Glowie's Vista

Extreme Election Results

2006-11-12T08:00:00.000-05:00

The media has flogged the notion of Bush and the Republicans and their policies being soundly rejected.

That's what we do nowadays -- extreme portrayals and viewpoints for almost any event (this doesn't apply only to politics). It's as if the media has turned into one big Jerry Springer festival. The electorate no more rejected the Republicans this year than it did the Democrats in 2004. The House is roughly flipped from the 232-202 majority Republicans held (certainly not an overwhelming majority), and the Senate is 51-49.

Those are not landslide numbers. In 2004, Bush beat Kerry by only 51% - 48%, which is hardly a thrashing, especially given the wooden Kerry's complete lack of charisma and, well...anything that might lure votes from undecideds. In contrast, Reagan in 1984 won nearly 60% of the popular vote and all but 13 electoral votes. That's a landslide and a rejection of the losing candidate!

America is very evenly divided on many issues. The folks straddling the fence soundly rejected Bush and his policies, but not the electorate as a whole.

Invest Cuba's Rent Checks!

2006-09-16T08:01:00.000-04:00

In Friday's WSJ, an article mentions that the United States leases the Guantanamo Naval Base from Cuba (on a perpetual lease that only we can break) for $4,085, payable by check, per a 1934 treaty. However, " the Castro regime denies the legitimacy of the lease and refuses to cash the rent checks."

Which leads me to ponder the fate of all that money. Since 1960, that's over $187,000 in uncashed checks. Has the Treasury Department accounted for that money when reconciling our national checking account? If not, that could explain at least part of our budget shortfalls all these years.

More importantly, have we invested that money? If we'd saved that money from 1960 to 1990, and then invested in Microsoft stock, we could have balanced the budget years before Clinton did.

It's time Congress appointed a committee to investigate who's pocketing the Cuban checks. Free the Gitmo Gelt!

When Israelis Die, It Doesn't Count

2006-07-23T11:44:00.000-04:00

For sheer bias in coverage, the NY Times has to take a back seat to CNN.

On this morning's news just after 9:00 a.m., they devoted at least 15 minutes to film clips and stills of destruction in Lebanon. There was even a shot of two photos of little children neatly arranged at the top of some rubble, suggesting that the kids perished in the bombing and were buried under the rubble. The photos-on-rubble scene was clearly staged; the pictures were placed perfectly side-by-side, and didn't have even a speck of dust on them (though perhaps they floated down onto the rubble after having been blown sky high).

In all of this, there was not a single picture -- not one second -- devoted to any destruction, death or injury in Israel. This is despite the following having happened in Israel during the same time period (from HonestReporting.com):

- Some 17 people were wounded Saturday, two of them seriously, as waves of Katyusha strikes - more than 160 rockets - struck targets across the north of Israel.

- Ten rockets land in Haifa Sunday morning, killing two people and wounding several others. Two children hurt in Katyusha rocket strike on Carmiel Sunday morning; more rockets fired at the Upper Galilee, Acre, Tiberias and Kiryat Shmona during Sunday.

If Iran nukes Israel, CNN will probably show footage of the Iranian soldier who injured his finger pushing the button.

Thought Crime Epidemic Hits America!

2006-05-07T18:01:00.000-04:00

Case 1: A 40-year old man in an Internet chat room arranges a sexual liason with someone he thinks is a 13-year old girl. He goes to meet her, and it turns out that the "girl" is really a male police detective. The 40-year old man is arrested and charged with soliciting sex from a minor and various other depraved crimes. Well, this guy is a lowlife, yeah, but he didn't actually commit any of those crimes. In reality, he solicited sex from a male detective posing as a teen girl. Thus, he is being prosecuted because he thought the detective was a young girl.

Case 2: A drug dealer is hanging out on a street corner. He is charged with "loitering with intent to sell drugs," and his arrest on that charge allows the police to search the dealer's car, in which they find the drugs. The search is illegal, though, because the guy is being arrested not for actually selling drugs but for thinking about selling drugs.

Case 3: A degenerate white gang assaults a black man while yelling racial epithets. They are arrested and charged not just with assault, but also with a bias crime, which carries additional penalties. Thus, they do more jail time because they thought racially hateful things about their victim.

Case 4: A Wall Street crook's trial is going badly, so he decides to hire a hitman to whack the judge. A friend gives him the name of a guy who turns out to be a cop posing as a hitman. Plans for the murder are discussed, money changes hands, and the crook is now charged with conspiracy to commit muder. His crime is, in reality, however, talking about murder with a cop who had no intention of ever executing such a crime.

It's an epidemic in America -- crimes that involve thinking and/or discussing criminal acts that are never actually carried out. In all of the above cases, intent is certainly there, but what is intent?

Intent is thought.

If the pedophile in the chat room actually intended to have sex with a man posing as a young girl, would that be a crime? Is that sort of kinky sex a permissible, legal thought? If the degenerate gang of thugs hated and assaulted elderly people who wear bifocals, would those be bias crimes? Is hating black people a punishable thought but hating senior citizens with poor vision a permissible, legal thought?

Don't get me wrong. It certainly seems logical and necessary to prosecute conspiracy crimes against, say, hate-filled, would-be Arab terrorists who plot the destruction of the subways and the resulting murders of thousands of innocent people. But, this whole genre of thought/talking crimes puts us into murky, 1984-ish territory.

What if the would-be terrorists claim they were just getting their rocks off by discussing their fantasies (for them, blowing up innocent people is like sex), and that they had no intention of ever exploding anything? Do we believe that these were their true thoughts, or do we maintain that they really were thinking about destroying the subways? And, if the latter, on what do we base our assertions? Mindreading?

I don't have the answers. But, it is an epidemic without any signicant public debate. yet it would seem to be an issue of import to both Libertarians and Liberals.

Be careful that you discuss it in the right way, though. (And we'll decide what's right after you start talking.)

Was the Secret Service On A Doughnut Run?

2006-04-11T09:16:00.000-04:00

Item: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A screaming intruder was subdued at gunpoint on the White House grounds on Sunday while President George W. Bush' was at home. The bearded man, unarmed and wearing a ragged T-shirt that said "God Bless America," scaled the White House fence and ran onto the front lawn...Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren described the suspect as "someone known to us...who has jumped the fence in the past."

Notice that the Secret Service guy didn't state that the jumper had hopped the fence, say, only once before. He'd obviously done this trick several times or more. And I'd bet he's not the only one. In other words, the Secret Service -- assigned to guard the President of the United States and his residence -- can't seem to figure out how to keep people from vaulting the fence around that residence. (And if one of these guys decides one day to bring along a portable missile launcher, well, perhaps the Secret Service will stop him before he fires it.)

Apparently, it hasn't occurred to them to POST GUARDS every 50 feet or so AROUND THE DAMN FENCE! I realize that idea may be revolutionary, but I'm willing to let them use it for free. It's my gift to the country.

By the way, if Federal justice types are this inept at protecting the President from terrorists, shouldn't the rest of us feel a trifle concerned?

Don't Forward This To Your Friends and Family

2006-03-26T12:33:00.000-05:00

How thick is the average Internet user? Extremely thick, apparently, if we are to judge by the volume of e-mail warnings forwarded concerning scams aimed at getting people to give credit card codes or Social Security numbers to someone calling over the phone. The forwarders must think they and their friends just can't get a simple principle into their fat heads.

Snippets from the e-mails I've received (these probably qualify as classics by now, given their staying power and ubiquitousness):

- "A person pretending to be a fraud investigation agent for Visa asked for our credit card security code number. After we were called on Wednesday, we called back within 20 minutes to ask a question. Are we glad we did! The REAL VISA security department told us it was a scam and in the last 15 minutes a new purchase of $497 was put on our card." Moron!

- "Someone called telling me I failed to report for jury duty, and that I was subject to arrest. He asked for my Social Security number as verification." Extra-strength moron!

- "A woman called and said she was from the US Census Bureau. She proceeded to go over my home address, phone number and full name (maiden name as well). Then, she asked me to repeat my Social Security number to her." Extra-strength moron with baking soda!

And all of these e-mails urge the reader to "Make sure you forward this to your stupid, cement-headed family and friends." (OK, I added the adjectives there.)

If you've reached adulthood, how many of these warnings do you need before you internalize not giving out your personal info to strange voices on the phone? Thieves are creative; they'll come up with numerous themes in the future. Why are some people compelled to forward the story of suckers falling for each new variation? Do we all really need to read about every "please read me your Social Security number" scam that comes along?

Face it. If your friends haven't gotten the point by now, it won't be long before they let Mabel the Official Government Fraud Agent charge a new flat screen TV on their Visa card.

Democrats: The Disingenuous Party

2006-03-21T15:23:00.000-05:00

So, the Democrats have recruited nine Iraq War veterans to run for Congress this year.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/Politics/story?id=1743976&page=1

We can surmise that they are trying to gain some "we are strong on national security" aura from the military service of these people. Isn't that the same, lame strategy pursued by John "Did I mention I served in Vietnam?" Kerry in 2004?

Kerry lost to an ultra-vulnerable Bush in 2004 in large part because he was disingenuous, which many voters detected (and also because his speaking style reminded us of an exhumed cadaver). A majority, including many Democrats, simply didn't believe him on national security. He served in Vietnam? Big deal. Everything else he said -- and his record in Congress -- suggested he was anti-defense.

Simply put, he insulted voters, because they detected he wasn't being forthright -- that he was stressing Vietnam to distract voters from his real positions -- and that's the key reason he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Most people have a sense for when someone is full of crap.

Apparently, though, losing the presidency wasn't proof enough that this isn't the way to win voters' hearts, so the Democrats are sticking with it. (It seems that, if ideas and strategies are proven losers, modern Democrats are driven to try them over and over.)

Let me suggest something radical for the radicals: Honest backbone. If you're against the war, if you think America is imperialist, if you feel we should replace the policy of pre-emption with the strategy of endless negotiation, just say so. Strongly. Stop hiding behind the smokescreen of candidates who served in the military. Then, if you lose, you lose, but at least you will have been true to your principles.

The Democrat Party used to stand for something. Now, it wants to stand for both sides of every issue (another of Kerry's legacies), and in the process has lost its way and seven out of the last 10 presidential elections.

Maybe it's time for Democrats to get real.

1938 Redux: Negotiating With Liars

2006-03-16T12:18:00.000-05:00

In Mel Brooks' movie, "To Be or Not To Be," his character, dressed as Hitler, declares, "All I want is peace. Peace! Peace!" Then he satirically, and pointedly, sings the truth:

"A little piece of Poland, a little piece of France,
A little piece of Portugal, and Austria perchance.
A little slice of Turkey and all that that entails.
And then a piece of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales."

Of course, that's the way the pre-World War II situation (1938 - 39) played out in real life. The major powers, primarily Britain and France, negotiated with Hitler time and again, and convinced themselves they were achieving peaceful solutions. After all, Der Fuhrer gave his word! Austria fell, then the Czech Sudetenland, then all of Czechoslovakia, and everyone just kept talking. And Hitler gained valuable time to build up his military machine.

In 2006, we have a rerun, with a nuclear-minded Iran playing the part of Germany, and Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad reprising the role of Uncle Adolf (though Mahmoud's scruffy beard is a poor parallel to Hitler's more memorable moustache). And, just as Hitler laid out his land-grabbing plans in "Mein Kampf," the Iranians have publicly speculated about what they might do with nuclear weapons.

In October, Mahmoud -- a man who is clearly not a slave to political correctness -- said Israel needs to be "wiped off the map." Former President Hashemi Rafsanjani went farther and got more specific: He said Islamic nuclear bombs "would not leave anything in Israel, but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world." In other words, he's willing to take a retaliatory nuclear hit or three if it means destroying Israel.

Through it all, Britain is talking, France is talking, the US is talking...heck, Russia even offered to process uranium for Iran. Now, just today, the White House declared, "This diplomatic effort must succeed," a statement which is probably something like #468 in a continuing series (but we've all lost count). Iran, not surprisingly, maintains that its nuclear program is for purely peaceful purposes (a claim so transparently lame even Jimmy Carter might not believe it).

During all this chit-chat, of course, Iran gains valuable nuclear development time. Which means no one should expect any concessions from them soon -- the stalling (and playing the West for fools) is just too much fun. And, of course, no one should expect them to honor the agreements they make any more than Hitler honored his. Just look at their fine track record to this point. Besides, Iran shares one of Hitler's goals -- wiping out the Jews -- and nuclear weapons would make that attainable in their eyes.

The only unanswered questions are whether and for how long everyone keeps trying to negotiate with Iran while its nuclear weapons program keeps progressing. Given the lack of historical perspective displayed by the world's leaders to this point, the outlook isn't very cheery.

Mid-March Ramblings

2006-03-13T12:06:00.000-05:00

Did Slobby Get Whacked?
So, Slobodan Milosevic took drugs that worsened his health before dying in a Dutch prison. Does this mean the Dutch are war criminals? That they poisoned him? Because those surely would have been the accusations had he been in American custody. Incidentally, has the US commited a war crime yet this month? What do Jimmy Carter and John Kerry have to say on that topic?

****

The Sopor-anos.
The Sopranos season premiere was a disappointment. It was too ambitious, introducing too many sub-plots -- including a couple of new characters (one of whom is now dead) -- too much raw fish, and not enough blood. At 9:00 p.m. on Sunday, I can't follow 15 plot lines. Uncle Junior woke me up by shooting Tony, but I shouldn't have been nodding out in the first place. And wasn't the phone from the living room already off the hook (Tony knocked it off) when Tony used the kitchen phone to call 911? How come he didn't get one of those horrible, echo chamber recordings telling him to hang and and dial again? And since when does the mob boss call 911? Doesn't he have a personal mob doctor?

****

Island of Illiterates.
This arrived in my e-mailbox this morning from the Ellis Island Foundation:

"She was our First Visitor. Do you know her name? She was Annie Moore, a thirteen year old girl from Ireland, the first immigrant to step foot at the newly opened Ellis Island Immigration Station. The year was 1892."

It's SET FOOT, not STEP FOOT! Is there anyone in charge, other than 25-year old, semi-illiterate no-nothings, at an organization that' s a caretaker for an important piece of American history?

****
Fixed Oscars.
I hear from industry sources that Brokeback Mountain and Crash were tied in the voting, and that a Bush-appointed, anti-gay ombudsman cast the deciding vote in favor of Crash. Everything that's anti-whatever-the shrieking-left-wants is Bush's fault, right?

****

Who Controls the Internet?
Officially, the Internet is controlled by the United States. If we are to judge, however, by the Most Viewed and Most E-Mailed photos at Yahoo! News -- which is regularly dominated by models in bikinis or lingerie and cheerleaders in the midst of splits -- the real power is in the hands (double-entendre intentional) of teen-aged boys.

****

Feingold Wants Censure.
Russ Feingold -- Democratic hopeful for 2008 -- wants Bush censured for the NSA wiretap thing. To recap, this is when the President authorized wiretaps of international calls to/from places such as Afghanistan and Iran. (This is also what every president has done, since and including Jimmy The Dupe and Bill The Molester, both Democrats.)

The Democrats shriek that these taps are illegal, but they're missing the point: Most Americans don't mind tapping Islamists' international calls if it might prevent 9/11, Part Two. In fact, most Americans support profiling and paying special attention to Arabs, 18 - 34, because THEY'RE THE ONES WHO COMMIT MOST OF THE TERRORIST ACTS!

Most Americans have common sense. Most leaders of the Democratic Party apparently do not, especially when it comes to a strategy for winning back the White House and/or Congress. Memory jogger for Democrats: "NO!" is not a platform that will carry you to victory.

Get with the program! Americans want security for America, not protestations against searching the backpack of a young Arab male about to board the A Train.

Democrats: The Party of Invertebrates

2006-03-04T07:50:00.000-05:00

So, really, what was the point of all that Democratic outrage about the Patriot Act being dangerous for America, co-opting the Constitution, and threatening our very way of life? When it was time to put a vote where their mouth is, they proved spineless. Again. Were you surprised in the least?

The final tally:
– Democrats Who Backed Up Their Rhetoric With A "No" Vote: 9
– Democratic Big Mouths Without Backbones: 35

At the top of the list of Democrats without backbones are the leadership:
– John "I voted for it but I didn't mean it" Kerry
– Ted "Perpetually outraged about most things, though not about getting away with manslaughter because I'm rich" Kennedy
– Hillary "I invented the very concept of being two-faced" Clinton
– Barbara "Could I be any more shrill?" Boxer

Harry Reid, the Senate Minority Leader, also voted "Yea," as did Chuck "I never met a camera I didn't like" Schumer from here in the Empire State. To his credit, Robert Byrd, former Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, voted against the Patriot Act (and he's still staunchly against lynchings, too). See the entire roll call here.

Is there any better indication than this vote of how bereft not only of ideas, but of conviction, the Democratic leadership is? "NO!" may not be a viable platform from which to win elections but, if you're going to shout it often enough, at least stick to it. Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern both espoused positions different from those of most Americans, but at least they had the courage of their convictions. They stood fast to their positions even as they went down to resounding defeats.

Today's Democratic Party, however, seems to have been fitted with John Kerry designer flip flops (a style choice that didn't work too well in 2004): Take a strong stand on both sides of every important issue. So, bash Bush and Cheney loudly for threatening our freedoms, then vote for those very same "threats." Later, you can say you changed your mind, were lied to, or whatever you think the contemptuously stupid American public will believe.

After all, there's an election to be won; this is no time to stand for something.

Struggling Against Good News

2006-03-02T15:35:00.000-05:00

Most of the mainstream media long ago decided that the war in Iraq iss wrong, and that the current administration is evil. And then they launched a journalistic jihad to assault readers and viewers with their points of view. Newspapers secretly moved their editorials to Page One, the major networks moved theirs to the top of the nightly newscast, and anything negative for America became the lead. And got hammered over and over, all while being presented as objective news coverage.

The recent publication of two-year old pictures from Abu Ghraib is a perfect example of this jihad -- rehashing a terrible but old story for no apparent reason other than to fan the flames of negativism in the world community. (Even the nightly news can do reruns nowadays as long as the story is bad for America.)

Now, the jihad is even attacking what might be good news, and in the most insidious way. This morning's Squawk Box show on CNBC featured a news crawl (along the bottom of the screen) that headlined, "Iraqi Oil Exports Struggle Higher in February."

It's classic propaganda -- putting a negative spin on a positive event. An objective headline might have said, "Iraqi Oil Exports Increase Slightly," or "Iraqi Oil Exports Show Small Gain." Heck, even if they downplayed the increase with "Iraqi Oil Exports Basically Hold Steady," it wouldn't have served up the news with as adverse a tone as the line they used.

So, what's next? I predict the journalistic jihad will co-opt the weather forecast. Watch for a headline such as, "Cloudy Skies As Bush Talks About Iraq."

I'm not kidding.

Hillary Racially Profiles Entire Nation

2006-02-27T01:24:00.000-05:00

When Bill Clinton ran for president, he joked that, if he was elected, Americans "would be getting two presidents for the price of one," alluding to his wife, Hillary. I guess this means that if Hillary is elected in 2008, the US will get three presidents for the price of one (assuming Bill and Hillary remain sweethearts together).

That's because Hillary, by herself, is capable of taking two positions on seemingly any issue. For instance, her current stance on racial profiling: Against profiling individual people. For profiling an entire nation of people.

Against Profiling: Being a liberal, of course, Hillary has long been against racial profiling. In July 2005, she chastised the military for profiling recruits by race: "It may be an inappropriate effort to profile students based on ethnicity and other personal factors." And, expert on police work that she is, Hillary's on record that, "Profiling is not an effective law enforcement tool."

For Profiling: Hillary is also an expert, however, on national security, where she has now lambasted President Bush for his support of the deal to allow a Dubai-based company to run several major ports, including that of New York City. Thus, she has now come out for profiling, as any company from Dubai must be run by...Arabs. And Arabs could potentially be terrorists or terrorist sypathizers.

If we take Hillary's positions together, we must assume that she doesn't support singling out and searching Arab men with backpacks who enter the subways of New York, yet does support profiling Arabs in suits and ties working in the Port of New York. (If you ride the subways in New York, that might perplex you, unless you are/look like a young, Arab male and wear a backpack).

In the common man's parlance, we call that "talking out of both sides of your mouth." On the other hand, if Hillary runs in 2008, you'll always know where she stands on any issue.

Those Darn Jews Are At It Again!

2006-02-24T19:04:00.000-05:00

Guess who's behind the terror bombings of mosques in Iraq this week? You guessed it -- the Jews! Did you peek?

Everyone's favorite nuclear fanatic, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, blamed the Sunni bombing of a Shiite Muslim shrine on Americans and "Zionists." "These heinous acts are committed by a group of Zionists and occupiers that have failed. They have failed in the face of Islam's logic and justice," Ahmadinejad said.

Islam's "logic and justice" these days is sounding more and more like Nazism's logic and justice: Blame it on the Jews. Blasphemous cartoons? The Jews are behind them. Mosque bombings? Jews. Planes flying into the World Trade Center Towers and Pentagon? Well, heck, can you spell J-E-W-S?

And this anti-semitic bombast isn't confined to Iran's maniacs by any means. Government leaders in a wide range of Islamic nations -- including Libya to the west, Saudi Arabia in the middle, and Indonesia to the east -- routinely blame Zionists, Israel, and Jews for most of their ills.

Well, actually, these "Religion of Peace" leaders don't exactly sound like Nazis, because Hitler didn't have cojones this big (that's quite a statement when you think about it). After all, even Uncle Adolf never had the temerity to claim Jews were controlling the newspapers that were spewing anti-semitic propaganda, while Ahmadinejad has pinned control of Al-Jazeera on Jews -- and, no, I'm not making that up.

And where's world opinion on all this? Well, except for a few half-hearted condemnations, it's just like 1938 again: Turning a blind eye. Hey, it's only the Jews, and y'know, those Nazis do have some valid points.

In all these years, and despite the Holocaust, nothing has changed, no one has learned, and the world is no more moral.

Are Moderate Muslims Sincerely Moderate?

2006-02-19T13:34:00.000-05:00

Yassir Arafat, the pre-eminent master of public relations of the last 25 years, successfully deceived the world (most of which was eager to be deceived) repeatedly. His key tactic, used to perfection, was The Wizard of Oz Gambit: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." He presented one face to the world and another to his people, and cleverly concealed that second face, at least from non-Arabs.

Time and again, he would publicly declare his dedication to peace -- and his particular repulsion at specific acts of terror against little girls at birthday parties and babies in their cribs. Behind the curtain, however, he nurtured, encouraged, and funded these same acts. He even paid monthly stipends to the families of suicide bombers (a practice made official by his successor, the "moderate" Abbas).

It's in this light that we observe that, after virtually every brutal act committed by Muslims these days (and it's a long list, seemingly updated weekly), the mainstream media quotes someone from the Muslim world who reminds us that "most Muslims are moderate" and condemn violence.

Which leads us to ask: Is the Muslim majority really moderate, or are moderate spokespeople merely providing cover for the true majority? If the majority is indeed moderate, then why does radical Islam seem so widespread and ascendant? And why does it appear to have support, officially or tacitly, from so many governments?

The cartoon controversy certainly could make many of us skeptics. Deadly riots continue throughout the Arab world. One embassy has been burned down, probably with the encouragement of the Syrian government, and others have been partly torched or otherwise attacked. Saudi Arabia and Libya have recalled their ambassadors to Denmark. Protesters carry signs championing violent and cruel deaths for those seen as infidels: "Behead those who insult Islam" and "Butcher those who mock Islam." A Pakastani cleric has put a million rupee bounty on the head of one of the cartoonists.

This isn't happening in one or two countries; it's widespread. (At the same time, the Saudis have announced their support for the Hamas terrorist regime in the West Bank and Gaza.)

So, where is the influence of the supposed moderate majority? Certainly, it hasn't been evident in the actions of the Arab governments or their proxies, which continue to pour fuel on the flames. (Official government newspapers even blame "Jews" and "Zionists" -- blaming Jews...gee, what an original surprise -- for the cartoons. And one Iranian newspaper is now sponsoring a contest for "best" Holocaust cartoons.)

Could it be that the moderates know they aren't the majority, but claim to be so their people can be portrayed in a more positive light? That would be the best case scenario. A worse scenario is that the moderates really aren't that moderate at all, and are cynically protecting the radicals. That would be because they're secretly rooting for the radicals and against the "infidels." And that would be because, on some level, they buy into the notion of the superiority of Islam and the degeneracy of Judeo-Christian civilization. After all, who doesn't like to feel that their way of life is superior?

So, what's really going on behind the curtain, and how long will it be before the West wakes up and takes a look?

FOLLOW UP on 2/20: This is an interview with three former terrorists, who maintain that terrorist recruiting and anti-Western propaganda is systemic in certain Arab communities in the USA:
http://www.shoebat.com/media/cn8_2006_01.wmv?PHPSESSID=d1a5c0cd9dabb1da6ec4a6dd161d9674

FOLLOW-UP on 2/21: An Egytian woman writes of her Muslim culture that, "From my childhood in Gaza until today, blaming Israel and the West has been an industry in the Muslim world." This disturbing article, "Our Culture of Hate," which first appeared in the Daily Telegraph of London, can be read in full at http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/middleeast/Our_Culture_of_Hate.asp

How Do You Say "Mein Kampf" in Farsi?

2006-02-15T12:00:00.000-05:00

When he was in prison in the 1920s, Adolf Hitler penned "Mein Kampf" -- it means "My Struggle" -- which laid out his plans for dominating and annexing countries east of Germany. But, the feckless Europeans didn't take his word for it and, when Hitler started to execute his plan, they tried to appease him. 60 million deaths later, World War II came to an end.

Today, there's an Iranian updating of Hitler's here's-my-plan-of-attack genre. In October, Iran's President Ahmadinejad -- a man who clearly is not a slave to political correctness -- called for Israel to be "wiped off the map." Former President Hashemi Rafsanjani got more specific: He said Islamic nuclear bombs "would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world." In other words, he's willing to take a retaliatory nuclear hit or three if it means destroying Israel. All this while Iran relaunches its efforts to build nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.

The world's reaction: Iran is being reported to the UN Security Council. Isn't this essentially the same course of action that worked so unsatisfyingly with Saddam?

It's time for regime change in Iran. Failing that, it may be time for the doctrine of pre-emption to be applied. We can't afford to allow their stated plans to become reality, as we did with Hitler. And this time, the stakes are nuclear.

Jimmy The Dupe Condemns Spying on Dr. King

2006-02-07T20:44:00.000-05:00

From the NY Times, about Coretta Scott King's Funeral...

"Former President Jimmy Carter...noted that Dr. King had been the subject of wiretapping by the F.B.I., a reference that recalls the Bush administration's controversial decision not to seek warrants for eavesdropping on some electronic communications related to the efforts against Al Qaeda. 'It was difficult for them personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated, and they became the targets of secret government wiretapping and other surveillance,' Mr. Carter, a Democrat, said of the Kings."

Jimmy The Dupe conveniently omitted the fact that the spying was done by the administrations of John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, both Democrats who were working with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.

He also forgot to mention that one of King's most ardent pursuers during that time was Attorney General Robert Kennedy. Yes, that's the same sainted Democratic martyr who cut his teeth working the Witchhunt Patrol as Sen. Joseph McCarthy's chief counsel. (But, don't mention any of this to a liberal or he/she will explode; they refuse to deal with facts that might destroy their myths.)

Oh, and Jimmy played out his little game at a funeral. Cute, but shameless.

The Hamas Spin Cycle Begins

2006-02-03T10:05:00.000-05:00

On January 26th, after Hamas won election in Palestine, I wrote that the terrorist apologists would begin to rationalize Hamas within weeks and portray its members as misunderstood.

I was wrong. It took just hours, not weeks. Bill Clinton, speaking about Hamas the very next day at the World Economic Forum, opened his arms to the suicide bombers, suggesting a dialogue with them:

"One of the politically correct things in American politics...is we just don't talk to some people that we don't like, particularly if they ever killed anybody in a way that we hate." <http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--worldforum-clinto0128jan28,0,2658428,print.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork>

Well, golly-gee, I finally became politically correct! Because I'm not the least bit fond of people who blow up little girls at birthday parties and shoot babies in their cribs. And I'd rather see them shot dead than chat with them over latte at Starbucks.

Of course, Bill's comments are just the latest in the movement to whitewash Hamas. Jimmy "The Dupe" Carter is already on record as welcoming dialogue with them. (OK, that's not fair. He gets duped by almost every negative political force on the planet. Has Jimmy Carter had lunch yet with Osama?) And the NY Times has described them as "philanthropic."

How, then, will Bill, Jimmy, and the Times rationalize the Hamas leader's declaration this week that his organization will never recognize the right of Israel to exist (there's a negotiating position!) and is still dedicated to its destruction? <http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060203/ts_nm/mideast_dc>

Don't worry. They'll think of something.

Democrats Continue to Play Botch-y Ball

2006-02-02T18:43:00.000-05:00

After food, water, and shelter, the issue that matters most to people is security, and the Democrats continue to botch that one bigtime.

Take domestic spying, please. Every other president since and including Carter (a Democrat!) has done it, but it was somehow OK for them. Indeed, in the days after the Oklahoma City bombing, the U.S. government (led by Clinton, a Democrat!) used a spy satellite to gather intelligence on a white separatist compound in Oklahoma. Can you imagine if the NY Times found out that we were using a satellite to spy on Arabs in Michigan? Gawd, Ted Kennedy would do backflips. (He would make sure to be a safe distance from Mary Jo Kopechne's body, of course.)

That's because it's OK to spy on potential terrorists if they are white supremacists and the Executive branch is controlled by Democrats, but not if the potential terrorists are Arabs making/receiving calls to Afghanistan and the executive is George Bush.

This, sadly, is why Democrats are headed to defeat again. They still don't get the issues that matter. Their allegiance is to the money coming from the lunatic left fringe of the party -- led by Soros -- and their key stand these days will be easily spun by Repubs to be for terrorists' rights.

Look at the insanity in New York City: Rather than have the police focus on looking for people who match the terrorist profile -- also known as "good police work" -- we have to search the Macy's shopping bags of little old ladies so as not to single out and offend the fifth columnists living among us.

Hey, lady! Are those explosives under your dress, or are you just a fat old broad?

Hamas' Victory: Let The Spins Begin

2006-01-26T17:08:00.000-05:00

In the current New Republic Online (http://www.tnr.com/ or click the link in the right column, under my smiling picture), it is opined that the Hamas victory may actually be good news for Israel:

"...there is a potential silver lining in this development...Hamas's win might trigger a widespread disillusionment with the mirage--created by the Oslo process--of a democratic and peace-loving Palestinian government."

Two words: Fat chance.

World opinion, led by the Europeans abroad and the NY Times here in the US, was able to consistently rationalize Arafat, despite his preference for bloodshed over peace right up to the end. In fact, he was even awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. (That's sort of like the kid who failed 7th-grade Biology winning the Nobel Prize for Medicine. Except, of course, that he probably didn't orchestrate the murders of babies in their cribs or little girls at birthday parties.)

All Arafat had to do was loudly proclaim his dedication to peace every couple of years, and the world was only too eager to play pretend along with him. Heck, he rejected a peace plan that would have given him literally 95% of what he asked for, and then he launched the Intifada, and much of the world press still took Israel to task for being the prime impediment to peace.

So, why would an objective thinker believe that Hamas won't be rationalized in the same way? After all, they're in agreement with the Arafat's Fatah movement (and Iran) that Israel doesn't have the right to exist, so they're off to a good start with Europe and the UN. And the NY Times has already described them as philanthropic <http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70C17FC3E580C708DDDAA0894DD404482>. (They're philanthropic in the mold of the Ford Foundation, I guess, except that the Ford Foundation doesn't orchestrate the murders of babies in their cribs or little girls at birthday parties.)

Which means that, once the dust from this election settles, we can expect the anti-Israel spin cycle to start up again: Why won't Israel trust and deal with a democratically-elected government? Why won't Israel stop building that big, bad fence (which has reduced terror attacks by 95%, but who's counting)? Why won't Israel simply disappear? (Oops! Most of the UN members will only think that last one. They'd never say it, except for the Europeans' negotiating partner in Iran, even though it's a treasured fantasy.)

Bottom line: Don't expect "disillusionment" with the Palestinians (especially at the UN and in the NY Times), even if they did elect terrorists to head their government. That will be rationalized within weeks, and Hamas will be portrayed as an organization of misunderstood freedom fighters who have morphed into social workers who now embrace democracy.

The only disillusionment will befall those who believe that "world opinion" harbors any sense of fairness toward Israel and Jews.

The Killer God of Pat Robertson

2006-01-06T10:42:00.000-05:00

Pat Robertson worships a different kind of God. His God is a hitman.

The Divine Hitman's latest victim appears to be Ariel Sharon. According to Robertson, Sharon's massive stroke (he is still alive as of this writing) was because he ceded land to the Palestinians:

"He was dividing God's land, and I would say, 'Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the [European Union], the United Nations or the United States of America. God says, 'This land belongs to me, and you'd better leave it alone.'" (Full story here: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/05/robertson.sharon/)

Of course, this is just the latest in a lengthy list of murderous actions and threats on people who don't see things the way Robertson's God sees them. Most recently, Pat has warned the people of Dover, PA that a disaster may be coming their way because they rejected the teaching of intelligent design as science. On 9/11/2001, he explained that the entire USA had brought on the terrorist attacks because of our hedonistic ways. And he warned Orlando, FL (and the rest of the USA), on the occasion of Gay Day at DisneyWorld, that destruction -- and maybe even a meteor -- was on its way: "[Gay Day will] bring about terrorist bombs; it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor."

Wow, meteors! This Divine Hitman is one bad dude! (Though we have to admit that a meteor is a really creative weapon. Few other hitmen use meteors.)

What Pat doesn't seem to address with his blather is how all this hell fury reconciles with the notion of the merciful, turn-the-other-cheek God that is supposedly being worshipped by Robertson's followers. That's the one who has a message of kindness, loving thy neighbor, and generally being a forgiving person.

Well, I have a theory about that God: He's dead; Robertson's God whacked him.

Killing Terrorists Is Not Terrorism

2005-12-27T12:40:00.000-05:00

Let's start by admitting that I haven't seen Steven Spielberg's new movie, Munich," which is about the hunt for the terrorists who killed 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics. I have, however, read several detailed reviews, and it seems clear that one theme in the movie is that the people hunting down the terrorists start to feel that they are, somehow, no better than the terrorists themselves.

This is unadulterated terrorist-apologist bullcrap. There is a huge moral difference between murdering civilians and killing the guys who commit or are behind those acts.

Terrorists portray themselves as freedom fighters. They are not. Freedom fighters are those who, in attempting to win liberation from an occupying force, attack military targets, including bases, tanks, and soldiers. To me, those targets are fair game in any sort of revolt or uprising.

Terrorists, on the other hand, typically avoid military targets. Instead, they favor attacks on little girls at birthday parties, babies in their cribs, and people eating pizza on their lunch breaks. (And it takes a perverted culture to celebrate such acts and provide financial assistance to the families of suicide bombers, but that's exactly the case in the Middle East.) Then, their leaders crawl back into their hiding places -- typically amongst civilians including little girls and babies in cribs.

Simply put, they are cowards employing cowardly tactics. It's easy to kill little girls. It's much harder -- and requires a degree of bravery -- to shoot at tanks.

So, hunting down terrorists is a noble profession that should never be equated with terrorism itself. And, if innocents are killed because the cowards are hiding amongst civilians -- in essence, taking those people hostage and using them as human shields -- the blame needs to go where it belongs.

Terrorist apologists need to stop their transparent lying.

News of the Obvious

2005-12-23T06:59:00.000-05:00

Television newscasts are sinking lower and lower into trying to make big news out of the obvious. One local columnist here in NYC, Phil Mushnick, has written a couple of recent columns deriding "shocking" winter news reports, which are delivered in panic tonality, such as "It's December and it's cold!," and features on "Shoveling snow can be dangerous if you're out of shape!"

This morning's WNBC News is going to be hard to beat, though. The NYC transit workers strike ended yesterday, and we certainly expected stories about that when we tuned in early today. But, we didn't anticipate the highly informative feature prepared by our station's news team: At 6:30 a.m., as they were about to go to a commercial, they switched to a reporter in the field who enticed us to stay tuned with the following: "The subways are on normal schedules. Details coming up!"

It killed me that I had to leave and miss this riveting report, which was sure to contain such blockbuster details as:

The A train is running on its normal schedule.
The D train is running on its normal schedule.
The 4 train is running on its normal schedule.
The 7 train is running on its normal schedule.

Mies Van Der Rohe said that "God is in the details," but he surely could not have meant these details.

Where's the Left on Firing Smokers?

2005-12-22T19:28:00.000-05:00

I'm writing this while munching on my trail mix while I bike to work...

I wonder where the Left is on workers rights when it comes to getting fired for smoking....

From the WSJ (Capitalist Pub):
Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. is taking its campaign to stamp out smoking among its workers to an unusual length: It's threatening to fire smokers beginning next fall. The threat represents the latest attempt by an employer to try to reduce health-care costs by targeting smokers. In January, four employees at Weyco Inc., a small medical-benefits administrator in Okemos, Mich., lost their jobs after they refused to be tested for tobacco use. Scotts, which has 5,300 U.S. workers, is one of the largest companies to have put an outright ban on smoking even off the job.

The Left is probably OK with it because it doesn't involve a PC-approved disability -- such as drug use -- but rather an activity associated with the (legal) EVIL TOBACCO INDUSTRY.

But, then, let's talk about communicable diseases. The anti-vaccination crowd has been a Left staple for maybe 20 years, so some of those kids are entering the workforce. Should a company refuse to hire someone -- or fire a current worker -- who hasn't been inoculated against, say, Hepatitis? Where are the workers' rights there? What about vaccination liberation? Is the Left for the right not to be discriminated against for not being vaccinated, yet against the right to smoke -- not in the workplace but at home or in your car, on private time?

I'm sure there must be a hypocritical stance on this from the Left, but I was unable to Google it up.

Creating Terrorists and Other Leftist Myths

2005-12-19T09:18:00.000-05:00

An oft-repeated, Leftist canard (post 9/11, the Left has become "Canards R Us") is that the US is creating terrorists by our military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is based on the following empirical evidence repeatedly presented by the Left: [This space reserved for the evidence.]

President Bush addressed this in his speech last night:

"September the 11th, 2001 required us to take every emerging threat to our country seriously, and it shattered the illusion that terrorists attack us only after we provoke them. On that day, we were not in Iraq, we were not in Afghanistan but the terrorists attacked us anyway - and killed nearly 3,000 men, women and children in our own country. My conviction comes down to this: We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them." (Full speech: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/18/bush.transcript/index.html)

While Bush's statement on his conviction about terrorism was eleoquently stated, the case for it was incompletely presented. In order to more substantially rebut the Left's assertions, the President also should have mentioned some of the other terrorist actions prior to our military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan:

The World Trade Center bombing in 1993
The Khobar Towers bombings
Attacks on two US embassies in Africa
The attack on the USS Cole

Those were major terrorist initiatives. And, of course, bin Laden et al. had their reasons for them, most notably: 1) The long history of the US in dominating and "shedding the blood" of Muslims in the Middle East; 2) Our military presence in the Middle East (especially Saudi Arabia); 3) Our support of Israel; 4) Our "infidel" status based on their twisted interpretation of the Koran.

Indeed, those four reasons were the key jihadist recruitment come-ons leading up to 9/11/2001 (with the additional enticement of all those virgins in the afterlife, of course). If we pulled out of both Iraq and Afghanistan today, those four reasons for joining the jihad would remain.

The bottom line is that Islamist extremists don't need short term excuses for hating the US and wanting all of us dead. They have long term reasons that have fueled their insanity for many years, and will continue to do so into the future.

If the Left can explain how that dynamic would change if the US stopped being militarily aggressive in Iraq and elsewhere, we'd love to hear it.

Apple: "Your Momma's A Ho!"

2005-12-05T09:09:00.000-05:00

If Apple CEO Steve Jobs referred to his female employees as bitches and hoes, chances are that wouldn't go over too well in the media. Heck, he might even have to step down and take sensitivity classes. And if he threatened to slit the throat of one of his employees, he might conceivably do jail time. (At the very least, he'd have to take anger management classes. The justice system is very big on adult education for celebrity criminals.)

Of course, Steve Jobs would never say those things. But, apparently, it's fine with him to communicate such messages to your children. I'm referring to the current ad blitz for the co-promotion linking Ipod with Eminem's greatest hits album.

Eminem, of course, is the esteemed artist who has given us such musical milestones as ""F**k Off," "Sh*t On You," and the politely-titled "Bitch, Please." His hits include finely-crafted, poetic lyrics that surely rival anything Irving Berlin ever penned:

"I was put on this earth to make your baby mama cum."

"I'll slit your motherf**kin throat worse than Ron Goldman."

"I’m the illest rapper...Looking for hookers to punch in the mouth with a roll of quarters."

"I don’t give a f**k if this chick was my own mother
I still f**k her with no rubber and cum inside her."

(If you think I'm making any of that up, just wander over to any of the lyrics sites and have a look for yourself. Here are a couple for your convenient reading pleasure: http://www.lyricsdownload.com/eminem-lyrics.html
http://www.angelfire.com/hiphop/edog/eminemlyrics.html)

Of course, while I've singled out Apple, it certainly doesn't have a monopoly on this sort of stuff. The big media companies are among many firms that trip over themselves trying to out-vile each other, and that enthusiastically promote anti-female, anti-social, anti-human messages that would get any of their executives fired if they uttered this trash in public or to fellow employees.

Instead of making a big show out of contributing money to social causes, these firms would do better to try to use their enormous power to influence society positively in the first place. (To sum up, the choice in messaging little kids is self-censorship or "f**k your mother.")

Otherwise, they're just hoes themselves.

Holiday-Neutral Trees and Candlesticks

2005-11-30T08:41:00.000-05:00

News item from last week: BOSTON (Reuters) - Boston set off a furor this week when it officially renamed a giant tree erected in a city park a "holiday tree" instead of a "Christmas tree."

The spruce tree grower in Nova Scotia wasn't happy about it... http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/yourspace/xmas_tree.html
...but city officials seem to have relented...
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/5388972/detail.html?subid=22100410&qs=1;bp=t
though I can't find any official declarations.

This is the kind of issue that drives many average people to the Right. While the Left decries the influence of the Religious Right, it heartily endorses cultural terrorism from secularists, all in the name of inclusiveness and tolerance for other religions and beliefs. (Incidentally, I am not Christian and have never had any type of tree in my home, other than a Bonsai I unintentionally killed while tree-sitting it for a friend.)

How about inclusiveness for rationality and tolerance of reality? Hey, there's be no reason to display a tree at all if it wasn't for the Xmas tradition, so why not call it what it is? It's a Christmas tree, dammit! Why change the name to something it isn't? If it's called a "Holiday Tree," is a Hindu going to be fooled into thinking the tree is somehow related to a Hindu holiday that falls in December?

If a menorah is displayed in the town square, should it be dubbed the Holiday Nine-Branched Candelabrum, or should it be called a menorah? I mean, I don't want to offend anyone of other religions (or even atheists), but it's a menorah.

Renaming things like this is politically-correct extremism, no less onerous than attempts by the Religious Right to make the general populace hew to their principles.

Torturing Our Image

2005-11-19T09:42:00.000-05:00

Is torture ever OK? The fight for a ban is being led by John McCain, and, no, he’s not talking about the torture of listening to long, boring Senate speeches on C-Span. Rather, this law would codify a prohibition on the torturing of prisoners of war by U.S. interrogators. As a PR move, it makes sense. It doesn’t look good for the US to be engaged in torture.

But, it’s not an easy issue. Let’s play pretend. You’re a CIA interrogator and you’re almost certain that a prisoner of yours has information on a planned terror attack on New York City. The attack is designed to rival or exceed 9/11. Would you rule out torture as a means of extracting this information, assuming other methods had failed?

On the other hand, torture may not be the best method in most cases. Prisoners often reveal phony information just to stop the pain, which was Senator McCain’s own case as a POW in North Vietnam:

“I gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line, knowing that providing them false information was sufficient to suspend the abuse.”
(source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10020629/site/newsweek/)

Indeed, professional investigators claim to have better methods of psychologically breaking down barriers and getting secrets revealed. And they say that a prisoner’s resolve to not cooperate is often increased by torture.

So, what to do? A three-fold solution:

1. Outlaw torture and make a big deal out of it. World opinion is driven by symbolism to a great degree, so this would be good PR. (The Left would still maintain we are the biggest war criminals in the history of the planet, of course. Ignorant hysteria can’t be addressed.)

2. Let professionals handle interrogation of terrorism suspects. The Abu Ghraib scandal happened because amateurs were in charge, and they were more interested in getting "cool" pics of naked prisoners than in serious business.

3. Torture when necessary, but don’t get caught doing it.

I Said It, But I Didn't Mean It

2005-11-13T08:17:00.000-05:00

The issue of lying about Iraq, far from losing steam, seems to be gaining momentum. Key Democrats, however, concluded the same things from available intelligence as the "evil" Bush Team, but now claim they were misled.

You have to question that contention. The senior leaders of the Democratic Party, apart from having access in 2002 to much of the same intelligence as Bush et al., also saw intelligence from the UN. Indeed, for the entirety of the Clinton administration, the general consensus was that Saddam was hiding WMDs. Were Rove & Company so clever that they were able to affect the thinking in the Clinton White House from 1993 - 2001?

Anyway, let's look at what they said. Note that the quotes that follow all include a link to the full text. (No crazed Right Wing sources here!)...

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region..."
--Representative Nancy Pelosi, December 1998
http://www.house.gov/Pelosi/priraq1.htm

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
--Al Gore, Speaking about Saddam Hussein, September 2002
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members..."
Senator Hillary Clinton, October 2002
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/Iraq_101002.html

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Senator Ted Kennedy, September 2002
http://kennedy.senate.gov/~Kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."
Senator Robert Byrd (nee Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan Robert Byrd), October 2002
http://surge.ods.org/idle_politics/byrd.htm

And then, of course, my favorite:

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces...Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."
--President Bill Clinton, December 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Of course, most of these politicians are now doing what politicians do: Lying about why they said what they said. (Did I say that? Well, I didn't really mean it! I meant it in a maybe sort of way.) The reason is simple: They feel that's part of a good strategy for retaking Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008.

Not that the Republicans don't engage in the same practices. They paralyzed the presidency for much of Clinton's second term not because he got a little oral, but simply because they could get away with playing games.

What's right for the country will just have to wait its turn.

Which Victory Are They Talking About?

2005-11-10T11:06:00.000-05:00

I know that the great Democratic victory has been hailed by key media types -- Reuters, AP, and the NY Times almost couldn't wait for the polls to close Tuesday -- but I missed the big shift among the electorate.

The governorship wins in Virginia and NJ, which formed the basis of the great victory, simply replaced two current Democratic governors with two new ones. No net gain in statehouse control. Further, here in NYC, where the Left has a stranglehold on the Democratic Party, the national party's mistakes from 2004 were imitated in the mayoral election, and reaped a similar result.

The centerpiece of Dem candidate Fernando Ferrer's campaign was the articulation of old-style Democratic Party issues. In 2005, this means rehashing ideas that were worn out 15 years ago, bashing the police, kissing Al Sharpton's ass, and generally being completely out of touch with the desires of middle class voters. And, of course, trotting out the old "poor v. rich" theme that stopped working in 1980.

Indeed, when Ferrer realized his campaign was in big trouble, he reverted to his proven-loser sloganeering from four years ago (when he lost in the Democratic primary run-off), which stresses how he would address the "Two New Yorks." (John Edwards tried this in 2004, with "Two Americas," and it was pathetically ineffective and non-motivating, netting him one primary win in about 25 tries). "Two New Yorks," of course, is code for, "If elected, I'm going to tax your middle class ass to pay for yet more feckless social programs," which is a traditional Democratic stance if there ever was one.

The upshot: Ferrer, was trounced in a city in which 85% of the voters are registered Democrats. This is the fourth consecutive mayoral victory here for Republicans.

So, I'm wondering what all the hollering is about.

Who Lied About Iraq? (Part Two)

2005-11-07T13:07:00.000-05:00

So, did Clinton lie about WMD to justify military action in Iraq? I can’t get an answer from any of my anti-war buddies and readers. (Those would be the ones who keep shrieking that Bush lied.)

To recap: Last week (see the 11/3 post, Once and for All..., just below this one), I offered up the speech that President Clinton gave to the American people, in 1998 (The President's Speech Justifying Military Action Against Iraq.), in which he ordered military action “to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs.” I then posed the simple question, “Was he lying?”

After all, the idea that Bush knowingly lied to trick us all into agreeing to the invasion of Iraq is a theme that just won’t go away. (I don’t get the point of that at this juncture, as we are very much in Iraq, and need to focus on resolving the situation and getting out, but I digress.) So, I thought it important to ascertain if the consensus was that Clinton lied as well. In addition to posting my article here, I sent it to a number of people I know who are quite firmly in the “Bush lied” camp, and I asked for an answer to my question.

And a funny thing happened: Not a single reply addressed the question directly. Instead I got “answers” that merely shifted the topic back to Bush, most commonly such as:

“The question remains: Did Bush lie?”
“Bush is despicable...so are Cheney, Rove, Libby and others in the White House.”
“The Bushies have consistently twisted information to deceive the American public.”

One clever woman even changed the topic to ask me why I'm making a big deal concerning Clinton lying about cheating on his wife. (That was a lie I’ve always understood. What president in his right mind is going to admit that, while he had a member of the Senate on the phone, he had an intern on his member?)

The issue of whether Clinton knowingly lied about Iraq seems very pertinent to the current debate about whether Bush lied. I see several possibilities:

Clinton lied, knowingly. If we believe Bush lied knowingly, Clinton lying in the same way would suggest a broad conspiracy in our government – across administrations – to twist and fake intelligence to justify making war against Saddam. (This would certainly square nicely with some Leftist portrayals of the US leadership as oil-thirsty war-mongers.) Members of the Clinton administration should then be faulted as much as the Bushies.
Clinton was telling the truth and the intelligence wasn’t faulty, which means one of three things:

a) Neither president lied. Saddam had WMDs in 1998 and in 2003, but we haven’t found the weapons for some mysterious reason. This is unlikely, given that we’ve been searching Iraq for over two years.

b) Clinton told the truth in 1998, but Bush lied in 2003, which means that Saddam had WMD, but destroyed all of them between 1999 and 2003. This is the only scenario I can think of that suggests Bush lied, and it, too, seems unlikely. Why would Saddam destroy all those weapons, but then continue to be uncooperative with the inspectors?

c) Clinton told the truth in 1998, and Bush thought he was telling the truth in 2003. In this scenario, the intelligence in 1998 was just ducky but in 2003 was faulty. Bush believed it given that it echoed previous, similar intelligence. Again, this would require Saddam to have destroyed all his weapons between 1999 and 2003. Unlikely.
Clinton’s statements were untrue, but he wasn’t lying because he was fooled by faulty intelligence. This is the most likely scenario given the much-documented ineptitude of our intelligence services. (These are, after all, they guys who completely missed 9/11, which had to be years in the planning.) Saddam was trying to develop WMD – to augment the poison gas he used in 1989 – and he postured as if he had developed them to keep his neighbors (and his own people) on their toes. The CIA bought Saddam’s lies and convinced two presidents to buy them as well. (And, let’s face it, if someone as brilliant as the Rhodes Scholar, Clinton, could be duped, then we really can’t fault George W. Bush -- whom the Left portrays as so stupid he can barely find his way to the bathroom in the morning -- for being fooled as well. )

So, for all those who continue to feel “Bush lied," let’s ask the question again, “Did Clinton lie about Iraq, too, when he said it had WMD?” Because you can’t address one issue without addressing the other and examining the implications. Anything less is a cop-out.

Once and For All: Did the President Lie About Iraq?

2005-11-03T09:47:00.000-05:00

The historic closing of the Senate by Democrats on Monday has revived (per their objective) an issue that just won’t go away: Did the President knowingly lie about the presence of WMDs in Iraq to justify military intervention there?

The words in his speech as he ordered military action seem unequivocal about the existence of WMDs and the need to address them: "Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces...Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

He also said: "Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

And, of course, in that same famous speech, he called for the regime change which was ultimately accomplished: "The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."

You can read a comprehensive story on that speech – and see the possible lies contained in it – on the CNN site: The President's Speech Justifying Military Action Against Iraq.

Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention: The President who uttered those words was Bill Clinton, in December 1998.

Was he lying?

Bush Lied Redux

2005-11-02T06:35:00.000-05:00

Democrats close Senate doors in Iraq protest.
Tue Nov 1, 7:14 PM ETWASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats accusing the ruling Republicans of stalling tactics imposed a rare closed session of the Senate on Tuesday to force the majority to complete a probe on whether the Bush administration misused intelligence before the Iraq war.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051101/pl_nm/bush_leak_congress_dc

Whichever side you're on, this tactic has to make you cringe if you understand marketing. "Bush lied" didn't work in 2004 -- Bush was ripe for an ass-kicking, but the Dems fumbled it badly -- and it won't work in 2006. Instead of "no," they need to figure out a positive idea. Purely from a marketing standpoint.

Negative marketing wears thin over the long haul in the US. A product, service, or political party needs to present a positive benefit to motivate purchase (or voting) interest. "Bush lied," while it may attract media interest for something like shutting a house of Congress for the day, is a proven failure and negative as well in terms of marketing. If the Dems can't come up with better next year, they'll come out even at best.

If you want consumers to buy your spaghetti sauce rather than your competitor's, you can't simply proclaim that the competitive sauce is junk. You need to tell consumers why they need your sauce. You need to make them hungry for your sauce. The Dem approach only makes undecided voters hungry to ignore them, and see what's on Channel 68, at this point.

The winning marketing formula was on display in the recent past. Clinton displayed it for all to see -- centrism; co-opting Republican issues such as welfare reform -- but the Dems insist on following McGovern's formula instead. (Picking Howard Dean as the face of the party was just the beginning of another defeat snatched from potential victory.)

"Shriek, shriek, shriek, Bush lied, shriek, shriek" is not a tagline that's going to sell much product to the undecided customer. They need me to run their marketing. :)

Million Man Hypocrisy

2005-10-16T20:11:00.000-04:00

Let's imagine that Hitler, or maybe the head of the Ku Klux Klan, or the head of the American Nazi Party, called a rally and several prominent Republicans attended and spoke, including one who was a headliner at last year's Republican convention. Man, the attacks would be endless, and the media would be calling for Bushie's head unless he totally repudiated all who had attended.

Instead, though, from the so-called leaders of the Democratic Party we have...silence...when Louis Farrakhan, a vile race-baiting, hate-spewing, pig of a man, who has (among his lesser pronouncements) called Judaism a "gutter religion," is joined on stage at his latest Million Man March by Al Sharpton ( an anti-semitic pig unto himself), who was a featured speaker on the kick-off night of the 2004 Democratic Convention, and whose support is courted by every major Democrat candidate in NY State and on a national basis.

This is exactly why the Democratic Party, to which I have given the majority of votes I have cast in the past, has lost my vote for the foreseeable future.

Cursing in NYC

2005-10-16T16:33:00.000-04:00

Last year, I was driving up this street near me, heading to a main thoroughfare, when this young, animal-like guy (with a girl in the passenger seat) runs a stop sign (I don't have a stop sign) and turns right in front of me. As he turns, he shakes his fist and is obviously cursing at me. It was my fault that he ran the stop sign, apparently. So, now he's heading down the street in the opposite direction to me. (This is all happening in the space of maybe 50 - 75 feet.)

Anyway, being the level-headed guy I am, and because my window in conveniently rolled down, I scream "F-You!, you little piece of sh*t," (OK, I'll admit that I took that a bit far) and he stops his car as he passes to my left, spits at me, and yells, "Get out of the car, nigger!" (He was white.)

Now, I am realizing that I am 56 years old, and I'm not a fighter. At all. So, I'm praying that the cars ahead of me move swiftly through the intersection, and, thankfully, the cars behind him beep him to move on, which he does.

The sad moral is that, even in New York City, once the very bastion of F-You, you can't say F-You anymore without risking being killed. The society has really degenerated.

Stagegate Hysteria Continues

2005-10-15T15:28:00.000-04:00

The way the press is continuing to flog the administration over the rehearsed teleconference with soldiers in Iraq, you'd think Bush lied about it in front of a grand jury or something.

Well-rehearsed and/or staged events are par for the course for all administrations, regardless of party. Bush is being attacked because he's Bush; no other reason.

This practice has been going on at least since the days of the newsreel. Indeed, the 30s and WW II eras seem to be when propaganda really got honed into an art form, by the Nazis as well as by the US. Viewing WW II newsreels from today's more knowledgeable and cynical perspective, it is clear that these "news" clips were blatantly staged and blatantly manipulative. (Maybe someone should take the Roosevelt administration to task for manipulating the US into WW II. Oh, wait, the extreme Left and Right have already done that.)

In fact, while the Nazis are often given credit for being the masters of propaganda, I don't think the US took a back seat to them at all at that time. For sure, our long-form stuff -- produced by Hollywood -- was much crisper than flicks such as those from Leni Reifenstahl, who was Hitler's favorite filmmaker and has been trumpeted as a genius. (I recently watched her "Triumph Des Willens," and I had to turn it off after maybe 30 minutes because it was so numbingly boring and repetitive.)

So, while those opposed to the Iraq War are certainly entitled to their opinions, they really need to move on to another issue to support their POV. Because Stagegate just smacks of partisan hysteria.

Rehearsing is the Professional Thing to Do

2005-10-14T09:50:00.000-04:00

The big story this morning seems to be that our soldiers in Iraq rehearsed some of their answers before their televised Q & A yesterday with President Bush. The media is in a foaming feeding frenzy on this.

I'm missing the problem here. For those of us in business, rehearsing for important meetings is the professional thing to do and commonplace. For a meeting with a CEO, we'd probably rehearse several times over. We'd want to be prepared for any reasonable question (and, with some CEOs, for a bunch of unreasonable ones as well). Heck, I've been in rehearsal meetings where one of us role-played the obnoxious, loudmouth, interrupting boss so the rest of us could practice answering questions under fire. I've rehearsed on planes, at hotel restaurant breakfast tables, and on elevators on the way up to conference rooms.

So, if we were going to have a Q & A with the President of the United States, on national television no less, we'd rehearse until we almost didn't have to think when answering a question.

In fact, if these guys didn't rehearse, they'd be derelict in their duty and unprofessional. And if some of them then stuttered and hesitated while they spoke, the media would attack that. The headlines would scream, "Soldiers Unsure of Situation in Iraq," and "Does Unprepared to Speak Mean They're Unprepared for Battle?"

Sometimes in life, you just can't win. Especially when the media will attack even the things you do right.

Only Police Misconduct, Not Successes, Matter to Dems

2005-10-07T08:30:00.000-04:00

New York City sometimes seems to provide a microcosm of the ongoing missteps of the Democratic Party, and our mayoral election provides one terrific example of how to miss the boat with the middle class. Apparently, the dramatic reduction in crime here hasn't been important enough to warrant more than a passing mention in the last three mayoral contests. The Democrats' strategy seems to be to denigrate the police rather than praise them.

Let's take a walk down Memory Lane. In 1993, before Rudy Giuliani first took office, crime here in NYC was at a historic high point, with over 2,000 murders a year. The Democratic mayor, David Dinkins, had stood by, actionless for several days, while riots tore apart parts of the most heavily populated borough, Brooklyn. The economy was in freefall; businesses were fleeing.

But, in January 1994, Rudy Giuliani took office, beginning nearly 12 years (and counting) of Republican executive leadership. Declines in crime were nearly immediate, due in part to Rudy's zero tolerance for so-called "minor" infractions. (Sorry, no more smoking pot on the subway. Darn!) As a reward for his efforts, the mayor was villified as a Nazi. Demonstrators (who were, apparently, strong advocates for the rights of squeegee men and subway turnstile jumpers) marched numerous times with placards that depicted Rudy as Hitler (complete with adorable moustache and swastika).

Today, NYC is the safest of the Top 20 cities in the country -- with a 70% decrease in murder and other violent crime -- which is particularly impressive given our large population and huge geographic area. This is the singular reason why NYC's economy has rebounded to establish the city, once again, as America's business capital. Businesses felt better about New York when they had some confidence that their employees could leave work at 6:30 p.m. and not get mugged or raped.

In the three mayoral elections since 1994, however, Democratic candidates have turned a blind eye to this accompishment. Instead, their focus has been on atrocities committed by the police. (We have 40,000 police officers here; bad apples are an inevitable part of the barrel.) They have focused on the mistakes -- and on the lousy cops -- and glossed over (or simply ignored) the accomplishments.

So, the principal crime-related issue for the current Democratic candidate, Fernando Ferrer, is his position on whether the horrific shooting by police of Amadou Diallo several years ago was a criminal act. According to Ferrer, the answer to that is yes, no, yes. (This is in keeping with the precedent set last year by John Kerry.) In fact, the whole crime issue invariably comes down to a minority-as-victim thing for Democrats, as they continue to pander to a core constituency that seems to think this is more important than public safety.

And that's why the Democrats are such consistent losers. Security and safety are always the top issues with people, and they're key to why Bush beat Kerry in 2004. Simply, not enough folks believed Kerry was serious about national security. Voters want to hear that their elected leader understands the need to be tough -- whether with terrorists or turnstile jumpers.

Thus, in a town in which 85% of the voters are registered Democrats, look for the Republican candidate to win for the fourth election in a row.

Rev. Fat Al Grows Even Larger

2005-09-28T16:51:00.000-04:00

The Right-Racist-Reverend Al Sharpton -- he doesn't have an official church; he's sort of a reverend at large (very large) -- has been all over the place in Lousiana lately, doing what he does best: Getting his racist, bigoted, anti-semitic kisser in front of the adoring cameras. Former NYC mayor Ed Koch used to refer to Fat Al as "Al Charlatan," but he was too kind.

The mainstream media seems to have no clue who Fat Al is -- which is understandable given that the average age of a field reporter seems to be 28, with an IQ of blonde, and a knowledge of history that extends back to 2003 -- or they choose to ignore it.

So, let's look at some of Al's best. Remember, this is the guy who was a featured speaker at the Democratic National Convention in 2004...

"White folks was in caves while we was building empires... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it."
--Al Sharpton, 1994

"We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother (owner of a record store), so that some white interloper can expand his business on 125th Street."
--Al Sharpton, during the Freddie's Fashion Mart boycott, 1995. Freddie's was subsequently burned down, with 11 people killed.

"I am in hell already, I'm in Israel!"
--Al Sharpton, 1989, on his visit to Israel, when someone told him to go to hell."

"If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house!"
--Al Sharpton, after the Crown Heights riots

Great stuff, but Fat Al seems to have been somehow rehabilitated -- thus the media following him around as if he's important -- though no one can remember him apologizing for inciting violence or for any of the things he has said. And, nowadays, virtually every Democratic candidate in NY State, including Hillary, seeks and embraces Fat Al's endorsement, and they enthusiastically appear with him at rallies. Most of the press gives them a free pass on this.

The equivalent would be if Republicans sought a Klansman's endorsement, and then appeared with him at rallies of his supporters. (Of course, for Dems seeking a Klan endorsement, it's convenient to simply go to their Grand Dragon, Robert Byrd of Virginia. In fairness, however, Byrd did not speak at their convention in 2004, though he does have plenty to say on the floor of the Senate.)

What a country!

Climate Loonies Then and Now

2005-09-23T07:50:00.000-04:00

LONDON, Sept 23 (Reuters) - A leading British scientist said on Friday the growing ferocity of hurricanes hitting the United States was very probably caused by global warming and criticised what he termed U.S. climate loonies over the issue. Sir John Lawton, chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution...made what the Independent newspaper said was a thinly disguised attack on the stance of U.S. President George W. Bush's administration.

"If this makes the climate loonies in the States realise we've got a problem, some good will come out of a truly awful situation," said Lawton..."There are a group of people in various parts of the world ... who simply don't want to accept human activities can change climate and are changing the climate. I'd liken them to the people who denied that smoking causes lung cancer."

That dovetails with this one from the archives:

ASIAN LAND MASS, 10,645 B.C. (PaleoReuters) - A leading Cro-Magnon witch doctor said today that the frightening increase in temperatures all over the Asian Land Mass was very probably caused by the Neanderthals' stubborn, continued use of fire.

"Their society's enormous and unhealthy craving for roasted Mammoth meat has driven them to maintain ever more and bigger cooking fires, which is clearly heating up everything. They are such...NEANDERTHALS!," exclaimed Dr. Shaman Shaman, of Cave #1.

"Hey, you saw what happened to the folks on Atlantis. They were real big shots with the fire, but there's none of that where are they ended up, right? Now, all of our ice is simply melting away, revealing all of this dark brown dirt. What possible use could there be for dark brown dirt? Look, it's this simple: There are a group of people in various parts of the Asian Land Mass ... who simply don't want to accept human activities can change climate and are changing the climate. I'd liken them to the people who denied that smoking hemp in a peace pipe causes coughing up blood."

Cynical Vote Counting

2005-09-18T18:31:00.000-04:00

In 2000, Democrats rallied around the mantra of making sure every voter's choice counted. In 2005, when it benefits Democrats, every voter isn't all that important. (I'm sure the NY Times approves.)

Here in NYC, we had a a Democratic primary on Sept. 13 to choose the party's mayoral nominee. The law states that one candidate must get 40% of the vote, or there is a runoff two weeks later between the top two vote-getters. It's a pretty simple protection for the rights of the majority.

But, not in New York, if the Democratic machine might benefit (which happens from time to time). The first choice, Fernando Ferrer, got 39.95% of the vote (yes, it's close, but it probably won't be so close after the absentee ballots are counted, and besides, 40% means 40%, right?), and the second-place finisher, Congressman Anthony Weiner, got around 26%. Two other key candidates -- one black, one white -- split another 30% of the vote.

On Wednesday, Weiner came out swinging on the local early morning news, declaring that he loved his underdog position and that he would surprise everyone in two weeks. (He was going to "shock the world," like some latter day, white congressional Muhammad Ali!) By Thursday morning, however, Weiner had conceded, calling a run-off "a waste." He pointed to the $10 million the run-off will cost (which is 1/50th of 1% of our annual budget of $50 billion; yes, you read that right, $50 BILLION). Everyone who is moderately awake understands that a deal was made.

So, let's take stock. More than 60% of Democratic voters chose someone other than Ferrer, but it is a waste to allow them to vote in a run-off. Why? Because that would cost the Democrats money and focus that are needed in November to defeat the Republican mayor (who's really a Democrat, but I digress).

I am a registered Democrat, and I voted for someone other than Ferrer, whom I consider very smart, but a crappy candidate. The message is clear that my vote is important only if it can be manipulated to defeat a Republican, but not if I express a choice among available Democrats.

Nice and cynical.

School Vouchers Will Kill Public Education

2005-09-17T16:51:00.000-04:00

The topic of school vouchers reared its head in one of the discussion groups in which I participate (PR Forum 2...http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PRForum2/)

School vouchers are a pet issue for some conservative groups, but they're a terrible idea because they would destroy the public school system, which is the backbone of this country and of the American Dream.

First, vouchers are never enough to pay for the entire cost of private education. So, by definition, that's not good for the very poor. However, vouchers potentially empty a school of the kids whose parents DO have the means to add to the voucher money and send their kids to private school, leaving two segments behind: 1) The very poor; 2) Children of parents who don't give a crap (many of these kids have behavioral problems). When Group 2 is a big enough portion of the student population, you get an environment in which education cannot take place. Ergo, the school, and eventually the system because this would snowball, would be doomed.

Unfortunately, there are too many schools like that now, but the solution isn't to close them. One of the key changes that has to be made is the reinstitution of reform schools. Remember reform schools? The baddest kids were segregated, which improved the educational environment for the rest. We need to go back to that, but not in a piecemeal way, as we've done in NYC. Keeping chronically bad children in regular schools is a crime against the good ones.

We also need to break the teachers' unions and attempt real change throughout the system. We're doing some of this in NYC, but not enough, as the UFT (union) has fought every single substantive reform. The public school administrators need the power to whack incompetents rather than be subject to a years-long process of compiling a dossier and holding hearings. Tenure is a cancer that robs children of their future every day.

We also need to choose and use reading and math programs that are proven, in research, to work, rather than programs that are picked because they are featured in New York Magazine.

If we fixed the public schools, not by pouring more money into failing schools (paradoxically, the poorer the results of a school district, the more money it gets), but instead by applying sound business management, there'd be no need for vouchers. I'd rather try that first before trashing the public education system that has been so good for this country.

For a Minority or Woman President, Look Right

2005-09-13T09:29:00.000-04:00

It's the "Nixon in China" dynamic. It took someone such as Richard Nixon, who had solid credentials as an anti-Communist, to establish diplomatic relations with Communist China (1972). His history as a Red-baiter made him generally immune to criticism of being soft on Communism. Johnson and JFK, before him, wouldn't have been given the benefit of that doubt.

I believe that dynamic exists for presidential elections in the US for at least the next several elections, maybe longer.

It's a math thing. There will be 120 million voters in the next election -- 50 million of whom foam at the mouth at even the thought of voting Republican, and an equal number who would rather kiss a cockroach than vote for a Democrat. That leaves 20 million undecided voters -- the Swingers (don't read sex into that, OK?) -- who can swing the vote either way. The Swingers are, by definition, Centrists.

If a minority or woman candidate were to run on the Democratic slate, it would be a wipeout loss, because he/she wouldn't be perceived by many Swingers as a "safe" candidate. Many of the Swingers would worry that they were going to be sold out -- that a minority or woman Democrat, once in office, would bow and scrape before the minority and/or Feminist Left that had formed the hard core (this is still not about sex) base of support. Swingers actually don't like swinging; they don't want to see the country go to one extreme or the other. They like things safely in the middle. No making waves.

Like Nixon in China, however, a minority or woman Republican would not evoke those fears. No bowing to Leftists. No making waves. Calm. Safe. And he/she might even attract a few of the lighter-foaming Democrats, those who would vote for a minority or a woman because...well, because that candidate is a minority or a woman. In fact, if any significant portion of the black vote (which went approximately 90% for Kerry in 2004) ever pulled the Republican lever or popped a Republican chad, the Democrats might have trouble beating Ralph Nader.

Condi, are you reading this?

Islamic and World Double Standard, Chapter 88,962

2005-09-12T07:58:00.000-04:00

From Reuters, 9/12/05: NEVE DEKALIM, Gaza Strip - Jubilant Palestinians planted flags on the rubble of Jewish settlements and set synagogues ablaze on Monday as Israeli troops pulled out of the Gaza Strip' name after 38 years of occupation.

The World community erupted into weeks-long hysteria over reports that guards at Gitmo had perhaps urinated on some Korans. So, what would have happened if we destroyed those Korans? In fact, just imagine what would happen if, without provocation (i.e., no people inside firing at our troops), the US destroyed a mosque. Oh, my, the clamor wouldn't die down until we had bribed a slew of Arab leaders to manipulate their people to shut up.

Today's news, however, is different. No Korans, no mosques. Nah, this is about burning down synagogues (which is a tradition in some countries). So, don't lose sleep waiting for strong condemnations of these acts from Arab and Muslim countries. Nor from the ruling body of hyprocrisy, World Opinion, led by the terrorism apologist...oops, pro-Palestinian...European countries. Some of the Europeans may, of course, issue their usual bland and transparent denunciations, though some will forgive these anti-semitic acts as an understandable release mechanism for the long-suffering Palesitinians, now freed from their occupiers in Gaza. Just don't kill any Jews, OK? Or, at least, not too many.

That doesn't look good.

Government Ineptitude Report Card

2005-09-10T12:54:00.000-04:00

Now that over a week has passed, we can cast a more accurate eye on the events, and non-events, surrounding the Tragedy of New Orleans.

Let’s talk leadership. Real, smart leadership is a trait in short supply in the business world, which is why the people who have it get paid so much. In government these days, though, it seems even rarer – as scarce as the proverbial "honest politician" (some would call that an oxymoron). And any rational, unbiased analysis leads to the inescapable conclusion that government officials at all levels – City, State, and Federal – failed to act correctly and/or decisively (That’s teamwork!), and that their pitiful performances cost perhaps thousands of lives.

But each of them gets A for ineptitude; they are the valedictorians of incompetence. Let us count the ways.

The Mayor: The mayor and his executive team crafted an evacuation plan that was so excellent, they seem to have stowed it in Al Gore's lockbox, so no one could steal it. They certainly didn’t share it with other levels of community government, nor did they follow it themselves (it's probably still safe and dry in that lockbox, though). When the mayor ordered the city evacuated, did he think all those disabled people, and the citizens without cars, were going to walk to Baton Rouge? As pictures painfully show, the buses that would have saved so many remained parked, all in a row, until they were engulfed by the flood waters. To top things off, the mayor’s command center at the Hyatt was out of touch with the outside world for two entire days, after the backup generator ran out of diesel fuel. Apparently, they were set for any emergency situation with a duration of three hours or less. (Final grades: Keeping Evacuation Plans Secret, A; Parking Buses Neatly, A.)

The Governor: As opposed to the mayor, the governor wasn’t prepared for anything longer than three seconds. For a few days there, her activities were denoted by...nothing. She seems to have stayed in bed, emotionally paralyzed by the crisis. When everyone could see that the state was in over its head, she failed to cry to Washington for help. (She did a nice job of crying on television, though.) Her revisionist spinmeister lackeys have been scrambling recently trying to make it appear that she asked for assistance, but was ignored. Their principal piece of evidence, however, her letter to the President on 8/28, requests little more than post-storm loans and help with debris clean-up (see http://gov.louisiana.gov/Disaster%20Relief%20Request.pdf). In her defense, well, I can't think of anything. (Final grades: Crying Without Her Make-Up Running, A; Making the Mayor Look Good By Comparison, A.)

The President: And, speaking of spinmeistering, there's the Federal PR Machine (no, that’s not a new rock group), that would lead us to believe the President was powerless to act without being asked. Yes, first response in emergencies such as this is typically reserved for the states – there are several federal laws that protect state sovereignty. But, c’mon! Couldn’t Bush see that Louisiana wasn’t up to the task? They have cable TV in Crawford, don’t they? In my home, while we were watching pictures of desperate folks clinging to their rooftops, one of my teen-aged daughters yelled out from the couch, “Why don’t they send in military helicopters and rescue those poor people?” It was the blindingly obvious action to take. But, that takes leadership. (Final grades: Smiling During a Crisis, A; Forgetting He's Supposed To Be the Damn President, A.)

Supremely Mythical

2005-09-04T18:09:00.000-04:00

And now there are two openings on the Supreme Court, which can be parlayed into three chess moves if Bush decides to elevate a current justice to Chief. For those Democrats who shrieked that they would leave the country if Bush was re-elected in 2004, this could be the final straw that really has them lining up at the passport office.

The mantra according to Howard Dean and his minions is that Bush, as a puppet of rabid conservatives (who make up half of all Republicans, according to some Democrats) and Fundamentalist Christians (the other half), will appoint people who will turn the country right...into a fascist state. As soon as they can, the Roe v. Wade decision will bite the dust, and most of our liberties will be curbed. Except for the right to own guns, which will be decreed a requirement for all able-bodied people over 18. And the rights of terrorists in Gitmo? Forget about it! All future detainess will have to be satisfied with the US providing used copies of the Koran for them instead of brand new ones. (I suspect urinating on the Koran will still not be a good thing, though.)

The truth is, however, that this perspective is yet another example of shrieking partisanship rounded out by a meager knowledge of even recent history. The plain facts are these: Seven of the nine Justices (counting Rehnquist and O'Connor) were appointed by Republican presidents, including three from the administration of Ronald Reagan (a rabid conservative if there ever was one). And the Supreme Court has had this composition for over 11 years (see http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/members.pdf).

Yet, Roe v. Wade stands. And the most egregious curtailment of rights in the past decade -- the decision in Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al., which allows a private company to take your house if it's in the (subjective) public interest -- was one rendered by the two justices appointed by Clinton (Ginsburg and Breyer), plus three others (Stevens, Souter, and Kennedy) noted for being "more liberal." (The upshot is you can still get an abortion, but you won't be doing it at home if some big company wants to turn your bedroom into the elevator shaft of an office building.)

So, let's talk reality. It surely is important that Bush keep his promise on appointments -- he says he doesn't like judicial activitism; judges making law is bad. Well, that means respecting legal precedents -- including Roe v. Wade -- and not using the Court to, in effect, make laws that Republicans like. He seems to have made a good start with Roberts, who has been described as a judicial "minimalist" by more than one pundit (see http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/sunsteinrobertsminimalist.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Roberts,_Jr. ("Minimal" is good to me in any aspect of government; the more either party does "maximal," the more they screw things up.) Now, he has to follow through with the next appointment, and with the Chief Justice position.

So stay tuned. My guess is that, when the smoke clears after the next Court's term, it will have done more of what it has typically done over the past 200+ years: Move slowly, with respect for the past. Liberals have nothing to fear except Howard Dean's big mouth.

Drawing A Blanco On the Hillary Connection

2005-09-03T16:03:00.000-04:00

I read two bloggers and one mainstream pundit yesterday (sorry, didn't keep track of sources) who suggested that Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco's "overwhelmed" demeanor in the Hurricane Katrina disaster somehow reflects on the ability of women to handle crises with poise and confidence. They point to this potentially harming Hillary Clinton in 2008, if she chooses to run for president (the phony suspense on that decision is killing me, by the way).

They're right. This will harm Hillary among two critical voter segments: 1) Men whose sense of their own masculinity is so fragile that they can't bear the thought of a female in the ultimate power job; 2) People who can't stand Hillary and will stretch any point to make a case against her.

However, as she wasn't going to get the votes of more than perhaps .02% of those segments anyway -- those would be the dullards who vote for her by mistake because they can't figure out how to put an X next to the name of the candidate they really want (and, no, they don't all live in Florida) -- her campaign team shouldn't lose sleep over this.

I don't much care for Hillary -- I think she takes political phoniness to a level at which few have ventured -- but let's get real here. Hillary is highly intelligent and ultra-poised. In fact, she's so poised, she never once smacked Bill in the face on camera, even when he was going through his serial sex molester phase. And she handled the whole Monica thing with class and restraint, even if some folks thought she should have given him a Bobbit-ectomy in the Lincoln Bedroom.

I'm probably not going to vote for her, but I wouldn't be anxious about Hillary in a crisis. She'd be every bit as tough as Margaret Thatcher, and slightly prettier, too (though her clothes are still an abomination; pink pants suits, blechh!). And we'd get Bill Clinton as First Guy, hosting afternoon teas in the White House (and maybe hosting other "get-togethers" as well) as a bonus. It would be the coolest presidency since JFK's.

Was Kathleen Blanco overwhelmed? Well, she certainly didn't seem prepared. But, hey, here in NY, we have a male governor whose greatest achievement in the days after 9/11 was standing on camera behind Rudy Giuliani and keeping his mouth shut. Now, that's leadership!

Hillary may be a lot of things, but incapable of being president because of the actions of Kathleen Blanco isn't one of them.

Government Ineptitude and N.O. Planning

2005-09-02T16:41:00.000-04:00

Sorry for the redundancy -- "Government Ineptitude" -- in the title of this piece.

When big natural disasters occur, government officials can typically be heard saying (as they said in Louisiana), "We've never seen anything approaching this magnitude, so we weren't prepared for it."

Well, DUH! If you're going out for a dinner you think will cost $100, do you bring $100? No, you bring $150 or $175, in case there's a charge you didn't expect (maybe you'll decide to splurge and have the extra large demitasse -- in the new super-size demitasse cup -- and a big slab of Chocolate Heathenism for dessert), or just so you have the security of a few extra bucks in your pocket. It's called planning ahead!

So, if the biggest levee you've ever needed was 23 feet (the maximum levee height in New Orleans), you use your brains and build it up to 30 or 35 feet. As the old sports adage goes, records are made to be broken. And, if there's one thing anyone over 40 with a passing knowledge of history realizes, it's that, if you live long enough, you're bound to see ever bigger natural disasters.

In this case, both Federal and city officials had known for many years New Orleans was terribly vulnerable to flooding from a hurricane, but did the usual delaying tap dance. A little patch here, a little patch there. Some are blaming the delays on a severe lack of funding from the Feds, which seems disgustingly true, claiming that needed money was diverted to the war in Iraq (see http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0831-04.htm), which strikes me as disgustingly disingenuous. (Folks with an axe will always falsely link issues to serve their own purposes -- e.g., "Why are we spending money on maintaining military bases in Europe when people are starving here in America?" -- as if the two are somehow mutually exclusive.) Even if it were true, Iraq has been sucking money only since 2003. Where were the city fathers until then? Why didn't someone, anyone, in local government rally the city to pass a flood prevention surtax, allowing the people of N.O. to pay for and get the necessary work done themselves?

I'm joking on that last point, of course; that would have taken vision, competence, and leadership. Oh, and just by the way, those were the same qualities that absent, apparently, when the city was creating their evacuation plan. When more than 20% of the citizenry have no way or financial means to leave in an evacuation, that's not a plan, that's a disaster waiting to happen. And it did.

Will other cities learn from this? Will communities subject to hurricanes, or tornadoes, or earthquakes continue to plan based on the worst disaster of the past, or will they look forward to what might be? (That would mean higher taxes? Welcome to the club; I live in N.Y.C.)

I'm willing to bet that, unfortunately, we haven't heard the last of, "We've never seen anything approaching this magnitude, so we weren't prepared for it."

Federal Ineptitude Update of 9/3: Mr. Chertoff and other administration officials have explained their poor initial response by saying government planners didn't expect both a serious hurricane and a breach in levees. "This is really one which I think was breathtaking in its surprise," Mr. Chertoff told reporters on Saturday.

In other words, yet one more government moron wasn't prepared for bigger than before (and this is our Head of Anti-Terrorism moron).

Next Phase in Fixing Education: Firings

2005-09-01T17:59:00.000-04:00

While my children were in our local elementary school (NYC public school system), there was a 2nd-grade teacher who clearly had pronounced emotional/mental issues. Even many of the youngest kids saw it easily. This unfortunate woman had no business being around children every day; a merciful solution would have been to assign her to the school district’s administrative office, to push papers.

But, the principal couldn’t do anything immediate because the teacher didn’t think anything was wrong. And the teacher’s union supported her right to denial. The best the principal could do was to begin compiling a dossier of weird behaviors. Three years, and several bad performance evaluations, later this poor soul finally transferred, inflicting herself on a neighboring school district here in NYC.

Of course, neither the unsatisfactory evaluations nor the dossier followed her to her new assignment. Yes, you read that right. That’s another union perk. I suspect the sad process we saw in our school repeated itself in the next place.

In our kids’ time in that elementary school, we witnessed many lesser, but no less disturbing, problems: Staff (including an acting principal) who left little children unattended outside of the school; teachers who, with children in tow on class trips, routinely crossed busy streets in the middle of the block ("It's a long block; it's too far to take the whole class to the corner."); teachers who were stunningly ignorant of current events and world personalities (one taught my daughter that the leader of Russia was a fellow named “Gorba-VIC,” and that there was a 1992 presidential candidate named “Per-OTT”); teachers who couldn’t spell (like the library teacher who assigned her students an “Auto Biography” – no, not the story of Buick or Chrysler – which is the equivalent of a math teacher misspelling “subtraction”).

Speaking of subtraction, not a single one of those fine educators was dismissed from the system (or even reprimanded, as far as I know). In fact, in a five-year period I studied back in the late 1990s, our district of 25 schools and 15,000 students had a grand total of zero tenured teachers dismissed for any reason at all. Perfection is impossible, except in the school system!

And there’s a key problem in a nutshell. Because the effects of incompetent teachers have a long shelf life in students; their poor “lessons” can affect those poor children for years to come, through many grades and school levels, which brings down educational quality overall.

The solution is simple: accountability. Allow supervisory staff to not only evaluate performance – on a range of factors not limited to standardized tests – but also to act when performance is sub-standard. In other words, if they can’t cut it, cut ‘em! And tenure won’t save you because there are no guaranteed jobs. That’s what happens in the world of business – where the stakes typically are not as consequential as the lives of little children – so I’m missing why it should be any different in public education.

Oh, and raise the pay of the teachers who grade out as excellent. They deserve it. And excellence will breed more of its own.

Let’s Legalize Using Your Brain

2005-08-31T21:49:00.000-04:00

When I was a little kid and did something stupid, my mother sometimes admonished me with sage advice: “God gave you a brain. Use it!” Increasingly today in America, however, elitists (those are the people who know they're smarter than you are) are trying to prevent us brain-given adults from doing just that – thinking and making decisions for ourselves.

With the impending start of a second Vioxx liability trial (even as the stench of the $253 million jury award in the first trial is still thick in the air), there are renewed calls from so-called “consumer watchdogs” – and from their disciples in the mainstream media – for more and longer clinical testing of drugs before they are approved for sale.

At home, when my (so-called) watchdog barks ferociously, I get to assess for myself whether she’s alerting us to any real danger. Usually, the “threat” turns out to be birds or squirrels that have brazenly invaded our backyard, so I make the decision to ignore the barking.

The consumer watchdogs, though, would take that decision-making power away from us when it comes to a range of issues in our lives. People who know nothing about clinical testing or science would dictate that no drug could reach the market unless and until it was tested to death, and then tested some more. If you’re terminally ill, well, sorry, you’ll just have to wait a bit longer. Come back next year.

And, while they’re at it, they don’t want you to have too much fast food either. Fat, salt, grease, death – that’s not good for you. Oh, and you probably shouldn’t be eating too many Oreos or Twinkies either, and your kids certainly shouldn’t. In fact, companies such as the one run by the cherubic-but-sinister Little Debbie should be banned from advertising to kids at all. Come to think of it, if you want to buy that Moon Pie, you better show some ID.

It used to be only that only our friendly, we-know-what’s-best-for-you government told us what to do. (As one of my favorite comedians of the 1970s, Chris Rush, used to say about marijuana, "God grows it, but the government says you can't have it.") Now, we have “consumer advocate” militias who are smarter than we are, too.

Where does it end? Well, it should end at the beginning. We need to stop "protecting" adults from making informed, cognitive decisions and living with the results. (Heck, even water has potentially bad effects if misused or consumed to excess.)

So, all drugs – licit, illicit, prescription, herbal – should be freely available in the marketplace. Yes, manufacturers need to reasonably test products and come clean about the results, but then let the adults take over from there. Of course, that means no more excuses for the adults – no more not reading the warning label, taking triple the recommended dose, dying, and then having your widow sue for $100 million because you were dumb as a rock. That’s not playing fair.

Which means that, if you have severe arthritis pain, and you decide that being able to get out of bed with 90% less pain every morning trumps an elevated chance of heart attack or stroke, well, that’s your decision and your risk. If you decide to eat potato chips every day – and that you can’t eat just one (now, there’s a manufacturer I can admire, bragging that its product is addictive!) -- that’s your crispy call. And – let’s get to the illegal drugs issue – if you want to shoot your body full of heroin, or load your nostrils with cocaine, well, do it at home and everyone should be just fine with it. (Just don’t get behind the wheel like that or we’ll throw your butt in jail.)

Let’s use our brains and legalize adulthood and personal responsibility.

We Love To Lie and It Shows

2005-08-30T10:34:00.000-04:00

A recent article in the WSJ ("Airlines Fly an Unsustainable Path" on 8/23/05) reports the major airlines are hemorrhaging money (this, in and of itself, is not news), and pegs it to sky-high fuel costs. A whimsical, accompanying chart shows these airlines turning nifty profits if only the price of oil had remained in the now-ancient realm of $45 a barrel (the price today hit $71). Past reasons offered for airline losses have included the high wages the major carriers are "forced" to pay their workers (apparently, the contracts were negotiated and signed by aliens posing as management), and the exhorbitant costs they incur maintaining their bloated flight schedules (personally, I love when a plane is so empty that I can choose my own row, with a buffer row in front to ward off the oblivious types who would recline their seat back into my groin if they could).

But, there's a reason for the ills of the airlines that is rarely addressed: Their customers can't stand them. Imagine patronizing a retailer -- let's call it the Unfriendly Skies Superstore -- where you often pay more for the merchandise than many of the other shoppers, and there's no logical reason why. Where, when you get to the checkout counter, there are no cashiers, and they tell you the cashiers will be there in just a few minutes and, after you wait around for four hours, they tell you, sorry, they're closing the store, come back tomorrow morning. Where, when you finally do get through the checkout, you have a choice of paper or plastic bags, as long as you're willing to pay additional for them.

Then, a slightly smaller store opens across the street. They don't have any bags at all, and you'll still be subject to delays at the checkout counter, but they have maybe two different pricing levels -- both much cheaper than the superstore's -- that make sense. Oh, and the shopping carts have free satellite TV, so you can watch reruns of Jackass while you wait on line.

In that scenario, why would educated, self-respecting consumers continue to shop at the superstore, which they've grown to resent (or even loathe)? The answer, of course, is that, increasingly, they don't. In the last few years, the discount airlines have gained almost precisely as many passengers as the majors have lost. Hey, if you're going pay to be abused, why not pay the least amount possible, with the added benefit of enduring your suffering in comfortable leather seats?

No business can thrive, long-term, if it gouges, inconveniences, and lies to customers, or otherwise treats them with disrespect. This is a lesson the major airlines seem not to have learned to date. Until they do, their customers will continue to fly away whenever possible.

That PBS Whine

2005-08-25T23:05:00.000-04:00

PBS here in the US keeps pleading for money, and we're told annually that a decrease in funding could wipe it out.

I'm curious to know, though, what happened to all the money generated by the ancillary rights -- license fees, etc. -- for Sesame Street, Barney, Tele-Tubbies, and a bunch of other kiddie shows. That should be in the multi, multi, multi-billions and counting. The toys, the clothing, the Tickle Me everything. Oscar's trash can must be secretly filled with all the booty. Heck, the several Sesame Street movies, alone, grossed several hundred million dollars, before their video releases.

Was the profit filtered back into PBS? If so, why are they begging? If not, why not? Largely through their network, they made Henson et al rich. Didn't they have the business sense to negotiate a few bucks for themselves?

Getting Less Than You Deserve

2005-08-25T13:35:00.000-04:00

Let's say you're employed by a company for which you work very hard. You complete projects on time, every week, and your manager typically judges the results as "excellent." For your annual performance evaluation, however, your manager gives you only an "adequate" rating, and recommends against giving you a raise. When you confront the manager on this, he says the mediocre rating and lack of raise are to keep you motivated. "If I gave you an 'excellent' rating and a raise," he says, "you'd have nothing to shoot for."

Fairly unfair, right? If you're a self-respecting adult, chances are you'd start looking for a transfer or another job. You might even be tempted to slug the boss on the spot. Yet that is the dynamic faced by perhaps millions of students, at least in the public schools, every year. In my personal experience with my kids (across several schools) -- and as a public school teacher myself years ago -- it's a widespread practice for teachers to purposely depress a child's report card grades in any marking period that isn't "final." This is to keep the children "motivated." (The philosophy behind this was originally explained in the classic teachers' handbook, "How to Wield Power Over Little Children and Make Yourself Feel Like A Bigshot.")

School is about lessons, so let's think of the lessons this teaches: Hard work isn't rewarded, excellence isn't acknowledged, and grading is arbitrary, subject to the whims of those in charge. Oh, and the "motivated" child can't do anything about it.

While these are lessons we might painfully learn in the workplace when we grow up -- especially the part about wanting to smack the boss -- they have no place in the schools. In fact, this seems like the perfect prescription for demotivation. Of course, teachers surely wouldn't stand for it in their own performance evaluations, but it's OK for the kids because...well, because ultimately, fairness doesn't really matter except when it comes to the school staff. That's in the union contract!

This is just one more example of how the rights of students are routinely trampled. And it's an issue that is routinely ignored in education.

Democrats: Bereft of Ideas

2005-08-22T18:00:00.000-04:00

Based on what the leaders of the Democratic Party have communicated this year, I've learned that these are their key positions for America moving forward:

Bush lied.
Bush takes too many vacations, which takes him away from the business of government (which Dems say he's poor at anyway, so maybe that's a plus).
Bush exercises too much, which takes him away from the business of government.
Bush is a complete idiot, and it's hard to fathom how all those morons in the Red States could be so impossibly dumb as to vote for him.
Bush stole the election.
Laura Bush talks dirty.
NO on Social Security reform any kind. Reform was needed back in 1998 when Clinton said it was needed, but everything got fixed since then.
NO on Roberts for Supreme Court Justice. He was approved for the Federal Court by 100% of Senate Democrats two years ago, but he got rotten since then.

Scanning this list, I and many other centrist Americans are still waiting for...the ideas. Where are the contrary but thoughtful positions, the positive alternatives, the inspiring notions? When will the whining stop and the Democratic Party re-emerge?

Bill Clinton demonstrated the very simple plan for winning the presidency as a Democrat today: Play to the middle, and co-opt some of the Republican positions (notably welfare reform). Actually, that's not a bad plan for always. Unfortunately, the majority of leaders in our minority party seem more interested in validating their ego fantasies, and in perpetuating this immature hate-Bush thing, than in actually doing what it takes to make them a strong, realistic challenger.

Perhaps Howard Dean (now there's a calming choice to be the face of the party!) and his leadership council can make a video that informs Red State voters about how retarded they are; that should help.

New Anti-Semitism? The Old Kind Never Went Away.

2005-08-21T11:29:00.000-04:00

Thursday, in his visit to a German synagogue, the Pope said, "Today, sadly, we are witnessing the rise of new signs of anti-Semitism"...which is a "reason for concern and vigilance."

While the Pope is to be commended for his concern, he's wrong about the "new" part. Anti-semitism never went away. It's a nearly worldwide tradition that's at least 2000 years strong.

Look at the record. The world community overall, led by the UN, is blatant in its anti-semitism, while many European countries specifically have long histories of it, and many Muslim countries officially promote it. Government officials make speeches and claims that would do Hitler proud. My current favorites:

The Iranian mullah's charge that an al-Jazeera story critical of Iran proves that the TV network is controlled by Jews (this has to take the current prize for most audacious);
The growing campaign in Russia that blames Jews for the Communist Revolution and all the ills and suffering resulting from it (this has to take the current prize for most frightening).

Of course, there's also plenty of anti-semitism evident in the mainstream media here in the US. One of my favorite tactics -- practiced by many newspapers, including those here in NY -- is their publishing a picture of a Jewish white collar criminal that shows him in a yarmulka (skull cap), typically attending a wedding or bar mitzvah. This is their way of saying, "another crooked Jew businessman," without having to ever mention his Jewishness in the story. Watch for it any time an Ivan Boesky or Sam Waksal is charged, but don't hold your breath waiting for a picture of a Martha Stewart or Ken Lay in church.

And then there's personally-experienced anti-semistism. I could fill a 20 GB hard drive writing about what has been said to my face about Jews -- much of it by folks who know I'm Jewish and don't perceive themselves as saying anything wrong. Jewing people down on prices, a girl wearing a Jew Clip in her hair, acting "typical" for a Jew, and on and on. I can't begin to imagine what is said when the coast is clear. It's sort of like the old SNL skit, with Eddie Murphy disguising himself as a white guy to see what happens on the bus when the last black person gets off, and there are only white folks left. They broke out the champagne. We all laughed at home, but the humor was tempered by the strong element of truth.

So, while I'm glad the the so-called new anti-semitism is now an official issue, it's not a very meaningful one in light of all the old stuff that's accepted.

Issues DuJour

2005-08-16T13:06:00.000-04:00

There is a majority, and still growing, sentiment in the US that the war in Iraq has created more terrorists and hindered our fight against them. According to a CNN/USA Today poll earlier this month, 57% of Americans believe the war has made us less safe from terrorism; a Newsweek poll found 64% felt that way. (See http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm.) Ergo, if only we hadn't invaded, we'd be more secure today.

Likewise, there has long been a majority belief in Europe, and among many here in the US, that Israel (which is today withdrawing from Gaza) would have peace if only they would end their "occupation" and allow the Palestinians their state.

The majorities are wrong, and display a stunning ignorance of history. These are merely issues dujour. If the war in Iraq didn't happen, or if we pulled out tomorrow, the Islamists would have 15 other reasons why it is joyous and imperative to kill Americans.

The bombings of the World Trade Center, Khobar Towers, and the USS Cole, as well as the attacks on 9/11, all happened well before Iraq. The fatwas and other statements issued by Islamist leaders clearly outline a religious war against "infidels," and really have very little to do with specific actions by one Western country or another. As the WSJ reported yesterday, the London cleric, Abu Hamza al-Masri, when asked whether the bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 were just, given the many non-military victims, he replied, "If a kafir [non-Muslim] is going into a Muslim country and he is walking by, he is like a cow. Anyone can take him. That is the Islamic rule...If Muslims cannot take them, you know, and sell them in the market, then kill them. It's OK."

If you're not Muslim, you're the enemy and can be killed. Period. Iraq doesn't matter.

Similarly, Israel could cede all of the land from the 1967 war -- and even give every Palestinian a full-time, no-show job -- but that would not end much of the violence or the vituperation. Because the Islamists are on a mission there, too. It includes the destruction of Israel -- which is a stated objective in the PLO charter, and is the official position of many governments in the area -- and of Jews generally. Remember, these are the good folks who celebrate "martyrs" who shoot babies in their cribs and blow up little girls attending bat mitzvah parties. So, once they get their state, there are sizable numbers among them who will have 15 other reasons for joyously killing Jews.

The West needs to wake up to reality. Fanatics have declared a religious war against us, and they will not be mollified unless we are destroyed. Resolving one or another issue dujour -- even Iraq -- won't bring us any long-term respite from this threat. In Eastwoodian terms, they need killing.

Not Profiling = Bad Police Work

2005-08-15T14:09:00.000-04:00

In NYC, we are worried about a terrorist attack on our subways and buses. Based on our knowledge of a host of prior attacks -- including 9/11 and the London subway bombings -- we can be pretty certain that the attackers will be males, 18 - 34, born in the Middle East or N. Africa, or with that heritage. In fact, we believe there is a fifth column here composed of those people.

So, to counter this threat, we search the Macy's shopping bags of little 80-year old grannies. If the police were looking for a 6' 5" white rapist, would they stop a 5' 6" Hispanic woman? Hopefully, that would get an officer disciplined and/or suspended. Yet we conduct this most important of police actions with the top priority of worrying about the sensitivies of someone who might look Middle Eastern. (In fact, the NYCLU has now filed suit seeking to enjoin the city from searching anyone, saying that it doesn't stop terrorism, as if they would know.) Of course, while we're busy searching granny's bag full of bathroom towels, our attention is diverted from looking for terrorist types with backpacks.

It's worse than bad police work -- it's dangerous and stupid. The upside is that, if the Islamist terrorists ever bomb our subways, we can take comfort in knowing that no one who looks Middle Eastern or North African will have been offended in the days leading up to the attack.

Tootsie Rolls

2005-08-05T21:13:00.000-04:00

Tootsie Rolls prove that, if it's made out of chocolate, Americans will eat something that looks like a dog turd.

Huge, Uncontrolled Medical Test

2005-07-28T13:09:00.000-04:00

Reuters reported yesterday that "Echinacea, the herbal remedy widely believed to prevent or ease the misery of the common cold, turns out to be no more effective than a placebo, according to a new study by the University of Virginia School of Medicine."

Now, all the U of V has to do is study the other 250 or so untested, unregulated nostrums sold -- in health food stores, supermarkets, and mass drug stores, with barely a wink -- to treat or prevent myriad illnesses. Glucosamine, Chondroitin, Zinc, various hormones, etc. are taken daily by millions of Americans, yet there's no real clinical proof that 99% of them work for anything more than lining their manufacturers' pockets. Worse still, many of these products probably don't even contain the ingredients they claim in the dosages listed on the labels. I'm no big fan of the FDA, but they enforce standards and practices for the substances they regulate -- which is missing with most herbal "remedies," particularly for those made by small companies.

Yet Americans ingest these products like candy, seemingly reassured by nothing more than the claim that they are "all-natural." Heck, DIRT is all-natural, so it wouldn't seem as if that quality alone would be so meaningful. Yet it is; "all-natural" is a powerful marketing tool these days, in our dumbed-down culture. Natural, good; chemical, bad.

The herbal remedy explosion represents a huge, uncontrolled medical test, with millions of willing dupes...er, volunteers...er, customers who are paying to take part. How much they'll pay in consequences to their health down the road -- after, say, 30 years of swallowing some of these unregulated products -- is anyone's guess.

Out of Touch

2005-07-23T10:52:00.000-04:00

A Los Angeles Times editorial today sharply criticizes what it calls an "obsession" with exercise by President Bush that it deems "creepy." "Given the importance of his job, it is astonishing how much time Bush has to exercise . . . There's no denying that the results are impressive. Bush can bench press 185 pounds five times, and, before a recent knee injury, he ran three miles at a 6-minute, 45-second pace. Which is sort of my point: Does the leader of the free world need to attain that level of physical achievement? Bush not only thinks so, he thinks it goes for the rest of us as well. In 2002, he initiated a national fitness campaign. . .Bush's insistence that the entire populace follow his example . . . shows how out of touch he is."

Whether you like Bush or revile him, this comes across as frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Bushness -- as strident as the equally ridiculous Fox News, but in reverse -- condemning him for keeping fit and urging all Americans for doing the same. When JFK did this, it was hailed as inspirational. (Of course, serving as an example for fitness has never been an issue for Teddy. He serves only as an example of how being rich and famous can help you evade being prosecuted for manslaughter.)

The Democrats and National Security

2005-07-17T11:24:00.000-04:00

From Reuters on Saturday, 7/16: "In the past four years, the federal government has spent about $9 per flying passenger, but only 1 cent per transit passenger," Rep. Robert Menendez of New Jersey said in delivering his Democratic Party's weekly radio address." While the money we spend on aviation security is absolutely necessary, we cannot afford to forsake public transportation security," said Menendez. "The president's refusal to acknowledge this reality in his budget is putting the lives of Americans needlessly at risk," Menendez said.

Like anyone believes (in their hearts and free of partisanship) that the Dems, as a party, are serious about national security. They've done little but snipe to this point.

NO is not a leadership position.

I've voted Democratic far more times than I've voted Republican, but I think the Democratic national party is rudderless and controlled by shrieking negativists. What would have impressed me more would have been if Menendez had presented a plan rather than just a criticism. After all, he was, purportedly, speaking for the entire Democratic Party.

The Power of String

2005-07-14T23:55:00.000-04:00

A 7/11 WSJ article on college entrance essays mentions that "The University of Chicago...is asking this year's applicants for their observations on 'the power of string'"...and the school is proud of this challenging question, aimed to show how the applicant creatively handles ideas.

Ivory Tower BS. String is an easy topic on which to be creative, and they even gave the kids two examples (string cheese and Theseus) to start them off in their BSing.

How about simply giving the students the subject that's the actual objective of the essays -- something like, "Why you should accept me at your college rather than other candidates." That's a much more difficult topic than string, requires real soul-searching, and it's what a good interviewer would ask in a job interview.

I remember a talk given by Norman Vincent Peale years ago...he was discussing making the best out of circumstances. It seems this guy went to apply for a job and found himself in the middle of a long line of applicants. So, he gets the attention of the guy in charge of the line, gives him a small note, and asks him to bring the note to the person doing the interviewing. The note read, "I'm number 67 on line. Don't hire anyone until you see me."

That's creative. And if a kid can demonstrate something like that in an essay about herself, that would be far more impressive to me than a bunch of forced nonsense about string.

Bush Rejects Extremism, Appoints Key Dems to Court

2005-07-13T11:00:00.000-04:00

Washington, July, 13, 2005 (GlowieNews). President George W. Bush, confounding cynics who predicted he would appoint extremists to fill Supreme Court vacancies, instead selected two VIPs from the 2004 Democratic Convention. Al Sharpton, a featured speaker on the first night of the Democratic Convention -- and widely known for fostering racial harmony, especially between blacks and Jews -- was nominated for Chief Justice. Michael Moore, known for his fair-minded documentaries on American politics and business -- who was seated at the convention with former President Carter, and was the object of a standing ovation from fellow Democrats -- was nominated for Associate Justice. Both men pledged that, if confirmed by the Senate, they would continue to uphold the principles that has brought them the adulation of fellow mainstream Democrats.

President Bush stated that he hoped the confirmation process would be swift given that "I have rejected extremism and instead appointed two temperate men who have demonstrated, time and again, that they are dedicated to healing the nation's divisions and respecting all viewpoints."