) for American schools:

THE SUPREME Court made an ignorant decision by throwing out two school plans. This will increase segregation and reduce diversity in the U.S. education system.

Whenever there is a lack of diversity, people in the majority usually display arrogance that makes them feel intellectually superior.

Those who are truly intelligent are open-minded to new ideas and people. Those who live in a segregated environment where everyone looks the same can't measure up to that because of their limited and one-dimensional experiences.

Basically, Stu says

1) To hell with anti-discrimination law(s);
2) segregation and less diversity are inherently "bad," even if NOT enforced by law (so law must be allowed to enforce desegregation and diversity);
3) he must believe that minorities at Historically Black Colleges "display arrogance that makes them feel intellectually superior";
4) intelligence is a result of "more diversity."

What a head-shaker. But, it's not surprising that folks like Stu fall for this nonsense. It's certainly repeated often enough ("Diversity is GOOD!") that common sense and clear thinking go flying right out the window. I'd love to see Stu show us scientific evidence for points #2 and #4, all the while explaining how #3 doesn't apply to HBCs. (That's always a pain-in-the-ass query that really sticks in the craw of diversophiles and usually guaranteed to garner a rather evasive response.)

Posted by Hube at 12:45 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

June 19, 2007

Dopey Philly Inquirer Letter of the Week

Jason Weinberg believes that handing over the West Bank to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas would further isolate his party's rival Hamas in Gaza (my emphasis):

"Palestinians on path to even deeper divide," Thursday, states that "rival governments in the West Bank and Gaza would . . . push prospects of a Palestinian state even further away." Rather, this division can catalyze lasting peace.

Fatah, for now, supports a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while Hamas sees Israel's destruction through terror as its goal. Fatah and Israel could begin a peaceful resolution by creating Palestine, starting in the West Bank.

An isolated Gaza led by Hamas, on the other hand, would demonstrate that terrorism to achieve a state doesn't work and won't be tolerated or rewarded with concessions.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas could become a more credible negotiator by securing a West Bank Palestinian state. If that happens, a Gaza-West Bank split can be the beginning of real peace.

Really? What about the Fatah Charter, specifically Article 12 which states

Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.

And then there are these "inconvenient" following items from Abbas' own mouth:

  • "It is not required of Hamas, or of Fatah, or of the Popular Front to recognize Israel."
  • "We have a legitimate right to direct our guns against Israeli occupation ... Our rifles, all our rifles are aimed at The Occupation."
  • On Jews: "The sons of Israel are corrupting humanity on earth."
  • On suicide bombers: "Allah loves the martyr."
  • On Hamas: "We must unite the Hamas and Fatah blood in the struggle against Israel as we did at the beginning of the intifada." (Boy, THAT worked out well, eh?)
  • On disarming Palestinian terrorists: a "red line" that must not be crossed.
  • On the so-called 'right of return' of Palestinian refugees and their millions of descendants which, if implemented would end Israel as a Jewish state: "The issue of the refugees is non-negotiable."

The above are not old utterances. They were offered in the last couple years. And then there's Abbas' own "contributions":

  • He wrote a PhD thesis and published a book denying the Holocaust.
  • As senior PLO official, he funded the Munich massacre of Israeli Olympic athletes in 1972.
  • In May 2006, he endorsed the so-called 'Prisoners' Plan', a document produced by jailed Palestinian terrorists, that endorses continued terrorism against Israel, legitimizes the murder of Jews, does not accept Israel's existence as a Jewish state, abrogates Palestinian obligations under the signed Oslo agreements and the 2003 Roadmap peace plan, and insists on the 'right of return.'"
  • In December 2005, he approved legislation mandating financial benefits to be paid to families of killed Palestinian terrorists.

A "two-state solution" with Abbas will be little better than the "two-state solution" under Yasser Arafat I'm afraid ...

Posted by Hube at 10:01 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

May 28, 2007

Dopey Philly Inquirer Letter of the Week

Joanne Puglia of Dresher thinks the Bush administration was WAY out of line for striking back at former prez Jimmy Carter's harsh words about it:

How dare White House spokesman Tony Fratto dismiss former President Jimmy Carter as "increasingly irrelevant" after Carter criticized the Bush administration (May 21)? When was the last time Fratto or Bush constructed a Habitat for Humanity home? When was the last time they authored a well-received book on the continuing crisis in the Middle East, complete with ideas and suggestions based on years of presidential experience? For that matter, when was the last time Bush articulated the strategy for a peace process in the Middle East? Sadly, it is Bush and his administration that are "irrelevant."

Aside from building those homes (AFTER his pathetic presidency), the only success Carter can really point to is the Camp David agreement that established peace between Israel and Egypt. Let's take a look elsewhere:

  • Unemployment was over 10%,
  • inflation was over 15%,
  • the USSR rumbled into Afghanistan,
  • Communists took over in Nicaragua,
  • Iranians held American hostages for 444 days,
  • botched hostage rescue operation

And his book -- Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid?? Puh-lease. It caused the resignation of 14 members (15, eventually) of the Carter Center advisory board because of its one-sided "analysis" of the Israel-Palestinian problem. One CC advisor says that on page 213 of the book Carter goes so far as to actually condone Palestinian terrorism until they get a state of their own. Another former Carter Center advisor says the book is "replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments."

The book was "well-received," Joanne? If 15 members of Carter's own center resign over the book, who is "receiving" it "well"? The Palestinians? Probably. And most likely the utopian Left of which Carter arguably is a member.


"So I held my hands on Arafat's
head like this and said
'You are a great man!'"

Posted by Hube at 09:50 AM | Comments (20) | TrackBack

May 01, 2007

Dopey Philly Daily News Letter of the Week

The one and only Gooch points me to nutjob Edward O'Donnell of Wilmington, DE -- who actually thinks the loon who killed over 30 people at Virginia Tech had, well, justification (my emphasis):

No mention was made of the fact that someone or many people must have mistreated the shooter since childhood to create such rage.

No mention of the fact that many of his complaints were valid.

There is no spirit of remorse or repentance at Virginia Tech about the school's weaknesses.

No mention was made of the fact that the shooter was being gossipped about, laughed at, and ridiculed by cruel Virginia Tech students and faculty for years.

This may have pushed him over the edge.

The president of Virginia Tech learned nothing - nothing - from the incident.

The simplistic and one-dimensional coverage of the Virginia Tech incident by the media demonstrates how the press has destroyed the world.

Many of his complaints were ... valid? That what -- VA Tech has a lot of snotty rich kids inhabiting its campus? And who hasn't mentioned his [supposed] mistreatment from the past? So, someone should "teach [VA Tech folk] a lesson" -- by ending their lives?? What about how he was harassing numerous young women? Stalking them, even? Yeah, that's nothing to "pick on" someone about. Y'know, someone acting like a complete freak. Please.

People are picked on and harassed all the time. It's clearly no justification for mass murder. Only a mental pygmy would think so. The VA Tech killer's incidence of mental health problems goes back years. To even attempt to lay the blame on the folks at VA Tech is perverted, sick and twisted.

Oh, and 'ol Eddie suffers from BDS -- Bush Derangement Syndrome -- as well:

The first thing he [the pres. of VA Tech] does after the incident is to invite or allow George Bush - one of the worst mass murderers in history - to speak at the school.

But wait -- using Eddie's "logic," Bush must have a legitimate REASON for those mass murders!! Maybe he too suffered as Cho did, right?

Ed -- get help. Now.

Posted by Hube at 07:24 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

April 25, 2007

Dopey Philly Inquirer Letter of the Week

George Magakis Jr. of Norristown is consistently inconsistent in his criticism of the recent US Supreme Court decision regarding partial birth abortion (emphasis mine):

The Supreme Court ruling upholding a ban on "partial birth abortions" - a political term, not a medical one - without taking into account risks to the mother's health is not necessarily a victory for the "pro-life" movement.

Doctors now are more likely to practice defensive medicine in cases where the need for such a procedure might arise in late-term pregnancies and may be more likely to counsel women in such cases to terminate pregnancies in earlier stages.

These actions would be reinforced because of the perceived liability to doctors should a mother die - because the doctor cannot perform such a procedure if the need arises during delivery - and also because of the risk of being second-guessed by zealous prosecutors. (Recall that Attorney General John Ashcroft tried to subpoena delivery room records.)

Thus, in their attempts to preserve the life of the fetus, "pro-life" ideologues may end up with the unintended consequence of a greater number of abortions.

Magakis is probably being nebulous on purpose. True, the recent decision does not make an exception for the health of a mother (but, again, it is incorrect to assume the SCOTUS -- as well as lower courts and Congress itself -- did not hear myriad testimony as to why the procedure is not necessary to preserve a woman's "health"), but it does make an exception for the mother's life. Thus, there's an inconsistency in his first and third paragraphs. His last sentence is just laden with the same political terminology he himself laments at his letter's beginning. Partial birth abortion has nothing to do with a "fetus." It has to do with a viable baby.

Liberals who are currently chastising conservatives to "face reality" on the war and other topics (rightly so, in many cases) ought to take a long look in the mirror on this issue.

Posted by Hube at 03:26 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

March 22, 2007

Dopey Philly Daily News Letter of the Week

Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union, writes in to complain that Hazleton, PA's law against illegal immigrants (The Illegal Immigration Relief Act Ordinance) is "poorly crafted," and "affects ALL immigrants," not just illegal ones:

But the fact of the matter is that Hazleton's laws are so poorly crafted that they affect all immigrants, and legal immigrants and other law-abiding citizens are already feeling the fallout and being harassed.

Is the Ordinance "poorly crafted"? You be the judge: The actual law is here (.pdf file). The only possible beef that I can see with the law is that the section dealing with employers doesn't have a statement about knowingly hiring an illegal immigrant as the section regarding landlords does.

If these odious laws are allowed to go forward, business owners, landlords and neighbors are to report to the city anyone they suspect of being "illegal."

There's nothing in the written ordinance that mandates mere "suspicion."

That means skin tone and "foreign"-sounding accents will be the chief proxies for whether someone is suspicious and turned in. The law encourages discrimination and racial profiling and clearly makes all immigrants potential targets.

Baloney. How can "all" immigrants be potential targets when the law is directed at illegal immigrants? If a person applying for a job or apartment has proper documentation, there will be no hassle. If they don't, then there may be. (Hell, everyone needs proper documents to get a job or rent an apartment -- including citizens!) But the "skin tone" and "accent" canards are just that -- poor excuses for illegal behavior. The fact of the matter is that Hazleton's illegal immigration problem is overwhelmingly one of Latino origin. To ignore this fact is just politically correct bulls***. This would be like me complaining that, since the vast majority of serial killers are introverted white males, I'm a "potential target" when such a suspect is sought.

Even though the laws have been suspended while the ACLU pursues the current trial, the climate of fear and suspicion created by the laws has turned neighbor against neighbor and disrupted the lives of all immigrants in Hazleton.

So, in other words, even though illegal immigration is a huge nationwide problem, and that these immigrants knowingly break the law when they enter the county, Hazleton's ordinance is at fault, not the actions of the immigrants who've migrated to the small town. Illegally, I might add.

The target of Mr. Romero's rant, Stu Bykofsky, has a detailed reply in today's Daily News. (Thanks to Colossus' own Gooch for that pointer!)

Posted by Hube at 07:57 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 17, 2007

Dopey Philly Inquirer Letter of the Week

Steven Halpern of Philly repeats the old canard that the plague of violence in Philly schools is due to ... lack of funding.

According to statistics, most students expelled from school end up in prison. Today, anyone living in the United States has a better chance of going to prison than citizens of almost any other nation in the world.

So, students who want to learn, teachers and administrators should tolerate thugs who threaten and utilize violence nearly every day in the school setting because we don't want these thugs to ... end up in prison. Oh. Makes "sense."

Today, school funding per-student in Philadelphia is much less than what it is in some suburban communities. Who suffers from this gross funding inequality? Answer: the students.

Whom does Vallas want to punish for the horrid state of the school district? Answer: the students. The problem with the Philadelphia School District is not the students. The problem lies with the politicians who run a system funded at much less than the rate of suburban public schools.

Inner-city schools across the country have some of the highest per-pupil funding in the whole nation. Take a look at Washington DC schools, for example. Their per-pupil spending leads the United States, yet their schools are a disgrace. And, as if lower per-pupil funding is an excuse for violent student behavior. Blame the students indeed. Sheesh.

The problem also lies in the fact that these politicians feel it is fine for gross inequalities to exist, where some students have more than they could ever use, while others do not have enough food to eat.

Ah, now it all hangs out. The politicians aren't doing enough to redistribute the wealth adequately! Government, government, government. You're not "doing enough."

And, therein lies the problem, obviously. The mindset that clamors for ever-more governmental solutions to what are largely social, cultural and personal issues. The more we remove the onus from the personal to the collective (government), the more the existing problems in our schools (and elsewhere) will be exacerbated. In other words, it's the "it's not my fault" justification.

UPDATE: This letter from Melissa Castle-Caine in the Philly Daily News helps to make my point:

When we start taking parental responsibility for the incorrigibility of our children, only then can things change. It's not the schools or the teachers. It all comes down to who is ultimately responsible for the conduct of these out-of-control kids - the parents.

In addition, this other observation of hers is spot-on:

Why is it that we expect the schools to handle these issues instead of us, the parents? Why is it OK for a student to attack or harass a teacher (with minimal repercussions), yet as soon as a teacher tries to gain some type of order or respect, a parent is either on the phone or at the school demanding "justice" for his child?

My emphasis. Excellent point. Seen such instances quite often, Melissa. Unfortunately.

Posted by Hube at 09:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 05, 2007

Dopey Philly Inquirer Letter of the Week

Richmond Gardner of Horsham has a problem with the concept of checks and balances, among other things:

How incredibly disgusting that such an unconscionable act as holding people without accountability could be rendered legal ("Court rejects challenges by detainees," Feb. 21). That's the sort of chipping away at legal rights that sooner or later comes back to haunt American citizens.

Yeah! To hell with precedent about "illegal combatants" and even the very letter of the law (such as in the Geneva Conventions)! How dare the judicial branch agree with an executive branch opinion!

What we have is a rogue chief executive, trampling centuries of legal protections. Failure to protect "bad guys" in U.S. custody is not an isolated act that will happen only once; actions have consequences.

Yeah, that "rogue." Nobody can stop him, dammit! And those centuries of legal protections -- recall how George W. Bush interned Muslim-Americans in internment camps; how he unilaterally suspended habeas corpus even though the Constitution clearly states that power is reserved for Congress; imagine if he jailed political opponents at will and had US soldiers intimidate non-Republican voters ... wait -- that wasn't George W. Bush! Those were Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, respectively!

So much for those "centuries of legal protections," eh? Suddenly, George Bush's legal efforts against terrorists look kinda tame, huh?

And then the real kicker:

There was a mention of 9/11 among the reasons given for the court decision. Yes, Osama bin Laden is the primary culprit in this. But the president showed negligence, incompetence and dereliction of duty. Bin Laden could not have succeeded had the president done his own job.

Yes, indeed. George Bush -- in office all of eight months -- was "negligent" "incompetent" and "derelict" in his duty. The ... "uncomfortable" fact that Bush's predecessor in eight years didn't do anything about bin Laden is ... what? A "mere oversight"??

Posted by Hube at 05:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 23, 2007

Dopey Philly Inquirer Letter of the Week

Brendan Byrne of Doylestown thinks Congress (well, the Democratic majority therein) should be convicted of treason:

Friday, Feb. 16, 2007, I believe will go down in our country's history as a day of political treason and national shame. In a non-binding resolution, 246 members of our House of Representatives voted in favor of denying our troops in Iraq any reinforcements that may be needed.

Are there many in this great country of ours who can look into their consciences and say with a straight face that those voting in favor of this resolution really have the best interests of their country at heart?

The Constitution of the United States (Article III, Section 3) defines treason against the United States to consist "only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Can there be any doubt that the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq are aided and comforted by the constant undermining of our president and our troops by the Democratic-controlled Congress?

I don't think much really needs to be added to this inanity. Just keep in mind that not a single person from the Confederacy was tried for treason after the Civil War; indeed, "in the history of the United States there have been fewer than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions." And Byrne wants to try Democrats in Congress for treason for ... a difference of opinion -- one which pretty much jibes with the desires of the majority of the American public, at that?

Posted by Hube at 10:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 17, 2007

Dopey Philly Inquirer Letter of the Week

Ernest and Elaine Cohen of Upper Darby think the United States is akin to Stalinist Russia for "muzzling" scientists who believe in global warming:

We'd like to thank The Inquirer for the op-ed column on censoring government scientists ("Muzzling of federal scientists must stop," Feb. 8). About a dozen years ago, before President Bush, the Environmental Protection Agency gave a seminar in Philadelphia on how global warming would affect the climate in the region. What they said has come about: somewhat more precipitation, in the form of intense storms, not drizzle. Then, all talk was squelched.

Not since Galileo, or the Lysenko affair in Stalin's Russia, has the world seen such censorship of science on the basis of ideology. It is time that the American public knew the truth, so that we can be free again.

Their over-the-top hyperbole notwithstanding, Mr. and Mrs. Cohen ought to realize that it is the global warming skeptics that are being muzzled (or at least are attempted to be muzzled). Right here in Delaware, state climatologist David Legates has taken heat for his views on the warming topic. People have called for the decertifying of global warming skeptics and even labeled skeptics as akin to Holocaust deniers. Wanna go a step further? How about Nuremburg-style "war crimes" trials for global warming skeptics?

That sounds a lot more like Stalinist Russia than what Mr. and Mrs. Cohen offer. Global warming advocates have no shortage of proponents nor avenues of advertisement. They just concluded a huge international conference which garnered innumerable quantities of favorable press.

So, in a nutshell, give us a friggin' break.

Posted by Hube at 10:31 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

February 06, 2007

Dopey Philly Daily News Letter of the Week

I know Hube won't mind me handling the chores this time, especially with his schedule this week, but anyways, I am a bit more familiar with the local Philly papers. The winner for the Daily News this week is Gregory Williams of Downingtown. He writes:

ALL TOO OFTEN when a person of color has achieved something that is worth mentioning, it seems as though white America gets a little offended and intolerable when race is mentioned, as if to say, "Why make a big deal about it?"

But does white America understand the struggle, heartache and pain of black America? Do they have any idea of how it feels to be black in America today? Are all things equal?

Hey George! Can you point to me where some white folk were saying that having two black coaches in this past weekend's Super Bowl was anything but a good thing? And that it was a big deal? I'm betting not. And you know why? Because white America does have a pretty good idea of how far black Americans have come in our country's history.

I cringe when watching the news if there happens to be a robbery or murder and find out it's a black person who has committed the crime.

How come?

Look at New Orleans and the horrific things that happened there to the black populace. I would have never thought I would see black people treated so terribly in my lifetime.

And consider the person directly responsible for that city's safety, and who failed miserably: Mayor Ray Nagin. Oh, did I mention he is a black man?

So excuse us as we celebrate the Super Bowl coaches. Not taking away from the teams, the players or the sport, but taking the time to honor two men who may give a black child hope of a better future. This was black history in the making.

Not need to excuse you, George. We're celebrating right along with you, sir.

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

January 29, 2007

Dopey Philly Inquirer Letter of the Week

I've decided to expand upon the "Dopey Letters" mantra here at Colossus and include our other local "big" paper, the Philly Inquirer. Our debut entry is courtesy of Fletcher Todd (of Philadelphia) who writes:

I'M NOT A COMMUNIST - and never have been - but as a black Navy vet, I say, "Long live Castro!"

When he dies, black Cubans will lose their Martin Luther King Jr.

I was in Havana, Cuba, in 1950 with the U.S. Navy. I thought I was in Mississippi or Georgia. I was called the "n-word" by white Cuban girls in Spanish. White Cubans had the best jobs and lived in the best homes.

There were places that blacks could not go or live. Castro changed all that - no more segregation.

His only mistake was being friends with Russia. He was a freedom fighter, not a politician.

Wow. Just wow. Castro ... the equivalent of Martin Luther King??? For some reason, I just cannot see MLK -- if he had ever come to power, that is -- declaring all political opposition illegal, jailing political opponents, constructing a secret police force and, in a nutshell, establishing a totalitarian regime. One wonders if Mr. Todd would have liked it if [legal] segregation had ended via similar means here in the US?

Not a communist, you say ... ?

Posted by Hube at 08:48 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Dopey Philly Inquirer Letter of the Week

I've decided to expand upon the "Dopey Letters" mantra here at Colossus and include our other local "big" paper, the Philly Inquirer. Our debut entry is courtesy of Fletcher Todd (of Philadelphia) who writes:

I'M NOT A COMMUNIST - and never have been - but as a black Navy vet, I say, "Long live Castro!"

When he dies, black Cubans will lose their Martin Luther King Jr.

I was in Havana, Cuba, in 1950 with the U.S. Navy. I thought I was in Mississippi or Georgia. I was called the "n-word" by white Cuban girls in Spanish. White Cubans had the best jobs and lived in the best homes.

There were places that blacks could not go or live. Castro changed all that - no more segregation.

His only mistake was being friends with Russia. He was a freedom fighter, not a politician.

Wow. Just wow. Castro ... the equivalent of Martin Luther King??? For some reason, I just cannot see MLK -- if he had ever come to power, that is -- declaring all political opposition illegal, jailing political opponents, constructing a secret police force and, in a nutshell, establishing a totalitarian regime. One wonders if Mr. Todd would have liked it if [legal] segregation had ended via similar means here in the US?

Not a communist, you say ... ?

Posted by Hube at 08:48 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack