Tuesday, January 31, 2006

"La. Turned Down Feds Help, Documents Show"

This headline had to pain the AP. Excerpt:
A ranking Louisiana health official turned down federal offers to help move or evacuate patients as Hurricane Katrina bore down on New Orleans, a newly released document shows.

But the state's top medical officer said Louisiana coordinated with the federal Health and Human Services Department in evacuating hospitals and nursing homes after Katrina hit.

Two days before the Aug. 29 storm, HHS was told by the state's health emergency preparedness director that the help was not needed, according to an e-mail released Monday by a Senate panel investigating the government's response to Katrina.

The state official, identified in the Aug. 27 e-mail as Dr. Roseanne Pratts, "responded no, that they do not require anything at this time and they would be in touch if and when they needed assistance," wrote HHS senior policy analyst Erin Fowler.

But in an interview Monday night, Louisiana Medical Director Dr. Jimmy Guidry said HHS was helping state health officials plan for evacuating hospitals and nursing homes by the eve of the storm. The federal department also stayed after Katrina hit to help the state coordinate transportation assets, like ambulances and military vehicles, Guidry said.

"They sent people to help us out," Guidry said of HHS officials in Louisiana. "They helped us get all those assets lined up."
The committee also released a Senate interview of Louisiana Transportation Secretary Johnny Bradberry, during which he told investigators "we have done nothing to fulfill this responsibility" of ensuring evacuation plans are in place for at-risk populations.
The feds asked La. if they needed help. The state said "No." The state said they did nothing to fulfill their own responsibility.

It's clear, then...it was all Bush's fault.

Brokeback, horseback, bareback, humpback, whatever...

Hat tip to TNJack for passing this on to me.

Godwin's Law violated...in MN Congress race?

Some of you are familiar with Godwin's Law. If you're not, click here for a full explanation. There now appears to be a "Godwin's candidate", and she's a Democrat. More:
As the Democratic Party continues its slide into disrepute, there doesn't seem to be any bottom in sight. Here is the latest smear from the Dems: candidate Coleen Rowley has published a despicable slander of my own Congressman and friend, John Kline, depicting him as a Nazi. Click to enlarge: link

In a sane world, the pathetic Ms. Rowley would be forced to resign from the race in humiliation. That won't happen, however, as this kind of ridiculous smear is exactly what the Democratic Party is looking for in its candidates. The more outrageous, the better.
Congressman Kline was a Marine, and here you have a Democrat replacing (via Photoshop) his USMC uniform with a Nazi uniform. I wonder if Dick Durbin is Rowley's web designer?

In case you're keeping tabs, the left's rationale goes something like this: former soldiers who poormouth the U.S. military and its efforts (such as John Murtha or John F'ing Kerry) are "patriots", while former soldiers who do not poormouth our the military and its efforts are Nazis. Thanks for clearing that up for us, libs.

Can we question their patriotism yet?

Monday, January 30, 2006

Washington comPost: Bush backers bigoted

One predictable aspect of liberalism is that disagreement with policies cannot be explained by a harmless difference of ideas. No, modern liberalism tends to paint all dissenters with a brush of "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobic" or other perjoratives that imply malice of intentions on the part of those who reject liberalism's demonstrably failed ideas.

Well, one of the left's usual allies, the Washington comPost, decides to try to perpetuate the leftist lie that those who disagree with them are racist. Sure, they try to make their findings sound scientific, but there is no shortage these days of "scientists" (and I use that word loosely) who have a conclusion and then compile data in a manner that reaches their conclusions. That's not science. Once we cannot trust the work of scientists who used to be committed to truth and facts, we are screwed.

Anyway, an excerpt from the comPost:
That study found that supporters of President Bush and other conservatives had stronger self-admitted and implicit biases against blacks than liberals did.

"What automatic biases reveal is that while we have the feeling we are living up to our values, that feeling may not be right," said University of Virginia psychologist Brian Nosek, who helped conduct the race analysis. "We are not aware of everything that causes our behavior, even things in our own lives."

Brian Jones, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said he disagreed with the study's conclusions but that it was difficult to offer a detailed critique, as the research had not yet been published and he could not review the methodology. He also questioned whether the researchers themselves had implicit biases -- against Republicans -- noting that Nosek and Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji had given campaign contributions to Democrats.
According to Michelle, Nosek donated $500 to the "John Kerry for President" fund, and his colleague Banaji donated $250 to Emily's List and $250 to...Dean for America! The comPost article failed to mention that tidbit, instead putting only a blurb about they "had given campaign contributions" to Dems. Maybe if everyone knew the specifics, the study would be called into question?

Maybe the political affiliations had nothing to do with the contents of their study. Maybe their affiliations tainted their views despite their best efforts to be objective. Heck, maybe even they're right in their findings? I doubt it, but my point is that it's sad to see science, formerly immune to political pressure and views, skewed by politics...or perceived to be.

Sick today

I'll return to blogging this evening or tomorrow, depending on how I feel, but I'm sick today. Some of you may ask "Since when is that different than any other day?", but this time I mean that I am physically ill! So, I'm going back to bed.

Sunday, January 29, 2006

Professor: "Accept bin Laden's truce"

No wonder the left isn't trusted to run national security. From (big surprise here) The San Francisco Chronicle:
Osama bin Laden's offer of a truce has sunk from sight without leaving a ripple, but it should have made waves.

When the audiotaped proposal was made 10 days ago, the White House dismissed it out of hand. That was a politically logical move, given the need to appear tough on terror at all times. An image of strength and determination may be particularly important in the months ahead because Republican Party leaders have put security issues at the heart of their 2006 congressional election campaign strategy.

But there are reasons why bin Laden's overture should be carefully weighed and thoughtfully debated.
Uh...no, there are not.

I don't even feel like wasting time or space refuting the absurd ideas pushed by this schmuck in his rose-colored glasses. I'd rather go do something more productive, like clip my toenails.

Suffice it to say, any idea that comes from San Francisco can necessarily be reflexively rejected as a horrible idea.

Dean inadvertently throws Reid under the bus

From NewsMax:
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Sunday that Democrats who took money from Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff and who did something on behalf of those tribes have "a big problem."

Dean made the statement apparently unaware that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has reportedly done exactly that.

Under questioning by "Fox News Sunday's" Chris Wallace, Dean claimed that Democrats did no favors for Abramoff's Indian tribe clients:

"Nobody got anything out of the Democrats from Jack Abramoff," the top Democrat insisted. "No Democrat delivered anything and there's no accusation and no investigation that any Democrat ever delivered anything to Jack Abramoff. And that's not true of the Republicans."

But Wallace countered: "So if we find that there were some Democrats who wrote letters on behalf of some of the Indian tribes that Abramoff represented, then what do you say, sir?"

Dean's response: "That's a big problem. And those Democrats are in trouble. And they should be in trouble."

In November 2005 the Associated Press reported that Senate Minority Leader Reid had accepted tens of thousands of dollars from an Abramoff client, the Coushatta Indian tribe, after interceding with Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton over a casino dispute with a rival tribe.

Reid "sent a letter to Norton on March 5, 2002," the AP said. "The next day, the Coushattas issued a $5,000 check to Reid's tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund. A second tribe represented by Abramoff sent an additional $5,000 to Reid's group. Reid ultimately received more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related donations between 2001 and 2004."
Reid's not the only Democrat who has been the beneficiary of Abramoff's largesse (usually funneled through Abramoff's clients), and I won't bore you with details that have already been covered across the blogosphere (since the MSM generally avoids bringing up Dem recipients).

I will say, though, that once Howie's words get used against other Dems, his already shaky tenure as DNC chief just got more uncertain. Dean's leadership has been as effective as a one-legged cat trying to bury a turd on a frozen pond, so I hope these words don't hurt his chances at remaining DNC top dawg. After all, he's the right's best ally in the political war against the left.

Friday, January 27, 2006

"Study Finds Rich-Poor Income Gap Growing"

Shocker. Could the headline have said "Study Finds Fat-Skinny Gap Growing"? Anyway, from the AP:
The disparity between rich and poor is growing in America as the federal minimum wage has remained flat for years, union membership has declined and industries have faced global competition, according to a study released Thursday.

The report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute, both liberal-leaning think tanks, found the incomes of the poorest 20 percent of families nationally grew by an average of $2,660, or 19 percent, over the past 20 years. Meanwhile, the incomes of the richest fifth of families grew by $45,100, or nearly 59 percent, the study by the Washington-based groups said.

Families in the middle fifth saw their incomes rise 28 percent, or $10,218.
This is going to come across as insensitive, so I need you fine folks to do me a HUGE favor and remind me later to care about the perceived insensitivity, m'kay? Thanks in advance.

First, note the study groups: "liberal-leaning think tanks." Nuff said there.

Secondly, nobody lives on minimum wage! Rarely does anyone even try to live off of minimum wage. Minimum wage jobs are starter jobs, for college or high school kids, or retirees looking for some extra cash, or some other kind of part-time work. I've worked for minimum wage before...when I was in high school and college! If a man with little to no education or marketable skills knocks up a woman and insists on supporting a family off of minimum wage, I'd like to know just why in the hell is it anyone else's fault but his (and hers, for that matter)?

While on the topic of minimum wage, where does the government get off interfering with a voluntary working agreement between an employer and an employee? The market should determine the prevailing wage rate, not some government pencil-pushers! if the boss is wanting you pay you less, convince him/her you're worth more...or go work somewhere else where they will pay you more.

Thirdly, I have a hard time seeing how "declining union membership" makes people poorer. It might make unions poorer, but how someone with extra money in his/her check that was going to the union gets poorer defies reasoning.

Speaking of unions, unions are always pushing for increases in minimum wage. Why? After all, their union members don't make minimum wage, right? Well, their interest lies in the fact that most unions' bargaining agreements tie the unions' minimum wage to the federal minimum wage. So if the federal minimum wage increases, so do union members' wages...which means, so do union dues coffers! Way to look out for the little guy, unions! Keep that in mind when you hear union mouthpieces complain about the minimum wage.

Finally, poverty is overwhelmingly a way of thinking. Sure, bad things happen to good people. However, the overwhelming majority of those in poverty have failed to take advantage of the plethora of opportunities this country has for them: free education, job training, learning marketable skills, etc. They have neglected to take seriously their schooling and careers. Instead, folks mired in poverty have adopted a mindset that perpetuates their poverty. Look no further than what happened in New Orleans during Katrina.

However, successful people have taken their education, careers, and finances seriously. The overwhelming majority of "rich" people in this country were NOT born into wealth. They actually (could it be true?) earned it! Also, success isn't defined by money. I would argue that teachers, cops, soldiers, firefighters, and anyone else that has taken their education and/or careers seriously are successful, even if their paychecks don't always reflect it. However, successful people adopt the proper mindset. I'm not rich, but by God, I am successful!

In other words, the "rich" will continue to do the same things they've always done that has gotten them rich, and the "poor" will continue to do the same things they've always done that has kept them poor. It's human nature, and no amount of government interference or liberal think-tank studies will change this aspect of human behavior.

Neal Boortz once said that your success in life can be virtually guaranteed if you adhere to four things: (1) don't have kids you're not in a position to take care of financially; (2) don't do drugs; (3) take your education seriously; (4) get a job that you will like and be good at. That's overly simplistic to an extent, but by and large, he is correct.

Hastert defends pork

Yeah, the GOP are really fiscal "conservatives." From the Washington Times:
Some members have proposed a ban on earmarks, but top Republican leaders such as House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois have defended the practice.

"Who knows best where to put a bridge or a highway or a red light in their district," he said in a radio interview with Michael Reagan this week. "We need to change how we do earmarks, we need to do it in the light of day and not the last minute type of situation, but I think we can do some reform on that and still serve what's in the best interest of the American people."

In a column yesterday in Roll Call, a newspaper covering Capitol Hill, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis, California Republican, said giving up earmarks would end the congressional power of the purse.
Hey, Hastert! It is not the responsibility of a taxpayer in Florida to fund a bridge in Illinois! It does not serve "the best interest of the American people" to have our paychecks confiscated to fund what are otherwise local projects! As a purported "conservative", you should know this, right?

Let's thank Congressman Jerry Lewis, sharing names with another less-than-funny American, for being upfront about the motivation behind pork: power. Giving up earmarks would end the "congressional power of the purse"? Do you mean Congress would not be allowed to fund defense or any other federal program if they weren't allowed to fund pork projects? Color me with the "skeptical" crayon on that assertion, Jerry!

The Congressional Research Service said earmarks have grown from 4,126 in 1994, the year before Republicans gained control of Congress, to 15,268 in 2005.
Let's see here. In 1994, Democrats controlled the Oval Office and both houses of Congress. Later that year, they lost the Congress to "fiscal conservatives." These "revolutionaries" were so conservative that they...nearly quadrupled the number of pork projects in the subsequent decade.

At least Sen. Coburn (R-OK) is serious about fighting pork. He promised to fight it when he ran for the Senate last year. He's pissed off his fellow Republicans for actually having the unmitigated gall to keep that campaign promise!

Chicagoans, thank your unions!

From Boortz:
Wal-Mart has just opened a new store in Evergreen, Illinois .. just outside of Chicago. In fact the new store is just one block outside of the Chicago city limits! Wal-Mart originally wanted to locate inside Chicago, but the Chicago city council, or whatever they call themselves, said no. Chicago area unions were raising hell and protesting the new Wal-Mart because of Wal-Mart's low pay and lack of employee benefits.

So ... Wal-Mart opens in Evergreen. How many jobs? This Wal-Mart employs 325 people. How many people applied for those jobs? Try 25,000! The unions may hate Wal-Mart ... the workers sure don't.
I guess the 25,000 people who applied for jobs need the unions to tell them how bad Wal-Mart sucks, because apparently, those rubes didn't get the memo! For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Another vulnerable Dem caves on Alito

Senator Robert "Sheets" Byrd (D-KKK...er, WV), vulnerable this year in increasingly red (formerly reliably blue) West Virginia, decides to throw his party under the bus on the confirmation of Sam Alito. Details:
The people of West Viriginia in no uncertain terms were, frankly, appalled by the Alito hearings. I don't want to say it, but I must. They were appalled. In the reams of correspondece that I received during the Alito hearings, West Virginians--the people I represent--West Virignians who wrote to criticize the way in which the hearings were conducted used the same two words. People with no connection to one another. People of different faiths. Different views. Different opinions. [They] independently and respectively used the same two words to describe the hearings. They called them called an outrage and a disgrace.
Almost as outrageous as disgraceful as the Dems looking up to a Senator who was actually in the Klan...while blasting the GOP for being racist!

Anywho, it looks like Byrd is going to support Alito, bringing the total number of Democrat supporters thus far to three: Byrd, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Tim Johnson of South Dakota. Don't be stunned if a couple of other vulnerable red staters (like Byron Dorgan of North Dakota or Bill Nelson of Florida) jump on the bandwagon.

Kennedy pulls a Kerry on "individualism"

Ted Kennedrunk has always been an opponent of individual rights and even the concept of the individual. Yet what does the Chancellor of Chappaquiddick have to say about Sam Alito? This:
Kennedy said, “The nominee is deficient in his commitment ... to individual rights, individual liberties, women’s rights and racial equality.”
"Racial equality" is leftist-speak for "affirmative action", a program whose definition demands racial inequality and discrimination. Anyway, reconcile this newly found "respect" for the individual with past rhetoric:

  • "At a time when our entire country is banding together and facing down individualism, the Patriots set a wonderful example, showing us all what is possible when we work together, believe in each other, and sacrifice for the greater good." - Chappy's own web site, right after the Patriots won the Super Bowl in January 2002.

  • "Our complex society requires a rethinking of the proper role of firearms in modern America. Our forefathers used firearms as an integral part of their struggle for survival. But today firearms are not appropriate for daily life in the United States." - Chappy interpreting each one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights except for the Second Amendment to apply to individual rights. For some reason, the Second is now relegated to groups instead of individuals...because he deems the Second Amendment antiquated?

    Speaking of individuals, Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.

  • A "See, I Told You So" moment

    Well, sorta. Recall in a prior post where I wondered how Senator Tim Johnson, Democrat from cherry-red state South Dakota, would vote on the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, especially in light of SD's eagerness to ban abortion? Johnson is up for re-election in 2008, and he saw in 2004 how his state deals with liberal Democrats: they tossed Tom Dasshole out on his kiester.

    Johnson has good political survival skills, it seems. From Breitbart/AP:
    Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito picked up his second Democratic supporter on Thursday, with Tim Johnson of South Dakota announcing he will vote for the conservative judge to become the nation's 110th justice.
    Johnson joins fellow Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska as the only members of their party to announce Senate support for the conservative judge.

    Fifty-one Republicans are supporting Alito, guaranteeing his confirmation as the replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who throughout her years on the high court often has been a key fifth vote on contentious social issues including abortion, affirmative action and the death penalty.

    "I am troubled by Judge Alito's apparent views on matters such as executive power, his past opposition to the principle of one person, one vote, and his narrow interpretation of certain civil rights laws," Johnson said. "Even so, I cannot accept an argument that his views are so radical that the Senate is justified in denying his confirmation."
    Translation: "I've known former Senator Tom Daschle for a while now...and to paraphrase that Texas relic Lloyd Bentsen in 1988, 'I'm no Tom Daschle!' Seriously, I'm not. You do believe me, right? Please?

    "I really like this corner office I have in the Senate building. I'm not ready to part with the perks yet! Have you seen my receptionist? She's a hottie! I'm not ready to lose that piece of eye candy yet! Plus, a lobbyist from the AARP is taking me to dinner at a five-star tonight, and I damned sure don't want to lose that kind of privilege!

    "Oh, yeah...Alito? He's got my vote!"

    Quote of the day

    From Michelle Malkin:
    Meanwhile, potty-training my son is like dealing with post-9/11 liberals. No matter how much patient educating and explaining you do to convince them to take responsibility for their actions and prevent future disasters, the end result is always the same: soiled pants.

    Palestinians choose terrorism

    The Middle East peace process was derailed for the foreseeable future last night. From the AP:
    Hamas' top official told Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas on Thursday the Islamic militant group is ready for a partnership after defeating the ruling Fatah Party in parliamentary elections — a shocking upset sure to throw Mideast peacemaking into turmoil.

    Officials in both parties said Hamas appeared to have captured a large majority of seats in Wednesday's elections. The Central Election Commission said the vote count had not been completed and that it would make an official announcement Thursday evening.
    Israel and the United States have said they would not deal with a government led by Hamas, which has carried out dozens of suicide bombings and which they consider a terrorist group.
    "Israel can't accept a situation in which Hamas, in its present form as a terror group calling for the destruction of Israel, will be part of the Palestinian Authority without disarming," (Acting Prime Minister Ehud) Olmert said in a statement issued by his office.
    Isreal won't accept it, and neither will the U.S. However, leave it to the moral relativists around the world to ho-hum the results:
    Reactions to the Hamas victory streamed in from around the world. Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, according to news reports, called it a "very, very, very bad result." But Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the European Union's external relations commissioner, said Hamas must be "ready to work for peace" with Israel if it joins the Palestinian government.

    U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan congratulated the Palestinian people on the peaceful elections, which he views as an important step toward a Palestinian state.
    International observers, including former President Carter, reported no major problems with fraud.
    Yeah, big shocker there, huh? Jimmah, the EU and UN thinking that a terrorist group running a country is no big whoop is par for the course for these idiots.

    Well, the bloodthirsty savages who live in the Palestinian terrortory can sleep better, now resting on the knowledge that those evil Jooooooooooos will be getting their just desserts on busses, cafes, malls, day cares, etc. However, I look at it this way: now when a suicide attack is launched, Israel can (although I don't know if they will) officially and correctly blame the Palestinian government and wipe them out.

    This is a sad day for the world.

    Google panders to Chinese censors, invites Congressional meddling

    We just don't have enough Congressional investigations (or calls for investigations), do we? However, Google's Faustian bargain invited this. From the Financial Times:
    Google will be called to task in Washington next month following a controversial decision by the internet search engine to launch a China-based version of its website that will censor results to avoid angering the country’s Communist government.

    The decision by Chris Smith, a Republican congressman from New Jersey who chairs a House subcommittee on Human Rights, to call for a February 16 hearing to examine the operating procedures of US internet companies in China, represents the first signs of what could become a serious backlash against Google and other internet companies in Washington that are perceived as capitulating to the Chinese government.

    Mr Smith on Wednesday accused Google of “collaborating .. with persecutors” who imprison and torture Chinese citizens “in the service of truth”.

    “It is astounding that Google, whose corporate philosophy is ‘don’t be evil’ would enable evil by cooperating with China’s censorship policies just to make a buck,” he said.
    I praised Google for not giving in to the porn snoops at DOJ, but I revoke my prior praise in light of them jumping in bed with the ChiComs so as not to offend them.

    Could be Google's new logo?

    Hildabitch in trouble for '08?

    Her Highness (Shrillary Clinton) will see no trouble getting re-elected to her Senate seat later this year. However, the Hildabeast and her myrmidons may find this CNN/Gallup Poll shocking:
    Most voters now say there's no way they'd vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008 - while just 16 percent are firmly in her camp, a stunning new poll shows.

    CNNGALLUP found that 51 percent say they definitely won't vote for Clinton (D-N.Y.) in 2008, another 32 percent might consider it, and only 16 percent vow to back her. That means committed anti-Hillary voters outnumber pro-Hillary voters by 3-1. The poll suggests she can forget about crossover votes - 90 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of conservatives say there's no way they'd back her.
    Granted, two years is a political lifetime, but it's nice to know that there is hope, indeed!

    Wednesday, January 25, 2006

    PA teacher humiliates Broncos fan student

    A little insight into the Pennsylvania public school system. From the Post-Gazette:
    When Joshua Vannoy decided to wear a Denver Broncos jersey Friday, he knew there would be some joking from diehard Steelers fans at Big Beaver Falls Area Senior High School.

    But he never expected to feel humiliated by his teacher during a mid-term examination and become so shaken up that he could not finish his test.

    "I feel awful, like I was dehumanized," said Joshua, 17, a junior and self-described honor student.

    He's made a complaint to the principal against John Kelly, who teaches an honors class on ethnic relations, saying the teacher made him sit on the floor to take his test and instructed other classmates to pelt him with balled up sheets of notebook paper.
    Mr. Kelly had little to say on the subject yesterday.

    "We won the game [Sunday] night, didn't we?" he said. "That's all I was worried about."

    School Principal Thomas Karczewski said what happened was "intended as a joke" and that the matter was "getting out of hand."
    He said when he went to sit down at his regular desk on Friday, Mr. Kelly ordered him to "take those books off my desk. I own that desk." He placed his textbooks on the floor and then sat down at the desk.

    Joshua said his teacher told him to "get out of my desk. You're sitting in my desk."

    He said Mr. Kelly began sliding the desks into a circle. Then he told Joshua to sit on the floor in the center of the circle.

    While Mr. Kelly passed out the tests, he dropped Joshua's test papers, scattering them on the floor so that he had to crawl around and pick them up, Joshua said.

    "As I started to write my name on the papers and number them, I noticed he went to the cupboard and grabbed a handful of notebook paper and handed it to all the kids and said, 'This is part two of your test. You'll get points for this. Take the paper and ball it up with two hands and throw it at the Denver fan,' " Joshua said.

    Joshua said there were "papers flying everywhere towards me. At one point, a girl refused to do it and he [Mr. Kelly] took the paper off her desk and threw it into the back of my head."

    Joshua said he was so furious his hands were shaking and he could hardly concentrate. He said he was lying flat on the carpet trying to answer essay questions about the Israeli Six-Day War and the Cold War while his face burned with shame.

    He said he didn't talk back and when the dismissal bell rang, he handed the half-finished test to Mr. Kelly, who "snatched it right out of my hands."

    Joshua said he reported the incident to the school principal immediately after a lunch period. He told his parents what happened when he got home.

    Mr. Kelly "has never told me not to wear a Denver Broncos jersey in his class," Joshua said. "I probably wouldn't have if I knew it was going to cause this kind of big deal. I just thought it was a shirt."
    A few observations here:

    1. The class was "an honors class on ethnic relations"? As opposed to the non-honors version? I can't believe that there is ONE, much less MULTIPLE, "ethnic relations" classes! No wonder test scores are falling and educational output is suffering, when kids are deluged with "racial sensitivity" P.C. crap classes instead of more relevant material! Hey, to hell with algebra, let's sing "Kumbaya" instead!

    2. How about the snide remark by the unrepentant teacher? "Hey, Steelers won, so screw you, kid!"

    3. The poor kid is S.O.L., because he's white. Are there any doubts that had this happened to a non-white kid or to a female, the NAACP or NOW would have been on this teacher like Michael Moore on a porkchop?

    4. It is a virtual certainty that the teachers union thugs will protect this miscreant teacher with every fiber of their extortionist being.

    5. The kid's test was on the Israeli Six-Day War and the Cold War. Who wants to bet that the correct answers were "The evil Zionist entity started the war for no other reason than trying to assuage their insatiable imperialistic appetite" and "The Soviets were just trying to live peacefully until those malevolent American babykillers drove their communistic utopia 'workers paradise' into a cruel collapse"?

    Media: Bush knew Katrina was coming!

    With the wonders of modern technology today, it is safe to say we all knew that Hurricane Katrina was coming! However, that evil Bushrove McHitlerburtonabramoff still didn't stop that hurricane, and the city of New Orleans was swamped as a result. From NOLA:
    As Hurricane Katrina approached the Gulf Coast, President Bush's top disaster agency warned of the likelihood of levee breaches that could leave New Orleans submerged "for weeks or months," a communications blackout that would hamper rescue efforts and "at least 100,000 poverty-stricken people" stranded in the city.

    Those remarkably accurate predictions were in a 40-page "Fast Analysis Report" compiled by the Department of Homeland Security on Aug. 28. Documents show that the report was sent by e-mail to the White House Situation Room at 1:47 a.m. on Aug. 29, hours before the deadly storm made landfall.

    The report raises an important question: If the highest levels of the government knew the likely impact of Hurricane Katrina, why was the initial response so slow and uncoordinated? That is the focus of a hearing scheduled for today on Capitol Hill by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which has been investigating the flawed response to the largest natural disaster in U.S. history.
    Bush's front-line disaster agency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, was predicting the worst.
    That's why we have experts, folks. These geniuses (genii?) knew that a city built in a fishbowl, surrounded by levees that were made way-back-when and could not withstand more than a Category 3 hurricane, could possibly get flooded and (to be euphemistic) "negatively impact" the poverty-induced people of New Orleans. I won't say poverty-"stricken", because that implies that their poverty was involuntary. You are "stricken" with cancer. You are NOT "stricken" with poverty, unless you involuntary lose your job...and it's safe to assume that jobs weren't exactly a priority for the former welfare state of New Orleans.

    Also, to answer the MSM's question of "why was the initial response so slow and uncoordinated?", I am going to use poor form by answering a question with a question: "Why don't you ask the Louisiana governor and the Chocolate City's mayor the same question first?" They are the first responders, right? The city and state had evacuation plans on the books, and no one followed or implemented the blueprint...which, of course, is Bush's fault. Oh, well, I won't beat that dead horse anymore.

    Notice the repetitive use of "Bush's top disaster agency", as opposed to "the federal top disaster agency" or "the government's top disaster agency"? Nope...no liberal media bias!

    Again, there is plenty of blame to go around, and yes, FEMA deserves a share of it. However, a cursory glance of MSM "articles" (that read more like columns, see "Bush's front-line agency" above) leaves what few readers they have left with the impression that the sole responsibility of evacuation and recovery was the federal government's, and that is 100% incorrect.

    Tuesday, January 24, 2006

    S.D. not doing Alito any favors

    I have always maintained that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, no state would ban abortion. Well, I may have been mistaken, because it looks like South Dakota is trying to do just that. From KSFY:
    If Brandon Representative Roger Hunt has his way all abortions will soon be banned in South Dakota.

    Tomorrow Republican Roger Hunt's bill outlawing the procedure is expected to get it's first reading. When it does South Dakota will join a growing list of states. In fact several states are already debating similar proposals.

    In the next month and-a-half South Dakota lawmakers will decide if the state will ban abortion, setting up a challenge to Roe vs. Wade.

    Representative Hunt says there's a reason to act now.

    "There's a momentum. There's a window that's developing now," he said.

    It's momentum lawmakers in other state's are also feeling. In Ohio, legislation has been introduced that would not only ban the procedure, but also make it illegal to transport women across the state line to get an abortion.

    In Indiana all abortions would be banned except if the mother's life is in danger. The proposal being considered in Indiana would also require women seeking abortions to wait 18 between getting required material about the abortion and actually having the procedure.

    Hunt says with one new justice and a second justice soon to be appointed to the U-S Supreme Court, the states are ready to act.

    "There are a lot of states that have been dealing with abortion legislation, and so I think yes, it's just a matter of time," he said.

    Planned Parenthood's Kate Looby is lobbying against the South Dakota ban. She agrees that with the new make-up of the high court, if it's passed, the South Dakota statute could one day be in the national spotlight.

    "Anything that they pass could potentially find it's want to the Supreme Court. With now Roberts and Alito sitting on the court, we could easily see an over-turn of roe," she said.

    Hunt believes at the earliest, it would be three years before the South Dakota bill could be argued before the high court. And in the meantime, at least two other states are moving in the same direction.

    15 states, including South Dakota also have trigger laws. Those would immediatly ban or substantially restrict abortions if Roe vs. Wade were ever reversed.
    There are a handful of Democrats who are teetering on whether or not to filibuster Alito, a move which would likely be futile since Frist has vowed to nuke the option should Dems try it. However, despite a wonderful committee showing by Alito, Dems had their minds made up to vote against him. Their only question was whether or not to filibuster him, and with South Dakota publicly challenging Roe v. Wade with the rationale that the new justice (Alito) will help them, Dems will possibly fight even harder than they already planned on doing.

    Point to ponder: if South Dakota passes the abortion ban, how will their Democrat U.S. Senator Tim "I won the dead Indian vote to eke out a shady win in '02" Johnson vote on Alito? I mean, if South Dakotans want the bill passed in their state, and Johnson votes against Alito on the grounds that Alito would actually side with Johnson's constituents, would Johnson not be acting Daschle-like in ignoring the wishes of South Dakotans? Johnson is up for re-election in 2008.

    You have to wonder if Sam Alito is looking at South Dakota and saying "Thanks for nothing, folks!"

    Monday, January 23, 2006

    Your "Damn that global 'warming'!" update

    Headline: "Eastern Europe freezes in killer cold."

    Must be George Bush's fault.

    Mikie Moore upset at Canada?

    The headline is too rich to ignore: "US filmmaker Michael Moore weighs in on Canada's election" Excerpt:
    Controversial American documentary filmmaker Michael Moore bemoaned an apparent right turn by liberal northern neighbor Canada in its upcoming general election.

    "Oh, Canada -- you're not really going to elect a Conservative majority on Monday, are you? That's a joke, right? I know you have a great sense of humor, ... but this is no longer funny," Moore complained in a commentary on his website.

    "First, you have the courage to stand against the war in Iraq -- and then you elect a prime minister who's for it. You declare gay people have equal rights -- and then you elect a man who says they don't," Moore moaned.

    Conservatives led by Stephen Harper were ahead of Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberals by a comfortable 10 to 12 points, polls showed Saturday, two days before Canadians go to the polls.

    In "Bowling for Columbine," his documentary on gun violence in the United States, Moore heads north to Canada to flee the rise of conservatism on US soil.
    Dammit! He went to Canada and then came back? There seems to be no shortage of limousine leftists who poormouth America and threaten to leave the country that made them rich...only to end up staying here!

    Jimmah: "Hamas isn't so bad!"

    Hat tip to Van Helsing at Moonbattery for this tidbit from the former Prez:
    Former President Jimmy Carter says he's encouraged by the participation of Hamas in next week's Palestinian elections because the terrorist organization has political integrity.

    Carter told CNN that Hamas may consist of "so-called terrorists," but added "there have been no complaints of corruption against [their] elected officials."

    Carter conceded that some in Hamas "deny Israel's right to exist," but defended the group's legitimacy as a political party.
    Van Helsing has pictures of some of the vile acts committed by the "so-called" terrorists. I guess the victims are really "so-called victims." Well, you know, Hitler killed six million Jews, but there was no evidence he was corrupt! Nothing says "I'm legit!" more than killing your opposition, right?

    (Sidebar: this is not a violation of Godwin's Law, since I'm using the Hitler analogy to illustrate the absurdity of Carter's statement and to compare Hamas, not Jimmah, to Der Fuhrer!)

    Adding additional insight into his moonbat mind:
    He drew an additional comparison with Menachem Begin's rise to Israel's premiership in the seventies. "The Irgun, to which Begin belonged, was also characterized as a terrorist organization," he noted.
    Wow...Begin was a terrorist?

    Considering that this asshat was once the President, the fact that this country is still around is proof that (a) America is the most resilient country in the history of the world, and (b) there is a God!

    Kennedrunk's all-male club vs. Augusta National?

    Anyone remember the NY Times launching their front page crusade against the Augusta National Golf Club's all-male policy? Every year, feminist Martha Burk gets some "columns disguised as news 'stories'" help from the Old Gray Hag as she rants and protests the hyperphallic nature of Augusta National! It seems that the freedom of association aspects of this country, especially as it pertains to a private organization, is a bit much for the femi-nitwits and their agitprop accomplices in the MSM to stomach.

    Unless, of course, Teddy Chappaquiddick is the perp.

    I've been scouring Al Gore's invention to see if I can find any MSM source's editorial staff castigating Kennedrunk for being a member of the Owl Club, a sausage party organization at Harvard. Kennedy did resign the club...last week. It took him 52 years and some political advice to do it, but he did it. Heck, the OWL Club was kicked off of Harvard in 1984 for violating "equality laws" that Kennedy himself championed. This irony was lost on TK and his knuckledragging myrmidons as he piously raked Judge Alito over the coals for Alito's membership in Princeton's CAP. Good enough for me but not for thee...eh, Kennedrunk?

    I'm still looking for the Hag to weigh in on TK's schlong-based social club, considering their dismay over Augusta National's all-male policies. I'll let you know if Hell freezes over I find it.

    Sunday, January 22, 2006

    Code Pink caught in "Photoshop" moment

    When the truth sucks for the moonbat organization Code Pink, they just invent their own brand of "truth", I guess. From Publius Pundit:
    Unbelievable. Code Pink, an anti-American, anti-Iraqi-freedom, anti-Iranian-democracy full-Sandalista nuisance group, has taken to photoshopping photographs of Iranian freedom babes brave enough to protest against the monstrous mullahs of Iran, and used their beautiful images as recruiting tools for their own odious, anaphrodisiac cause. This cause just happens to be cut-and-run from Iraq, so that mullahs will be free to oppress women in ‘peace.’ That’s Code Pink’s cause! It is so disgusting!

    They can’t even tell the difference between Iranians and Iraqis, among other things, and just don’t care. But that’s not nearly as bad as changing the message the women were putting their lives on the line to get across. The mercenary expropriation of these images by Code Pink is unspeakable. How dare they! Compare and contrast:

    Code Pink recruiting ad for anti-Iraqi-freedom activities - take a look at that middle girl - I think even the lower half of her face is photoshopped.

    Now take a look at the same image of the real Iranian freedom babe fighting against mullahs and gender apartheid in the streets of Tehran, second photo down. Attack Machine has graciously put the images together for your convenience.

    Did they learn after getting caught red-handed? Nope. The dipshits tried Photoshopping again!

    And to think: the DNC chief himself poses proudly with these kooks!

    Friday, January 20, 2006

    BET: "Global Warming Could Spell Disaster for Blacks"

    Presumably, all non-blacks would be unaffected, correct? From BET:
    Environmentalists blame the fierce new storms on global warming – the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans. Scientists attribute the phenomenon to gases produced by fossil fuels like gasoline, petroleum and coal. Though critics dismiss global warming as junk science, reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have continually found a discernable human influence on world temperatures.

    That’s bad news, especially for African Americans. Citing Katrina as a case-in-point, some environmentalists say global warming impacts minorities and the disadvantaged harder than other groups. If global warming gets worse, many African-American communities will be more vulnerable to breathing ailments, insect-carried diseases and heat-related illness and death. But asking Black folks to give up gas-guzzling SUV’s and other bling is a tough sell.
    You can continue to read the "article", if you want to be deluged with pro-warming and "Katrina racism" drivel. I prefer to operate in the real world, where there are just as many scientists who say global "warming" has not been proven to be real or man-made as there are those who argue the contrary.

    My point was, though, that this unintelligent article implies that if global "warming" were real, it would cause major problems for blacks, and thus by implication, fewer problems for non-blacks. Whew! I'm safe! I wasn't aware that the impending environmental disasters this planet will endure as a result of man's reckless destruction of the fragile ecosphere would only take aim at the black community! Who knew that the sun would shine hotter over Harlem than the Hamptons? Or that the rain would be more scarce over Compton than Catalina? God bless that George W. Bush and his evil Rovian Enviro-Chaos Generator for sparing the palest of this country's communities!

    For those of you on the left, the prior paragraph was sarcasm. Don't hyperventilate on me!

    Google not caving to admin's porn snoops

    Regulars here know that I whack Bush when he deserves it: signing the campaign finance bill, spending like a drunken sailor, coming up with a horrendous drug entitlement program, etc. Well, he's let me down again, and this time, it's in the religious right's quest to stamp out the threat to all of mankind known as...porn. From All Headline News:
    Federal prosecutors asked a California court to force Google to hand over information that would reveal what thousands of the Web site's users are searching for.

    Google refused to comply with a subpoena that was also given to Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL, demanding the Internet service providers give prosecutors millions of search records, reports ZDnet.

    The Bush administration demand falls under the controversial 1998 Child Online Protection Act. The law is being challenged in court by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which says it violates freedom of speech.

    Prosecutors are asking Google for a "random sampling" of 1 million Internet addresses accessible though its search engine, and a random sampling of 1 million search queries.

    Google says in a statement, on Thursday that it will resist the request "vigorously."
    Trying to stop the trafficking of kiddie porn doesn't bother me. In fact, I encourage it. Getting pedophiles off the street where they can't act on their predatory instincts is more than fine with me. However, scouring the search records of millions of people to do it is where I draw the line. It's a waste of time, an invasion of privacy, and an inefficient way of getting kiddie diddlers locked up.

    What about cops who are launching online sting operations to nab child predators? They may use those search terms, get the feds dispatched to their homes, and have to explain to the feds why they're doing the search. Waste of time, big hassle, potential embarrassment, etc.

    What about a person looking for "teen" activity? That does include 18 and 19, which I would guess most "teen" sites use for fear of prosecution. At least I think most "teen" sites are like that...how should I know?? Anyway, stop worrying about me and focus on the point! :-) The search for pedophiles could grab the unsuspecting adult who is doing nothing illegal or immoral, and thus diverting resources to a situation that is posing no real threat to anyone.

    In my view, this doesn't have anything to do with child porn. The GOP has been on a total anti-porn crusade for decades now, and I'm completely put off by the efforts to deprive adults from making choices about their entertainment viewing. Perhaps porn is a scourge on society, and it can certainly lead to addiction. However, this is still (as of now, anyway) a country where people are free to flush their lives down the toilet if they want to. If you don't like that form of adult entertainment, don't watch it! How tough is that to understand?

    To those on the left who try to compare this anti-porn crusade with warrantless searching of terrorism suspects, don't bother. Efforts to combat terrorism and protect our national security by using methods targeting terrorism suspects that even prior administrations signed off on do not bother me. Efforts to stop a guy from getting a "woodrow" or a girl from "dampening" are, to say the least, overbearing and overreaching!

    Thursday, January 19, 2006

    Leftist professors: "Don't quote me on that!"

    Colleges and universities are stocked with professors, associates, and teaching assistants who think that by virtue of them having captive audiences of fresh, moldable minds, the teachers have license to indoctrinate their students with whatever their ideology may be. Whether the class be biology or history, it seems that college teachers want to inject their own political propaganda (overwhelmingly liberal) into the curriculum. Those of us who have been to college have likely seen it firsthand.

    Well, an alumni association of UCLA has had enough. They are recruiting students at UCLA to provide evidence of teachers who are "abusive, one-sided or off-topic". From the LA Times:
    The year-old Bruin Alumni Assn. says its "Exposing UCLA's Radical Professors" initiative takes aim at faculty "actively proselytizing their extreme views in the classroom, whether or not the commentary is relevant to the class topic." Although the group says it is concerned about radical professors of any political stripe, it has named an initial "Dirty 30" of teachers it identifies with left-wing or liberal causes.

    Some of the instructors mentioned accuse the association of conducting a witch hunt that threatens to harm the teaching atmosphere, and at least one of the group's advisory board members has resigned because he considers the bounty offers inappropriate. The university said it will warn the association that selling copies of professors' lectures would violate campus rules and raise copyright issues.
    "Threatens to harm the teaching atmosphere"? Of course it does! It threatens the stranglehold that these leftist twits have on higher education. It threatens their comfort zones, knowing that taxpayers will actually get to know what drivel they're spewing to impressionable young people. It threatens their employment if enough tuition-paying parents say "I'm not going to send my kid to UCLA with that kind of pap passing as academics!" Continuing:
    On one of its websites, the Bruin Alumni Group names education professor Peter McLaren as No. 1 on its "The Dirty Thirty: Ranking the Worst of the Worst." It says "this Canadian native teaches the next generation of teachers and professors how to properly indoctrinate students."

    McLaren, in a telephone interview, called the alumni group's tactics "beneath contempt."

    "Any sober, concerned citizen would look at this and see right through it as a reactionary form of McCarthyism. Any decent American is going to see through this kind of right-wing propaganda. I just find it has no credibility," he said.

    The website also lists history professor Ellen DuBois, saying she "is in every way the modern female academic: militant, impatient, accusatory, and radical — very radical." In response, DuBois said: "This is a totally abhorrent invitation to students to participate in a witch hunt … against their professors."

    But DuBois minimized the effect on campus, saying "it's not even clear this is much other than the ill-considered action of a handful, if that, of individuals."
    If it "has no credibility" and only has a "handful of individuals", then you leftists don't have anything to worry about, do you? Also, nice job of a leftist professor trying to convince people he's not a leftist: "right-wing propaganda"!

    These academic types are sure getting worked up over the idea that people outside of their campus echo chambers may find out about their own words. I guess when you're in a position of power over students to where you don't have to defend your ideas or beliefs to the "peons" in your classes, then it can be a tad bit disconcerting if the general public, over whom you have no control, get wind of what's coming out of your piehole and into the minds of kids.

    Please...spare me the "academic witch hunt" garbage. That dog won't hunt! If you're getting a paycheck for "educating kids", and said paycheck is being partly/fully financed by the taxpayers, it is not unreasonable for said taxpayers to know what you're telling their kids. If you don't want to have to defend your views or teachings, then don't teach. Be prepared to defend your ideas, if they're that damned good!

    bin Laden parrots DNC talking points

    Hey, lookie! Osama sounds like the left in this country! From the AP:
    Al-Jazeera on Thursday aired an audiotape purportedly from Osama bin Laden, who says al-Qaida is making preparations for attacks in the United States but offering a truce "with fair conditions." (Mighty big of you there, Osama! - Ed.)

    He (Osama) also refers indirectly to the July 7 bombings in London that killed 56 people and to poll numbers that showed a fall in Bush's popularity, as occurred in late 2005.

    The voice on the tape said he was directing his message to the American people after polls showed that "an overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq but (Bush) opposed that desire."

    He said insurgents were winning the conflict in Iraq and warned that security measures in the West and the United States could not prevent attacks there.

    "The proof of that is the explosions you have seen in the capitals of European nations," he said "The delay in similar operations happening in America has not been because of failure to break through your security measures. The operations are under preparation and you will see them in your homes the minute they are through (with preparations), with God's permission."
    Would Osama admit that delays were the result of security measures, were it true? Of course he wouldn't, just like the left doesn't. Continuing:
    "We do not mind offering you a long-term truce with fair conditions that we adhere to," he said. "We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war.
    Presumably, God has forbidden lying and cheating but has given the green light on decapitating and other forms of murder. Thanks for clearing that up with us, Osama. Nice to know that Allah has scruples! Continuing:
    "There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America," he said.
    Didn't Dean, the Sheehanistas, Murtha, et al share similar sentiments? You people keep great company! Finally:
    Al-Jazeera's editor-in-chief Ahmed al-Sheik would not comment on when or where the tape was received. He said the full tape was 10 minutes long. The station aired four excerpts with what it "considered newsworthy," he said, but would not say what was on the remainder.
    For those of you leftists who insist that Al Jazeera is balanced and isn't a mouthpiece for terrorism, ask yourself this: Why does al Qaeda feel so damned comfy in giving these tapes to AJ if they just wanted a "fair" and "objective" showing? Why doesn't AJ help track down the source of these tapes by telling us how they get them?

    Friday, Jan. 20, is 25th anniversary of Reagan's inauguration

    Mike's America is marking the 25th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's first inauguration into the presidency. It's hard to believe that 25 years have come and gone in that time frame. Anyway, Mike is soliciting Reagan memories, so I'll list mine.

    I'm showing my age here, but Ronald Reagan defeated James Earl Carter in the 1980 landslide (44 states to Carter's 6) about 2 - 3 weeks before my ninth birthday. Therefore, all I really recall at that time was the joy shared the next morning by my parents. While I knew and cared nothing about politics, I still recall my mother telling me the next morning that Reagan had won. She's not very political, but she was happy about the outcome. Dad was even more ecstatic, especially since he was still active duty in the Marine Corps and was presumably looking forward to having a real Commander-in-Chief.

    I didn't follow much of Reagan's first term, except when he was almost killed by a crazy assassin. I do remember finding it funny that Reagan reportedly said on the operating table to the surgeons: "I hope you're all Republicans!" For those of you on the left, that was a joke.

    I had to follow the election of 1984 because I was in a 7th grade history class that compelled us to follow it. Still knowing and caring nothing about politics, I dreaded having to watch conventions and debates. I do remember that I was getting sleepy watching Walter Mon-dull giving his speech at the DNC convention, until I thought I heard him say "Mr. Reagan will raise your taxes, I will raise your taxes. He won't tell you this, I just did." I snapped out of my doze and thought: "Did he just promise to raise taxes?!? Holy crap, if I could vote, why would I vote for a guy who wants to raise my taxes?"

    It was all downhill for Mondale after that. He lost the union vote. He lost the female vote. He even lost a high percentage of Democrat votes! Mondale went on to lose 49 of 50 states, winning only his home state of Minnesota by a scant 4500 votes! Reagan, always the witty guy, contacted his campaign manager the next morning and asked dryly: "What happened in Minnesota?" Process that for a moment: Reagan won liberal states like New York and Massachusetts, for crying out loud!

    So my childhood memories of Reagan are fond, but limited. I know that my father was honored to serve under him, as were countless other former soldiers with whom I've spoken over the years. I learned more about Reagan as I got older, and I'm glad that I did. This country was lucky to have a leader that loved his country, loved his military, and had a vision of optimism that has been shared by few other presidents in history. He is greatly missed.

    "Willy Nagin and the Chocolate Factory"

    Mr. "Chocolate City" will never live this down! From some entrepreneurial folks:

    Shrillary's plantation

    From Cox and Forkum:

    Michelle's take:
    Democrat N.Y. Sen. Hillary Clinton perhaps looking to distract attention from those pesky Code Pink protesters who've been dogging her over the Iraq war, commemorated the holiday by pulling a reverse Sister Souljah at race hustler Al Sharpton's pulpit in Harlem. The Canaan Baptist Church welcomed her pandering with what the Associated Press described as "thunderous applause."

    When a Democrat politician stumps at a church, you see, it's "minority outreach." When a Republican politician stumps at a church, it's a theocratic outrage.

    Asked to explain the difference between Democrats and Republicans, Hillary's response oozed with righteous flava (did Bill "Our first black president" Clinton help her practice?):

    "For the last five years, we've had no. Power. At All. And that makes a big difference, because when you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation. And you know what I'm talkin' about. It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary point of view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard. The Senate's not that bad. But it's been difficult. It's been difficult."

    Yes, Hillary, we're living in the antebellum South all over again. Forget the existence of the raucus Congressional Black Caucus. Pay no attention to the ubiquitous Rep. Charlie Rangel on cable television and radio airwaves. Look past the mainstream status bestowed on the fanatical black separatist Louis Farrakhan, most recently honored as Black Entertainment Television.com's man of the year. And ignore the true ideological plantation mentality that punishes every prominent conservative minority dissenter who strays from leftist orthodoxy.

    What racial demagogic stunt will Hillary sink to next? Cornrows and a cameo on Bush-bashing rapper Kanye West's next album? Go on, girl. Go ahead. Get down.
    Fo' shizzle, my peeps!

    How offensive that churches are getting involved in Republican politics! Yet when a church (such as the one Shrillary visited) gets involved with Democratic politics, calls for investigations into their tax-exempt status are attacked as "racist." It must be easy to be a race-baiting leftist: no thinking required, no logic needed...only a sharp tongue capable of emotional reactionism. That's why I've always said that the right thinks while the left "feels."

    These calculated moments of Democrat demagoguery illuminate liberalism's three-decade-old moral bankruptcy on issues of race. From the party's smearing of Clarence Thomas to the bigoted attacks on Condoleezza Rice and Maryland GOP Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, to its opposition to school choice for inner-city students and denigration of California businessman Ward Connerly's campaign against government racial preferences, to its latest desperate attempts to blame racism for Hurricane Katrina and to portray Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito as a red-necked bigot, the Left has offered nothing but slime and obstructionism.
    If we want to talk about "plantations", Shrillary, let's talk about the left's plantation! You know, the one that tries to keep its blacks "in check" so as not to let them formulate their own opinions that may differ from leftist orthodoxy? Let a black stray from the left's plantation, and the liberal "Massa" doesn't like it too much, huh?

    Wednesday, January 18, 2006

    Public education = government monopoly

    Before you folks pile on me, realize that (a) I went to a public school from kindergarten through college, and (b) I have several friends and family members who work in public education. This is not a slander of the people, but of the system and the NEA thugs who run it. From John Stossel:
    "Stossel is an idiot who should be fired from ABC and sent back to elementary school to learn journalism." "Stossel is a right-wing extremist ideologue."

    The hate mail is coming in to ABC over a TV special I did Friday (1/13). I suggested that public schools had plenty of money but were squandering it, because that's what government monopolies do.

    Many such comments came in after the National Education Association (NEA) informed its members about the special and claimed that I have a "documented history of blatant antagonism toward public schools."

    The NEA says public schools need more money. (Easy for them to say, when they're making six figures while their members make tons less! - Ed.) That's the refrain heard in politicians' speeches, ballot initiatives and maybe even in your child's own classroom. At a union demonstration, teachers carried signs that said schools will only improve "when the schools have all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber."

    Not enough money for education? It's a myth.

    The truth is, public schools are rolling in money. If you divide the U.S. Department of Education's figure for total spending on K-12 education by the department's count of K-12 students, it works out to about $10,000 per student.

    Think about that! For a class of 25 kids, that's $250,000 per classroom. This doesn't include capital costs. Couldn't you do much better than government schools with $250,000? You could hire several good teachers; I doubt you'd hire many bureaucrats. Government schools, like most monopolies, squander money.

    America spends more on schooling than the vast majority of countries that outscore us on the international tests. But the bureaucrats still blame school failure on lack of funds, and demand more money.

    In 1985, some of them got their wish. Kansas City, Mo., judge Russell Clark said the city's predominately black schools were not "halfway decent," and he ordered the government to spend billions more. Did the billions improve test scores? Did they hire better teachers, provide better books? Did the students learn anything?

    Well, they learned how to waste lots of money.

    The bureaucrats renovated school buildings, adding enormous gyms, an Olympic swimming pool, a robotics lab, TV studios, a zoo, a planetarium, and a wildlife sanctuary. They added intense instruction in foreign languages. They spent so much money that when they decided to bring more white kids to the city's schools, they didn't have to resort to busing. Instead, they paid for 120 taxis. Taxis!

    What did spending billions more accomplish? The schools got worse. In 2000, five years and $2 billion later, the Kansas City school district failed 11 performance standards and lost its academic accreditation for the first time in the district's history.

    A study by two professors at the Hoover Institution a few years ago compared public and Catholic schools in three of New York City's five boroughs. Parochial education outperformed the nation's largest school system "in every instance," they found -- and it did it at less than half the cost per student.

    "Everyone has been conned -- you can give public schools all the money in America, and it will not be enough," says Ben Chavis, a former public school principal who now runs the American Indian Charter School in Oakland, Calif. His school spends thousands less per student than Oakland's government-run schools spend.

    Chavis saves money by having students help clean the grounds and set up for lunch. "We don't have a full-time janitor," he told me. "We don't have security guards. We don't have computers. We don't have a cafeteria staff." Since Chavis took over four years ago, his school has gone from being among the worst middle schools in Oakland to the one where the kids get the best test scores. "I see my school as a business," he said. "And my students are the shareholders. And the families are the shareholders. I have to provide them with something."
    The evidence is in, folks: monopolies, specifically government ones, have no incentive to succeed because there is no competition. If the bloated bureaucracy that chokes our public education system were reduced, then schools would be able to hire more teachers, pay all teachers better than they do now, and encourage more kids to consider a career in education. Yeah, well, if worms had shotguns, birds wouldn't bother them.

    Unhinged Gore ignores Clinton's warrantless searches

    Thanks to Kira for passing this on to me. From Breitbart:
    The White House accused former Vice President Al Gore of hypocrisy Tuesday for his assertion that President Bush broke the law by eavesdropping on Americans without court approval.

    "If Al Gore is going to be the voice of the Democrats on national security matters, we welcome it," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said in a swipe at the Democrat, who lost the 2000 election to Bush only after the Supreme Court intervened.

    Gore, in a speech Monday, called for an independent investigation of the administration program that he says broke the law by listening in - without warrants - on Americans suspected of talking with terrorists abroad.

    Gore called the program, authorized by President Bush, "a threat to the very structure of our government" and charged that the administration acted without congressional authority and made a "direct assault" on a federal court set up to authorize requests to eavesdrop on Americans.
    McClellan said the Clinton-Gore administration had engaged in warrantless physical searches, and he cited an FBI search of the home of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames without permission from a judge. He said Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, had testified before Congress that the president had the inherent authority to engage in physical searches without warrants.

    "I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds," McClellan said of Gore.
    It's about damned time that Bush hit back on this. Don't let those leftist hypocrites' drivel go unanswered! Like I've said before, if the left made no noise when Clinton/Gore conducted warrantless searches against American citizens and businesses (with no ties to terrorism), then they need to keep their treasonous traps shut today!

    With much of the attention on bird flu and AIDS, I think the disease that's the biggest threat to the survival of this country is BDS: Bush Derangement Syndrome.

    Tuesday, January 17, 2006

    NYT staging photo-op

    The once venerable New York Times has long since descended into tabloid journalism, letting its institutionalized BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) cloud its reporting on a daily basis. For a newspaper that was embarrassed by the Jayson Blair and Rick Bragg fiascos (among others), it sure hasn't learned its lesson about journalistic integrity. And now this:
    Is a fake staged photo fit to print? What if it staged in a way that makes the US forces fighting the War on Terror look cruel and ineffective? The evidence argues that yes, it can run, and in a prominent position - at least in the case of the New York Times website.

    It appears that the Times, once-upon-a-time regarded as the last word in reliability when it comes to checking before publishing (which makes them so much better than blogs, of course), has run a fake photo on the home page of its website. The photo has since been removed from the home page, but still can be seen here.

    The picture shows a sad little boy, with a turbaned man next to him, a little bit further from the camera, amid the ruins of a house. Other men and boys peer in from the background. The photo is captioned

    “Pakistani men with the remains of a missile fired at a house in the Bajur tribal zone near the Afghan border.”

    The story it accompanies is about the apparently failed attempt to take out al Qaeda’s #2 man al Zawahiri, with a missile attack from a Predator drone.

    “How sad!” readers are encouraged to think. “These poor people are on the receiving end of awful weapons used by the clumsy minions of Bush. And all to no avail. Isn’t it terrible? Why must America do such horrible misdeeds? Bush must go!”

    The only problem is that the long cylindrical item with a conical tip pictured with the boy and the man is not a missile at all. It is an old artillery shell. Not something that would have been fired from a Predator. Indeed, something that must have been found elsewhere and posed with the ruins and the little boy as a means at pulling of the heartstrings of the gullible readers of the New York Times.
    So the formerly authoritative New York Times has published a picture distributed around the world on the home page of its website, using a prop which must have been artfully placed to create a false dramatic impression of cruel incompetence on the part of US forces. Not only did the editors lack the basic knowledge necessary to detect the fake, they didn’t bother to run the photo past anyone with such knowledge before exposing the world to it.

    There is an old saying in journalism about stories which editors really want to run: “too good to check.” It is plainly clear that the New York Times thought this story was too good to check. Their standard of “good” is painfully obvious to all.

    Without the internet and blogosphere, probably they would have gotten away with it.
    The article goes on to illustrate how the photo's contents were embellished (to be euphemistic).

    Nope...no liberal media bias!

    Nagin marks MLK Day by dwelling on skin color

    As I stated in my last post, Dr. King's dream of a colorblind society is constantly being undermined by the left today. New Orleans Mayor Ray "School Bus" Nagin did as much yesterday when he called for the re-Africanization of New Orleans. From CNN:
    Mayor Ray Nagin on Monday called for the rebuilding of a "chocolate New Orleans" that maintains the city's black majority, saying, "You can't have New Orleans no other way ([sic] - Ed.) ."

    "I don't care what people are saying Uptown (read: "Whitey" - Ed.) or wherever they are. This city will be chocolate at the end of the day," Nagin said in a Martin Luther King Jr. Day speech. "This city will be a majority African-American city. It's the way God wants it to be."

    Uptown is a reference to a mostly white part of the city.

    Pressed later to explain his comments, Nagin, who is black, told CNN affiliate WDSU-TV that he was referring to creation of a racially diverse city in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, insisting that his remarks were not divisive.

    "How do you make chocolate? You take dark chocolate, you mix it with white milk, and it becomes a delicious drink. That is the chocolate I am talking about," he said.

    "New Orleans was a chocolate city before Katrina. It is going to be a chocolate city after. How is that divisive? It is white and black working together, coming together and making something special."
    Talk about backpedaling! He wants a black city, then when pressed, he Kerrys his meaning a bit by saying that you "make chocolate" by mixing white milk with...chocolate? Huh? And "This city will be a majority African-American city" doesn't mean "I want mostly black folks here"? What white African-Americans would he be talking about...Teresa Heinz-Kerry? Did he go to the Dick Durbin the Turban School of Crappy Analogies, with a minor in Kerry Nuance Studies? Anyway:
    In his speech, Nagin also said "God is mad at America," in part because he does not approve "of us being in Iraq under false pretenses."

    "He is sending hurricane after hurricane after hurricane, and it is destroying and putting stress on this country," Nagin said.

    He said God is "upset at black America also."

    "We are not taking care of ourselves. We are not taking care of our women, and we are not taking care of our children when you have a community where 70 percent of its children are being born to one parent."
    Yeah, that must be it! God is mad at America for being in Iraq, so He decided to flood a city whose residents were mostly opposed to that war. Also, God is upset at black America, so He flooded a city that He wants, according to Mayor "School Bus", to remain black. Not to mention the problems he talks about in the black community (such as single-parent households, deadbeat dads, etc.) are problems that have been exacerbated by the very welfare state that Nagin allowed to flourish in the Big Easy. Got it. Thanks for clearing all that up.

    Finally, I think we see the true motives for Mayor "School Bus" and his tirade:
    Nagin, first elected in 2002, had been due to come up for re-election next month. However, state officials postponed the city election until April because of the disruptions caused by Katrina.
    Nagin is afraid that the "disruptions" caused by Katrina (i.e. the displacement of lots of black voters) could result in a higher-than-average percentage of "white chocolate" voters who will vote his inept posterior out of office. Therefore, he's asked the similarly inept Blanco administration to save his political hide by holding off the elections until they can import more voters...er, residents.

    I don't have to tell you what the fallout would be if, say, a white Republican mayor of a Mississippi Gulf coast city lamented that his city now wasn't "ivory enough", do I? The MSM would be on him like a pack of dogs on a three-legged cat, branding him a "racist."

    Thanks for defiling Dr. King's memory, Nagin. Nicely done, jerk!

    Monday, January 16, 2006

    MLK Day

    Liberals have their ideas as to what Dr. King envisioned for today's generation. So do conservatives, libertarians, and everyone else. What's disgusting, though, is how Dr. King's wonderful legacy, one which he literally gave his life for, is politicized in the most despicable manner.

    For example, look no further than President Bush. He gives a speech commemorating Dr. King's vision and sacrifice, and many on the left accuse of him of political grandstanding. Had Bush given no speech, he would have been accused by the same people of unspeakable racism and unforgivable insensitivity. Damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. Then again, these critics are the same ones that blame Bush for a fart getting stuck sideways in Jesse Jackson's ass...damn that global warming! But I digress...

    Dr. King said that he envisioned a day that man would no longer be judged by the color of his skin. Liberals support programs that look specifically at the color of skin, and only in their perverted worldview do they consider that kind of discrimination "equality." It takes a pretzel twist of "logic" (and I use the word loosely) to think that the best way to end discrimination...is to at least partially discriminate!

    Dr. King said that he envisioned a day that man would be judged on the content of his character. Liberals object to the number of black men and women incarcerated today, as if the percentage of black inmates (who were clearly of at a minumum questionable character, thus their incarceration) somehow negates the crimes they committed...there must be a conspiracy.

    In my opinion, Dr. King died so that all men, women, and children could live in a land of equal opportunities, a land that didn't give a damn about the color of people's skin. This country has moved a considerable distance towards that goal, and though it may never actually get there, this land doesn't resemble the racist badlands it used to be a few decades ago. Americans today rightfully denounce racism, where before they would have either failed to see it, failed to care about it, or failed to speak out against it.

    When I was a kid, my brother and I played with a couple of black children who lived across the street from us. Their mother came over one day to tell our mother about something that both amused and pleased her. As we children were playing in their carport, one of her kids referred to my brother as "white." My brother corrected him: "I'm not white." The mother, curiosity aroused, asked him: "Well, what color are you?" My brother, being well versed with the Crayola box at home and school, replied: "I'd say I'm kinda 'peach'!"

    We just weren't raised that way. Believe it or not, most Americans from my generation and beyond weren't raised that way, either. Sure, we don't retain the innocence forever, but it seems as though when Americans get older, race seems to take on forms that we as kids never recognized. Dr. King's sacrifices, as well as those of others before and since him, enabled me and my generation (and subsequent generations) to at least grow up in that innocence, to not have to be preoccupied with trivialities such as skin color. We didn't care, and many of us didn't even really notice whether the other kids were black, white, or "kinda peach."

    Now that I'm an adult (chronologically, anyway!), I'm not naive. While race relations are great in this country, and you'll never convince me otherwise, there is much progress remaining. The main difference seems to be not with the goal, but with the approaches for reaching that goal. At least it's nice to know, though, that a goal once unable to be shared is now universally shared. Maybe one day we can get past the obstacles of approaches. Maybe.

    Until then, I will continue to salute Dr. King for his contributions to humanity and his inspirational message to people of all races for decades to come.

    Saturday, January 14, 2006

    Pamela Anderson wants to remove bust?

    I can be downright juvenile sometimes! :-) From ABC News:
    FRANKFORT, Ky. - Pamela Anderson is leading a charge to remove a bust of KFC founder Colonel Harland Sanders from the state Capitol. (Must...resist..."bust joke"! - Ed.)

    The actress called the Kentucky native's likeness "a monument to cruelty" to chickens in a statement issued by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the animal rights group.

    The statement did little to ruffle feathers in Gov. Ernie Fletcher's office.

    "Colonel Sanders was one of Kentucky's most distinguished citizens, a great entrepreneur and a fine charitable man of faith, and he certainly has a place in Kentucky history. We believe he warrants appropriate recognition as such," Fletcher spokeswoman Jodi Whitaker said.

    Anderson has been involved in a campaign to raise awareness of conditions in processing plants that supply poultry to the Louisville-based chicken chain.

    In a letter to Fletcher, Anderson detailed alleged abuses of chickens by KFC suppliers. Among her claims, she said workers in a slaughterhouse in West Virginia have been filmed tearing the heads off live birds, spitting tobacco in their eyes, spray-painting their faces and slamming them on the ground.

    KFC spokeswoman Laurie Schalow called the move to oust the colonel "just another misguided publicity stunt by PETA in their attempt to create a vegan society."
    Good luck on trying to convince Kentuckyans to give up chicken, Yummybritches! You'd have a better chance at getting Bill Clinton to leave interns alone.

    I have no problems with vegetarians. Hell, they can eat paint chips, for all I care. But by God (insert animal-named deity here), these vegans who try to foist their menu choices on the rest of us just steam my cabbage! Too bad they get more worked up over a McChicken sandwich than they do, say, a partial-birth abortion. But that's a different topic for a different day.

    I am definitely outraged, though, at workers spitting tobacco in the eyes of the chickens. I mean, does that tobacco get on the rest of the chicken?! Are we eating tobacco-crusted chicken?! I demand an investigation! Hell, it's probably George Bush's fault!

    For those of you on the left, the prior paragraph was sarcasm.

    Friday, January 13, 2006

    Maryland libs screw workers, plus MSM fuzzy math

    What is it about liberals that make them oblivious to economic reality? From CNN:
    By passing the so-called "Wal-Mart healthcare bill," Maryland became the first state in the country to set a law that would fine big companies for not picking up their fair share of employee healthcare coverage. (A news story using the subjective term "fair share"? Nope...no liberal media bias! - Ed.)

    Is this a sign of things to come? Legislators in at least 13 other states proposed similar "Pay or Play" bills in the past year, according to the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL).

    Although the efforts failed in Arizona, California, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Tennessee, and was vetoed by Maryland's and Vermont's governors, the measure is still alive in five other states.

    They include New York, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington.
    OK, I did go to Florida State, where we have a reputation for football and not math. However, my remedial math skills tell me that NY, MA, MN, OR, PA, and WA comes to a total of six states, not five. Nice fact checking there, CNN. Also, notice these SIX states that are attacking capitalism are all blue states. Coincidence? Continuing:
    "More than three-fourths of Wal-Mart associates have health insurance and every Wal-Mart associate in Maryland -- both full-time and part-time -- can become eligible for health coverage that costs as little as $23 per month," Wal-Mart spokeswoman Sarah Clark, said in a statement.

    "There are 786,000 uninsured people in the state of Maryland and less than one-half of one percent work for Wal-Mart. The legislators who voted for this bill have let down hundreds of thousands of Marylanders in need," she said.
    Yes, the liberal MD legislature was so concerned about health care that their approach was to deal with a company responsible for 0.5% of the state's uninsured. And the left likes to think they're intellectual problem-solvers? Finally, the ramifications:
    "Consumers have become so used to Wal-Mart's low prices for so long," he said. If Wal-Mart is forced to incur higher healthcare costs at the same time that it's struggling to grow sales at its stores, "the day of reckoning" could come "when Wal-Mart is forced to raise prices 1 percent to 2 percent and cut its labor force by 1 percent to 2 percent."
    Think higher, pal. It's basic math, really. Businesses that face government-imposed costs have to cut costs in other places (mainly jobs, salaries, wages, and bennies...or store closings) and pass on the costs to customers in the form of higher prices. Who would go to Wal-Mart if their prices were higher? Hmmmmm...you think maybe that's the aim of the left?

    The DC Examiner makes the best observation:
    It would also make Maryland the first state in the nation to impose government-mandated health benefits, a shakedown masquerading as concern for the poor. If legislators really want to help those at the bottom end of the economic ladder, they won't destroy the first rung up: a job.
    There's still something worse than not getting health benefits on the job: not having one.
    If you think Wal-MArt's bennies suck, I've got a novel idea: don't work for them, stupid! Find a better job with better bennies! If your skillset is such that you can't get another job, then you neglected your education and the investing in yourself to acquire more marketable (and higher-earning) skills...and that is Wal-Mart's fault?

    Florida passed a series of tax increases in the late 1980's, when it had a Democratic legislature. One of them was to tax entry fees on freshwater fishing tournaments, such as those held by Bass Anglers Sportsman Society. BASS had tournaments every year in Florida, and those tourneys always generated plenty of tax revenue to cities and states in the form of hotels, restaurants, stores, gas stations, etc. Taxing entry fees (which ranged from $500 - $1500) was a bit steep, especially since the fisherman were already spending a pantload of money. The libs refused to back down, and BASS pulled out of Florida tournaments. The state lost a ton of money, foregoing dollars because they were trying to collect dimes.

    The GOP revolution of 1994 got people who understood how business and economics work into office. In 1997, the new budget repealed the stupid tax, and in 1998, BASS returned to Florida for tournaments. They even moved their headquarters to Celebration, FL, and brought about 200 jobs with them.

    The left's class envy, anti-capitalistic, pro-union attitudes cloud their ability to see economic situations rationally. Then again, "left" and "rational" seldom belong in the same sentence. Anytime liberal legislators try to mess with businesses, they screw everything up.

    Wal-Mart in Maryland will either sue, lay off workers, raise prices, or get the hell out (the latter of which will necessarily result in lost jobs, lost real estate tax revenue, and lost sales tax revenue). The very people that Maryland's liberal elite claim to care about will be the ones sodomized by this stupid law. Congrats, MD! You elected these morons, so best of luck to you.

    "That was different (hic)!"

    Good enough for me, but not for thee...eh, Senator Rumball? From Drudge:
    Conservative activists are eager to point out that Sen Ted Kennedy was on shaky ground accusing the Judge Alito of associating with people opposed to the inclusion of women in private institutions, the WASHINGTON TIMES is fronting on Thursday.

    The eight-term senator belonged to an all-male social club -- the Owl -- at Harvard University. The Owl refused to admit women until it was forced to do so during the 1980s, according to records kept by the HARVARD CRIMSON, the student newspaper.
    Sometimes, extra commentary just isn't needed.

    Corporate taxes up...as is government spending

    From the AP:
    The federal government posted the first budget surplus for December in three years as corporate tax payments hit an all-time high, helping offset a record level for spending, the Treasury Department reported Thursday.

    The department said in its monthly budget report that government receipts surpassed spending by $10.98 billion last month. A year ago, the government ran a deficit of $2.85 billion in December.
    Corporate income tax collections totaled a record $73.5 billion last month, surpassing the old record of $72 billion set in September.
    What? Tax cuts have resulted in more government revenue? NO WAY! Who knew? Oh, yeah...those of us with a basic grasp of economics not tainted by emotional irrational thought process!

    However, let's get this straight: there is no such thing as a corporation paying taxes. Corporations simply collect taxes! Corporations are incapable of paying taxes; therefore, corporate "income taxes" are simply taxes on shareholders, employees, and consumers. The businesses simply collect the money (in the form of savings due to smaller salaries/wages, smaller/no dividends, consumer purchases of higher-than-would-otherwise-be priced goods, etc.) Don't take my word for it, though...just look here.

    Anyway, economics lesson over. Continuing:
    President Bush has vowed to cut the deficit in half by 2009 and still preserve the tax cuts he pushed through Congress in his first term.

    Treasury Secretary John Snow said this week that the administration plans to lower the deficit through stringent controls on spending, which he said would be evident in the budget proposal for 2007 that Bush will send to Congress in early February.
    Excuse me for a moment, please. (BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *snort* AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!) There...I feel much better now (wiping tear from corner of eye).

    So the administration that has spent like a drunken sailor, that threatened to veto the transportation bill if it exceeded his spending cap but subsequently signed it anyway, that ran twice as a fiscal "conservative"...is finally going to throw down the gauntlet on overspending? FIVE years after getting inaugurated the first time, and he's JUST NOW getting around to enacting "stringent" spending controls? You'll have to forgive my cynicism and skepticism, but I'll believe that when I see it!

    In the 1980's, Reagan cut taxes, and revenues to the Treasury nearly doubled. However, a spend-happy Democrat Congress pissed all of the extra money away every time. Now, Bush's tax cuts have caused revenues to the Treasury to increase markedly, and a spend-happy Republican Congress pisses it all away (and I mean on non-defense spending). Libertarian, anyone?