BOYS WILL BE BOYS

USA Today had a very good editorial in Friday’s paper. It discussed a subject that has received little attention – slipping academic performance of boys. Girls are outperforming boys on academic tests and the gap is widening. More importantly, almost nothing is being done to address the issue. In fact, attitudes to the problem are often outright hostile.

Girls have had advocates for years, addressing the problems facing girls in high school. Issues have been raised, studies have been done and changes have often been made in teaching curriculum to address the gaps, especially in the sciences and math. But, as the girls have passed the boys, the boys have had no one to fight for them.

The editorial didn’t offer any solutions, didn't ask for any specific changes – just brought the issue up. I commend them for this, it’s not often I agree with the editorial board of USA Today.

The interesting thing about this whole USA Today editorial was the counter-opinion offered by Jacqueline E. Woods, executive director of the American Association of University Women – one of the advocate groups for girls. Her irrational response proved the assertion USA Today made about the hostility even when issued is only raised. Look at the very first paragraph:

“The American Association of University Women (AAUW) is troubled by recent suggestions that girls and women are somehow to blame for the fact that boys are not excelling in certain academic areas. Is there a "gender war" being waged against boys, as some have claimed?”

The USA Today editorial never once suggested girls and women were to blame. The closest they came to anything like that was quoting the study on dyslexia that showed boys are more often identified as being dyslexic than girls by the mostly female teachers. This was a stating a fact, not placing blame on women.

Further on we get this bit of drama:

“The flames of a gender war are being unnecessarily fanned, implying that educational achievement is a zero-sum game and that girls' achievements have somehow come at the expense of boys'.”

Please, the editorial said nothing to that effect. Woods immediately leaped from the ledge at the mere mention that perhaps boys need help, too. It seems to be a trait in women’s groups to act like any questioning, any potential problems brought up, anything other than 100% agreement with any proposals are an attack on women. Just go to the National Organization of Women’s website and you’ll see what I mean.

A scary bit of information was mentioned, but not really explored. Look at this statistic used to make the gender gap point:

“In 12th grade, 44% of girls rate as proficient readers on federal tests, compared with 28% of boys.”

WHAT?!?! 44%? 28%? Aside from the whole boy-girl thing, these numbers are sickening. I mean, we’re not talking about anything other than “proficiency”. Yet, if we just throw more money at the NEA, I mean the schools, everything will be better. At least that’s what I hear from the liberals. You see, we just aren’t spending enough, look at the success of the DC schools.

Woods had a paragraph in her counter-opinion:

“The message to women and girls is clear: You are taking more than your fair share. You are too successful. You have come too far, and boys are paying the price for your accomplishments.”

Now, this is a hysterical attack on a straw man, histrionics on an issue never raised by USA Today. But, aside from that, replace “women and girls” with “whites” and see what you get:

“The message to white people is clear: You are taking more than your fair share. You are too successful. You have come too far, and minorities are paying the price for your accomplishments.”

Isn’t that exactly what we hear from Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the ilk? It works even better if you replace “women and girls” with “America”:

“The message to America is clear: You are taking more than your fair share. You are too successful. You have come too far, and poor, third world countries are paying the price for your accomplishments.”

Isn’t that what we hear all of the time from “the international community”? Isn’t that what Greenpeace and all of the environmental whackos are saying?

How about if we use “Rich and Middle Class”?

“The message to the rich and middle class is clear: You are taking more than your fair share. You are too successful. You have come too far, and the poor are paying the price for your accomplishments.”

We have now encapsulated Howard Dean’s campaign against the tax cut. The uses of this bit of histrionics is limitless. Not really relevant to the issue of boys and girls in education, but fun anyway.

ONLY WHITES ARE RACISTS, RIGHT?

Cruz Bustamante, Lt. Governor of California today defended his membership in the Ku Klux Klan. He said that the “young people” in the KKK today, “are just like the students when I was there”. At a KKK website, we find this happy bit of inclusion:

“For the race, all. Outside the race, nothing”

Because the indiscretion was almost thirty years ago, the media ignored the obvious sleaze-factor and moved on to what was important with the California voters, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s sexual indescretions of thirty years ago.

Well, some of that was true. Bustamante was involved in an overtly racist organization in college and he did defend his involvement, thereby defending the organization itself yesterday and the liberal media has given him a pass on it. Of course, the organization isn’t the KKK, which demands white rights above all else, the organization is MecHA, whose motto is the Spanish version of the above, “Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada.” , which demands Chicano rights above all others.

My gut reaction was to say, “Can you imagine what they would say if Bustamante was a white male? They’d go out of their mind”. Then I realized that two white male’s have said this, well, one didn’t say anything nearly as racist. We have Trent Lott, who in a tribute to a close friend said the world would be a better place if the friend had won the Presidency in 1948. That friend was Strom Thurmond and Thurmond was running on a “white’s first”-like ticket. Lott was caught in a firestorm and had to step down as Senate majority leader. The other white male is Robert Byrd, who is a former KKK member and as late as 2000 used the term “white nigger” on Larry King with no apology. He is on his way to being the longest serving member in the Senate, well loved by the liberal media.

So, what’s wrong with my hypothesis of the white male? What I forgot was that Byrd and Bustamante have the get out of jail free card after their name, that being a (D). Cruz Bustamante, (D) and Robert Byrd, (D). Trent Lott has the blackball after his name, an (R). Trent Lott, (R). Ohhhh, that makes sense, now.

Democrats get away with all sorts of racist behavior, because the media and the willing executioners on Main Street America don’t care or don’t understand. Republicans, on the other hand, get a break on nothing.

"I'M FROM THE GOVERNMENT - I'M HERE TO HELP"

Big Government. The way people look at this is what separates Liberals and Conservatives. Liberals like Big Government and Conservatives don’t. The funny thing is that we Conservatives are often accused of being inconsistent about Big Government, such as our support for things like defense, the dreaded PATRIOT act and the such. The difference is that we like a small government with limited responsibilities, but we do want that government to be strong. Liberals want a big and strong government to make all of those pesky decisions, except for abortion, of course.

Anyway, the liberal Mecca of St. Paul has another case of Big Government run amok. It seems two sisters, 7 and 4, were selling canned soda, juices and the like on a roadside stand. That was, until an inspector from the city’s Office of License Inspections and Environmental Protection arrived.

“'You can't sell pop unless you have a license.”

So let it be written, so let it be done.

Was the law followed? Of course it was. Was it applied fairly and without prejudice? Yes, it was. Is the world a better place now? I doubt it. But, at least it’s worse for everyone.

Thank you, Big Government.

STILL HE HAUNTS US

Well, anybody who wanted to use Clinton as an example as a positive contrast to George Bush’s foreign policy (like a caller did today on CSPAN concerning the bloodless war in Serbia) better start looking at their shoes after today. North Korea announced it’s intention to declare itself a nuclear power and start nuclear testing.

If our memories aren’t too short, it was nine years ago that Clinton and his wannabe Jimmy Carter announced the 1994 Agreed Framework that was to make the Korean peninsula a nuclear free zone, like some kind of New England college town. Even as late as October 2000, BJ was saying this:

“We have made substantial progress, including the 1994 Agreed Framework, which froze North Korea’s production of plutonium for nuclear weapons under ongoing international inspections, and the 1999 moratorium on long-range missile tests.”

The 1994 Agreed Framework is a text-book case of Clinton diplomacy – that being big on promises, small on reality. This Framework gave Clinton all kinds of cover, Carter a Nobel Peace Prize and accomplished little than forcing the problem, now bigger and worse, onto the next guy. He did it in Iraq, he did it with Osama and he did it with Korea. A normal man wouldn’t be able to live with himself, but, as we’ve heard from so many liberals, he is no ordinary man.

"WHAT, ME FAIL ENGLISH? THAT UNPOSSIBLE!" - REDUX

The College Board, the organization that administers those bothersome, yet essential, SAT scores released the results for 2003 and New Hampshire ranked number one again this year in states with more than 60% of the students taking the test, with an aggregate score of 1,043. Obviously, I’m very proud of my adopted state’s continued leadership in SAT scores. It was New England’s schools that played a not insignificant role in my family’s decision to move back “home” from North Carolina.

Interestingly, in contrast to the national average, rural schools scored an average 31 points higher on the test than city schools in New Hampshire. Yet, I believe it was the rural schools in New Hampshire that sued the state, claiming that they were not getting an equal education. The State Supreme Court ruled in Claremont that the property-tax based school funding that had been used, like, forever was unfair. Yet, it was this “unfair” funding system that brought New Hampshire to the number one spot in SAT scores for two years in a row. It was this “unfair” funding system that led the rural communities to score higher than the well funded cities. Hmm, doesn’t that make you think?

Also in the report for New Hampshire was the breakdown by type of school. The religious schools scored the highest with an aggregate 1,128, private schools were second with a 1,110 and public schools in the rear with 1,026. The gut reaction is, “if you have the money, your education is better”. In general that is true, but not completely. I’m positive that religious schools are cheaper than private schools, yet their students score higher. That means money is not the cure all for education (do you hear me NEA?).

Of course money isn’t the be-all, end-all to education. New Hampshire ranked #24 in per pupil spending for the 2000-2001 (the last year I can find), yet we ranked #3 in 2001 on the SAT scores. Makes you wonder why the liberals are always crying about “more money for education” when the numbers really don’t play out. In 2001, the District of Columbia had 56% participation in the SAT with an aggregate score of 956, the lowest of in the country. The same year, per pupil spending was second highest, at $11,273. So the next time some NEA thug comes to your school board and demands more money, remember the poor kids in Washington, DC.

WHO NEEDS TO BE RELIGIOUS TO TEACH RELIGION?

About two weeks ago, it rained like the dickens here. It rained so hard, the water flooded the street in front of our house up to the top of the curbs. The storm drains were so full, the water was shooting out of the top of the manhole covers like fountains. Still, all of this was no match for the font of material I can get from just the New York and LA Times.

Today, I went to the LA Times, and sure enough, there it was – just staring at me in the face. I didn’t even look into the New York Times, there might even be something better there, but why go any further when this was handed to me on a silver platter?

Today I learned to never send your children to Skidmore college, it seems Skidmore has hit the skids. (Boo hiss, we all saw that obvious little joke coming, didn’t we?) Anyway, I say this because Mary Zeiss Stange, Professor of religion and women's studies at Skidmore penned a nice little editorial for the LA Times about the Ten Commandments called

“Monument to an Inglorious Past”

With a title like that I knew this was going to be good, in a bad way. Sure enough, Stange finds the Ten Commandments to be a symbol of badness. She uses a monument of the ten commandments in Miles City, MT as an example of the short shrift the American Indians got from the US Government in the 1880’s.

“The museum occupies the site of the fort Gen. Nelson A. Miles built in 1876 when he arrived to direct the Indian war in the region after Custer's demise. Miles was a major strategist in the move to strip Native Americans of their land and culture, a key element of which was the abolition of the Plains Indians' religion.

In 1883, in flagrant violation of the 1st Amendment, the United States officially outlawed the Sun Dance. The Lakota, Cheyenne and Crow would not be allowed to practice their religion again until the mid-20th century, by which time (under President Eisenhower) the official U.S. policy toward Indian culture was chillingly dubbed "termination," and most Native Americans experienced near- total alienation from their religious past. This was all accomplished in the name of the Christian God.”

This brings up all kinds of observations:

1. The Ten Commandments is hardly a symbol of evil, like the swastika or the burning cross. Judea-Christianity has done much, much more good than bad. Only an idiot or anti-religious nut would think the Ten Commandments were evil. Good thing she teaches religion.
2. She’s all in a tizzy about the Sun Dance being outlawed. Um, isn’t that exactly where we are headed here with Christianity, with all encouragement from Stange? Bit by bit, all religious expressions are being are being suppressed.
3. On a very un-PC note, the Indians precious religion was stamped out in under one hundred years? Christianity and Judaism survived longer than that in hiding. They must not have been really hung up on this religion.

I bet the liberals aren't breathing again yet.

Look, my big problem with this woman is she doesn’t seem very religious to be teaching religion. You don’t need to feel the Ten Commandments should be on every door to teach religion, but it might be nice to believe that they aren’t a symbol of badness. I guess you could be afraid of water and still teach people how to swim, but I doubt it would be a very good education. But, then again, this is modern American higher education.

"DIE! DIE!"

Howard Dean is a doctor. Well, he has a medical degree, he let his medical license lapse, so he no longer can practice medicine, and that’s a good thing. I say that’s a good thing because for a man who is supposed to save peoples lives, he sure likes them to die a lot. If you check his handy-dandy website, you can see his position on abortion:

“Pro-Choice — Gov. Dean is a strong supporter of abortion rights. He believes that government should not interfere with medical decisions. He stood against legislative proposals that would require parental notification and ban late-term abortions.”

A funny thing about this is he doesn’t even support the parents knowing about a decision guaranteed to affect a minors life forever. He doesn’t seem to want anything slowing down the number of babies killed.

To add to this grave insult to all that is good in this world, he also supports euthanasia. Hey, if ya’ can’t get ‘em before their born, get ‘em when they’re old! In Oregon, he confirmed his support for “physician-assisted suicide”. In a lamest of all dodges, he personally couldn’t do it, but if you want your doctor to kill you, go at it.

“"I as a physician would not be comfortable administering lethal drugs, but I think this a very private, personal decision and I think individual physicians and patients have the right to make that private decision," Dean said.”

Maybe this is one of the ways Dean will save Social Security and Medicare – remove the drain on the services.

Dean is a disgrace.

DOWD, AGAIN

Ya’ gotta love Maureen Dowd. Actually, you don’t. She’s a raving (what Mrs. Reagan calls a “rhymes with witch”) who is willing to lie to bash Republicans. She lies with impunity and with tacit approval from her employer, the only people willing to give her a paycheck, the “paper of record”, all the news fit to print, The New York Times.

Anyway, in today’s fair and balanced editorial (ha ha ha ha ), she thinks we have become too macho, too manly, not sensitive enough. The main object of her ire is, shockingly, George Bush.

“On the men's round-table, David Gutmann, a professor emeritus of psychology at Northwestern, notes that Mr. Bush "bears important masculine stigmata: he is a Texan, he is not afraid of war, and he sticks to his guns in the face of a worldwide storm of criticism.

Stigmata, schtigmata. Shouldn't real men be able to control their puppets? The Bush team could not even get Ahmad Chalabi and the Iraq Governing Council to condemn the U.N. bombing or feign putting an Iraqi face on the occupation. The puppets refused because they didn't want to be seen as puppets.”

Ignoring Dowd’s obvious jealousy of Bush being a real man and her inability to get one, let’s check out an interesting statement here. She spends the whole column belittling the “real man”-ness of George Bush and then switches gears completely to belittle him for not being able to control his “puppets”. Am I the only one who can see Dowd slamming Bush for having “puppets” who do his will if they condemned the bombing? Dowd has set up a situation in which George Bush could do no right and then condemned him for being wrong. This can only mean Dowd's hatred of Bush is so vast he could never do anything to please her and therefore, her views are irrelevant at best. Because the Times keeps this “rhymes with witch” on says an awful lot about the integrity of Jayson Blair’s protectors.

SACREBLEU!

What is going on in France? Now I'm hearing that upwards to 10,000 may have died from the heat. Aside from the obvious jokes ("The French are such wimps they surrender to the weather!"), why have so many people died from it being hot? Assuming that it just doesn't get that hot there normally - aren't they a first world country? Why are they unable to take care of their aged population? What about this "holy" socialized health care I always hear about? Where is that? France's population is roughly 20% that of the United States, so that percentage of deaths would equal 50,000 here. Can you imaging 50,000 Americans dying just because it got hot? What would the Democrats be saying if 50,000 people died under "Herr Bush's 43rd reich"?

What this says is "old Europe" isn't the blessed socialist utopia the liberals think it is. It seems their vaunted universal health care is pretty shabby under the lamest of conditions. Hillary, do you still want to force one of your precious cards on me? I bet you do, you wench.

WHAT'S UP WITH THAT?

Father John Geoghan was killed today in prison by another prisoner. Like many child molesters before him, Geoghan met with "cell justice". I can't count how many people said to me, "Well, in prison, he's a dead man. Child rapists don't last a second." Why is that? A criminal, by definition, is person with no or at least very few morals. If they had morals, they wouldn't have committed a crime!! Yet, child molesters don't last a minute in prison; like they somehow "dirty" the place. What's up with that?

LOOPY LOSERS AND THE LOSERS WHO BUY THEIR BOOKS

Al Franken is a dopey looking guy who can be pretty funny. Well, I've heard he can be funny, I can't say I've ever seen him. He also is a bleeding-heart liberal who just can't stand the thought of George W. Bush taking another breath. His new conservative bashing book with the third grade name, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right is your basic "I hate Republicans because they're mean" rag.

Funny thing, though; The Smoking Gun has a letter Mr. Franken wrote to Attorney General John Ashcroft apologizing for lying to him. It seems Al sent a request to AG Ashcroft trying to get him to tell stories of dealing with abstinence, all in an effort to embarass him in this two-bit rag. And he did it on Harvard letterhead, too. So, who are "lying liars", again? Could it be the party that brought us BJ "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Clinton? No, couldn't be.

IT'S A START

Wonderful news out of Mississippi. The State Supreme Court has decided that the "person" in a wrongful person includes unborn children.

"The 6-2 ruling expands the definition of a "person" in wrongful death statutes to include an "unborn child." Current law allows people to sue for the wrongful death of a newly born or prematurely born fetus that would have been expected to live.

What Thursday's decision does, Smith said, is extend the right to file a lawsuit under the wrongful death statute to cover non-viable fetuses.

The justice explained that courts have applied the term "viable" to a newborn infant, including one prematurely born that is developed sufficiently to continue living.

Smith noted there is some difficulty in determining the viability and non-viability of a fetus. He said such issues must be settled by a jury.

Smith also cautioned that a jury must still determine if a cause of action dates from the death of the child and whether the fetus was "quick" in the mother's womb. A "quick" fetus is defined as one "that has developed so that it moves within the mother's womb.""

Nobody seems to be talking about this decision. I checked the NARAL site and not a word was mentioned. Look, this is a step towards ending the national shame called abortion and I for one am rejoicing over the decision.

"WHY MUST THEY INSIST ON PROTECTING THEMSELVES? DON'T THEY KNOW IT'S ALL THEIR FAULT?"

The press is so anti-Israel, I sometimes can’t believe it. A MSNBC New Service story about the killing of a top ranking official of Hamas by Israel starts with this:

“The Mideast’s fragile truce all but shattered on Thursday, after Israel assassinated a senior Hamas official in the Gaza Strip and sent tanks into the West Bank in response to a deadly bus bombing in Jerusalem.”

According to the liberal intelligentsia, the truce wasn’t shattered last Tuesday when two suicide bombers struck Israel or this Tuesday when Hamas blew up a bus killing children. No, it was after Israel killed the leader of the group that took responsibility for the bombings, THAT’S the action that shattered the truce. So in the liberals mind, Israel is just supposed to suck it up and be attacked. Just because one-half of the parties is still attacking the other, that’s not breaking the truce - as long as the attackers aren’t Jewish. Then, that’s a whole different story.

But they’re not anti-Israel. That’s just crazy talk.

WILLIAM JEFFERSON DAVIS?

Gov. Gray Davis has been getting pointers for BJ Clinton and his speech last night proved how much he has learned. The speech was almost a carbon copy of the Monica speech Clinton gave nearly five years ago to the day wherein he offered no apology, admitted to nothing and blamed it all on Ken Starr. In Davis’ speech, he offered no apologies, admitted to being just too nice and blamed it all on Enron. Check out these excerpts:

He starts off with this:

“I come here to take responsibility and set the record straight and to talk about our future.”

Except he never takes responsibility for anything in the speech. The closest he comes is about the energy debacle and he doesn’t accept responsibility, he accepts the criticism. In fact, this is what he said about energy:

“I inherited the energy deregulation scheme which put all of us at the mercy of the big energy producers. We got no help from the federal government.”

Oh, it was deregulation again and the feds wouldn’t bail him out. Look at this non sequitur he throws in:

“My friends, last Friday, 50 million Americans lost electricity for 29 hours. In California, not a single light has gone out in the last two years.”

Isn’t that special? And what, exactly, does the eastern power grid have to do with Wyoming or California not losing power?

He goes on to talk about the budget:

“Yes, I could have been tougher in holding down spending when we had big surpluses. But let's be clear. Our increases on my watch went to education and health care, and I make no apology for that.

When I took office, we ranked near the bottom in per-pupil spending, 43rd to be specific. We are now 26, and we're making progress.”

Dude, how come the SAT scores have remained almost exactly the same in the time period where your per pupil spending increased significantly? This is the kind of black-hole of school spending we conservatives are complaining about.

He goes on and on, race baiting, touching upon the holy liberal agendas like abortion, the environment and bashing Republicans:

“What's happening here is part of an ongoing national effort to steal elections Republicans cannot win.”

“…and I will never allow California's strong environmental record to be reversed -- not by Republicans, not by anyone.”

“Proposition 54 is another Republican effort to divide Californians over race. I am going to fight this initiative…”

“I'm going to fight to protect this environment. The same is true for reproductive rights, privacy rights and civil rights.”

“…this right-wing power grab is something we won't get over.”

Can’t you smell BJ Clinton all over this? Check out this Clintonism if there ever was one:

“Call me old fashion, but I believe when an election is over, the people have spoken and it's time to get to work and do the public's business.”

I'm surprised he didn't say, "During the election, my relationship with the truth was inappropriate. In fact, it was wrong"

Davis, over 1.3 million people signed the recall ballot, you have a 22% approval rating and your Lt. Governor is running against you in the election. I don’t think it’s just the Republicans out to get you.

THE GLOVES SHOULD COME OFF

Ok, with today’s bus bombing in Israel, things have finally gotten out of hand. Fighting a battle with their hands tied by the international community because any action done by Israel is called “unhelpful” (that’s our own Sec. Powell) or worse, the Israelis just have to watch and wait for the next attack by “militants”. The liberal media throws around words like, “terror” and “terrorist” in conjunction with the attack on the UN in Baghdad today, but couldn’t find it in their hearts to utter the obvious for the terror attack in Israel. Well, I have a solution.

It’s time for Israel to unleash the dogs of war.

I say build your fences to keep the animals out and hunt down, with extreme prejudice, those who want to kill the Israeli civilians. And the United States needs to back the Israelis up, too.

Bollocks to world opinion. If some spoiled kids from Manhattan and London want to go and be human shields, let ‘em – they’ll learn, maybe the hard way.

So, I say let the Israelis kick some terrorist butt. They have as much of a right to live as anybody else. And as for the poor Palestinians, they had their chance to a country of their own, it’s called Jordan. The land designated Palestine by the British included present day Israel and Jordan. The plan was for the much smaller Israel to become a Jewish state and the larger Transjordan to be a Palestinian. Of course, that wasn’t good enough and Israel was immediately attacked in 1948 by Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq. Unfortunately, the peace loving Arabs lost. By the 1970’s, the “refugees” who left Israel were tossed out of Jordan because of terrorist activities.

But why don’t we here the New York Times crying about the poor refugees from Jordan? Because that just confuses the issue – that issue being Israel is the bad guy. And why is Israel the bad guy to the liberal media? Because Israelis are Jewish and supported by the Great Satan, the United States. The fact that they are self-flagellating about their own actions and the only democracy in the region has no bearing on the issue.

KRISTOFF IS PEED-OFF

Well, the font came running to me today. I stumbled across Nichols Kristoff’s column on another site (Lucianne.com) It seems Little Nicky thinks the United States is getting too “religious”. He picked a holy day of the Catholic Church (The Feast of the Assumption) to decide that “American Christianity is becoming less intellectual and more mystical over time.” and this is "One of the most poisonous divides" between America and the rest of the industrialized world and at home as well."

The shocking fact that causes Little Nicky so much consternation was that 83% of Americans believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ. Oh, the horror!!! The idea that God was Jesus Christ’s father isn’t such a radical idea in Christianity. It’s the Immaculate Conception of Mary that usually causes a ruckus with non-Catholics. Of course, Nicholas Kristoff is an editorial writer for The New York Times, so I shouldn’t be too surprised that he would be taken off guard by a basic tenant of many Christians.

Kristoff also seems unhappy about America’s moral underpinnings:

“Americans believe, 58 percent to 40 percent, that it is necessary to believe in God to be moral. In contrast, other developed countries overwhelmingly believe that it is not necessary. In France, only 13 percent agree with the U.S. view”

Oh, France, that moral touchstone of the world, is basically Godless in it’s moral values. Kristoff tries to use this statistic to denigrate the United States - again. If you ask me, it is a badge of honor to be worn proudly by Americans. It is our Judea-Christian moral ethics that is the foundation of this country and separates us from the rest of out forbearers who have forsaken this belief to their own peril.

Kristoff’s bedwetting is all about this:

“But mostly, I'm troubled by the way the great intellectual traditions of Catholic and Protestant churches alike are withering, leaving the scholarly and religious worlds increasingly antagonistic. I worry partly because of the time I've spent with self-satisfied and unquestioning mullahs and imams, for the Islamic world is in crisis today in large part because of a similar drift away from a rich intellectual tradition and toward the mystical. The heart is a wonderful organ, but so is the brain.”

Trying to draw a parallel between Islam and Christianity is pure poppycock. Islam wants you die in battle defending the faith, it will lead you to 72 virgins or white raisins or whatever, it leads you to something good. Christianity says it is also good to die for your faith, but in suffering, turning the other cheek, but not harming your enemies. Perhaps Little Nicky should ask Granddad about the garden of Gethsemane. (Matthew 26:52)

THOSE KOOKY CHINESE!

Cloning isn’t something I have given too much thought to. My first reaction to human cloning is, “YUCK!” My second reaction is “DOUBLE YUCK!” The thought freaks me out. On the religious side of it I wonder about the whole soul issue. How many souls do we have here? Are they different or the same? I defer to the Church on that, even though I don’t know what their position is. I know, sounds very un-Mike like to automatically accept someone else’s position without know what it is, but in the matters of theology, I don’t worry too much about it. (Reminds me of Sivio Berlusconi of Italy who said something like, “I agree with the United State’s position on foreign affairs, whatever it is” – ya gotta love that man) On the medical side, I can see huge problems and abuses. Who couldn’t imagine rich, old charlatans like Ted Turner cloning themselves to have spare body parts on hand, just in case.

Anyway, the whole issue just got ickier. The Chinese created human-rabbit embryos. Yeah, human-rabbit embryos.

“More than 100 of the hybrids, made by fusing human skin cells with rabbit eggs, were allowed to develop in laboratory dishes for several days before the scientists destroyed them to retrieve so-called embryonic stem cells from their interiors.”

Those Chinese are just plain sick. Reading the article in horror that just rehashes the stem cell stuff we’ve all heard about. But at the end we get this gem:

“R. Alta Charo, an associate dean of law and professor of bioethics at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, noted that the work passed muster with Chinese ethics authorities, who had demanded, among other things, that the embryos not be allowed to grow more than 14 days.”

“Passed muster with Chinese ethics authorities”?!? This, coming from the country that brought us the “Cultural Revolution” (20 million dead). That ethics bar must be set pretty low – so low, they think it’s OK to create a human-rabbit embryo.

File this under People Not Like Us

PROPERTY RIGHTS, SCHMOPERTY RIGHTS

On Monday, the California Supreme Court handed down a ruling on a subject near and dear to my heart – private property. Surprisingly, the Supreme Court actually came down on the side of common sense. It decided that a landlord could actually remove his property from the rental market if it wanted to, even if it was only to get rid of a bothersome tenant.

In the case of Broustis v. Drouet, Broustis had rented from Drouet for ten years and their relationship had been rocky. Broustis was basically a pain in the butt to Drouet and Drouet, in an effort to rid himself of Broustis, finally sent notice that the property was no longer going to be rented and Drouet had sixty days to leave. Broustis said this was retaliatory and, in the great American tradition, filed suit.

What we need to keep in mind here is Drouet owned the property and it wasn’t like Broustis was being thrown out and someone else moving in, this wasn’t an eviction case. Drouet was not going to rent the place anymore, he was going out of the landlord business.

This seems like such a no-brainer to me, why in the world did this have to tie up the courts? Think about it if the case had gone the other way, which it almost did, the ruling was 4-3. That would have meant Drouet would have been forced to stay in business indefinitely. The ruling would have made it illegal to go out of business. What if Drouet was loosing money on the rental property, what then? We just say, “Too bad” and go on? The only options available would be to try to sell the property or burn it down. Hello? People are idiots.

Look, a landlord does not exist to offer housing for the non-homeowners. A landlord exists to make money, that’s it – make money. He makes money by renting domiciles. He doesn’t rent domiciles and, as a happy by-product, make money. It’s a subtle difference, but an all important one. It’s the same problem I have with those windbag mission statements companies have about, “we’re here to offer the best quality product at the lowest price and be a good neighbor and save the whales and the rainforests blah blah blah…”. No, the mission statement should read as such:

“Mulholland Conglomerate is here to make money, buckets of money”

Now, Mulholland Conglomerate make’s that money by offering the best quality product at the lowest price and be a good neighbor…, but that’s not why MC exists. It’s the same with landlords, they want to make money and they do that by renting. If the landlord decides he doesn’t want to make money any more, for whatever reason, he should be able to stop renting.

We live in a country where the American dream started and still lives on, but it’s dying. Too many people just want everything handed to them; they don’t want to make their own way in the world. When you think like that, you begin to feel slighted and put upon when reality comes calling. If we spent more time trying to live the American dream instead of suing our way to perceived happiness, we would all be better off.

AMERICA RULES - STILL!

On the way home today, I was listening to NPR; they had a story about Native American basketball players. They spoke about the special problems that seem to follow Native Americans. Ok, Native Americans is too long for me to type, they will now on be referred to as Indians. When Indians move off the reservation, like when they get full scholarships to college, many of them quit and move back to the reservation. They move back to terrible economies and high alcoholism, sacrificing the opportunities offered to them, often free of charge (just play basketball, like you have been doing for ten years).

I got to thinking; why is that? What makes a person give up everything he has always wanted, free of charge, to go back to unemployment and no future? I then began to think about the immigrants who did the same thing when they came to America. Many Irish immigrants left America to move back to potato-famine infested, under the thumb of the British, Ireland instead of sticking it out here. Italians were even worse; many Italian men never intended on staying here, they made some bucks and moved back to Italy. My guess this was not limited to the Italians and the Irish, many immigrants did the same cut and run maneuver.

That got me to thinking… I have often said America is the best country in the world and this is one of the reasons. Nobody was forced to come here (like a penal colony) or people are free to leave; to go to the reservation or back to the father-land. This insured that the early settlers were the best every country had to offer, we got the cream of the crop, the self-starters, those independent can-doers that made this country great.

"THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE ME AWAY, HO HO"

Robert Scheer has lost it.

Joining is soul-mate Maureen Dowd in the sanitarium seems like a good option for this well known liberal columnist. In today’s LA Times (back to the font again I go), he has an honest-to-goodness breakdown over the California recall. His hysterical rantings sound like those of a six year old who has been told she can’t get the latest Barbie fun house. Seriously, all I can picture is this man jumping up and down, waving his arms, screaming that he won’t be my friend anymore.

It seems that the whole recall is George Bush’s fault. Who knew? The fact that the Federal government has no control over a state recall movement conducted under a 1911 California Constitutional Amendment is actually irrelevant. But, I’ll let Scheer tell the whole story:

“However you feel about Gray Davis, the fact is, this recall has become a shell game, led and paid for by Republicans, that conveniently distracts from the alarming failures and frauds of the White House.”

Ahh, it’s being done as a distraction. That crafty Karl Rove, is there nothing he can’t do? He’s Superman!

“…the key black marks on Davis' resume — the energy crisis and the budget shortfall — were both messes created by deregulating, tax-cutting Republicans.”

I’ll get to the energy thing in just a second, but let’s touch upon the budget shortfall. Scheer says this is caused by tax-cutting Republicans. What Scheer doesn’t mention in is that spending in California from 1994-2003 (projected) almost doubled, from 39 to 76.7 billion dollars. In the Davis years (only since 1998), it went from 53 to 76.6 billion dollars. I’m thinking over-spending had a lot to do with the budget shortfall. Scheer seems to be saying that taxes should have doubled, too. Hey, what’s a 16% sales tax?

The energy crisis. Boy, some people never learn. Between 1980-2000, the population of California went from 24 million people to 35 million people. How many power plants do you think California built? Zero. When energy deregulation was passed in 1995, what do you think California did? Froze the rates artificially low, assuring power companies would do nothing to increase power supplies in the world fifth largest economy. When the mandated caps came off and California had done nothing energy wise, we ended up with a power supply problem and rates finally reaching market levels. This is somehow Dick Cheney’s fault:

“Vice President Dick Cheney's infamous meetings with top energy executives that excluded consumer representatives. The minutes of those meetings are still secret, yet we know that the policy that emerged benefited the con artists who caused California's energy crisis in the first place.”

Oh, let’s not forget George Bush!!:

“Nor will the Republicans who bought this recall delve into the role of the Bush-dominated Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. That's the agency that failed in its obligation to bring the energy pirates to heel and force them to properly compensate California for creating artificial shortages.”

The FEC was supposed to protect California from itself, got it. Damn that Karl Rove!!

Thrashing about on the floor in a tantrum, Scheer reaches out for everything he can think of to slam Republicans. Veering quickly from budget and energy, we should now be concerned about “puritan values” (California is well known for embracing these, especially in Hollywood and San Francisco).

“Didn't the puritans of the right squirm just a bit when their new candidate told Jay Leno that the toughest decision in his life prior to announcing his candidacy was whether or not to have a bikini wax?

Suddenly the Republicans care not a whit about those social values they have been prattling about, or anything else but defeating a prominent Democrat. They brook no opposition, even from a conservative Democrat; their goal is a one-party system.”

Oh, we make jump to a one party-system. Yeah, the Republicans have always had a lock on California State Government and if we can just get a Republican in the Mansion, we’ll have it, except for that Democratic controlled House and Senate, of course.

Mr. Scheer, it will all be ok. Just let these nice gentleman in the white coats help you; besides you can now hang with Maureen Dowd and Harley Sorenson.

"BE STILL, MY HEART!"

Eleanor Clift has a new editorial out just mooning over Maria Shriver. Just check out the title and sub-title:

The Spouse: Beauty and The Barbarian
Armed with a Kennedy’s political savvy, Maria Shriver may be Arnold’s best asset

Clift is just one of many liberal media-heads who just wet themselves at the name “Kennedy”. What is it about this family that just send liberals to never-never land? I know it all started with Johnny-boy, but why? I mean, he barely won the presidential election, it’s not like he had the whole country following him like some kind of Pied Piper. He cut taxes and blockaded Cuba, not typical liberal actions. I think it was a combination of several things.

- He was cute. Liberals are, as group, controlled less by logic and more by emotions. A good looking candidate is much more powerful than the best candidate. BJ Clinton was spoken of in a similar vein. “Oh, he's so much younger, vital and better looking than George Bush”.

- The liberals, especially those in the press, were definitely unhappy with Richard Nixon. Nixon was that evil troll from California that brought down Alger Hiss and hated Communism. Liberals have always been enamored with Communism and a man who relentlessly pursued one of their heroes would be hated.

- He was assassinated before he really screwed up, like all Kennedy’s do. All of the Kennedy men are dirty. So, before the willing enablers in the press finally broke a dirty story on JFK, he was killed, forever cementing this romantic view in the minds of all liberals.

Look, the Kennedy’s are slime. Look at the list of scandals that infect the Kennedy clan:

John - Philanderer up to the day he was killed.
John – A dirty election, bought and paid for by daddy, in Illinois (Remember Mayor Daley, “Vote early, vote often!)
Joe, Sr. – Rum runner and Nazi sympathizer
Bobby – Shared a girlfriend with older brother John (both brothers married at the time) named Marilyn
Teddy – Mary Jo Kopechne
Patrick – Attacked an airport screener

Yet, they are Gods to the liberals. This says more about the liberal psyche than 100 Mel’s Diner blogs could in a 100 years.

TERM LIMITS

I’ve been thinking about term limits. My conservative leanings tell me they are bad. They are bad because it’s BIG GOVERNMENT, once again, butting into something that it doesn’t belong in, particularly my ability to control BIG GOVERNMENT. People should be able to vote for who they want, right? If that person is really good, why not let him keep his post, huh? If he’s a bum, I’ll throw him out first chance I get (“Phone call for Gov. Davis…”).

Now, that’s all well and good, but… We do have limits on voting, don’t we? There is a voting age minimum for the voters, right? You have to be 35, born and lived in the U.S. for fifteen years to be President. He can’t serve more than two consecutive terms, either. Most people would say these are reasonable and not offensive, so why not term limits?

Look, when the Constitution was written, most of the power in government was given to the House of Representatives because it seemed most democratic. The check on that power was two year terms, thereby giving the people the opportunity to “throw the bums out” relatively quickly. The Senate was designed to make all states equal and Senators were given six year terms. But why such long terms? How about “throwing the bums out”? The Senate was meant to be a more "professional” group that would deal with “big issues” (treaties, judges, etc) without fear of having to run again next week. What most people don’t know or forget is that Senators were originally elected by the State Legislatures, not the people directly. This allowed the people to register their dissatisfaction by throwing out the State Rep. who voted for the bum. The Seventeenth Amendment botched this up.

But, what’s happened to “throw the bums out”? In general, what we have is an impregnable fortress of government elites with jobs for life. The blessed campaign finance reform has now made it even harder for an incumbent to loose. These 535 “Lords of the Dance” are nearly guaranteed to hold onto their seats forever, especially in the Senate. Look at Strom Thurmond(1956-2002), Robert Byrd(1958-current), Ted Kennedy(1962-current), Dan Rostenkowski(1958-1994), Silvio Conte(1959-1991), etc. They just show up and they are reelected. Why in the world would they fear their constituents? Because of that, we get things like the filibuster circus in the Senate we have now because they have no fear.

So, I’m starting to lean towards term limits. With only six years in the House and twelve in the Senate, maybe we wouldn’t get morons looking for a job for life. Can you imagine what Ted Kennedy would be doing now after being forced out of the Senate after two terms? What about Bob Byrd? He’d have the title of Imperial Grand Dragon of the West Virginia KKK or something like that. Of course, those who couldn’t run again may turn into tyrants, but I doubt it. After their term was up, they would still have to earn a living and hopefully, a history of being a crook would impede that.

So, I’m beginning to feel that term limits might be a good thing. It might lead to more responsive representatives and more reasonable Government; I’m not sure, I’m going to still think about it. What do you think?

ANTI-CATHOLIC REDUX

Remember back on July 27th I said the Democrats PROBABLY weren’t anti-Catholic? You know, I’m going to take that back. Democrats, so willing to prostrate themselves on the alter of abortion, are anti-Catholic. They are anti-Catholic, they are anti-Baptist, they are anti-Fundamentalist, they are anti-every religion that finds abortion abhorrent.

This isn’t new to Catholics, we have been discriminated against for a very long time, the first time it became national was in 1928 when Al Smith ran for President and lost in part (how big or small we can fight over forever if you like) because he was Roman Catholic. I give you this speech on the United States Senate floor from Thomas J. Heflin, the junior senator from Alabama as far back as 1924 concerning Al Smith:

“Mr. President, in the name of all that is dear to us as a free people I call on my countrymen to wake up. The climax of this move is Al Smith’s candidacy for President. Wake up, Americans! Gird your loins for political battle, the like of which you here not seen in all the tide of time in this country. Get ready for this battle. The Roman Catholics of every country on the earth are backing his campaign. Already they are spending money in the South buying up newspapers, seeking to control the vehicles that carry the news to the people. They are sending writers down there from New York and other places to misrepresent and slander our State, all this to build a foundation on which to work for Al Smith for President. The Roman Catholic edict has gone forth in secret articles, “Al Smith is to be made President.” Doctor McDaniel said: “Of all countries the Pope wants to control this country.” "The Knights of Columbus slogan,“ said Doctor Chapman, . . . ”is make America Catholic." Here they tell you in their book that they will force the propaganda of Protestants to cease, they will lay the heavy hand of a Catholic state upon you and crush the life out of Protestantism in America.”

This wasn’t alleviated until 1960 when John F. Kennedy, in typical fashion of ALL the Kennedy men, basically renounced his Catholicism. The epitome of all the Kennedy’s came this week with the lowest genetic common denominator, Patrick Kennedy, who said this:

“It's not the first time Kennedy has clashed with the Catholic Church. In the past, he has bucked the church with his support for abortion rights and calling for the ordination of female priests.

On the issue of gay rights, Kennedy said the church has strayed from its teachings. "The church has its doctrines. I don't agree with this doctrine. I don't agree with many others," he said.”

In an effort to make himself feel better, we have this quote from just a bit latter on:

“Kennedy said his Catholic identity is important to him.”

Obviously, it is important to him only in the sense he wants Catholic votes because he finds Catholic teachings a nuisance.

Look, all true Catholics will be discriminated against by Democrats because of their adherence to the Church teaching (and common sense) that all life in sacred, even that life that was conceived in a booty call. Democrats believe that a baby not planned is somehow not a human, it’s some kind of blood clot or non-viable tissue mass.

If you are a Democrat and are offended by what I just said, I ask you to look at what the first six of your nine dwarves did at the NARAL meeting and tell me that I am wrong. If you think that unborn babies are alive and you are a Democrat, it’s time for you to re-examine where your party stands. Maybe a party who thinks that life is so unimportant that it can be sacrificed on a whim is not your kind of a party. But, that might require you to think and I don’t know if the hardcore Democrat has that in him.

WHAT'S A NUKE ATTACK BETWEEN FRIENDS?

On the fifty-eighth anniversary of the first use of nuclear (still pronounced NUKE-u-lar) weapons, the mayor of Hiroshima almost wet himself in an anti-US tirade. The Japanese always use the anniversary of being nuked to complain about the nuclear weapons in general:

“The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the central international agreement guiding the elimination of nuclear weapons, is on the verge of collapse," Akiba said, speaking before an estimated 40,000 people. The annual ceremony began at 8 a.m. in the city's Peace Memorial Park.

"The chief cause is U.S. nuclear policy that, by openly declaring the possibility of a pre-emptive nuclear strike and calling for resumed research into mini-nukes and other so-called usable nuclear weapons, appears to worship nuclear weapons as God," he said.”

This is coming from a country who worshiped Emperor Hirohito as a God.

Anyway, let’s just bring up a few points for mayor Akiba.

1. If the United States is so bad and our nuclear arsenal is such a piece of Satan’s cutlery, just what do you think had been keeping you safe for sixty years under a protective umbrella? Has your air force grown to over a hundred planes yet, or are you still counting on us to save your skinny butts? While we’re on it, how come it’s taken you so long to become interested in the North Korea problem? Could it be another case of, “Oh, Uncle Sam, protect us so we can sell you more Toyotas!”.

2. In another case of a country not appreciationg the good America has done, perhaps Mayor Akiba should ask himself something - just who do you think brought democracy to Japan? Perhaps a Divine Wind (kamikaze)? Maybe it was the evil round-eye? While you’re at it, ask your wife if she enjoys the right to vote. And don't start with the, "Good America has done? We got nuked! Twice!!" That's true, but who started that whole war, huh? Have you ever heard of the Rape of Nanking? Probably not, the Japanese have just started to talk about that three month rape and killing spree that cost the lives of over 350,000 Chinese.

Near the end we get this:

“Akiba said the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq highlighted the contradiction of the claim that peace could be achieved through war, noting it was carried out with "disregard for the multitudes around the world demanding a peaceful solution."”

The second part of this paragraph, the “disregard for the multitudes blah blah blah…” has nothing to do with the first part about war not achieving peace. Often, it is war that keeps the peace. Just because everyone wished for peace didn’t stop the Japanese army marching all over the Pacific islands and Southeast Asia. It took hundreds of thousands of American and British dead and finally two horrific nuclear weapons to bring about peace in the early 1940’s.

"CLICK YOUR HEELS THREE TIMES AND SAY, NORTH KOREA WANTS PEACE"

The font has burst forth again – in today’s New York Times, we find an editorial from a David Kang, professor of business and government at Dartmouth who thinks the way to fix the North Korea issue is through incentives, not intimidation. He thinks we are being to pushy with the poor pinkos, I mean North Koreans. I don’t think this professor, tenured I’m sure, therefore untouchable, has any idea what is going on there. I think he feels North Korea is “going nuclear” (pronounce Nuke-u-lar, thank you very much) in an effort to be respected and feared by the US. Kang (not the alien from The Simpsons, though I can’t help but think of that every time I type his name) thinks that this whole problem is just between the US and Korea; he can’t understand why China, Japan and Russia should be involved.

“Furthermore, it does not matter how many countries are at the negotiating table, because the conflict is primarily between the United States and North Korea. What matters are the policies of these two countries, and whether they are willing to negotiate. If the United States and North Korea do not resolve their differences, the presence of China — or Russia, South Korea or Japan — will not lead to a different outcome.”

Even on the 58th anniversary of the nuking of Hiroshima, Kang doesn’t seem to understand the concept of nuclear fallout. Hopefully these other countries have a bit more understanding than Kang and will work very hard at the table to make sure of a different outcome.

Kang also comes out with this:

“North Korea clearly does not wish to go nuclear: if it wanted to, it would have done so long ago. North Korea has consistently maintained that its foremost desire in return for scrapping its nuclear program is a security guarantee from the United States.”

Huh, North Korea has been working full speed to go nuclear, where in the world does the statement, “North Korea clearly does not wish to go nuclear” come from?

In sum, what Kang is saying is that North Korea has no nuclear ambitions, it just wants to be respected by the United States and the US alone. If we would just give them incentives, they would give up their nukes.

Dude, have you ever heard of the Jimmy Carter North Korea deal that got him a Nobel Peace Prize? We threw incentives (reactors, yearly payoffs) at North Korea to get them to drop their program. Seems to me that didn’t work, North Korea took the money and went right on with their nuke program. Why in the world do you think we should try that again? Kang must be the kind of guy who keeps touching the glowing red stove over and over again to see if it’s still hot. Thankfully, George Bush is more intelligent than that.

FAIR HARVARD!

Interesting little ditty in the Boston Globe today. Harvard University has put online a new website, The Nuremberg Trials Collection, a set of the original Nuremberg papers. Totaling over a million pages of documents and thousands of photographs when complete, Harvard has the first case online, the 1946-1947 USA v. Karl Brandt, et al., the doctors' trial involving "defendants accused of organizing and participating in war crimes and crimes against humanity in the form of harmful or fatal medical experiments and other medical procedures inflicted on both civilians and prisoners of war."

Firstly, we should recognize the wonderful thing Harvard is doing. They are saving valuable bits of history that, over time, will disintegrate into dust. This project will be instrumental in reminding the world the evil that was done in the mid-twentieth century against Jews, Gypsies, Poles, the mentally challenged, anyone who didn't fit the worldview of a madman and his willing executioners.

Unfortunately, at the same time Harvard is doing such a wonderful thing and is being lauded, rightly so, by the Globe's sub-headline,

"Harvard's Nuremberg site counters Holocaust deniers"

Harvard is under fire for accepting (at least not yet returning) a gift from the Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-Up, established by the president of the United Arab Emirates, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahayan. The Zayed Center in August 2002 hosted a whole symposium dedicated to holocaust denial. The Center also has published writings by several holocaust deniers, including a book by Roger Garaudy. Garaudy, for his denial of the holocaust, was convicted under a French law that makes it illegal to deny historical events that have been designated as "crimes against humanity". The wife of Sheik Zayed even gave $50,000 to cover the maximum fine that Garaudy would be required to pay if found guilty.

American Universities are heavily anti-Israel, as can be seen by visiting the Anti-Defamation League and Campus-Watch websites. It's a shame that with all the good colleges can do, like this Nuremberg Project, it should be tainted with the rot of anti-Semitism.

"FIRE! FIRE!"

There is an article in the San Diego Tribune about United States Marines using incendiary weapons against Iraqi troops during the battle for Iraq. The Tribune is all a-flutter over this revelation because the Pentagon denied any use of napalm earlier this year.

In the Pentagon’s defense, what had been used wasn’t napalm - what was used is similar to, but not the same as the napalm we all grew to love in Vietnam. So the Pentagon pulled a Clintonectomy, though not quite as bad as what the meaning of “is” is. The napalm we all know was a MK-47 ordinance and the firebombs used were MK-77’s, a different combination of various flammable materials. And of course, the Pentagon still refers to the MK-77’s as napalm. What we have here is a classic case of, “if it walks like a duck…”

The big story here is why would the Pentagon feel the need to conceal the fact they were using incendiaries? Because the liberal press was so against the war and they have so little concept of what war is all about, they were bound to freak out and start screaming, “WAR CRIMES!!” and “How could you use this on real people, you animals!”. So, they figured it would be easier to get all technical over the presses butt and deny the use of “napalm”. I don’t blame them one bit.

To see the kind of stuff they were trying to avoid look at this from the article:

”Although many human rights groups consider incendiary bombs to be inhumane, international law does not prohibit their use against military forces. The United States has not agreed to a ban against possible civilian targets.

"Incendiaries create burns that are difficult to treat," said Robert Musil, executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility, a Washington group that opposes the use of weapons of mass destruction.”

See how the Tribune feel the need to tell us the US hasn’t banned the use of napalm against civilian targets? This has no bearing on the story, the targets were Iraqi military. But, why pass up an opportunity to slam the US military when you have the chance, huh? Then, just to make sure we get the point that we are evil, we get the inference with the Physicians for Social Responsibility quote that these are weapons of mass destruction.

The military didn’t want to be portrayed as heartless animals out to kill women and children. What they understand and what the press doesn’t is that war is hell. People die in war and you need to decide who is going to die, your guys or their guys. And sometimes, to get the other guys to die, you need to use some not-so-pretty tools.

"ME FAIL ENGLISH? THAT UNPOSSIBLE!" - Ralph Wiggum and Wilfredo Laboy

Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, must be kicking himself over an editorial he wrote on bilingual education in Massachusetts - well the failure of bilingual educators to pass English proficiency tests. He wrote of the teachers all over the state who have less than minimal English aptitude. Now, these teachers are suing the state on the grounds of discrimination.

I say Lowry must be kicking himself for writing this just a few days too early. You see, in the editorial he mentions the 27 out of 31 teachers who failed in Lawrence, MA. If he had just waited a day or two before submitting this, he would have been able to mention the $156,000 superintendent of schools in Lawrence has also failed the test. Check out these quotes:

“Wilfredo T. Laboy called his failing scores "frustrating" and "emotional." He blamed his performance on a lack of preparation and concentration, as well as the fact that that Spanish is his first language.

"It bothers me because I'm trying to understand the congruence of what I do here every day and this stupid test," Laboy told The Eagle-Tribune of Lawrence in a story published Sunday.

"What brought me down was the rules of grammar and punctuation," Laboy said. "English being a second language for me, I didn't do well in writing. If you're not an English teacher, you don't look at the rules on a regular basis." “

Oh, the test is “stupid” and it was those pesky rules of “grammar and punctuation”. Lowry’s point in his editorial was that bilingual education is a disaster. If he had waited just a couple more days, Laboy could have made his point for him.

THE OLE' U.S. OF A

You know, the people of the United States have a big problem. Almost everyone knows that, but if you ask various people what the big problem is, you’ll get different answers from all of them. You ask a “libertarian socialist” (I’ll talk about that later) and you’ll get this, “The selected President, Herr George W. Bush”. You ask Ann Coulter and you’ll get a colorful description of liberals as the big problem. You ask Ralph Nader and you’ll hear it’s the “Chevy Corvair” and etc., etc.

But the question is, what is the real big problem? The real big problem is pride. We, as a country, are not proud enough of the United States and all it has done. The United States is the greatest country on the face of the earth. We do good nearly everywhere we go, at the same time whipping ourselves like a penitent outside of a cathedral. Never before has the world seen a country so powerful, acting with no imperial ambitions willing to berate ourselves in a public forum for everything we do that doesn’t work out just perfectly (and even when it does).

In a short two hundred years, we have brought freedom and liberty to literally millions of people, never asking for much more that a place to bury our dead. We have brought democracy to tens of millions of people, thereby bringing peace to the regions.

What are you talking about, Mike?

Democracies (I mean real democracies, not those shams where the tyrant is re-elected with 99% of the vote, like in Iraq or Cuba) don’t go to war with other democracies. When was the last time you can name democracies attacking one another? It doesn’t happen. The United Sates and Canada have had the worlds longest undefended border; there hasn’t been a border dispute for over 150 years. That’s what I mean about democracies bringing peace to the world and no country has done more than the United States towards that goal.

So, to all you whiners and America-haters, I say “you suck!” Take a look around you, if all you see is corruption, evil and nightmares, try to tear your eyes away from the View-Master slides of Paris and take a look where you live. It’s the United States of America and it’s the best.

DOUBLE CLARIFICATION

Boy, in the cool light of morning, my blog “MAD MAX VS. THE JEWS!” reads even worse than it did last night!! No wonder I caught a lot of flack over it, I deserved much more than I got.

When I read cavalier lines like:

“You know, the Jews collective guilt for the death of Jesus Christ.” The sarcasm that was in my head doesn’t come through, it sounds like I’m stating a matter of fact. In matter of fact, the Jews did NOT kill Jesus Christ.

Then we get lines like this:

“Ah, the “anybody who transgresses” must be the Jews.” The conspiratorial tone so clear in my head disappears on the screen. My point so poorly made here was that Frank Rich has decided that Mel Gibson wasn’t talking about all of mankind’s transgressions, he assumes it must only be the Jews Gibson is talking about.

I am very sorry for all of the stupidities that abound in that post. I’m sorry for offending people I respect and for confusing the post to the point the premise was lost. It was a good point I so desperately was trying to make, though you would never know it if you read it.

Why don’t I just remove the offending post? Because I want the world to see how I work, warts and all. You can always count on getting the best I’ve got, even when that best makes Maureen Dowd look positively Pulitzer-worthy.

CLARIFICATION

I’ve received some responses to my latest blog, “MAD MAX VS THE JEWS!” The mailers were pretty upset with me and my perceived insensitivity to what the Jews went through with the 1900 years or so with the claim of collective guilt on their heads for the death of Christ. At first, I thought this was wacky.

Until I re-read my blog.

Looking at it from that point of view I could see how easily it could be read that way. I could see how much I deserved the outrage. So, let me clarify.

In no way do I think the Jews are collectively responsible for the death of Christ. I also do not minimize the agony the Jews went through the past two thousand years because of that claim. Nor do I discount the fact that these feeling might still exist. What I was trying to say in this blog was the Frank Rich was accusing Mel Gibson of fermenting this without any evidence. In fact, Rich was willing to lie to say that Gibson was trying to ferment dissent between Christians and Jews.

I don’t know if Gibson’s movie is anti-Jew or not, my point is neither does Frank Rich. And just because he wasn’t invited to the screening doesn’t mean it is. What it means is Frank Rich wasn’t invited and neither was the ADL, who had already decided the movie was anti-Jew. That’s all, my point was The New York Times has once again lied through omission and lied outright to put down something they know nothing about other than it might not be in agreement with the Gospel according to Pinch Sulzberger.

MAD MAX VS. THE JEWS!

For the last couple of days, I’ve been seeing an article by New York Times Media critic Frank Rich titled Mel Gibson’s Martyrdom Complex. I spoke of Mr. Rich back on July 21st when he was convinced that liberals couldn’t break into talk radio because they were the serious ones.

Anywhoo, like I said, I’ve been seeing this editorial and today I finally read it. Boy, is that man a mess! He’s convinced that Mel Gibson’s new, privately financed movie “The Passion” is going to start a new Crusade to impale the Jews and the renewal of deicide, defined as:

The act of killing a being of a divine nature; particularly, the putting to death of Jesus Christ

You know, the Jews collective guilt for the death of Jesus Christ. Poor Frank Rich, he feels his people, who were collectively absolved with Vatican II, are know going to have the hatred start all over again. He says we need to worry because Mr. Gibson says so himself,

“Asked by Bill O'Reilly in January if his movie might upset "any Jewish people," Mr. Gibson responded: "It may. It's not meant to. I think it's meant to just tell the truth. . . . Anybody who transgresses has to look at their own part or look at their own culpability."”

Ah, the “anybody who transgresses” must be the Jews. But, notice the three dots just before that? That is the sure sign of a Dowdism, named after Mr. Rich’s own co-worker Maureen Dowd. A Dowdism is when you leave key parts out a quote to change it’s meaning. Let’s check out what the whole quote, sans the Dowdism:

“It may. It's not meant to.

I think it's meant to just tell the truth. I want to be as truthful as possible. But, when you look at the reasons behind why Christ came, why he was crucified, he died for all mankind and he suffered for all mankind, so that, really, anybody who transgresses has to look at their own part or look at their own culpability.”

When you look at the whole quote, you see that Gibson was talking about all mankind and it’s transgressions, not Jews. This is typical garbage that is printed daily in the New York Times, this isn’t an anomaly, this isn’t rare, it’s ALL OF THE TIME!

The other big problem Rich has with Mel Gibson is the screening Gibson did in Washington. It seems Gibson didn’t bother to invite any of the people who are gunning for him. This outrages Rich. He thinks it was just terrible that the ADL didn’t get an invite and the only Jew there was Matt Drudge (Oh, the horror!) This is a sign of blatant anti-Semitism to Mr. Rich.

Hmm, so…nobody who was sure to blast Mr. Gibson’s work was invited and this is surprising to Frank Rich? What an idiot. How many times has Frank Rich asked Ann Coulter to give him a jacket quote for one of his books? I wonder if he is concerned about the number of Mormons, Satanists or Hindus invited to the screening; is it some form of anti-Hindi thing going on? I wonder if Frank Rich is concerned about the number of white members of the Congressional Black Caucus? (The answer is zero, whites can’t be members) How about Republicans invited to the Democratic Convention? Use your head for once, Rich!

Rich also plays up the controversy by the letter from Jews and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops who read an early (and erroneous, according to Gibson) script that seemed to have anti-Semitic overtones. Of course, Rich never mentions the USCCB has since withdrawn their concerns. Again, Rich lies by omission to prove his point.

I wrote a few days ago it must be nice to be a member of the Times and be unencumbered by the truth and I think I was wrong. It must be easy, but they are so unhappy, I’m not sure it’s nice.

FIRST IT WAS GOOD, THEN IT WAS BAD, NOW IT'S GOOD AGAIN

Why they make it so easy for me, I don’t know. But each day I know I can go to what seems like an endless font of liberalism run amok from the New York Times and the LA Times. Sure enough, today I dip into the editorial pages of the New York Times and pull up this gem. Richard H. Pildes, Professor of Law at NYU Law school and author of a little ditty called When Elections Go Bad: The Law of Democracy and the 2000 Presidential Election, has an editorial on the Supreme Court decision on Georgia v. Ashcroft. Pildes summarizes the case as:

“The Voting Rights Act, it ruled, does not require the election of black candidates for their own sake. Its purpose is to ensure equal opportunities and meaningful political influence and participation. If that goal is best realized by designing democratic institutions that foster interracial coalitions, the court concluded, the law should not stand in the way.”

Translation, with the south going Republican, we need to create districts where Democrats can win, even if he or she is white. I wish you could say I was jumping to conclusions, but that’s exactly what Pildes said,

“The rise of two-party politics in the South helps explain why: a vibrant Republican Party now threatened to take over state government. That pressure united black and white Democrats. As black Democrats in Georgia saw it, what good are seats in a political body more hostile overall to the interests of black voters?”

Oh, so as long as the South was going to be Democrat, the Voting Rights Act of 1964 (ironically, opposed by most southern Democrats at the time) was working just fine, but once Republicans started to gain seats, it was time for an “adjustment”.

Look, this whole thing is STUPID. I have said for years that “minority districts” are stupid. They have been used for decades ONLY to insure that as many Democrats get into Congress as possible. A minority is almost guaranteed to be a Democrat. Pildes himself said, “…strong black candidates regularly get about a third of the white vote.” But, what was the percentage of the black vote garnered by George Bush in 2000? Seven or eight percent? So of course the Democrats have upheld the “safe district” theory while it insured more Democrats in the House. But, all along, they knew the truth, they were playing the African-American community for fools, AGAIN. The truth is, what a person looks like is no guarantee that that person represents your views. Ted Kennedy and I are both overweight, white men of Irish decent from Massachusetts. According to the drivel of the past forty years, he should be a perfect representative for me.

Are you done laughing yet?

David Souter, a white man from New Hampshire and Clarence Thomas, a black man from Georgia are both Supreme Court justices; which one do you think represents me, a white male living in New Hampshire, more? Right.

Why the African-Americans let themselves be used by Democrats time and time again is beyond me. But they have, they do and they will again.

JEWS

Quite a few months ago I wrote about the anti-Israel bent (I can’t say anti-Semitism because the Palestinians are Semites, but that’s another blog altogether) that pervades the newsrooms of this country and the LA Times did it again today. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay spoke in the Israeli Knesset this week. He stressed the bond our two countries have combating terrorism, he spoke in terms of good and evil, he spoke like the man of faith that he is. He spoke of Israel’s continued existence in the face of violence.

Of course, all of this does not go over well at the LA Times. Check this out,

“The Bush administration's "road map" to peace rests on cease-fires, a halt to Jewish settlements in Palestinian territories and Palestinian statehood. DeLay's vision for Israel does not. His Christian Zionist religious belief holds that a Jewish Israel is necessary for the second coming of Jesus Christ and the "rapture" that will deliver Christians into heaven. That view abjures negotiation since compromise by Israel would interfere with the fulfillment of the prophecy”

They admit right here that their view of the future has no Israel. If DeLay believes there must be a Jewish Israel and they believe DeLay “abjures negotiation since compromise by Israel would interfere with the fulfillment of the prophecy”, therefore they feel negotiation will lead to no Israel.

The question is, is this what they want? If the outraged tone of the editorial is a clue, then by all means, they wish for the destruction of Israel. I encourage you all to read the editorial and then read the DeLay’s speech and tell me if the editorial board at the LA Times is anti-Israel. It’s sad.