The Three "R's"

Some thoughts on a busy Friday, all on topics starting with the letter R.



1st R - Rushdie - The British have seen fit to honor Salman Rushdie by bestowing a knighthood upon him. He is now Sir Rushdie, I guess, so named for his contribution to literature. He is now on the same level with the Islamists as the infamous Danish cartoons in that there are renewed cries for the fatwa calling for his assassination. He has a bountry of several million dollars on his head. Gotta love that religion of peace.



2nd R - Reporters - The MSNBC website had a report the other day from one of their Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters, Bill Dedman, that consisted of his research into the political donations made by journalists. Does it surprise anyone that there is a definite tilt to the left among the sensitivities of the MSM reporters? 125 journalists gave to the Democrats, 16 to Republicans. Two, in the interest of being fair and balanced, I guess, gave to both. However, most reporters were too busy, writing checks perhaps, to report on this fact.



3rd R - Russians - The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming! God, I loved that movie! Anyway, The Russians have just discovered the North Pole and have planted their figurative flag right smack dab on the pole itself, claiming the land, the oil, the diamonds, and the snow, I guess, for Mother Russia. Santa Claus, forever after to be referred to only as Saint Nicholas, will not have to move. Oh, Canada.... Look out.

--------

That's all, folks. I'll be taking a holiday the next week or so. Family will be visiting and I must keep my nose away from the computer screen at least some of the time. Posts may be few and skimpy. However, if I get really fired up, I'll find a way to express my humble opinions, one way or the other.

A Victory for the American People

After hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of phone calls, faxes, and emails to the Senate offices, the powers that be heard the protest that stretched across party lines and closed off any consideration of the Senate bill 1639. The final tally on the closure vote was 46 to 53, 14 short of the 60 needed "Yea" votes. It was even 5 short of a simple majority. I sent a heartfelt "Thank You" to those senators who voted "Nay" today.

When Congress and the President decide to enforce the current immigration laws, secure our borders, and prevent the wholesale looting of our social systems by illegal immigrants and their familial "chain" to follow, then they can once again address the other pressing problems such as:

1. How to deal with the current illegal immigrant population
2. How to streamline immigration requirements for both skilled and unskilled workers
3. Whether or not granting amnesty to illegals is fair to those who aspire to legal immigration and citizenship
4. How to justify to US citizens the continued granting of free medical care to illegal immigrants, free education to their
children, and other costly social services and privileges
5. How to further seal off the Mexican and Canadian borders to prevent the entrance of terrorists and other criminals
6. How to encourage the assimilation of immigrants, including learning the English language.

I have faith that these issues can be dealt with by reasonable leaders of our country and that solutions that are more fair to our citizens can be found. The inclusion in our society of legal immigrants can continue to make our country strong, vibrant and secure. The priority, however, should be for the citizens of the United States, not for the citizens of other countries who do not wish to follow the legal avenues available for those who wish to share in the American Dream. We welcome those who demonstrate their willingness to follow our laws by adhering to those that currently control immigration.

Open Letter to Sen. Lott and Others

(This is the content of the letter I sent today to Sen. Trent Lott. Variations were sent to the Senators and Congressmen from my state and others.)


Dear Senator Lott,

I urge you and your fellow Senators to vote against the outrageous immigration bill that is due to be reconsidered in the Senate and House of Representatives. I have never seen Congressmen turn their backs on such a vast majority of American people and their wishes as they have on this issue.

Nearly 80% of the population of the United States is against most of the provisions of this bill and yet you and your cohorts continue to support it, disregarding the opinions of the electorate. I understand that the populace will not agree with its representatives in Congress 100% of the time, but on an issue so crucial to the future of the United States there must be some consideration of the will of the people.

By the way, I am not a bigot, nor am I influenced by the talk radio that you disparaged recently. I hear no complaints from you about the one-sidedness of the other media, the press, and broadcast television, as well as many of the cable TV networks. If talk radio has any presence worth noting, it is because it stands alone to provide an outlet for conservative thought.

Thank you for your attention to this extremely important matter. Do not let down your State and your Country.


Sincerely,

Sloan Morganstern

Hillary Barack Ticket?

Had a discussion with my neighbor yesterday about the possibilty of a Hillary and Barack ticket for '08 presidential election. He said he didn't think Hillary would go for it, but Barack might if he were to get the nod for the top spot.

I don't think that's posible for '08, Barack in the #1 position, that is. He's too new, too much a shooting star that has already reached it's peak and now is going to cruise more or less downward for a while. Remember how infatuated Hollywood was, with all its fundraisers and spouting about Obama this and Obama that. Well, now the King has spoken. Bill Clinton and his cronies must have had a good long talk with Spielberg and made him an offer he couldn't refuse because now he proclaims his supports for Mrs. Clinton. Well, well. What a surprise.

Now that Hillary can be assured of the best and brightest Hollywood has to offer for her campaign ads (the Soprano's knock-off last week was a toe in the water) Obama had better be scrambling for some pros to help him along.

I think that the Top Democrats would be afraid to scare off some of the more conservative Democrat voters with a ticket headed by a woman and having a black man for the Veep position. Obama would have nothing to lose and everything to gain by adding Hillary as his Veep candidate.

What do you think?

Lake Inferior?

"Lake Superior, the world's largest freshwater lake, has dropped to its lowest level in 81 years. The water is 20 inches below average and a foot lower than just a year ago."

The above quote is from USA Today.

If that is true, and it falls in line with what the climate change scare-mongers are telling us about anthropogenic global warming, my only question is:

WHAT CAUSED LAKE SUPERIOR TO BE AS LOW AS IT WAS 81 YEARS AGO?

Too Much to Hope For

Drudge found this article about the BBC commissioning a report on its content which criticized the BBC for its liberal bias. Plenty of examples are given in the article supporting this claim, including instances of overt campaigning for liberal causes within television comedies and dramas, a series of shows resembling propaganda, and "America-bashing."

Additional findings report the "BBC's failure to reflect the broader views of British people", a devotion to political correctness, and antipathy toward the more conservative values held by millions of British citizens. Paul Dacre, editor-in-chief of Associated Newspapers, which published the Daily Mail, commented that "The BBC is consumed by the kind of political correctness that is actually patronisingly contemptuous of what it describes as ordinary people."

I have often read of the liberal leanings of the BBC. The US televised BBC programs that I have seen often show a subtle slant to the left, even in period shows of earlier eras. That is one reason that I no longer support PBS which is the vehicle for televising most of the BBC productions in the US. PBS is guilty of the same prejudice in much of its programming, from the multicultural preachings of Sesame Street to the ugly motivation of Bill Moyer's liberal productions.

It would be nice to see a similar impartial survey of PBS and other mainstream television programming in the United States. Never happen.

A Parallel?

Back in the spring, at the height of the French presidential campaign, there was excited talk among the left about the possibility of both France and the United States being led by women, namely Segolene Royal and Hillary Clinton. If only Great Brittain had groomed a liberal Thatcher, preferably one more chic, what a triumvirate that would be, if one can use that word referring to women.


Royal, "Sego" as she is known, was certainly the darling of the media, which had been proclaiming a good chance of her victory months in advance. A poor showing in the debate with conservative candidate, Nicolas Sarkozy, and other instances of "style over subtstance" led to her defeat to Sarkozy, May 6, 2007.

Segolene Royal was the amorous "partner" of Francois Hollande, head of the French Socialist party. In fact, they have four children together, in spite of never marrying. The handsome couple was often seen on the covers of magazines, often frolicking on the beach, Sego clad in a skimpy bikini. Rumors had surfaced of non-marital discord, which was denied by the power couple on the far side of the Atlantic. Perhaps the rumors were part of a vast right-wing conspriacy. The campaign continued with Hollande's full support. Now, however, it seems the rumors are true. Sego has kicked Hollande out of the "family home" to "live out his love story" elsewhere, as she puts it in an announcement to the press which itself has drawn criticism for taking attention from the fact that the Socialist party fared better than feared in the Sunday's elections for the National Assembly.

Now the question becomes how far does the parallel go between Royal and Clinton? Both are the female side of a liberal power couple, both have campaigned for the presidency of their country. Both have philandering "husbands". Both have denied the evidence of such philandering. If Hillary is not the Democrat's nominee or if she is and loses the election, will she tell Bill to "live out his love story elsewhere?"

It's pretty much agreed by political junkies that the Clinton's have stayed married for political reasons, first for his and now for hers. Their's has been a partnership of convenience in spite of the inconvenience of it at times. They are apart much more than together, with Bill Clinton travelling worldwide raking in the dough from speaking engagements. Who knows whether or not his sessions with Jesse Jackson and the other religious advisors were able to convince Bill of the error of his ways? The MSM media is not interested in pursuing him 'round the world to see with whom he might rendezvous. Perhaps he can visit France and console Segolene Royal.

Letter to Sen. Lott

Dear Senator Lott,

Although not a Mississippi resident, I respect your long service to our country and wanted to contact you regarding your stand on the current discussion on immigration reforms. I was disappointed in your statements regarding talk radio being a problem. I assume your remarks were made hastily and upon reflection you will issue an apology to talk radio hosts and listeners who have the best interests of the Unites States at heart and believe in their right to exercise their free speech on the airwaves. Your comment smacks of a desire to curb their influence on the current political situation regarding immigration. I feel that an informed electorate with pros and cons of each issue freely discussed in an open marketplace is a valuable contribution to the continuation of our democratic republic. I am sure that in your heart of hearts you feel the same way as I. Please let the American people know that this is true.

Also consider the gross unfairness of the current immigration bill about to be reopened for debate next week. This bill is unfair to those who are complying with current laws and facing long waits, financial hardships, just to enter the US legally. It is also unfair to American citizens who, looking ahead to the possibility of few if any social security funds, medicare funds, education funds, etc., to be told that these dwindling resources will be bestowed on illegal immigrants and their family members. It is unfair to the border guards who try to enforce the law and have the knowlege that in the future and very illegals they are trying to prevent from entering the US will be legalized. How demoralizing for them!

The American people are smart enough to recognize what a shoddy scheme this bill is, pure pandering to minorities, an unfair proposal to those obeying the current laws, and a drain on resources supplied by hard working legal Americans.

Stop this bill in its tracks. Enforce current laws first and take more time to develop workable, fair solutions to the situation at hand.

This is especially important when considering the needs of national security in this time of Islamic terror plans.

Thank you for your time.

Sloan

Jolie and Pelosi

Here's a joke: What do Angelina Jolie and Nancy Pelosi have in common? They're both hypocrites. OK, I know it's not funny but it is a joke. These two beauts are gifts that just keep giving. First, Ms Jolie

I try to stay away from the celebrity crap but every now and then one of these self-important hypocrites just lays one right in front of me there and I can't help but try to hit it out of the park.

Angelina Jolie was trying to ban certain news outlets (namely Fox and affiliates) from interviewing her and lining the red carpet at the premiere of her movie "A Mighty Heart", a movie supposed to support "Reporters without Borders". I guess that excludes the borders of the red carpet, since she felt that she was entitled to prevent Fox news people (if you can call entertainment reporters "news people") from experiencing her sainted grace-filled presence.

In fact, all reporters were at first required to sign contracts stipulating what could be asked of Ms Jolie and what would happen if the reporters reneged on their promise. Enough reporters had the gumption to refuse to sign and the studio was perturbed as well . Jolie then cancelled all print interviews.

See this from fox news online

Now, for Ms Pelosi. It seems that she has forgotten her campaign pledge to clean up the House (remember? "sometimes it takes a woman to clean the house") and its members tendency to play fast and loose with gifts received and travel expenditures being reimbursed. The Hill reports that she sees no problem with a lawmakers' adult children accompanying them on junkets without having to reimburse the government. So much for her pledge.

Neptune Rising

It seems that yet another planet is rife with gas-guzzling SUV's that little green men are using to cruise "Big Blue". Yes, Neptune is suffering the same fate as Earth, and Mars, and who knows how many other orbiting orbs out there in the sky, with temperatures rising, rising, and threatening the health and well-being of who or whatever lives on them.

But wait, wait. If there are no little green men and little green SUV's on Neptune, what in the world, or out of the world could be causing this crisis? Theory No. 1: you and me and our anthropogenic ways. Theory No. 2: the sun.

Now, Neptune is the eighth planet from the sun and a long, long, long way from Earth. We must be emitting some mighty powerful carbon dioxide to go that far and affect a planet that is about four times as large in diameter as the Earth. I'll wager that Old Sol has something to do with it. A few other people agree with me and are willing to come forward and confess it. Investor's Business Daily names a few experts who dare to swim against the tide of politically correct science. Look for them on the unemployment line in the near future. They shall be grant-less until science kicks politics out of the equation.



Photo Credit

Relax! Only 1 in 4 Want to Kill You

Gotta love this post from Ace of Spades regarding a recent poll by the Pew Research group.

If the Pew group surveyed white people in the south and found than only 10% were prejudiced against blacks, would the headlines say "Most US Whites Reject Prejudice"? Nah, they would be saying "One in Ten Hate Blacks".

A Sane Rocker

Who would have thought that a voice of at least partial reason would come from someone in the entertainment industry, a rocker, no less?

Follow that with this. (From the Timaru Herald)

Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.
Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained.
"We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said.

I just hope I live long enough to see this whole charade exposed for the anti-capitalist, anti-American, scam that it is. Unfortuately, it takes advantage of the gullible who truly think they are making the world a better place. Better than what, is the real question.

More here.

Pet Food Scare - New Concerns for Human Food

After the recent pet food scare involving unscrupulous Chinese food producers adding melamine to increase the protein count in what flour used in pet foods, one must stop and think about the potential consequences of similar occurences happening in the production of food meant for human consumption.

An article from the Wall Street Journal Online by Nicolas Zamiska, May 9, 2007, exposes the daring and dangerous behavior of some food vendors in Asia.

One can only hope that this type of activity isn't shared by those exporting ingredients to US food producers. The FDA is ill-prepared to deal testing of the vast quantity of imported ingredients. Only a sampling can and ever will be examined for purity.

HONG KONG -- Formaldehyde, which has been linked to cancer, has legitimate uses in adhesives and embalming. But in Indonesia, Sutikno, a 35-year-old tofu maker in south Jakarta who goes by one name, uses it to keep the tofu he sells fresh.

"Formaldehyde is magic. There is no comparison," he said on a recent afternoon at the market. Last year, he switched briefly to a legal preservative, but his bean curd went bad in less than 24 hours. As for his customers, he doesn't tell them he uses formaldehyde. "There is no complaint," Mr. Sutikno said.

Across Asia, small-scale food manufacturers and street vendors often boost profits by using cheap but toxic chemicals as sweeteners, dyes and preservatives. While the most egregious examples generally involve food for local consumption, dangerous additives occasionally end up in foods exported to the U.S. and other Western countries, highlighting the scope of the problems regulators face. A January rally in Jakarta protested the use of formaldehyde in foods.

"Human ignorance as well as greed knows no bounds," says Gerald Moy, manager of the World Health Organization's office that monitors chemicals in the global food supply.

The pet-food contamination that killed and sickened cats and dogs in the U.S. has called into question the safety of imports from China. Yesterday China's General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine said on its Web site that Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology Development Co. and Binzhou Futian Biology Technology Co. exported the toxic ingredients which contained melamine, a chemical used in fire retardants. The companies weren't available to comment this morning.

Separately, U.S. Food and Drug Administration officials yesterday said they found melamine in Canadian-manufactured fish meal containing what was labeled as wheat gluten imported from China. The officials said they are looking at fish meal imported not only from China but also from other countries. Melamine-contaminated ingredients found in pet foods were actually wheat flour, rather than wheat gluten or rice protein concentrate as labels indicated, the officials added.

The FDA has the authority to inspect food shipments, but because of the sheer volume of imports, only a fraction of food entering the country is inspected. "Our focus is based on where we know the risks are," David Acheson, the FDA's assistant commissioner for food protection, said in an interview. "It's not a strategy to test everything that arrives at the ports." But the FDA says it is rethinking its strategic approach to targeting potential risks and allocating resources. It is also working with the Chinese watchdog group to search for long-term solutions, Mr. Acheson said.

With the discovery of melamine in animal food, the agency is considering a new safety system for animal feed that would go beyond the current focus on preventing mad-cow disease and salmonella.

In Asia, unsafe additives in foods for human consumption have long been a problem. Some street vendors use an industrial dye for textiles called Sudan Red to make their coconut and sugar-cane drinks look more attractive. "You could just see the beverages, they sort of glow, because these dyes are really quite intense," says the WHO's Mr. Moy. Last November, Chinese authorities discovered that poultry farmers in Hebei province had been using one of the Sudan Red dyes, believed to cause cancer, to color the feed of their ducks and redden the yolks of the eggs, which sell at a premium price.


In 2003, Sudan Red was found in hot-chili products imported from India to the U.K. Products containing the dye were also recalled in Canada and South Africa. Over the next two years, the contamination snowballed. By March 2005, 580 products had been withdrawn in the U.K.

In March this year, the FDA stopped 215 shipments from mainland China for a variety of problems. One shipment of dried dates was considered filthy; plums contained unsafe sweeteners; and oranges had pesticide residues. A few dozen also had unsafe color additives. But there is often a disconnect between what regulators charge and companies respond. One of the shipments the FDA refused was apple chips from Hebei Dongfang Green Tree Food Co. in China, which may have contained unsafe color additives.

Pan Yanjun, the company's vice president, confirmed in a telephone interview yesterday that his company shipped some apple chips to the U.S. in March for a natural food show, but said that the FDA approved the shipment. "We never dye the apple chips," he said.

There is little evidence that foods contaminated by unsafe preservatives are being shipped abroad. But unauthorized use is widespread in Asia.

Formaldehyde, for instance, is often used as a preservative in Asia and other parts of the world where refrigeration is scarce. In late 2005, the Indonesian National Agency for Drug and Food Control tested 161 samples of fish, shrimp, squid, tofu, and noodles produced and sold across six cities and found that 64 of the samples tested positive for formaldehyde.

Another problem is a group of chemicals called borates, including boric acid. Borates were widely used in food products in the U.S. and other countries a century ago to improve the texture of food as well as preserve it. Most countries today prohibit its use as a food additive because it is toxic at high levels. Now, the chemical is mainly used in insecticides, flame retardants and cleaning products.

In March and April of 2006, the Malaysian Health Ministry tested 387 samples of rice noodles, 20 of which were found to contain boric acid, according to Dr. Abdul Rahim Mohamad, the director of the food safety and quality division within Malaysia's Health Ministry.

In Thailand, Peerapong Suksaweng, an official with the country's Food and Drug Administration, runs spot checks on street vendors, supermarkets and farmers' markets. Each day, his mobile inspection unit -- one of 26 throughout the country -- checks produce for insecticides and chemical additives such as borates and formaldehyde.

He has found street vendors who have added borates to minced pork and meatballs to keep them fresh. In high quantities, Mr. Peerapong says, "people who eat [that] could vomit blood or die."

Al Qaeda in Iraq??? Nah....

This NY Post article lends credence to the fact, oft declared by President Bush and others on both sides of the aisle, that Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq. It's own declaration about holding the missing US troops proves the point.

However, I take exception to the paragraph that states

"Every death in service to America is a tragedy, but - as the president has said many times in the past - it is better to be fighting al Qaeda in the alleyways of Baghdad than the streets of New York."

We will, initially at least, be fighting them in the shopping malls, hospitals, school, office buildings, anywhere they want to ply their terrorist tactics for the most impact. That should scare the bejeesus out of every one of us. It does me.

Al Qaeda knows full well it cannot militarily defeat the United States. They will wage their battles one by one in the hometowns of America, preying on civilians in the most gruesome ways possible. They will also wage war with their willing accomplices in the Democrat party and the media.

Ah, the media. Ask yourself why you never see videos of the World Trade Center attacks. How often did you see photos of Abu Grab prisoners being "tortured"? Why is so little attention given to the beheadings of civilians as well as the military? Why so little mention of Saddam's mass murders?



Pulling the troops out of Iraq too soon could only have one consequence according to this report from Reuters.

A U.S. troop pullout from Iraq would leave the country as a potent launchpad for international terrorism and Washington would be forced to go back in within a couple of years, a leading al Qaeda expert said on Tuesday.

Rohan Gunaratna told a security conference at Lloyd's of London insurance market that Iraq, like Afghanistan in the 1990s, would become a "terrorist Disneyland" where al Qaeda could build up its strength unchallenged.

If U.S., British and other coalition troops withdrew from Iraq in the next year, he said, "certainly the scale of attacks that would be mounted inside Iraq, and using Iraq as a launching pad to strike other Western countries -- countries in Europe, North America - would become such that after two or three years, the U.S. forces will have to go back to Iraq...

A former head of Britain's foreign intelligence service MI6 described Gunaratna's analysis as convincing.

"Clearly al Qaeda are focusing on Iraq now, and focusing on some sort of propaganda victory over the United States," Sir Richard Dearlove told reporters.

"Fort Dix Six"

In about 7 years, when the "Fort Dix Six" come to trial what will their leagal team use for a defense? It will probably be entrapment, or maybe excessive profiling. I can see it now - the poor Circuit City guy who was asked by the "FDS" to transfer a recording of their target practice and "Allah Akbaring" to DVD will be labeled as a government agent, free lancing to abuse the civil rights of the struggling minority immigrants. They wereonly just making a home movie. They didn't really mean to do any harm.

Yeah. Yeah.

The FBI informant who joined the group will be accused of leading these poor Muslims on a merry goose chase. He's the one who forced them to "pretend" to go along with his plans for destruction and death. He's the one who organized the purchase of weapons.

Just watch. The Democrats will decry such "Bushitler" tactics in the non-existent global war on terror and wind up defending all Muslim terrorists trapped in such a way.

By the way, did you notice how quickly the Democrats in the MSM all called these guys "homegrown"? Look again at their nationality and immigration status. No one can convince me that they were homegrown. Three of them were here illegally, smuggled in from Mexico. Four were Yugoslavian and one was from Jordan and one from Turkey.

Now, if they mean that the plot was hatched here in the US, O.K. We don't know yet whether or not these guys took marching orders from anybody. But this ragtag group, according to some, were not of "homegrown" fidelity or allegiance. Their allegiance was to violence, whether or not inspired by Islam. One at least was fond of calling Osama Bin Laden "Uncle Bennie."

How fortunate for the Fort Dix community, and others in New Jersey, as well as for the United States that these six terror suspects were stopped before they plied their terrible trade.

They Can't Let an Opportunity Go By...

The New York Times can't resist a shot at President Bush and his Texas heritage even when it is so far-fetched as to be ridiculous. See this article.

Here's a sample:

How does George W. Bush, a towel-snapping Texan who puts his feet on the coffee table, drinks water straight from the bottle and was once caught on tape talking with food in his mouth prepare for a state dinner with the queen?

Has the author of the above never snapped a towel at anyone? Had his/her feet on a coffee table, never drunk bottled water from a bottle? Probably few of us have ever had the opportunity to have been caught on tape talking with food in our mouths, but I know I am "guilty" of all of the above. I like to think that I would know how to behave in the company of the queen, the President, or even a New York Times columnist. What arrogance! What condescension! What obvious evidence of the press' fever-pitched determination to do all it can to belittle George W. Bush.

The Anchoress is another clear thinker who sees through this juvenile behavior on the part of the press. She asks the question, "...were Bill Clinton about to meet with Queen Elizabeth II, would we be reading the following in the NY Times?"

“How does William Jefferson Clinton - a pizza-box strewing Arkansas boy who puts his penis into interns mouths, invites “trailer park trash” to “kiss it,” and was once caught on tape laughing as he exited a funeral, only to quickly turn on the tears when he saw the press, prepare for a state dinner with the queen?”

Good question, but we would never see it. We would instead have been treated to glowing reports on the cosmopolitan behavior and exquisite manners of the most wonderful, intelligent man to have ever "graced" the White House.

The MSM has let the Bush Derangement Syndrome affect every aspect of their coverage of anything having the slightest bit to do with GWB's presidency. It is a sad commentary on what was once a respected industry. Readership is declining for almost every newspaper in the country. Why do the "powers that be" controlling the editorial bent of political articles fail to see that the half of the population that voted for GWB in 2000 and 2004 might possibly be sick and tired of reading such obviously biased, and cruelly so at that, articles on a daily basis? They are signing their own death warrant, the death warrant for the newspaper industry.

Dirty Pool in Political Polls

Ken Falkenstein sent me the following this morning. Another example, roughly #2,748,295, of media bias, and I'm not talking about conservative bias.

Ken says:

"It's no surprise that the lapdog liberal news media are campaigning for the Democrats like they always do, but "Newsweak" is going pretty far out of their way to do it. Their latest poll, in which Bush had a 28% approval rating and every top-tier Democrat presidential candidate outpolled every top-tier Republican, was a fix. "Newsweak" polled 50% more Democrats than Republicans. And the margin of error was over 7%! It stretches credulity to think that they didn't know how lopsided and lacking in credibility their poll was. Given that they featured it in their magazine and plastered it all over the news, the only plausible explanation is that they did it on purpose."

From Captain's Quarter blog:

Newsweek Practicing Early For Poll Follies

Newsweek publishes a breathless account of how George Bush's approval rating has dropped to 28%, and how leading Democrat contenders now outpoll the Republicans across the board for the 2008 presidential race. Coincidence, Newsweek asks? They should have asked that question of their pollsters:

It’s hard to say which is worse news for Republicans: that George W. Bush now has the worst approval rating of an American president in a generation, or that he seems to be dragging every ’08 Republican presidential candidate down with him. But According to the new NEWSWEEK Poll, the public’s approval of Bush has sunk to 28 percent, an all-time low for this president in our poll, and a point lower than Gallup recorded for his father at Bush Sr.’s nadir. The last president to be this unpopular was Jimmy Carter who also scored a 28 percent approval in 1979. This remarkably low rating seems to be casting a dark shadow over the GOP’s chances for victory in ’08. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds each of the leading Democratic contenders beating the Republican frontrunners in head-to-head matchups. ...
Like Obama, Edwards defeats the Republicans by larger margins than Clinton does: the former Democratic vice-presidential nominee outdistances Giuliani by six points, McCain by 10 and Romney by 37, the largest lead in any of the head-to-head matchups. Meanwhile, Sen. Clinton wins 49 percent to 46 percent against Giuliani, well within the poll’s margin of error; 50 to 44 against McCain; and 57 to 35 against Romney.

Yes, this would be a devastating poll, if one could rely on it. It contradicts nearly every other poll, which has consistently shown Giuliani beating Obama, Clinton, and Edwards. How could Newsweek get the results they have published?

Well, for one thing, it helps when you poll 50% more Democrats than Republicans. If one reads the actual poll results all the way to the end, the penultimate question shows that the sample has 24% Republicans to 36% Democrats. Compare that to the information given by Newsweek's NBC partners in February, which showed that party affiliation had shifted from a difference of less than a percentage point to a gap of 3.9 points -- 34.3% to 30.4%, with 33.9% independents.

Does it really surprise Newsweek that a sample where half again as many Democrats as Republicans were polled tend to prefer Democrats for President? Do they find it all that surprising that George Bush isn't terribly popular when surveys oversample Democrats? They knew that the poll had to have some problems; the margins of error for the poll were 7% for the Democrats and 8% for the Republicans, quite high for these kinds of polls.

Newsweek apparently doesn't employ people like editors and fact checkers before rushing their analyses to print. Thankfully, the blogosphere can take the time and effort to have these layers of correction so that we can provide the best possible information to our readership."

Thanks to Ken for this article.Yes, the blogosphere will be on full alert the next year and a half. But unless what is uncovered is printed or broadcast in the MSM, it is just more preaching to the choir. With the lefts willing accomplices at their beck and call, the Dhimmicrats seem to have it well in hand. I don't see any knight in shining armor coming in to rescue the floundering (and foundering) Republican party.

I don't know why polls are seen to be so important. I guess the nation is full of sheep who can't be bothered to find out details for themselves and so take whatever conventional wisdom they can glean from idiotic polls as God's truth. As ignorant as a lot of them are, thanks to government schools and teachers from government schools, they wouldn't know how to decipher the finer points of poll questions anyway.

Michael Moore's New Movie

Michael Moore has a new movie about the "wondrous, amazing, first-rate," free Cuban health care system thanks to Fidel Castro's paternalistic love for the Cuban people. You can read an article by Fred Thompson about it here. I posted an article about this very subject earlier.

Thompon asks, "What is it that leads people to value theoretically "free" health care, even when it's lousy or nonexistent, over a free society that actually delivers health care? You might have to deal with creditors after you go to the emergency ward in America, but no one is denied medical care here. I guarantee even the poorest Americans are getting far better medical services than many Cubans."

If Cuba's "state of the art" medical care is so doggone great why did Castro have to fly in a surgeon and equipment from Spain during his illness in 2006?

America's First Black Female President

GREENVILLE, S.C. (AP) - Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday she sees her sometimes Southern accent as a virtue.

"I think America is ready for a multilingual president," Clinton said during a campaign stop at a charter school in Greenville, S.C.

The New York senator—who said she's been thinking about critics who've suggested that she tried to put on a fake Southern accent in Selma, Ala.—noted that she's split her life between Arkansas, Illinois and the East Coast.

Clinton added a Southern lilt to her voice last week when addressing a civil rights group in New York City headed by the Rev. Al Sharpton. On Monday, dealing with a microphone glitch at a fundraiser for young donors, she quoted former slave and underground railroad leader Harriet Tubman.

But observers have long noted her tendency to speak Southern primarily in front of black audiences, as she did with Sharpton last week and at a civil rights commemoration in Selma in March.

-------------------

Just imagine what uproar, what utter revulsion would occur if Giuliani, or Romney or even The Maverick were to affect such a "twang" when addressing black voters. I can see the accusations now, "How racist! Condescending! Phony, phony, phony!"

Somehow, when it's a Democrat, especially when it's a Clinton, the absolutely contrived accent is considered charming.

Next we'll see her downing some black eyed peas, greens, and soakin' up the pot likker with some cornbread. Facing the camera of course.

A General Failure

Army Lt. Col. Paul Yingling, May, 2007 Armed Forces Journal

"For the second time in a generation, the United States faces the prospect of defeat at the hands of an insurgency. In April 1975, the U.S. fled the Republic of Vietnam, abandoning our allies to their fate at the hands of North Vietnamese communists. In 2007, Iraq's grave and deteriorating condition offers diminishing hope for an American victory and portends risk of an even wider and more destructive regional war.
These debacles are not attributable to individual failures, but rather to a crisis in an entire institution: America's general officer corps. America's generals have failed to prepare our armed forces for war and advise civilian authorities on the application of force to achieve the aims of policy. The argument that follows consists of three elements. First, generals have a responsibility to society to provide policymakers with a correct estimate of strategic probabilities. Second, America's generals in Vietnam and Iraq failed to perform this responsibility. Third, remedying the crisis in American generalship requires the intervention of Congress."

This article about the failures of American generals in Iraq is quite interesting. It presents a view of the war from a different perspective than one often presented. If the author is correct, more needs to be changed at DOD than just the individual at the head of the department.

Comparing the situation in Iraq with that in Vietnam thirty years ago, with the US military facing the possibility of defeat due to an insurgency, Lt. Col.Paul Yingling points to the failure of the generals to prepare the military for current guerrilla warfare, and to properly advise civilian leaders on how to achieve policy goals using the military. He suggests that Congressional intervention is the key to remedying the situation.

Agreeing with Prussian military expert Carl von Clausewitz that 3 P's, passion, probability, and policy, play important roles in war, Lt. Col. Yingling emphasizes that each one is essential to the successful waging of war.

He states that statesmen, ie., the President and his staff, must raise the passion of the citizenship to a certain level for them to be willing to face the sacrifices that will come with war, the blood and treasure so often mentioned.

Along with this passion, generals need to supply the policymakers with accurate estimates of stategic probabilities. What are the probabilities, not just the possibilities, of successful prosecution of the war? The generals have a moral obligation not to sugar-coat the probabilities, but to give a frank appraisal of the military's ability to accomplish the goals given to them.

The policymakers, having received the advice of the generals, are the ones ultimately responsible for waging wars. Yingling states:

However much it is influenced by passion and probability, war is ultimately an instrument of policy and its conduct is the responsibility of policymakers. War is a social activity undertaken on behalf of the nation. The military man is no better qualified than the common citizen to make such judgments. He must therefore confine his input to his area of expertise — the estimation of strategic probabilities.

In order to provide an estimation of the strategic possibilities, it is necessary to consider both the preparations for and the probable conduct of the war, the planning and directing of the military. Requiring imagination, creativity and foresight, the generals must be able to estimate present and future military needs, and visualize what future wars will look like. Lt. Col. Yingling gives multiple examples of past wars fought with outdated strategies and tactics and underscores the importance of foreward thinking to prevent the disasters that could follow such erroneous preparations.

Of course even with good reckoning of future military needs, the generals must still be able to convince civilian policymakers of the demands and risks involved. This is potentially difficult, due to the nature of elected officials' thinking more in the short-term needs of the public than longterm needs of national security. Proper military preparedness requires decades, not years, and generals must tread carefully between speaking too loudly and not speaking loudly enough. "A military professional must possess both the physical courage to face the hazards of battle and the moral courage to withstand the barbs of public scorn. On and off the battlefield, courage is the first characteristic of generalship."
---------------------

Lt. Col. Yingling gives a brief analysis of the failures of the generals in Vietnam. Even though President Kennedy talked about "another type of war, new in its intensity, ancient in its origin — war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins, war by ambush instead of by combat, by infiltration instead of aggression, seeking victory by evading and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him" but America's generals did not heed the warning. Any adjustments, unfortunately after the American people had largely turned against the war, "... are best described as too little, too late."

With respect to the current war in Iraq, Yingling states that the mistakes of Vietnam were repeated due to the failure "...to envision the conditions of future combat and prepare their forces accordingly." In addition, the generals failed to gauge what would be necessary to attain the policy goals before the start of the war. Nor did they give a correct description of the war in Iraq. This seems inexcusable with all the terrorist attacks throughout the world since the early l970's. Lt. Col. Yingling feels that there has been a tragic failure to commit the number of troops necessary to keep Iraq's population secure. Despite early estimates of close to a half million troops needed, only half of that number were sent to begin the war. Yet the generals who were in favor of a much high number kept silent. Once again, the current "surge" may be too little, too late.

In addition, there was "no coherent plan for postwar stabilization" and an underreporting of the day-to-day violence. Also compounding the problem was the fact that "...America's general officer corps underestimated the strength of the enemy, overestimated the capabilities of Iraq's government and security forces and failed to provide Congress with an accurate assessment of security conditions in Iraq."
-------------------------

Quoting J.F.C. Fuller, a British general in WWI, who found three shared traits among great generals - courage, creative intelligence and physical fitness - Yingling wishes that generals would find the moral courage to be more candid and honest in discussions with the executive branch. Finding themselves caught between the rock of executive intimidation and the hard place of betraying what they feel is true, too often generals keep their doubts of the effectiveness of military strategies suggested by the administration to themselves. He also suggests an increase in the number of generals with advanced degrees, especially in social sciences or humanities. He decries the fact that only one fourth of the Army's senior generals is fluent in a foreign language despite the theory that this proficiency is crucial in fighting counterinsurgency.* He also says that the current military does not reward creativity or moral courage. Officers follow the company line and keep their heads low. Conformity reigns supreme.

Believing that neither the White House nor the military branches will solve this problem, Lt. Col. Yingling believes that it will require Congress to become more involved in determining how officers are selected, advanced amd retired, how military power is used, and ..."the Senate must hold accountable through its confirmation powers those officers who fail to achieve the aims of policy at an acceptable cost in blood and treasure."

Yingling warns of military disaster unless the challenges of current insurgencies and the needs of future warfare are adequately acknowledged and plans put in place to prepare the armed forces and the American people accordingly. A key component of this goal is to revamp the generalship to include "...those who possess the intelligence to visualize future conflicts and the moral courage to advise civilian policymakers on the preparations needed for our security."
-----------------------------------

*The arrogance of American prosperity led us into the false belief that it was incumbent on other nations to teach their populations to speak English, the increasingly main language of international commerce.

The Barbary War - First War on Terror

If you read the Hitchens article referenced yesterday, you know what war is in question. If you didn't read the article, a brief description is at the bottom of this post.*


What was interesting in this American History lesson from a Brit, was the obvious similarities between Muslim thought then and now. As Western Civilization has progressed in its development of human rights and religious tolerance since the Dark Ages, the civilization controlled by Islam has remained stuck in a mind-set that retains all its most hateful intolerance and barbarity, both to "infidels" and to its own people. The quote from the Muslim ambassador** tells the tale. They were then and still are today at war with all non-muslim nations and individuals.

Foreshadowing the Islamic terrors of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, John Adams, after meeting with the ambassador, and who was more in favor of continuing the extortion payments than beginning war, even said "We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever." He felt that any battle would be "too rugged for our people to bear." As the actions of the past thirty years can attest, he was right. Once you begin the battle, it must be fought to the end.

From the initial hijacking of planes, the terror at the Munich Olympics, the assassination of Anwar Sadat, the truck bombing at Marine headquarters in Beirut, the explosion of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, to both World Trade Center bombings, the militant jihadist muslims have made their intentions very plain.

Our response, multilateral at times, and unilateral at others, has been both severe and weak. The first Gulf War was an impressive display of military might that was prematurely ended without accomplishing anything more than the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The aftermath proved terrible for the Iraqi minorities that were relying on the collaboration of US led forces to end Saddam's tyranny once and for all. With the abdication of this goal, right or wrong, the US achieved a moral defeat even while achieving a brilliant military victory. Mortal enemies were made with Iraqi factions who to this day and beyond will never trust the United States again.

Here we are again, another military victory, with Saddam gone, at long last, and in the intermediary decade between the two Gulf wars, the terrorist groups, such as Al Qaeda, flourished, free-floating across borders, taking refuge where possible and recruiting members as necessary. American response to numerous attacks during the Clinton administration on our properties and our interests were weak, "swatting at flies", as President George W. Bush described. These ineffectual reponses to increasingly daring attacks emboldened the already dedicated jihadists and eventually led to the most spectacular terror act in our history, the simultaneous hijacking of four planes and successful destruction of the Twin Towers as well as a good portion of the Pentagon.

This jibes with the actions of the muslim pirates two hundred years ago. When the US negotiated peace by paying the extortion demanded, the price continually went up, testing, testing the limits of American patience. At last, the limit was reached and swift naval action, decisive and strong, brought an end to the hostilities. Today, our government, at least on the Congressional side, is showing the same weakness evidenced in the early part of our history. Congress is declaring the price of the war to be "too rugged for our people to bear." For the democrats in congress, returning to negotiations for "tribute" (read concessions and financial aid) is the correct response.

Hitchens ends his article with lines from Rudyard Kipling's poem "Dane-Geld" (extortion paid to Danish kings as a result of their invasions into England from 856 to 1016, when Canute, a Dane, became King of England)

IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
To call upon a neighbour and to say:—
“We invaded you last night—we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away.”

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:—
“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray,
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:—

“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!”

*Barbary Wars
The first war fought outside US territory by the fledgling United States was against four states in North Africa - Morocco, Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli. These "Barbary States" were Muslim countries, part of the Ottoman Empire. The build up for the war was the continuing attacks by the Muslim pirates on merchant vessels, pilgrimages, and other ships in the Mediterranean Sea and beyond. Cargo was plundered, and passengers and crew were assaulted and often enslaved or held for ransom.

The European countries victimized for centuries by these barbarians eventually decided to pay "tribute" to the Barbary states in order to be able to resume travel and trade on the open seas. As long as America was part of England her ships were covered by the English tribute, but after the revolutionary war, US ships were once again prey. Since the new nation had no resources to mount a naval defense against the piracy, the US joined Europe in agreeing to pay tribute.

As is common when obeying demands of blackmailers, the US foound their promises to be quite empty. The amount of the demanded ransom or extortion kept increasing until it was at least ten percent of the national budget. Negotiations with the Muslims proved fruitless and when Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli's ambassador to London, they asked him what right the pirates had to this extortion and slavery. Jefferson said he was told

**that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.

In the meantime, the American navy was increasing in force and had successful skirmishes with French pirates. Once he became President of the United States, Jefferson received a demand for a huge sum of money; he followed his principles and refused Tripoli's demands. Tripoli declared war on the United States and Algiers, Tunis and Morocco soon did the same. Jefferson responded by sending ships with orders to bombard Tripoli and blockade the countries involved.

The resulting action saw the emergence of new naval heroes such as Stephen Decatur who led a daring group of volunteers to burn a captive US ship to prevent its use in Muslim piracy. The next year brought an impressive Marine victory, an overland trek through the dessert to Tripoli's harbor fortress in Derna, thus immortalizing the phrase in the Marine Corps hymn, "...to the shores of Tripoli." Soon a treaty was signed ending the first of the two Barbary Wars.

The second erupted when the US naval forces were summoned to fight the British in the War of 1812. The piracy resumed and was once again ended by naval victories. In 1815, the second Barbary War ended with all American, and some European, captives released and even some monetary compensation for seized property.

Hitchens' Article for you to Read

Homework: Read this article and I'll discuss it tomorrow.

Rosie Strikes Again

The emcee of the annual luncheon of New York Women in Communications was non other than Rosie O'Donnell. She lived up to her reputation by delivering her special brand of off-color humor including the "F-word", and "Eat Me!", a reference to her feud with the Donald.

Some of the attendees professed to be offended by Rosie's remarks. Robert Zimmerman, a Democrat activist for progressive causes called her "vulgar and common." I agree she's vulgar but his remark that she is "common" says more about him than her. I believe those kind of remarks are anything but common, but that's beside the point.

Some thought it was fun to watch other people be offended. I don't need to say anything about that.

However, the NY Women in Communications' managing director, Beth Ellen Keyes, expressed the group's overall pleasure in having Rosie appear and do her thing. "She was just great."

O'Donnell's publicist, Cindi Berger, told the New York Post: "When you ask for Rosie, you know what you're getting. She's not a shrinking violet. She's a stand-up comedienne. She says things that are provocative." No kidding.

Let's play a little game. People who attend these functions, watch certain television shows, listen to certain radio broadcasts, do so of their own free will. If they don't want to subject themselves to Rosie's "humor", or see sex and violence on their TV sets, or hear entertainers' humorous remarks or political opinions, they don't have to. So, our game is to substitute the name "Imus" for "Rosie" in Ms Berger's statement above. "When you ask for Imus, you know what you're getting. (S)He's not a shrinking violet. He says things that are provocative."

Lest you think that the attendees were mostly telephone operators, the Women in Communications group included such celebrities as Barbara Walters, Joy Behar, Meredith Vieira, Joan Didion, Arianna Huffington, Nora Ephron, Martha Stewart and Hillary Clinton. Barbara and Joy must be used to Rosie's nasty mouth by now but the others may not have become so jaded. I wonder how many of them railed against Imus' recent provocative remarks. I wonder how many of them will publicly denounce Rosie? Can I count them on one hand? One finger?

UPDATE: 4/25/07; 3:38pm
Oh my! She's going to leave The View which I never watched anyway. It is impossible to live in the US without knowing way more that one wants to know about celebrities, as evidenced by my comments above. Do we really believe the story that it was just a problem negotiating a new contract? Did ABC get tired of her tirades and nastiness? Who cares.

The All-New Sheryl Crow Daily Update

I'm going to have to rename this blog. The Sheryl Crow Daily Update, or something like that. Check out the Smoking Gun for the scoop on Sheryl "Wipe out Global Warming Now" Crow's backstage demands for her concerts. What's most amazing is her specified choice of alcoholic beverage (whether for her or crew) for each day of the week.

Monday - 1 bottle Makers Mark Bourbon
Tuesday - 1 bottle Bombay Gin and large bottle Schweppes tonic water
Wednesday - 1 bottle Courvoisier Brandy
Thursday - 1 bottle good quality Champagne
Friday - 1 bottle Silver Tequila and 1 bottle margarita mix and a carton of orange juice
Saturday - 1 bottle Absolut Vodka and carton of orange juice
Sunday - 1 bottle silver Tequila and 1 bottle margarita mix and carton of orange juice

If it's Courvoisier, it must be Seattle.

The list also includes an itemized list of snacks, postcards, vitamins, soap, cigarettes, and provisions for the vegetarian members of the crew.

What a nasty carbon footprint she leaves behind. She travels with three tractor trailers, four buses, and six cars. Do you think all the concert-goers take the bus?

Think how much better the Earth would be if she gave no more concerts and everybody stayed home for the evening. I'm here to tell you that I will nevuh, evuh, go to another Sheryl Crow concert. I will make this sacrifice for the sake of Mother Earth. If I stick to my guns, can I use more than one square of toilet paper?

I suppose all this is par for the course for performers, past and present, but it sure reinforces my opinion of them as spoiled,demanding, prima donnas. What's more, it make it very hard to take them seriously when they try to tell us how to live our little simple lives.

I promise. No more Sheryl Crow.


Photo credit

Sheryl Crow Strikes Again

I can't believe I'm writing about Sheryl Crow again, the second time in the past few weeks. Here's a priceless quote from Sheryl, fresh from her "Save the Planet, Stop Global Warming Now" tour.

"Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating. One of my favorites is in the area of forest conservation which we heavily rely on for oxygen. I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required. When presenting this idea to my younger brother, who's judgment I trust implicitly, he proposed taking it one step further. I believe his quote was, "how bout just washing the one square out."

i hope she was joking. If not, I don't even know how to react. She proposes a "limitation" on the number of TP squares. Who is going to impose this limit? What's more important, who is going to enforce it? I'm not going to "go" there.

I'll let this new trend start on the west coast. Sheryl, and Barbra, and Alec, and Julia, and all the rest, Al Gore, especially, can "go" first.

Jeesh!

The Second Assault on Virginia Tech

Unless you've been living in a cave, and it's not as bad an idea as I once thought, you know about the terrible shooting at Virginia Tech during which 32 students and faculty were slaughtered by a clearly disturbed young man, also a student. We were aware of the basic facts late Monday afternoon, April
16, 2007. A few more details emerged the following day concerning the sequence of events and the actions of some of the victims and witnesses. The university held a convocation Tuesday at which officials of the Virginia Tech, the Commonwealth, and President Bush spoke about the tragedy and the healing that will take place. I wish all involved good luck with the healing process. Constant reminders will abound for those who were victims of the atrocity and for the witnesses of it.

Now the media camps are in place. Connections are made, satellites are reached, and microwaves are bouncing through the ether. Hotel rooms are secured, rental cars gassed up, hairdos are moussed, gelled and sprayed. The second wave of the assault begins. This time the perpetrators are the members of the media. As I watched the prelude to the coverage of the convocation, I saw reporters and anchors making assinine statements, second guessing the actions of the campus security, as well as those of the local law enforcement agencies, the University officials, and the victims themselves. Witnesses were interviewed. "Where were you? What did you do? What did you think? How do you feel?" I was hoping to see someone tell a reporter to get lost, or even to ask, "How do you think I feel?" Being polite, not to mention being in shock, and maybe somewhat sensing their fifteen minutes of fame had arrived, the people I saw answered all questions politely and respectfully. If only the MSM were as respectful.

Now that the names and addresses of the victims are available, we can expect to see reporters questioning family and friends of the victims. I always dread those televised exploitations of human grief. We see crying, devastated family members telling about the individual gifts of their loved one. I'm certain that most of us can somewhat imagine the overwhelming sadness those suffering people feel without seeing it on our widescreen, hi-def TV's. The media milks these human tragedies for all they are worth. True to form, they will overstay their welcome at Virginia Tech, and disrupt the university's attempts to return to as normal a situation as possible. I am sure that soon after the shootings the students, faculty, and other staff of Virginia Tech, as well as the population of Blacksburg wished that the media would just go away.

The American people do not need visual evidence of mourning to feel empathy. This pandering to touch the emotions of outsiders to the tragedy yields the taint of a "Jerry Springer-like" entertainment show. What's more, the constant presence and pressure of this media interference present rude interruptions to people's attempts to regain the focus of their lives and return to pursuing their futures.

Enough is enough. Go away.
UPDATE: As always, . Jonah Goldberg says it much better than I ever do.

Tragedies and Those who Line up to Grab the LImelight

I just listened to the press conference from Virginia Tech officials discussing what is known so far regarding the tragic shooting that occured there yesterday. The president of the university spoke, the various law enforcement bigwigs, the medical examiner, the governor's spokesperson, etc.,etc.

Everyone expresses their horror, sympathy, grief, all the other appropriate expressions and I'm sure that they are sincere. But the need that some people feel to rush in and publicly utter their feelings is suspect. I guess they are sensitive to the media's constant nose-counting of who shows up at these events and who doesn't. Their fear that they would be singled out as "insensitive" or "uncaring" compels them to pop up everywhere the cameras go.

Although not registering on the Richter scale of public tragedies, the recent Imus "scandal" was an example of the same phenomenon. When New Jersey governor Corzine found out that Imus was due to meet with the Rutgers' womens' basketball team to apologize for his nasty remarks directed at them, the governor jumped in his car to show up and gather some of the media attention. He was in no way connected with this unfortunate situation but was compelled by his lust for attention and need to appear appropriately disturbed by Imus' remarks. Too bad for him that he neglected to fasten his seat belt as is required by New Jersey law. He suffered serious injuries after his trooper driven SUV crashed on the way to the media circus.

President Bush and his wife will be appearing at a convocation at Virginia Tech later today to express their sadness and grief for the calamity that happened there. That's just what that community needs - a whirlwind of activity surrounding the appearance of the president and his entourage when the university is already in an uproar and the investigation is ongoing. I am sure his feelings are genuine but it smacks of political opportunism.

Still More on the Imus

If you can stand more from me on the Imus fiasco, read the editorial from the Manchester, NH, Union Leader.

The Imus standard: You can't Say That

Radio talk show host Don Imus called Rutgers' mostly black women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos" and got fired. Al Sharpton falsely accused a white man of rape and incited a race riot that left several dead. Jesse Jackson called Jews "hymies." And yet they still mingle at the highest circles of Democratic Party politics.
Imus' comments were indefensible. Even if the women did have tattoos and look a bit street-tough, as Imus was trying to say, calling them whores was an insult too far. But is it a fireable offense for a "shock jock" who has built his career uttering juvenile comments, including regularly making what he calls "n----- jokes"?

What Imus said was a great deal tamer than what is routinely uttered by rappers who call women "bitches" and boast about using and abusing them. It is tamer than the misogynistic and even racist jokes numerous stand-up comics make a living uttering. How did this offensive but comparatively tame comment get a major radio host pulled from the air? Fellow syndicated radio host Neal Boortz has a theory.

Boortz thinks that the Left has finally figured out how to bring down talk radio: accuse the hosts of racism. Unable to compete with talk radio, the Left has opted to play thought police. Racial prejudice is the last free speech taboo in America. Peg a broadcaster as racist, and you can bring him down.

"Liberals see this whole Imus situation as a way to rid themselves of the problem of talk radio ... they will turn their attention to the rest of us. The tape recorders will be running. There is not one single significant right-of-center radio talk show out there that is not going to come under fire."

Boortz has a point. Calling black women "hos" is not offensive to the cultural Left. If it were, there would be boycotts of rap stars and record labels. But if it presents an opportunity to go after a non-liberal talk radio host, the Left will take it. With one notch on their belt, they'll be sure to seek others.

Meanwhile, the same people who demanded Imus' head on a pike will continue to give platforms to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as legions of rappers provide the misogynistic background music.

Copyright, Manchester Union Leader, 2007

Tragedy at Virginia Tech

A lone gunman killed at least 32 people at Virginia Tech this morning, wounding many more. What a tragedy. I suspect families and friends across the nation are frantic to find out whether or not their relative or friend is safe. The dreadful time spent in this kind of uncertainty can drive one to distraction.

The gunman is one of the dead, perhaps by his own hand. I hope that is the case. I can't imagine the panic among students, faculty, and all other workers at Virginia Tech, until the word was spread that the threat was over.

My prayers go out to those affected by the terrible actions of a crazed person.

The Imus' Shame - It's Not Just His

I couldn't let this subject pass without pointing out this article by the brillian Mark Steyn. He is right on, as usual, and his wit shines through this as well as all his work.