Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Back in 1996, the voters of California overwhelmingly passed a measure to ban the racist so-called "affirmative action" procedures that were favoring one person over another in hiring, university admissions, and government contracts. This was a positive move which would have benefitted both whites and minorities. But many of the government and university officials in California have done everything they can to flout the law. Heather MacDonald writes of the attempts to re-install racism in California since then:
When Prop. 209 passed, a few politicians, such as San Francisco mayor Willie Brown, loudly vowed to disobey it. Most public officials, though, were more circumspect. Doubtless they counted on a highly publicized lawsuit, filed the day after the election, to eviscerate the new constitutional amendment before it affected their operations. A coalition of ethnic advocacy groups and big labor, represented gratis by some of the state’s top law firms, had sued to block the amendment from taking effect. The plaintiffs argued, remarkably, that requiring government to treat everyone equally violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Here is what one philosophy prof had to say about conditions back when affirmative action was in place at UC-Berkely:
Renowned Berkeley philosophy professor John Searle, who judges affirmative action “a disaster,” recounts that “they admitted people who could barely read.”
The downward trajectory of those students was inevitable, Searle says. “You’d be delighted to find that your introductory philosophy class looked like the United Nations, but that salt-and-pepper effect was lost after six to eight weeks,” he recalls. “There was a huge dropout rate of affirmative-action admits in my classes by mid-terms. No one had taught them the need to go to class.
If you have the time, be sure to read Heather's article. It is long but worth the trouble.
You can always spot a loser when you encounter someone who can dish it out but not take it. Get a load of this leftywhine from the LA Times:
Will President Bush put the "-ic" back in "Democratic"?That was the hot topic around Washington on Monday after the president was asked why, during his State of the Union address last week, he referred to Congress' new "Democrat majority." "That was an oversight," Bush said in an interview Monday with National Public Radio. "I'm not trying to needle…. I didn't even know I did it." The issue of whether it is a slur to refer to the Democratic Party without the "-ic" has become an irritant. It comes at a time when Democrats and Republicans are trying to figure out whether they can work together, after years of fierce partisanship in the nation's capital.
It's only 'fierce partisanship' when the Republicans do it. It's ok when the Democrats do it and when some Republican complains about Democrats engage in partisan bickering, insults, or name-calling, the Democrats immediately start crying that the Republicans are trying to stifle dissent.
Here is what an 'expert' on political locution has to say about it:
And experts on political locution say it's a deliberate, if ungrammatical, linguistic strategy. "The word 'democratic' has such positive emotional valence … so they politicize it to use it as a term to describe a group of political rivals," said Roderick P. Hart, a professor of communications and government at the University of Texas in Austin.
I don't know a blessed thing about Roderick, but I would be willing to wager that he votes Democrat.
And then the LA Times resorts to the favorite smear that the left has been using for 50 years: Accusing the Republicans of McCarthyism!
Whatever the initial impulse or rationale, the term became controversial as far back as the 1950s. Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.) famously used it to deride Democrats during his hearings investigating whether Communists had infiltrated the U.S. government.
Monday, January 29, 2007
"This was his decision to go to war with an ill-conceived plan and an incompetently executed strategy," the Democratic senator from New York said her in initial presidential campaign swing through Iowa.
"We expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office" in January 2009, the former first lady said.
But what if its not a good idea to withdraw before then, Your Highness? What if it results in plunging Iraq into chaos, giving help to the despots in Iran, and encouraging islamic terrorists the world over to attack Americans?
I know exactly what that megalomaniacal bitch will be thinking then. It won't be her fault!
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Not content to rest on his laurels for inventing the internet, Al Gore is now preaching his gospel of human-caused global warming to enraptured audiences all over the world.
Vlado Bevc at the Contra Costa Times has an interesting article about the looniness of the global warming zealots.
The climate charlatans play up this process to the hilt. Global warmers select whichever data tend to support their preconceived notions. They never go back to 1855 or try to explain decreases instead of increases in temperature. And they keep their data and algorithms close to their chest lest someone check them and expose the fallacy of their arguments.
Have a look at the article. It is quite revealing.
Friday, January 26, 2007
So, he gives President Bush his expert military advice:
The only way you are going to beat a nation of 27 million -- Iraq -- is to send in at least 28 million! Here's how it would work:
The first 27 million Americans go in and kill one Iraqi each. That will quickly take care of any insurgency. The other one million of us will stay and rebuild the country. Simple.
Mikey, you missed your true calling. Why are you wasting your time making lousy movies? You should be a general. Perhaps when your friend Hillary gets elected president, she will appoint you as the commander of our armed forces.
Oh, and I love your beautiful neck in that photo. You can't tell where your chin ends and your chest begins!
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Brazoria Mayor Ken Corley has proposed making it a crime to utter the N-word.
You would hope that our court system would immediately slap this unconstitutional law down as soon as it becomes effective, but I am not too sure.
The losers on the left are more concerned with political correctness and kow-towing to privileged minorites than they are with freedom.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Who do you think said the following recently?
Of course, the first thing we must do, in order to do the other things which we must do, we must put the Vice President into some form of retirement, involuntary or otherwise, and we must put the President of the United States under compassionate care. Because, without the removal of these two impediments, civilization will not continue. You see this madman, who's the unshackled husband of a terrible wife—they have such things in history—you're going to have war. You're going to have a war spreading throughout the entire region from Turkey and so forth, into Somalia, and beyond. The whole world will blow up.
Hillary? Nope. Obama? Nein. John Kerry? Nyet. Algore? Mais non. Michael Moore. No. Some leftwing pundit who writes for the New York Times or CBS News? Wrong again.
It was none other than their fellow Democrat Lyndon LaRouche. Fear not, lefties. You are in good company.
The one cent black on magenta provisional of British Guiana. This stamp is owned by the mentally-ill, convicted murderer John DuPont, while he serves a 30 year sentence for killing wrestler David Schultz. DuPont used to sleep with the stamp under his pillow.
There are some philatelists to this day who believe that the stamp is a fake.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Sunday, January 21, 2007
The Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association filed suit against Ray Nagin, the racist mayor of New Orleans, and Warren Riley, Chief of Police, to compel them to return the guns they unlawfully confiscated from people during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Now the two gun-rights organizations have filed a motion that the federal court hold the two hoodlums in contempt of court for failing to comply with a discovery order.
The motion notes that Nagin and Riley failed to comply with a discovery order issued last Nov. 29 and asks that the court compel them to answer discovery questions from SAF and NRA attorneys. The defendants had been ordered to exchange initial disclosure information by Dec. 12, but ignored that deadline. "At first," [SAF founder] Gottlieb recalled, "Nagin, Riley and the city claimed they had not seized anyone's firearms. Then, faced with the threat of a contempt motion, they 'discovered' that guns had been taken and were being held at a central location. After that, the city promised to begin returning firearms, but put roadblocks in the way for citizens to retrieve their guns. "The city's behavior in this matter, and particularly that of Mayor Nagin and Chief Riley, has been deplorable, and it is time for them to behave like adults," Gottlieb said. "Since the day the city began seizing firearms, Nagin and Riley have acted as though they are above the law. It is time they learned otherwise."
This is an example of how the left wants to run the country. They want the whim of government officials to be the law. Forget about the second amendment, the rest of the constitution, and the other laws.
The confiscation of lawfully-owned firearms during the aftermath of Katrina was a heinous violation of individual rights, and put the law-abiding people of New Orleans at the mercy of thugs and looters. Nagin should be prosecuted for his violation of the law.
Will we see any mention of this in the lamestream media? Probably not.
Hat tip to John Lott. If you get a chance, have a look at John's website and blog. He has been a tireless advocate of second amendment rights, and has conducted some outstanding research on the effects of gun control laws.
Should government control the economy? The answer is a clear and unequivocal NO!
Beside the fact that socialist economies inevitably produce mass poverty, political and economic freedom go hand in hand. Some quite eloquent reasons why government should be limited in size and scope are found in Eric Margolis' recent article Communists are Still a Grave Threat.
In East Germany, one in five people were informers for Stasi, the security police. It was very easy for communist regimes to enlist informers and agents. The socialist state controlled every aspect of life: Housing, medical care, education, pensions, travel, employment, food ration coupons, even marriage licences.
Each apartment building, every city block, factory section and school had government informers and party security apparatchiks.
Any "anti-state" or "deviationist" activities were immediately reported. Malefactors could lose their homes and jobs; their parents denied pensions; their children's futures ruined. This system ensured everyone became a little secret policeman and reported relatives, friends, and co-workers.
Informing brought job advancement, better apartments, foreign travel and access to western goods.
Why are the left so eager to ignore this inevitable drawback of a government-run economy and continually scream for higher taxes, higher government spending, national socialist health insurance, etc? Is it because they don't understand the connection between political freedom and economic freedom?
Or is it because they don't want political freedom?
Legislators in the state of California are about to pass a bill that will move their primary up from June 3 to February 5. I think every state should have their primaries on the same day, or at least rotate the order. It is ridiculous that the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire get to decide who will be the nominees for president, in election after election.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
It is quite likely that the next person elected president will have the opportunity to nominate one or more people to the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice John Paul Stevens is 86 years old, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 73, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy are both 70.
The Clinton administration put two justices on the court: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer. Hillary played a major role in selecting these two people for the court.
Justices Ginsburg and Breyer both voted with the majority in the Kelo vs. New London case. In this case, the supreme court ruled that a state or local government could seize private property by eminent domain, in order to give it to another private individual or company, to use for a different purpose. This was a clear misinterpretation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation".
It is clear that it is constitutional for a government to seize private property for a public use, such as a road or school. It is ridiculous and asinine for government to seize private property in order to give it to another private individual or business. Any person or corporation who has political influence with the local city council or state legislature, can thus seize the property of another person.
It is clear that any person nominated to the court by Hillary will vote in favor of allowing such unconstitutional seizures to continue, if such a case is brought before him or her. Hillary favors increased government control over people's lives and over the economy, and will certainly nominate a justice who will vote to increase the power of government over private individuals.
Furthermore, it is clear that Hillary favors the use of government to enrich herself and her cronies by selling govenment favors, such as the pardons that the Clinton administration sold in exchange for campaign contributions for her run for the senate in 2000. Confirming the supreme courts ruling on the Kelo case will allow government officials to provide eminent domain seizures of property in favor of those individuals and businesses who compensate with campaign contributions or other consideration.
For a thoughtful viewpoint on the Kelo case, read Justice Clarence Thomas' dissenting opinion. Here is an excerpt:
The consequences of today’s decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful. So-called “urban renewal” programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted by uprooting them from their homes. Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful.Democrats are always claiming to be for the poor and the little people. In this case, I wish they would back up their words with action.
Charlotte Allen in the Weekly Standard has written an excellent survey article of the false accusations made of the Duke lacrosse players and the moonbat faculty at Duke who have piled onto the accused.
The race/gender/class/male privilege scenario also absolved its promulgators of having to consider the fact that the evidence of the players' guilt was flimsy from the outset and grew flimsier as each day passed. Indeed, [Duke Literature Profesor Wahneema] Lubiano, in her online article, dismissed the whole idea of evidence--and thus legal guilt or innocence--as just another set of socially constructed "narratives" to be deconstructed by her. The accused were apparently guilty by reason of their "dominant" social position, which made them "perfect offenders" in Lubiano's eyes.
In other words, it doesn't matter to moonbat Lubiano if the lacrosse players actually raped the woman or not! According to her, the concepts of guilt and innocence are social constructs designed by dominant white men to oppress the lower classes.
It is rare that people outside of academia get to see just how looney some professors can be. Ward Churchill was one case and the Duke non-rape incident is another. I suspect that many people, if they knew some of the things that go on in academia, would move to shut down a large number of colleges and universities.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid said that Bush does not have the authority to attack Iran
"The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told the National Press Club.
Um, Harry. yes he does. The War Powers Act of 1973 says:
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.
It says consult. It doesn't say he needs authorization. The moonbat left are always trying to rewrite the laws, just like they like to rewrite history, to suit their purpose.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
I am concerned that public discussion of my book "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" has been diverted from the book's basic proposals: that peace talks be resumed after six years of delay and that the tragic persecution of Palestinians be ended. Although most critics have not seriously disputed or even mentioned the facts and suggestions about these two issues, an apparently concerted campaign has been focused on the book's title, combined with allegations that I am anti-Israel. This is not good for any of us who are committed to Israel's status as a peaceful nation living in harmony with its neighbors.
The clear fact is that Israel will never find peace until it is willing to withdraw from its neighboring occupied territories and permit the Palestinians to exercise their basic human and political rights.
But there is another fact that is becoming clear, Jimmah. Israel will probably not find peace even if they do withdraw from the neighboring territories. The islamofascists in hezbollah made that all too clear last summer. They are dedicated to destroying Israel. And they make no secret of their goals. Simply withdrawing from the neighboring territories will make Israel less secure, not more.
There is no limit to the moonbat looneyness of the left. It has been more than two years since President Bush decisively defeated John Kerry in the last presidential election. And now, a Democrat congressman from New York is still claiming that Karl Rove planted the fake National Guard memos in order to set up CBS.
Why does anyone take these jackasses seriously?
Hat tip to Little Green Footballs.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Now that the case against three former Duke university lacrosse players is unraveling, we turn our attention to those who unfairly castigated the young men who were falsely accused of kidnapping and raping a woman.
Last spring, a group of 88 Duke faculty members signed onto an internet advertisement that said they were listening to their students about what they are "shouting and whispering about what happened to this young woman and to themselves." What about those three students on the lacrosse team who proclaimed their innocence of the false charges? Did they listen to them?
And now the moonbats at Duke refuse to apologize. The fact that they added fuel to the fire of the false accusations made by the woman who alleged rape doesn't bother them in the slightest, and I'm not surprised. Many people in academia have declared war against white men. I have experienced the depth of hatred and discrimination that a white man can feel when he tries to get a college degree, or, even worse, tries to pursue a career in academia. Minorities and women are given preference in at every stage of the process: Admissions to graduate programs, hiring, promotion and tenure. I will write about my experiences at Florida Atlantic University here on this blog very soon.
And above all, Duke president Richard Brodhead is to blame. He suspended two of the students who were wrongfully accused. He canceled the lacrosse team's entire season and fired the coach. It's time for him to be fired.
And I hope that the young men who were so wronged win huge lawsuit judgements against Duke university and the faculty members who treated them so unfairly.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Monday, January 15, 2007
UNCoRRELATED is an excellent blog. Check out his interpretation of an article in the WAPO, about a fundamentalist Christian who attends the University of Maryland. One particular quote struck me as being very appropo:
diversity for secular liberals means that everyone else has to accept their behavior, while they can remain as bigoted and small-minded as an 18th century plantation owner.
My feelings exactly. The left are the most intolerant, narrow-minded bunch of losers in the world. They don't believe that anyone who disagrees with them on any of their pet issues (e.g. abortion, global warming, Christian fundamentalism, national socialist health insurance, etc., etc., etc....) has any right to their own opinion and no right to participate in the political process.
From Cuba, we are hearing that corruption has reached epidemic levels:
A common refrain heard on Cuban streets is that the difficulty of making ends meet has turned ordinary Cubans into petty criminals.
Stealing from state workplaces or operating small, illegal businesses is so common that Cubans dismiss it as an almost acceptable part of daily life.
This is a problem in any socialist economy. Most people find it impossible to earn a decent living from their jobs working for the state. They have to steal or work in "unlicensed" jobs or private businesses in order to survive. Of course, the Castro regime will have some convenient excuse for the island's sick economy:
In his November 2005 speech, the aging Cuban leader blamed the problem in part on the so-called "Special Period," Cuba's term for the austerity after the collapse of the Soviet bloc, its main trading partner.
And I am sure that the left both here and in Cuba will blame the US embargo, in spite of the fact that Cuba can trade with the rest of the world.
Socialist economies are rife with corruption, because socialism itself is corrupt. It is a failed system whereby a handful of government officials make all of the decisions concerning the economy. It is based on the flawed premise that the state is entitled to fruit of every man's labor and private property is forbidden. Power corrupts and it inevitably leads to mass poverty and inefficiency. Sadly, this is exactly where some people in the US would like to lead us. Even to this day, we are seeing efforts by some of the state governments, such as California, to impose state-run health insurance on employers and employees. That such measures will lead to worse, not better health care, and spawn massive corruption, is inevitable. And we are also hearing noises coming from Washington in favor of increasing socialist security taxes.
The only way for the government to run an economy is to leave it alone. Provide for the national defense and for the rule of law. Enforce contracts and have an independent judiciary. All else should be handled by private decisions by private individuals.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Get a load of this article from AP that appears on MSNBC's website. The headline makes it look as if Professor Karla Holloway has quit her job:
Duke professor quits over students' return
English professor Holloway says 2 suspects shouldn't have been readmitted
But then in the text of the article we find out what really happened:
A Duke University professor resigned from her committee assignments, saying she was upset by the administration's decision to invite two lacrosse players accused of sexual assault back to campus. (italics mine)
Hey you stupid idiots at AP, Holloway didn't quit her job. She quit her COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS. Virtually every professor at every college and university has committee assignments, most of which require little or no effort. She is still working at Duke, still teaching and doing research and still making false accusations against students who are framed for a crime they didn't commit. And then the article adds this:
Holloway was one of 88 faculty members at Duke who endorsed an ad last April in the campus newspaper that included anonymous quotes from students discussing racism and sexual assault on Duke's campus. She said she receives angry, racist e-mails attacking her for being among the school's critics.
Oh really, Karla? Where are these racist emails and who sent them? The only racist is you.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
The BBC reports:
US forces have stormed a building in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil and seized six people said to be Iranians, prompting a diplomatic incident.
According to the Iranians, this building is a "consulate" and thus the incursion constitutes a violation of international law:
Iranian and Iraqi officials said the building was an Iranian consulate and the detainees its employees.
Tehran said the attack violated all international conventions. It has summoned ambassadors from Switzerland, representing US interests, and Iraq.
For those of us who are old enough to remember 1979, the air is thick with irony.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Monday, January 08, 2007
It has always been clear that those who support gun control are stupid. But up until now I thought they were just stupid, not really sick or twisted. I was wrong. I read this article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (hat tip to Kate at Small Dead Animals). There was one quote in the article that needs an EXTREME BARF ALERT:
Bryan Jones, director of the Center for American Politics and Public Policy at the University of Washington, agreed that the gun lobby is the main reason politicians are unlikely to pass new control laws....
"I hate to say it but it's going to take the kind of massacre that kills lots of children. That's the only way we are going to see progress," Jones said.
"I think it's got to be worse than (Columbine). I mean, you didn't see anything in Colorado" in substantive new gun control laws after 15 people were killed at Columbine High School in 1999.
It wouldn't surprise me one bit if this Jones character, or some other gun hater, caused a massacre to happen just so they could get their laws passed.
J. R. Dunn at American Thinker has an excellent article about the Anti-American Left and their influence on society. (Hat tip to SisterToldjah).
It's always amazed me how quickly the American left managed to twist the 9/11 attacks into a club with which to beat their own country.
Dunn gets to the root of the problem: Marxists like C. Wright Mills and Tom Hayden who used their perverse philosophies to attack the USA's efforts to contain totalitarianism. And he shows how well pervasive their thoughts became:
By the mid-70s it was the currency, having replaced the earlier consensus view of the United States as a unique nation standing aloof from the sleazy operations of older states while willing to lend a hand to emergent or established democracies. The thesis of the United States as predator, as an international outlaw state whose every action was suspect, had become the operating worldview of the educated American public.
And even though the ideals of freedom and democracy eventually prevailed in the cold war, Dunn says that the perverse ideology he calls "hegemonism" stayed alive:
But no ideological construct dies before its time. Hegemonism was kept alive by people like Noam Chomsky in his endless series of books and pamphlets, Howard Zinn, whose "People's History of the United States" is the standard classroom history, and Oliver Stone's paranoid cinematic fantasies. It remained a central concept of the entertainment world and the media, was encysted within the Democratic Party, and acted as the motivating force of the anarcho-syndicalist anti-globalism movement.
And now it has returned to us in full force, in the persons of Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, most of the Democrat party, most of academia, the "mainstream" media, and the entertainment industry, seriously believe that our country is a rogue state run by a dictator who is intent on promoting evil throughout the world.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Friday, January 05, 2007
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
A cask by losing centre-piece or cant
Was never shattered so, as I saw one
Rent from the chin to where one breaketh wind.
Between his legs were hanging down his entrails
His heart was visible, and the dismal sack
That maketh excrement of what is eaten.
While I was all absorbed in seeing him,
He looked at me, and opened with his hands
His bosom, saying: See now how I rend me;
How mutilated, see, is Mahomet;
In front of me doth Ali weeping go,
Cleft in the face from forelock unto chin;
And all the others whom thou here beholdest,
Disseminators of scandal and of schism
While living were, and therefore are cleft thus
A devil is behind here, who doth cleave us
Thus cruelly, unto the falchion's edge
Putting again each one of all this ream,
When we have gone around the doleful road;
By reason that our wounds are closed again
Ere any one in front of him repass.
Inferno, Canto XXVIII, Verses 22- 42.
Another Lefty Professes His Love for Castro
Fidel Castro, the murderer and enslaver of Cubans, has always been the darling of the Left in the USA. Here is the latest lovefest from Pat Holt.
The United States would long since have come to terms with any other revolutionary Latin American government. That it has not done so with Cuba is due mainly to ideological bias in Washington and Havana as well as the baleful influence of hordes of anti-Castro refugees in Miami.
The Cubans in Miami are "baleful", eh Pat? Here is the definition dictionary.com has for the word:
1. full of menacing or malign influences; pernicious.
2. Obsolete. wretched; miserable.
Since the Cubans don't like having their loved ones murdered by Castro, they are menacing and malign. Their desire for a democracy and free enterprise makes them wretched and miserable.
That's all easy for you to say, Pat. You live in a capitalist democracy. You have never had to live the horror of a Marxist dictatorship.
But you should. People like you do not deserve to live in a free society. I wish we could take all the people like you and put you in the type of socialist economy you want, with the dictatorship you crave.
I would write more now, but I'm too pissed. Leftists like Pat Holt are the biggest bunch of stupid fucking losers in the world.