Because I'm Right

Why Is Al Sharpton So Quiet?

2009-08-12T00:37:00.000-04:00

I recently posted the following commentary on a debate web site, in response to the events seen in the video link below:

http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/video/youtube_fight_at_russ_carnahan_town_hall_event_raw/

For those who cannot view the link, it shows the brawl outside the Russ Carnahan town hall event last week, in Missouri, where a black conservative protester was verbally and physically assaulted (and battered) by Service Employees International Union (SEIU) members on scene.

While I agree that the president shouldn't personally be blamed for this isolated attack (that would be completely unfair), there is an issue that deserves more attention here.

President Obama is part of the Democratic Party, which fosters class warfare and race-baiting in order to win elections and monopolize votes (like many leftists accuse Republicans of doing with religious voters).

How does it work? Keep people assured that you'll (DNC) help them, and that others (GOP) don't care about them, and that they (victims/voters) cannot make it in this world without your help---because, after all, they're helpless, abused victims without your aid and oversight.

I've been convinced for years now that black conservatives face the worst kind of racism in this country today: intra-racism. Not only do they have to deal with common racism from non-blacks, but they also face widespread, manufactured alienation from their own culture.

This is fostered by a peddled Democratic Party mantra declaring that only their party truly represents black culture, and that blacks are oppressed without their assistance/intervention. Worst of all, this platform implicitly persuades minority supporters to feel "betrayed" by members of the same race who oppose that notion, and who support smaller government and merit-based achievement without excuses or abuses.

All this does is create a cycle of dependency, which essentially maintains the status quo and continually gives the DNC opportunity to keep having power over people who believe in their own powerlessness.

Do I blame all Democrats for this? No.

Do I believe all Democrats are like this? No.

Do I believe that all/most minority, Democratic voters are incapable of thinking for themselves enough avoid brainwashing? No.

But do I truly believe this problem exists, and that it is almost completely overshadowed by the same, recycled stories of racism that foster an "us-against-them" culture amongst many DNC constituents? Yes.

I'll post a link to another debate site (my first debate there, back when it was somewhat decent and uncorrupted), where I spoke on this issue. I no longer participate on this site, but it sums up my analysis. (The site had word limits for debate rounds, too, keep in mind.)

http://www.elephant-donkey.com...

Again, I don't hate Democrats, or all liberals (maybe "hate" is too strong a word even against some liberals). After all, I used to be one. And that experience helped me see this problem for what it really is, and it's partly why I became a political conservative as I got older.

And lastly, where is Al Sharpton on this matter? Jesse Jackson? Henry "Skip" Gates?

Did they not see that three of the SEIU members were white, and that the assaulted man was black?

Could it be that "racial activists" like Al Sharpton are conditional---and thus, part of the real problem---when it comes to legitimate race issues?

Yes.

Martin Luther King, Jr., famously once said, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God, Almighty, we are free at last!" regarding blacks in America; yet with today's conditional racial equality when it comes to black conservatives, I'm reminded more of British author George Orwell's famous passage:

"All . . . are equal, but some . . . are more equal than others."

Robots and Racism

2009-07-28T17:12:00.001-04:00

I'm dusting off 16 months of inactivity here, so bear with me....

Since the last blog, many news-worthy events have taken place:

Tim Russert, who is mentioned/cited many times throughout this blog, passed away in June 2008; Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) was elected president in November 2008; Sarah Palin, 2008 GOP VP nominee, just resigned as Governor of Alaska; and the country is still going through the worst economic uppercut since the Great Depression (although the NYSE is, at least, back over 9,000).

Here are two articles to read as per another recent news story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090723/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_harvard_scholar

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8168313.stm

Here is my response to the situation, particularly to the second article (BBC) posted above. I originally posted these as comments on another web site.

Some observations in response to the BBC article:

1 - It's amusing how the "calibrat[ion]" comments haven't made much news, unlike the "stupid" comments. Granted, one was during a live national audience, and one was not; that said, where is the news coverage on this?

2 - Why is it that the BBC has to be the easiest source to find about this? Why not any American press? Hmmmm....

3 - Perhaps it's because the president didn't actually say anything of value here! Here's the direct quotation, as per the BBC News article:

"Because this has been ratcheting up and I obviously helped to contribute ratcheting it up, I wanted to make clear in my choice of words I think I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sgt Crowley specifically," Mr Obama said.

"I could have calibrated those words differently," he added.

What does that first paragraph even mean? What was "ratchet[ed]" up? Doesn't that expression usually refer to something being FIXED, and not further complicated/damaged? Maybe he was regarding his phone call to the officer? I don't know.

4 - And really --- I could have calibrated those words differently ? Is the president a cyborg? Obama Five is alive! (Fellow children of the 1980s will likely get that movie reference.) Did reporters next ask the president if John Connors was safe from harm?

All kidding aside, is that really supposed to be an apology? If I shoot someone dead, then say the next day that I probably should have used a water gun instead of a semi-automatic firearm, should the victim's family accept that as compunction/recompense?

Sorry, Mr. President, but your "apology" DOES NOT COMPUTE.

5 - "...I think I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sgt Crowley specifically."

Well, decide for yourself. These were Obama's exact words from Wednesday night:

"This still haunts us. Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof he was in own home. What I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact."
(source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090723/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_harvard_scholar)

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, when asked if the president wished to revise those comments, said this on Thursday:

"Let me be clear. [President Obama] was not calling the officers stupid, okay? He was ensuring – I think, again, denoting that at a certain point the situation got far out of hand, and I think all sides understand that."
(source: http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/07/24/does-obama-regret-saying-the-police-acted-stupidly-nope/)

So he wasn't calling the officer stupid, just racist? Or, more like it, he wasn't apologizing at all.

Sure, the president allegedly had a conversation with the officer, and even said some kind things about the man, after the fact. But what's still missing is a public apology.

I understand it must be difficult for a president to do this publicly (when not for political gain/posturing/pandering; e.g., like "apologizing" for slavery through Congress, though not in the form of legislation). But what separates this incident is that Obama did indeed directly antagonize specific individuals (the Cambridge PD, particularly those involved with the Gates arrest) publicly—before the appropriate facts were even released.

He knowingly and willingly---and publicly---damaged the character of specific individuals without merit. This, I believe, merits a public apology.

If he felt it appropriate to slander them before the press, he should have the backbone to apologize in similar fashion. Even if he had said he "should have calibrated" his words, instead of just that he "could have"—that would have been basic acknowledgment.

To me, this sounds like another classic case of "I'm not sorry, I'm just sorry I got caught."

Obama, the humanity!

2008-03-14T22:24:00.000-04:00

The most recent crisis facing Barack Obama centers on his longtime/former pastor of Trinity United Church in Illinois, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr.

The man who married Barry Dunham and his wife, and who baptized their children, was recently caught on tape blaming America for 9/11; condemning America for supporting Israel; and (my personal favorite) that the American government created/invented Acquired Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) just to punish "people of color."

Wright had been Obama's pastor for approximately twenty years. Recently, the presidential candidate went on record to say that his former pastor was not overly controversial.

Just last month, Michelle Obama told a crowd of her husband's supporters that "for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country...[because] America is downright mean." These words struck a nerve in many Americans at the time.

However, after hearing typical sermons and messages from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, one can hardly blame her for feeling disgraced by the United States. When one is brainwashed week after week from a trusted authority, she is liable to make occasional ignorant statements.

Barack Obama today released two statements, including a Live interview with Fox News within the past hour.

Reporter Major Garrett, of Fox News Channel, asked the presidential candidate if he would have quit the controversial church had he attended any of the sermons where Pastor Wright was documented making inflamatory remarks. After some hemming and hawing, Obama finally answered, "Had he continued to make [such statements], yes, I would have quit."

Obama's first statement from earlier today was even less direct.

"I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies," said Obama.

If that is true, how long before a reporter asks if he now denounces his wife's comments from last month?

Or even more important, how long before Hillary Clinton and John McCain are asked whether or not they support thegovernment's manufacturing of AIDS for minorities?

In all seriousness, this is a big issue for Obama because he's now balancing on thin ice with not only white voters who have so far supported his campaign in droves during primary season; Obama is also walking on thin ice with the portion of the black community that agrees wholeheartedly with Reverend Wright.

Obama cannot afford to let Hillary Clinton take some of Obama's disaffected black electorate. And Hillary cannot afford to get too involved in this controversy, either. She needs to play the high road--but then again, that's never been a Clintonian staple.

The juciest irony of this whole situation is that Rev. Wright's documented sermons basically validate Geraldine Ferraro's recent controversial statement that Obama is a leading candidate because he is black. After all, Reverend Wright endorsed Obama from the pulpit by repeatedly and deliberately pointing out Barack's black experience.

He just conveniently left out the fact that Obama was raised by a white woman named "mom."

Lord, hear our prayer.

Hillary-ous!

2008-03-11T20:17:00.000-04:00

It's 2008... do you know what your Democratic presidential candidates are doing?

First of all, watching the Clinton campaign fight tooth and nail for the nomination has been incredibly amusing. What's even more amusing is imagining Hillary losing most states; popular votes; polls; and delegates--yet still becoming the nominee.

That won't cause any riots!

Another fiasco is Florida and Michigan. Leave it to the Democratic Party to find a way to pussyfoot around the rules to which they themselves agreed. That Clinton even brags about winning the Michigan primary, a ballot on which she was the only nominee, is a joke. (But a funny one.)

Equally hilarious is the Clinton campaign's justification for having new elections in FL and MI simply because Hillary won the battleground states like TX, OH, MI, FL, and other big electoral college states like NY and CA.

The major flaw of that thinking, of course, is that those "victories" (FL and MI aside), came against another Democrat. Implying, as Governor (PA) Ed Rendell did this past week on "Meet the Press," that Clinton is a better candidate because she carried the big states in the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES--is laughable.

Unless the Clinton camp says they're implying that McCain isn't very conservative, this strategy makes little sense. But to say McCain isn't conservative doesn't make much sense, either; plus, it would contradict her other mantra, which is that McCain is just another George W. Bush.

How well a candidate does in a primary is not exactly indicative of how the candidate will do in that same state come general election -- especially when many voters throw their votes during primaries, as was the case in OH and TX recently, where many GOP voters voted for Hillary, just to keep the Dem candidates bloodthirsty for a few more months.

Lastly, another great irony is how Hillary Clinton said Barack Obama would make a great VP candidate -- despite all of the negative things she has to say about him not being ready to serve "on day one."

Apparently, if he'd have to take over as president, it'd at least be on day two.

Keep up the good work! I'll get the popcorn.

Harry Potter and the Misplaced Political Agenda

2007-11-23T12:32:00.000-05:00

Author J.K. Rowling recently stated that a primary character from her popular Harry Potter series, Albus Dumbledore, was gay.

Uh, no.

When I finished reading the series, Dumbledore was not gay. When I read the series again, he will not be gay. Homosexuality was never a central storyline, plot point, main idea, tone, or anything of the novels--let alone anything involving a central character.

It is tacky to create a groundbreaking literary series, like Rowling did, then to go back after they're finished and essentially say, "Oh, by the way, this is an important point I left out of the books...."

If it was important, it should have been in the stories themselves. What Rowling did was bleed her own emotional politics into her work post-facto, which was not only tasteless, but damaging to potential fans and readers across the world.

Forever.

Now there will be scores of children (and adults) who won't read the books because one of the characters is allegedly gay. There will be many parents who won't permit their children to read the series because of its new (and ridiculous) ties to homosexuality.

Rowling and supporters may argue that this hype is good because it teaches tolerance; but they would completely miss the point: If people won't read the books now, because of its new homosexual undertones, they won't learn the alleged lessons of tolerance espoused within the pages.

DUH-UHHH!

Having read the series, I can attest to the fact that tolerance is an issue throughout--but on a reasonable, non-ideological basis. The general concepts of tolerance, open-mindedness, and consideration for others, are decent morals and lessons promoted through various actions in the stories.

However, this newly tacked-on, forced, desperate attempt to be more tolerant (I guess) was unnecessary in order to teach the values of behaving and thinking respectfully toward others.

Perhaps Rowling's intentions were good, but her idea for expressing those intentions was horrible.

Again, it is absurd that Rowling retroactively changed a key character because it now associates the series with the issue of homosexuality, which has NOTHING to do with any of the stories in the series. She has thus alienated a potential audience and used "tolerance" as the shield from attacks.

Her books have enough about tolerance already. She didn't have to desperately reach back and change characters to say, "Now I'm more tolerant."

Where will it stop? Who's next to change?

Perhaps Harry actually had a drug addiction, and he secretly entered a rehabilitation program that cured his "illness" rather than just keeping him behind bars for years.

Maybe Hermione Granger became a prostitute to help feed her secret illegitimate children, before she adopted orphans from Africa and Asia who were dying of AIDS and SARS, respectively. Thanks to compassion from society and tolerance for her "life choices" she was able to get back on the straight and narrow and marry Ron, have two legitimate children, and live happily ever after.

(Then she cured her babies and, in her spare time, fixed New Orleans's levee system.)

It's possible that Ron Weasley headed the U.N. and stopped feuding in Darfur, Sudan, and ended AIDS with a magic spell. After that, he single-handedly paid African Reparations for America's history of slavery and allowed marijuana use for all citizens because, hey man, it's the earth.

(Then he did something that Africa actually needs, and helped limit the spread of malaria, a much larger epidemic than AIDS in that continent.)

Or maybe Draco Malfoy actually headed a rock band that led the revolution to control global warmng--by ingeniously holding concerts around the world that consumed tons of energy and required thousands of people to loiter and litter on grass fields and stadiums in support for the clean earth movement.

Finally, perhaps Professor McGonegal, the new Hogwarts Headmistress, banned organized religion and any association and reference thereof, except for Islam, because it was too often misunderstood as not being peaceful. No more Christmas trees, references to God, Christian symbols. No more yamicas for Jewish wizards, either.

All in the name of tolerance.

(Except tolerance for the intolerant, of course.)

Long story short, I have nothing personal against homosexuals in general; and neither tolerance nor prejudice toward homosexuality is the basis for my opinion.

I know the series was Rowling's creation, and she's allowed to say what she wants about it. But it's not that she shouldn't be allowed to say things like "Dumbledore was gay" -- it's that she shouldn't say it. In the best interest of her fans and potential future fans, it's desperate and alienating. She should write another book about gay people if there's a related message she wants to deliver.

And for those who think I'm just a bigoted, closed-minded individual--first, get a clue. Second, I promise not to change anyone else's histories or private lives either, when I again read the series.

For example, I won't pretend that the evil wizards with whom Harry, as an auror, combats are all radical Islamo-Facists. Nor will I have Hermione grow up to run a corporate empire that benefits the economy AND employs elves.

But did I mention they'd be homosexual, migrant-worker elves from Darfur?

Say It Ain't So, Do (...novan)

2007-09-22T20:15:00.000-04:00

Donovan McNabb, quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles (a storied National Football League franchise), recently said in a televised interview that he is unfairly scrutinized by media and fans because he is black. He defended his comments a few days after the interview aired on HBO.

McNabb claimed that “there [are] not that many African-American quarterbacks, so we have to do a little bit extra” and that white quarterbacks like Carson Palmer and Peyton Manning “don’t get criticized as much as we [black QBs] do.”

Somewhere, Rush Limbaugh is smiling.

McNabb is the same quarterback to whom conservative radio show host Limbaugh referred when he said (in 2003) that the media want him to succeed, in part, because he is black. Limbaugh resigned from ESPN within a week of making that statement due to the delayed media firestorm that erupted in the following days. In fact, these were Limbaugh’s exact words:

"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

Here is an excerpt from anOctober 2, 2003, story posted on ESPN’s web site:

Negative reaction did not come immediately. But on Tuesday, McNabb told the Philadelphia Daily News: "It's sad that you've got to go to skin color. I thought we were through with that whole deal."

From there, the firestorm spread quickly. Democratic presidential candidates Wesley Clark, Howard Dean and Rev. Al Sharpton called for ESPN to fire Limbaugh. Others in both political and athletic circles also lashed out at Limbaugh's comments.

The National Association of Black Journalists also called for ESPN to "separate itself" from Limbaugh.

"ESPN's credibility as a journalism entity is at stake," NABJ president Herbert Lowe said in a news release." It needs to send a clear signal that the subjects of race and equal opportunity are taken seriously at its news outlets."

McNabb also provided more reaction on Wednesday.

"It's somewhat shocking to hear that on national TV from him," McNabb said. "It's not something that I can sit here and say won't bother me."

To be specific, Wesley Clark accused Limbaugh’s opinion as being “hateful and ignorant speech.” Howard Dean, now Democratic National Committee chair, said, "To imply that the success of an African-American is an undeserved gift from a biased media is absurd and offensive.” Then NAACP-president Kweisi Mfume said the following: "If this is the future of ESPN, I think fair-minded fans, who tune in for sports news coverage, and not for racist views, should get their sports on other networks. It is appalling that ESPN has to go to this extent to try to increase viewership."

And, of course, Al Sharpton called for a boycott of ESPN and said, "We cannot sit back in silence. That would be consent and we would have lost self-respect."

Some popular sports critics also contributed to the debate. One of ESPN’s highest-rated shows, Pardon the Interruption (PTI), a "Crossfire"-type sports talk show starring two Washington Post columnists (Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon), played a large role in spreading both the story and the controversy.

Kornheiser, who now co-hosts Monday Night Football on ESPN, and who is white, saidin January of 2005, "What Limbaugh did was race baiting in its purest form. He went out there to be controversial. He knew he could be controversial about race, and he picked on this guy [McNabb]."

Wilbon, who is black, said in January 2005, "I know black and white guys root for [McNabb]. I root for Donovan McNabb and if Rush Limbaugh doesn't like it, I mean, that's tough. I root for him. I think Donovan McNabb should do what he's always done, which is ignore Rush Limbaugh."

On January 27, 2005, Limbaugh responded to these comments on his radio show:

I said [the media] 'had a social agenda.' I said you guys can't let go. By the way, you're still doing stories on black quarterbacks. We've had Doug Williams. We've had Steve McNair. Now we're going to have McNabb. You're still doing stories on how 'Isn't it wonderful black quarterbacks are getting in the Super Bowl?' I mean, you're still doing the stories, and there's no question you feel good about it. So what? That's fine and dandy. All I'm saying is, that that led you to overlook what I thought were some performance deficiencies in McNabb at that time. Of course he's better! The statistics indicate that. It doesn't even need to be substantiated that he's better [than in- and before 2003, when Rush's controversial comments were first made]."

So now that Donovan McNabb, the media’s unequivocally-declared victim of 2003, has made “racially charged” (euphemistic for racist) comments, where are the same media who attacked Limbaugh for his comments in 2003? How did the mass media, whom McNabb had just accused of being racist, react?

So far, Howard Dean hasn’t accused McNabb’s comments of being “absurd and offensive.” Wesley Clark hasn’t classified McNabb’s assessment of media scrutiny as “ignorant and hateful.” The NAACP has been uncharacteristically silent on the matter thus far. Al Sharpton has not demanded that McNabb be fired from the Philadelphia Eagles, or that fans boycott the team.

Jason Whitlock, who is black, of FOXSports.com said in a recent online column:

“Donovan Mcnabb is right, black NFL quarterbacks face more pressure, scrutiny and criticism than their white counterparts. The assertion is neither debatable nor controversial. In fact, when [HBO’s] James Brown’s sit-down interview with the star quarterback was over, I wondered how McNabb’s comments had caused so much of a stir. He’d simply stated the obvious in the most inoffensive way possible. McNabb’s comments were not angry, defiant, or whiny. They were matter of fact. They were also incomplete and, therefore, out of context.”

Were Rush Limbaugh's comments "angry, defiant, and whiny"? Remember, there was no backlash until McNabb responded to Limbaugh's Sunday comments the following Tuesday.

Popular ESPN.com blogger Matt Mosley, who is white, concluded that “…upon further review, I don't think it's really my place to beat up McNabb for his comments. We [the media, not regular fans/people] sit around and complain that players aren't candid enough, but then we immediately condemn them when they say something that might be deemed unpopular. McNabb couldn't help the timing of that interview. He didn't know he was going to stagger around the field and play poorly two nights before it aired. It's what the guy felt at the time, so I don't have a problem with it.”

So his comments were controversial only because he played poorly two nights before the interview aired? Interesting.

In fact, the most noticeable refutation of McNabb’s comments so far has come from other black NFL quarterbacks, namely Vince Young of the Tennessee Titans and Jason Campbell of the Washington Redskins.

Said Campbell:

“That's [McNabb's] opinion, and as an African-American quarterback, I have to support other African-American quarterbacks. But it's something I can't get caught up in. I look at all quarterbacks as the same. I support every guy who's playing the position. It's the hardest position to play in professional sports, and you get graded differently than any other position on the field. Nine timesout of 10 the ball is in your hands, so everybody is watching you. Since you're in the spotlight, the mistakes get recognized. You need thick skin and a short memory.”

Vince Young was more concise, having said, “That is [McNabb’s] opinion. I really feel that myself, black or white quarterbacks, we all go through something because that is the life of a quarterback.”

Kornheiser and Wilbon reacted this way on the September 20th edition of PTI:

WILBON: “I’m glad. Grateful. That Donovan Mcnabb had the guts to stand by his statement. To back it up and say, ‘Here’s what I think.’ Because these other two kids [Young and Campbell] are in their early 20s, okay? And we know what happens with youngsters of that age now, regardless of whether they play sports or not. Theyknow what happened today. And apparently, Vince Young, who also said that “this is not my fight to fight” –really now? No, it isn’t your fight to fight. Because guys like James Harris, and Marlon Brisco, and Joe Gillam, and Doug Williams, and Warren Moon—they fought the fight so that you—you self-absorbed, young punk—don’t have to fight the fight. So even if you have to say, ‘You know what, I haven’t had this treatment, but I acknowledge what came before me—I want to hear that from the young quarterbacks. And they’re great players, they’re great talents. I want to hear a fuller conversation, and thankfully, Donovan Mcnabb started it.”

KORNHEISER: “Yeah…. Operative word, young quarterbacks. Theymay not know all these things; Donovan Mcnabb, in his early 30s now, knows all these things. I agree with Donovan Mcnabb about a higher level of scrutiny, but not in all cases. . . .”

WILBON: “But here’s what I’m more concerned about: I want the young quarterbacks, because they’re the future of this league, black or white, black specifically—they have an obligation, okay, not to anyone else but the people who came before them, Tony. So I don’t want to hear Vince Young say ‘It’s not my fight to fight.’ ”

KORNHEISER: “Here’s what I suspect: That by tonight, somebody will help them with that education. And by tomorrow, they’ll be a little bit more appreciative of the people who went down that road before.”

WILBON: “Good, because that’s all, I think, that Donovan Mcnabb wants. And by the way, I’m glad there’s so much progress that they haven’t faced it. But know what came before you. That’s my real issue with this.”

Maybe I’m not old enough to understand, but where in that entire exchange did either Kornheiser or Wilbon address McNabb’s accusation that modern-day media criticize black quarterbacks more than white ones? How was he trying to pay respect to oppressed black QBs from decades past by accusing the current media of being racist?

The rationale behind this defense of McNabb’s comments is perplexing. It would be like defending a Jewish person’s accusations of mass media being anti-Semitic—mostly to honor the memory of any Jews who were unfairly treated in the past. There is no logical connection, and it is wrong to assume so much on such little evidence.

Long story short: Kornheiser, Wilbon, Mosley, Whitlock, and most other mass media so far—are McNabb apologists. There exists a double-standard here, and the media cannot bring themselves to admit it, or else they’re blind to it. I’m not suggesting Donovan McNabb is a racist, but his comments were just as racist—if not more so—than Rush Limbaugh’s comments in 2003, but with not even a speck of the same media outrage.

Let’s be clear. McNabb may not have directly called the mass media racist, but the actions he accused them of utilizing are racist in nature, and therefore the connection is implicit, but unambiguous. Yet the National Association of Black Journalists, who represents those whom McNabb charged with racism, are conveniently silent on this matter.

Rush Limbaugh’s January 2005 comments were accurate, as evidenced by the fact that just last year, the biggest story of the Super Bowl was that it was head-coached by two black men.

(In fact, somewhat ironically, both Carson Palmer and Peyton Manning have black head coaches.)

By McNabb’s rationale, white NFL running backs (Mike Alstott and...?) face the most pressure and scrutiny because there are only a few of them.

No celebrities face more scrutiny than black, conservative political figures. There needs to be more attention paid to this overt racism than to McNabb or Limbaugh. But if you are going to hold one person accountable for something, hold the other one accountable for the same--if not a worse--offense.

I lost some respect for the Eagles QB with these latest comments because he revealed himself a hypocrite. Remember, McNabb was the one who said back in 2003, “It's sad that you've got to go to skin color. I thought we were through with that whole deal.”

It’s still sad, #5.

God Bless

2007-04-18T17:13:00.000-04:00

Forever in our hearts and prayers.

Imus In the Mourning

2007-04-12T20:02:00.000-04:00

I may have listened to Don Imus's radio show once in my life. And if I ever have listened, I guarantee it wasn't to the whole show. That said, Don Imus did not deserve to be fired from his radio show.

I know he's done lots of philanthropic work throughout the years, especially for underprivileged children. I also know that he's made off-color comments before, including those about race.

But Imus's show is, and always has been, known for provocation. From examples I've seen in recent days, the "nappy-headed hos" comment is far from his worst ever. Yet while known "shock jocks" like Howard Stern continue to feature skits like "Black Jeopardy" (where random black contestants have to answer trivia questions by first saying, "What am"), Imus is fired in alleged public outrage.

Another reason a double standard exists here is because Imus is being censured by those with whom he'd so often ideologically agreed. Most of those leading the charge against Imus were those leading the charge in defense of Howard Stern, and against the FCC for tough regulations after Janet Jackson's boob performed at the Super Bowl.

But apparently Don didn't go down without parting words.

According to AOL News (4/12/07), Imus said on his last broadcast with CBS earlier today that Al Sharpton should apologize to the recently exonorated Duke University lacrosse players, whom Sharpton chastised publicly and nationally last year after allegations of rape were charged against them.

Don't hold your breath, Don.

Approximately one hour ago, it was announced that Imus will meet with the Rutgers University women's basketball team tonight. I wouldn't be surprised if, after this meeting, the team supports him and leads the call for someone to give him a second chance.

And within a year or two, a women's basketball scholarship will probably exist at Rutgers University in his name. Or maybe a foundation. Or something.

And someone will give him another chance, like maybe XM satellite radio, or even a major affiliate.

(And his studio will be at the Rutgers campus, of course.)

It's just strange enough to be possible.

But while networks (yes, owned by the same companies that produce rap albums) say their reasons behind the firings were because of "the people" and not because of the withdrawn advertising dollars, we know better.

And we also know better than to think justice has truly been served in the firing of Don Imus.

Oh, that wacky liberal media bias

2007-03-04T07:43:00.000-05:00

As I write this, at this second, the AOL Welcome menu contains a picture of Al Sharpton, to further remind members of the story about how former senator Strom Thurmond's ancestors owned Al Sharpton's ancestors (as slaves). That story broke roughly one week ago.

That story was also on the Yahoo! News front page, the nightly news shows, and even made the front page of many major newspapers across the country.

Yet here's a headline/story that I accidentally found yesterday, buried in page SEVEN of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, obscurely placed in the corner of the page:

Obama's ancestors owned slaves, genealogical researcher claims

So why did the media consider the Sharpton/Thurmond story MUCH bigger news than a similar story regarding a presidential candidate for 2008?

Why didn't Yahoo! News have this headline on its front page?

Why didn't the AOL Welcome menu even have this for a headline, let alone on the front page?

In fact, why does the AOL Welcome menu STILL have a feature of Sharpton's story instead of this news? How newsworthy was the Sharpton/Thurmond story really? If anything, it was interesting -- and not major news.

But the Obama story is major news. Barrack Obama, and even other candidates, will still have to discuss issues like racism, progress since slavery, and mixed-race marriages -- and this story could serve as a suitable backdrop.

The Sharpton/Thurmond "news" is hardly more than trivia fodder.

Another major headline from yesterday's news outlets (including AOL's Welcome menu and the Yahoo! News front page) was this:

GOP Candidates Criticize Coulter for Slur

The first thing to notice is that THIS story is actually datelined, and written by a journalist from a major newspaper. (The Obama story was merely a blip off the AP wires.)

Here is the excerpted third paragraph of the article:

Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference before an overflow crowd on Friday, Ms. Coulter said, "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I -- so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."

Now here is the following (fourth) paragraph of the same article:

Mr. Edwards's aides responded with an e-mail message that attacked Ms. Coulter and urged supporters to donate to Mr. Edwards's campaign. "John was singled out for a personal attack because the Republican establishment knows he poses the greatest threat to their power," said his campaign manager, David E. Bonior. "Since they have nothing real to use against him, Coulter's resorting to the classic right-wing strategy of riling up hate to smear a progressive champion."

First of all, Coulter is a much better writer than she is a public speaker. What she said here, while I chuckled in private, was wrong to say in public, especially at a GOP-representative event. What annoys me most about this is how Coulter lowered herself to typical liberal standards of name-calling and then skirting the fact that she did so.

But all that considered, the Edwards campaign response was downright embarrassing.

Bet on this: Coulter's comments against Edwards will be media-covered much more than was the story of Edwards's former campaign bloggers spewing hate speech to Christians several weeks ago.

In fact, don't be surprised if John Edwards plays the "victim" from this story, to try and salvage his tarnished image from the blogging scandal. I can see him now, responding to the questions about that incident something like this:

"Well, I try to learn from everything that happens in life. I've learned from my experiences helping people against medical wrongdoings and corrupt insurance companies. I've learned from serving the great state of North Carolina in the United States Senate. I've learned from the tragic death of my son and personal hero. I've learned from traveling across America and meeting so many diverse and wonderful people in this country, like Grace Jones of Huntsville, Alabama, who suffers painful dialysis because she can't afford medical costs and prescription kidney-aiding drugs. And I've even learned from people like little Joey McDonald, who raised money at a lemonade stand to support John Kerry and myself in 2004.

"But I also learned from the mistakes. I learned from 2004. [Notice no acknowledgement that it was a defeat, a loss, that America didn't vote for him.] And I learned from the unfortunate incident several weeks ago, concerning the bloggers we had to let go due to unacceptable behavior, which I do not condone, and never supported.

"I also hope other people can learn from that. People like Ann Coulter. And I hope they can realize that this language is wrong, and that America can do better than stoop to that type of dialogue. I learned from my mistakes, I did something about it, and I hope Miss Coulter, and many others, can learn from her mistake, as well."

Does that sound like enough B.S. to be accurate?

To close this entry, here are the other headlines from yesterday's AOL Politics News front page:

*Obama Blames U.S. for Stronger Iran
*GOP Hopefuls Court Conservatives
*McCain Under Fire for 'Wasted' Lives Remark
*Romney Losing Edge in New Hampshire
*Richardson Urges Rivals to Play Nice
*Edwards Apologizes for 2002 War Vote
*McCain Firm on Iraq Despite Cost to Candidacy

Notice a trend? Six of those headlines make Republicans look weak or inept, while three of the same headlines make Democrats look proactive and conscientious.

This happens all the time. It's a combination of hilarious, infuriating, and sad. But the worst part is that it is typical.

Liberal media bias? Even Stevie Wonder can see it!

(Oh... do I need sensitivity training now?)

My propaganda has a first name... it's O-S-C-A-R...

2007-02-25T23:12:00.000-05:00

I'll keep this brief.

Though I have to admit that I currently have on my TV screen the 79th annual Academy Awards, I will write this anyway.

The moment that I've been hoping would come and go quickly finally just came and went; the "Al Gore was and is the greatest politician and overall person on the planet EVER" orgy has ended now that An Inconvenient Truth finally won the "Best Documentary" Oscar.

The boot-licking that took place on stage from the movie's director, in homage to Mr. Gore, isn't what moved me to write this; it's what was said during the walk to the stage, announced by the event's emcee, while the music was playing, that deserves some attention.

I will paraphrase, but only barely. The message said was this:

"[The director and crew] were scheduled to film in New Orleans the night before Hurricane Katrina struck. The event helped bring home the threat and the impact of global warming."

No, that was a stunning reminder that hurricanes are real.

Hurricane Katrina was a Category 3 against New Orleans; the levees that could no longer support the flooded lakes were the real disaster, infrastructurally speaking. Broken levees have nothing to do with global warming.

The Academy must have been jealous of Spike Lee for being to the first to exploit a misrepresentation of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans; and for his use of cable television to do so. Thus, not to be outdone, they had to point-blank LIE to the Oscars audience.

Al Gore gave his speech, his second time on stage receiving gushing accolaids already, to rousing applause. He said it was a moral issue, not a political one; if that is so, he may want to remind the Academy, or ABC -- whomever was responsible for the emcee narration -- that it is immoral to lie to millions of people.

In closing, the best part of the ceremony so far has been the winner for Best Supporting Actress (the former AmericanIdol contestant, from "Dreamgirls"), who thanked God not only once, but twice. You go, girl.

How would the first African-American head coach in a Super Bowl feel about an openly gay NBA player?

2007-02-15T13:14:00.000-05:00

I'm tired of sports writers and analysts trying to articulate the standard for how athletes and society should treat certain issues today.

When it comes to free speech, most well-known columnists and ESPN figures (including, but not limited to, Tony Kornheiser, Mike Lupica, Michael Wilbon, and Skip Bayless) will almost always favor in side of the First Amendment, whether they understand the amendment's reach or not.

When it comes to the Second Amendment, however, these same names traditionally and predictably act as if gun ownership is inherently irresponsible and irreversibly dangerous; that athletes have no business owning a firearm; and the like.

Now the major hot-button issue is gay professional athletes, particularly male athletes -- especially pro basketball players. Former National Basketball Association (NBA) player John Amaechi has recently blitzed the media with his "coming out" party, thanks to a new book promotion. I suppose the book is about being gay while playing pro basketball, based on the focus of every interview I've seen and heard regarding it.

What bothers me about the coverage of this "issue" has been the double standard and duplicity of opinion by columnists and talking heads. The intial popular reaction to this was generally "Will this book and publicity now 'open the door' for more gay active professional athletes to reveal their sexual identity publicly?" And almost to a person, the pundits said they hope this exposure helps, even though there is "still a long way to go" before openly gay pro athletes are widely accepted.

So then what becomes the story in the following days? How current athletes react to the exposure of this issue. "How would you react to an openly gay teammate?" This gives an opportunity for media soundbytes and video clips, while reporters and talk show hosts salivate with hopes of something bigoted being recorded; because then they can (1) lecture the public as to how they SHOULD feel; and (2) have something to write and argue about for several more days, if not weeks, or longer.

First of all, why do so many sports writers and columnists hope this new book "opens the door" for openly gay pro athletes? This isn't an issue in women's sports, where several WNBA players are openly gay, including former MVP and perennial all-star Sheryl Swoops. But it's apparently a big deal for men, who apparently need to be more sensitive and in agreement with sports writers and other champions of open homosexuality.

The faulty premise of these self-righteous writers and network commentators is this: Sexual preference is one's own business. Heaven forbid the NBA never has an openly gay athlete because -- of all things -- the person doesn't want his private life exploited by mass media, let alone for political purposes. If one does not want to "come out," he shouldn't be pressured to do so by critics and analysts who need a further angle to the original story.

Especially when those same media personalities pretend they want someone to champion a morally correct political or social cause.

The latest media-cornered NBA player was Tim Hardaway, who said in the closing minutes of a recent interview: "I hate gay people, so I let it be known. I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people. I am homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States." While this was a clearly over-the-top reaction, my question to the media is this: Why aren't you advocating his free speech rights now -- especially after you forced the issue upon him to begin with?

I watch "Pardon the Interruption" on ESPN when I can, and I generally like both main hosts of the show, even if I probably share opposite political views most of the time. But one thing I haven't liked of late is how, twice, they've added a segment where they've criticized Rush Limbaugh for "race baiting" -- while they themselves promote homosexuality/homophobia-baiting. One example was their criticism of Lebron James's comments, in response to a reporter, about how he thinks gay athletes should tell their teammates of their sexual orientation.

Michael Wilbon dismissed the comments as Lebron not being old enough to know the magnitude and relevance of the overall social issue. Tony Kornheiser said that this type of fear/homophobia is too common with the pro athlete culture. But the whole time they were lightly criticizing Lebron James, they themselves were implying that an athlete shouldn't have to tell his teammates if he doesn't want to -- and shame on silly, inexperienced Lebron for suggesting gay teammates should divulge such info.

But wait a minute....

I thought we want that door opened for an active, male pro athlete to be openly gay. I thought that was the goal toward which we still have "lots of work to do" or "a long way to go" before achieving.

Yes, folks. That is a double-standard and a mixed message.

The same thing happened during Super Bowl preparations, when Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy became the first African-American/black head coaches to coach in a Super Bowl (the National Football League's chamipionship game). After the game, Tony Dungy became the first African-American (black) head coach to win a Super Bowl.

Moments later, Tony Dungy became the first African-American head coach to say he was going to Walt Disney World in a post-Super Bowl TV commercial. Lovie Smith became the first African-American head coach to lose a Super Bowl game. That still leaves open the possibility someday for another to become the first African-American head coach to tie a Super Bowl; the first African-American head coach to coach a Super Bowl in overtime; the first African-American head coach to beat a Caucasion-Anglo-Saxon-American head coach in a Super Bowl; and the first African-American head coach to turn down the Walt Disney World ad after winning the Super Bowl.

First of all, I have utmost respect for both Dungy and Smith. And I love how they handled the media blitz that focused so much on their skin color (while the media simultaneously claimed it was with interest of eliminating people from focusing just on skin color in the future). Both men are brilliant, classy individuals, and great head coaches. That said, both coaches stressed how one day, they'd love for it not to be a big deal that a coach is black; ironically, they had to say that over and over again during the two weeks leading to the big game.

The bottom line is this: I don't care whether or not there will EVER be an active, openly gay, male athelte in major American pro sports. But I'm tired of the moral high horse that sportswriters and pundits already ride from column to column, camera to camera (let alone while criticizing conservative others for allegedly doing the same thing), trying to influence the general public.

They are sports writers. Not ambassadors. Not elected political figures. They're not even the Pope.

So if a gay, professional male athlete in America wants to expose his sexual preference publicly, that's fine. I just hope he doesn't let the media exploit him in the interest of anti-exploitation.

And I hope he has a few guns, too.

Happy Birthday, Blog

2006-11-09T03:23:00.000-05:00

Two years and counting.

I'll update this blog with something legitimate soon, but hey, not bad for two years.

UPB

Who's the Real Enemy? (America, of course!)

2006-07-19T15:00:00.000-04:00

In the midst of the escalated mid-east conflict, mostly between Hezbollah in Lebanon and Israel, it was just a matter of time before the USA had to be considered at major fault for this turmoil -- and not by either side involved.

But by our own (and international) mass-marketed media.

As usual, AOL did its part for the Anti-Bush Administration Media Coalition, as today's "Welcome Menu" blasted images from Lebanon with the headline:

Angry Americans Flee Lebanon: Families Complain of Delays: Did U.S. Bungle Evacuation?

(And believe it or not, FEMA was not blamed by the press.)

Just in case that was NOT the biggest story from Lebanon at the moment, AOL added to its list. In case online users mistakenly blamed all of America for the "bungled" evacuation, AOL clarified that political conservatives are the ones who should be ashamed today. The headline directly below the one listed above read:

Conservative Star Loses Race: Ties to Scandal Sink Ambitions.

This Reuters story is about "Ralph Reed, a poster boy for the U.S. Christian right who helped promote the rise of Republican political power in the 1990s. . . ." The actual Reuters headline read: "Reed Concedes in Georgia Primary: Conservative Darling Had Led Christian Coalition."

Poster boy? Darling? It is difficult to read this article without the implicit roars and high fives of the Reuters news agency and AOL executives overshadowing the story itself.

And yet still, in case AOL users forgot that the Bush administration and political conservatives are incompetent, one more headline was added to the welcome menu. This is also the first time in almost a week that AOL has posted any headline about Iraq.

Of course, it is negative: Civilian Deaths Soar in Iraq.

OK, so let's get this straight: (1) The U.S. is the country/group who is TRULY wronging innocent people in Lebanon; (2) political conservatives are scandalous losers; and (3) the war in Iraq is still going horribly wrong and is immoral.

Wow, and all that with a "Good Afternoon." Thanks, AOL!

It is astounding how anyone can still defend the mass media, or even consider them "right-wing" simply because many are owned by corporations. It evidences the ridiculous lack of logic and common sense by those who make such claims.

Need more evidence of the Anti-Bush Administration (and anti-Israel) Media Coalition (ABAMC)? Here are some of the major headlines from past two New York Times Sunday Editions:

(7/9/2006)

*Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit
*Ally warned Bush on Keeping Spying from Congress
*The New Gender Divide: At Colleges, Women Are Leaving Men In the Dust
*Leftist Predicts Unrest Without Complete Recount of Mexican Election

(7/16/06)

*UN Demands End to North Korean Missile Program
*As Tensions Rise, U.S. and Moscow Falter on Trade
*Lieberman Hopes His Fate Isn't Sealed With a Kiss: President Bush's embrace of Senator Lieberman has become a symbol for some of an unforgivable alliance
*6 of more than 30 Iraqi Hostages Freed Unharmed
*Israel Widens Scope of Attacks Across Lebanon
*At Crossroads, Hezbollah Goes on the Attack
*War Gives Israeli Leader Political Capital
*Public Schools Perform Near Private Ones in Study
*Are There Enough [Home-]Buyers to Go Around?
*An Uprising on the Right in a World That Leans Left

Amazingly, Yahoo! News has the most balanced and objective set of headlines today.

And that's all it takes, which is the secret to any "Coalition" news outlet worth its salt: not everyone reads the full stories, but almost everyone will read the headlines.

So bravo, AOL. You have now actively taken part in trying to politicize the conflict in Israel to boost anti-conservative appeal.

And you did the rest of the Coalition proud.

ObraGORE y Amigos

2006-07-11T20:53:00.000-04:00

Sound familiar?

A heated presidential race ends with a conservative winner and a liberal loser who delays concession of the defeat.

The liberal presidential candidate hints at conspiracy by raising suspicion of election fraud, and he possibly even accuses his opponent of rigging the outcome.

No, this isn't Election 2000, or even 2004, in the United States. It describes Mexico's presidential election that was held on July 2, in which conservative (PAN) candidate Felipe Calderon was voted to succeed Vicente Fox.

Calderon's opponent was former Mexico City mayor and lifetime liberal (PRD) candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who has received far more press coverage in defeat than Calderon has in victory.

Mexico's election results were delayed because the election was extremely close, with Calderon winning by 243,000 votes, as announced and reviewed by the national Election Board.

Of course, that was not good enough for Obrador.

Why should it have been? After all, he's merely following in the footsteps of the losers of the past two United States presidential elections. And if election results can be delayed in the U.S. by one day (2004), or even one month (2000), why should Mexico conform to a standard of class and efficiency?

The following is a collection of excerpts from last Sunday's New York Times article featuring this story. The article, titled "Leftist Predicts Unrest Without Complete Recount of Mexican Election," was authored by James C. McKinley Jr. and Ginger Thompson.

"We are aware we are confronting a powerful group, economically and politically, that are accustomed to winning at all costs, without moral scruples," he told the crowd. He maintained that this group had "conspired against democracy" and that "they are the ones who now want to put a servant in the presidency."

Mr. López Obrador called on his supporters to march Wednesday from every electoral district in the country to the capital, an echo of his 1994 march from Tabasco to the capital to protest his defeat in the governor's rac.

He said his opponent's supporters had resorted to fraud and vote-buying in northern states where the conservative party is dominant, like Jalisco and Guanajuato. He also said he had been the victim of a smear campaign on television and radio that far exceeded campaign spending limits.

He saidthat the Federal Electoral Institute should have recounted Sunday's ballots during the official tally. He pointed out that mistakes favoring Mr. Calderón were found in about 2,600 cases where officials did recount votes, when tally sheets were missing or contained errors.

He said he would present a case for recounting the votes to the Federal Electoral Tribunal on Sunday, and that he would also challenge the validity of the election before the Supreme Court, arguing that President Vicente Fox had interfered with it.

Later, he took his case to the people. Tens of thousands of angry and defiant people wearing his party's yellow colors and carrying banners and flags gathered in the Zócalo throughout the afternoon. They were young and old, unemployed and professional, dark-skinned and light-skinned, and they had traveled from places as far as the states of Michoacán and Tabasco.

Mr. López Obrador spoke for about 40 minutes, calling his adversaries traitors to democracy. The crowd chanted, "You are not alone."

Mr. Calderón's campaign cited the volatile protests Mr. López Obrador led after his 1994 loss in arguing that he could be a danger to Mexico. And several political analysts have said that Mr. López Obrador's behavior since Thursday has proven Mr. Calderón right.

Mr. López Obrador said that Mr. Calderón was wrong to begin assuming the role of president-elect before the results of last Sunday's contests had been upheld in court. And he objected to the congratulatory messages that had been sent to Mr. Calderón from the United States, Spain and Canada.

He said it was all part of a strategy by Mr. Calderón to end a process that was not yet over.

"They want to turn the page, but things are not that way," Mr. López Obrador said. "This is just started."

Though the conservative candidate won, and though this election was for Mexico's president, perhaps no political party encourages Obrador more than the Democratic Party here in the States. Every shout, whine, accusation, finger point, and demand for unlimited recounts until the Left wins -- gives the American Left more energy to continue like tactics for America's own elections, including this coming fall.

Whether the blame falls on Diebold, Inc., or on someone or something else, the blame will fall on someone OTHER than the party's candidate -- and any losses will be rigorously refuted.

Democracy, whether or not among a republic, is the most successful politicial policy in the world. But thanks to Al Gore in 2000, the process has gone from being a process of ultimately gracious losers and respectful winners -- to loud, skeptical, and even petulant losers demanding that the timid winners prove their victories with something beyond abiding by laws and official recounts.

Thankfully, the Kerry/Edwards camp took just one extra day to admit defeat in 2004, which was still one more day than it should have taken. Nevetheless, Mexico's presidential election may be just a preview of this November. Let's hope not.

Obrador was quoted as having said that "[i]f there is not democracy, there will be instability."

Apparently, anymore, there is instibility regardless.

A spade is a spade

2006-05-06T10:32:00.000-04:00

If a person steals a car, then donates it to charity, that person is still a car thief.

If a person illegally enters a country for permanent residency, then works for low pay to stay in that country, that person is still an illegal immigrant.

Not an "undocumented migrant employee."

Not a "foreign-born asylum applicant."

No other euphemisms (which the major national and international media have embraced) will suffice. The fact that illegal immigrants have broken laws and now protest for citizen rights cannot be skewed merely by sugar-coating their status or titles.

In a CNN.com article posted on April 10, 2006, the headline itself reads: "Rallies across U.S. call for illegal immigrant rights."

What rights? Human rights? Absolutely.

But what other rights exist to which these "undocumented foreign-born workers" are entitled by law? U.S. citizen rights?

According to the article, protesters held signs that read "We Are America." While the signs should have read "We Are IN America" -- what was noticeably absent were two important letters: We Are AmericaNS.

The article attempts to garner sympathy for the "undocumented resident" cause. It quotes the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, California, as calling for widespread laws that legalize all illegals already residing in the United States. According to Cardinal Mahony, from a rally, "We are all God's children, united for a just immigration reform."

I am a Roman Catholic and a natural-born U.S. citizen. That said, God's children include rapists, murderers, thieves and tax cheats -- but I don't hear Cardinal Mahony calling for them to have the same rights as every other law-abiding citizen.

The obvious, convenient double-standard here is how protesters also wore shirts that proclaimed, "We are NOT criminals!"

While these protesters may not associate their behavior with the likes of capital offenders, it still does not diminish the fact that their entire basis for argument is predicated on the fact that they committed a real crime (at least, according to the laws of the United States, for what they're worth).

THE POLITICS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

When the Senate (GOP) proposed, then revisedand resubmitted, two actual plans to control and organize the illegal immigration issue last month, they thrice fell short of enough votes for cloture in the Senate.

According to a FoxNews.com article posted on April 8, 2006, the more popular Hagel-Martinez compromise sought to divvy the estimated 11 million or so illegal immigrants into three groups:

(1) those who have been inside the country for more than five years who would have the best chances to gain citizenship;

(2) those who have been in the country for between two and five years and would face more obstacles in gaining citizenship, but could remain in the country;

(3) and those who have been in the country for fewer than two years who would have to leave and apply for visas before they could return.

Republican Senate majority leader Bill Frist proposed legislation that would not guarantee illegal residents asylum, and would also punish financially corporations and other employers who hired them in large doses. It also fell short of votes, even for amendments to alter its less popular components.

Democrats and Republicans blamed each other for the delay in passing reform. But who benefits more from stall tactics?

Democrats.

Hispanics largely vote Republican throughout the United States, and to portray the GOP as the villains who propose tough legislation against illegal immigrants, it gives Democrats hope for a voting loyalty shift (right in time for last week's elections).

It also bought -- and buys -- time for more rallies to be organized and demonstrated before last Tuesday's elections, and certainly before this November's midterm elections.

(And not surprisingly, the largest national work-boycott rally was held last Monday, on a Communist national holiday.)

Just be weary in these months leading up to November. Be careful not to believe every bit of hype and shouting. Be warned that these rallies will eventually turn violent unless the political climate changes soon.

And be ready for Democrats to claim that Republicans are doing nothing to push real reform through Congress -- all the while voting against and filibustering the real proposals made.

And lastly... as for euphemisms, AmericaNS will not fall for the media deception, whatever labels are given for illegal immigrants. To quote the web site illegalaliens.us, "Calling an illegal alien an undocumented immigrant is like calling a burglar an uninvited house guest."

And if those who are soft on this issue are not careful, that strategy WILL backfire severely in November.

sacre bleu!

2005-11-08T18:13:00.000-05:00

It has been a while since I've posted anything new here. Leave it to France to provoke a new entry.

Congratulations, France. You boastfully led the world in progressive, liberal stances and laws toward immigration and freedom of speech for years.

Congratulations, France. You openly criticized the United States, Australia and even Great Britain for enacting harder, precautionary security measures in response to terrorist threats.

Congratulations, France. Your ideal society that celebrates socialized medical care, moral relativism and secularism also produces 12-15% unemployment rates. (The United States has less than 5% unemployment.)

Congratulations, France. You've now had thirteen (13) consecutive nights of rioting across the entire country. North, south, east, west = riots. And the rioters are estimated to be 85-90% Muslim.

Perhaps this isn't a religious outcry, just an economic one. Either way, congratulations. I'm happy for you.

You've now declared a state of emergency across the nation. Other European nations are nervous for similar reactions, which have already occurred in Germany.

In closing, it is amusing to hear news reports state that riots are taking place "even in Paris!" (The same Paris that has become increasingly Muslim over the past 10 years.)

There is a lot on your plate these days, France.

Bon apetite.

p.s. Happy birthday to this blog - tomorrow's the big #1!

Kanye West is a retard.

2005-09-02T21:36:00.000-04:00

Is this too harsh a blog title? I don't care. It's the TRUTH.

He sabotaged a benefit telethon/concert on Live TV on Friday, September 2, 2005, to promote his own baseless, reckless, assinine politics.

Standing beside Mike Myers (the actor), Kanye stammered and mumbled. Myers looked uneasy as his partner apparently struggled to read the cue cards. I thought, "Who is this guy? And can he even read?"

Then Kanye essentially defended the guerilla militia/gangs who shot at rescue personnel, and who were looting, raping and causing chaos in New Orleans. He was apparently disgusted that the media keep showing black people looting.

He then made some statement about how we're fighting war, doing our part there, and that the Red Cross is helping, but that the government is now heartless for telling the Armed Forces to shoot black people.

The way this country responds to black people is unfair and slow, apparently. Kanye pleaded to viewers to help his people, to help black people. Not the victims, but black people.

Then lastly, he looked into the camera and said, "George Bush hates black people."

I have to end this. Words cannot express the complete absence of class and intelligence discussed here.

In Our Prayers

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

Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida....

Keep them in your thoughts & prayers. Please do what you can to help.

God bless.

I See London and Karl and Supreme Court Justices

2005-07-22T20:31:00.000-04:00

Keep the Brits in your thoughts and prayers. Their spirits won't be broken by cowardice terrorist acts, just as America's spirit wasn't broken after 9/11.

Another series of attacks took place today in London, again in three subway stations and on a double-decker bus. Not one single innocent person needed medical attention. The only person injured was one of the bombers. Apparently, none of the devices exploded as planned, or else were poorly developed. This will be great evidence and information for investigative officials.

This is pure speculation, but I suspect that if the British elections were held last week instead of a few months ago, Brits would still have voted for Tony Blair. While his fiscal policies might not be the best options for England, Blair's foreign policy nerve and hard stance against terrorism is admirable. While Spain capitulated in the wake of terrorist bombings in 2004, I believe the British people -- even in this age of increased secularism and rapid Arab immigration -- would have stood strong.

Amazingly, some Parliament leaders and even the mayor of London blamed the Western Hemisphere for the terrorist attacks. French President Jacques Chirac proudly told French citizens that they need not model the resolve of the British people in the wake of the London bombings. He actually criticized the Brits for having balls and some common sense. These people just don't get it.

Apparently these people still believe that appeasing terrorists will lessen their hate and their vengeful aspirations toward us. These simple minds spit venom about how if Britain and the USA never invaded Iraq, terrorist attacks wouldn't happen. NEWSFLASH: We weren't in Afghanistan or Iraq on September 11, 2001 -- so what's their excuse for that? Appeasement never worked and it never will.

The Karl Rove situation is hilarious. Liberals continue to seek a smoking gun that will "get" Conservatives, particularly the Bush administration, where it hurts. "Downing Street Memos" this and "Downing Street Memos" that were all the talk of online liberals until the Time Magazine reporter admitted Karl Rove was one of his secret sources. But what really happened?

Federal law established under President Reagan forbade federal officials from knowingly revealing the identity of covert federal officials to the press. According to every source and public document released to this point, no laws were violated. The fact that Valerie Plame-Wilson and her hubby posed for a Vanity Fair pictorial doesn't help their defense of wanting to keep low-profile either.

Bottom line is this: We don't know all the details until the attorney researching the case releases his findings. If Rove violated the law, he should -- and will -- be released from the administration. If Rove did not violate the law, he should not be -- and won't be -- relieved of his current duties. It's as simple as that.

Finally, President Bush named John Roberts his candidate for Supreme Court Justice to replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor.

O'Connor, whom liberals accused of being part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy back in December 2000, is suddenly the model of what they want on the bench. I've since lost count how many times Democrats mumbled something about how they "hoped Bush would unite the country" and "bring us together" with his decision.

Seriously, what the heck is that supposed to mean?

It means that President Bush had a chance to appease Democrats, and to give them someone who would liberally interpret the Constitution as a living document susceptible to popular views of minorities and liberal special interests. It is hilarious how Democrats apparently feel entitled to choose Supreme Court justices when they do not win elections. The political Left made this an issue during the 2004 campaign with scare tactics of telling voters that if Bush won another term, Roe v. Wade would be overturned.

Memo to Democrats: If you want to choose Supreme Court justices, WIN ELECTIONS!

National exposure to this (then-potential) event in 2004 was partly why Bush announced Roberts's candidacy in prime time, despite conspiracy theories to the contrary. Another legitimate reason for the prime-time announcement was to avoid overshadowing the Australian Prime Minister, who visited and held a press conference at the White House earlier that day.

Many liberals have claimed this was just a diversionary tactic to draw attention away from the Karl Rove investigation. Maybe that was a small part of it, but it is certainly no GOP equivalent to Guantanamo Bay or Abu Gharib.

The current political buzz is that Democrats will not filibuster or put up too big a fight at Roberts's nomination hearings. Not only does Roberts apparently have a spotless record, but every day this process is delayed represents one day longer that Justice O'Connor must wait before resigning in full to be with her ailing husband.

Terminator 1, Hippies 0

2005-06-18T10:57:00.000-04:00

This past Tuesday, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) gave the commencement address at his alma mater, Santa Monica College.

Showing typical liberal class and integrity, approximately 100 audience members, some students, jeered throughout the entire speech. According to news reports, some protestors held anti-Arnold signs, others screamed and booed, and some even blew whistles -- all during the speech, from start to finish.

Half of the professors, who traditionally sit behind the speaker podium at such occasions, sat with their backs facing their alum guest speaker.

Apparently one of the issues of protest was the special election that the governor of California called for November 8 to address pressing needs and concerns for the state and its rebounding economy.

When a friend of mine (who lives in the Los Angeles area) recently told me about this story, my first reaction was, "I hope he kept giving the speech like he didn't notice."

Apparently, that's EXACTLY what Mr. Schwarzenegger did.

The AP report of the incident made sure to point out how the governor's face "appeared to redden" as the speech progressed and the catcalls and noisemakers persisted.

But one thing that will FOREVER be proven time and again is that the classless hecklers could not break him.

Immensely to his credit, the keynote speaker finished what he started. He did not quit until he acquired his objective.

And he did it with class.

Graduation ceremonies are supposed to be proud moments focused on the students for their accomplishments and their embarkation into adulthood. Some professors, students and other guests selfishly stole that from the majority of people who came to celebrate that very achievement.

But Arnold Schwarzenegger set the best example of anyone at the commencement. I like to think he inspired the mature adults in the audience -- whether they agree with his politics (or like his movies) or not -- how to be respectful with grace.

Liberals historically prove they just don't understand that concept.

The governor showed class even after the ceremony, when he addressed the situation publicly, putting the blame on Public Worker Unions who he believed organized the heckling -- and credited the students for taking interest in (and showing respect during) his speech.

Like my friend (and lifelong Califnornia resident) concluded, "Face it, government workers in California were overpaid and it bankrupted the state for years. And Arnold is the only one with the balls to make the tough decisions to make cuts to save the state from absolute poverty."

She concluded with, "[The heckling] was a disgrace. I don't go boo Jimmy Carter and he caused more human suffering than anyone."

I liken this incident to sports, when your team is up by a ton of points, yet the losers for the other team insist on trash-talking. The best defense is to simply point to the -- or say, "Scoreboard."

The video of this incident will always be Arnold Schwarzenegger's "scoreboard" against the losers who beligerantly (and hopelessly) try to bring him down to their level.

Perhaps the best irony from Tuesday's shameful commencement ceremony was the student who held up a sign that sarcastically quipped, "I'm brainwashed!"

Apparently the joke is on that student, after all.

More DNC Brilliance

2005-06-08T22:29:00.000-04:00

Dean Defends Criticism of Republican Party
By PAULINE JELINEK
Associated Press Writer
Wed Jun 8, 4:25 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean on Wednesday defended his recent harsh criticism of Republicans, including his observation that they are "pretty much a white, Christian party."

Dean noted that he, too, is a white Christian. But he said the GOP is too narrow in its scope and the Democratic Party is far more diverse.

While even prominent Democrats in recent days have distanced themselves from some of his comments, the outspoken Dean, appearing on NBC"s "Today" show, said criticism of him is meant by Republicans to divert attention from the country's problems and make him the issue instead.

Dean told a forum of journalists and minority leaders Monday that Republicans are "pretty much a white, Christian party." ... it's pretty much a white, Christian party."

Challenged on that during the NBC interview, Dean said "unfortunately, by and large it is. And they have the agenda of the conservative Christians."

"This is a diversion from the issues that really matter: Social Security, and adequate job opportunity, strong public schools, a strong defense," Dean said.

Asked about it on the "Fox & Friends" show, GOP Party Chairman Ken Mehlman joked that "a lot of folks who attended my Bar Mitzvah would be surprised" he heads a Christian party.

"We gotta get ourselves beyond this point where when we disagree about politics, we call the other guy names," he said.

Said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.: "Last week's scandal was Deep Throat. This week's scandal was Dean's throat, and apparently Dean likes the taste of his own foot."

Dean also recently raised eyebrows when he told a group of progressives that Republicans "never made an honest living in their lives," a comment he was forced to explain a day later. The one-time presidential candidate also said that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, who has not been accused of any crime, ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence.

Democratic New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said Tuesday that Dean is doing a good job, but is not the party's spokesman.

Last weekend, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., and 2004 vice presidential candidate John Edwards criticized Dean for his recent remarks, saying he doesn't speak for them.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, talking with reporters Wednesday, said she did not agree with the statement Dean made about the Republican Party.

"The role of the chair of the Democratic National Committee is one that is different than the role of the Democratic leader of the House or in the Senate," the California congresswoman said, "and sometimes the exhuberance of that position results in statements that neither of us would make."

"I don't think that the statement the governor (Dean) made was a helpful statement," she said. But Pelosi said she thought that Dean was "doing a good job."

"Listen. Any one of us at any given time will make a statement that we may, in retrospect, say maybe that was a little over-enthusiastic," she said. "And I can put that statement in that category for Governor Dean."

Biden, asked about Dean Wednesday during an interview on the Don Imus radio show, also said the chairman is doing a good job.

"A lot of things he does say, I agree with," Biden said. But he also said that Dean "has views that are slightly different than mine .. .But look, he's a lightning rod. ... It's probably good that there's a guy out there that's a lightning rod ... ."

Biden, however, added that he thinks "the rhetoric is counterproductive."

"I think this country has a purple heart, not a red heart or a blue heart," Biden said. "If we can't bring this (country) together, man, boy, we're really in deep trouble."

=================================================

It'll be a fun day when Dean resigns as DNC Chair. Watching the spin Democrats will slather on that event -- to make it seem like Dean's own personal decision -- will be priceless material.

What's funny is that Howard Dean tries to criticize Republicans by calling them "white" and "Christian." The accusation alone is fine because THE MAJORITY OF AMERICA is comprised of caucasion, Judao-Christian citizens. And the majority of Americans during the past two presidential elections voted for George W. Bush (a Republican).

According to the article, Dean said the GOP is too narrow in its scope and the Democratic Party is far more diverse. First of all, it's no secret that most African- and Mexican-American voters vote Democrat. But most Cuban-Americans vote Republican.

As for Dean's own history with minorities, let's review briefly:

1) NO (zero) members of Dean's Gubernatorial cabinet were African-Americans.

2.) Dean said the following at a meeting with the Democratic black caucus in February 2005: "You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here."

3.) The Pew Research Center recently surveyed 11,000 of Howard Dean's closest advisers, contributors, activists and volunteers. It discovered that Dean activists:
*attend church seldom or never (59 percent of Dean activists seldom or never compared to 25 percent of all Democrats)
*are 92 percent white
*are 82 percent liberal
*are 45 percent over $75,000 [annual income]

Let's also consider these facts:

1.) President George W. Bush has assembled, over both his terms, the most ethnically and racially diverse Presidential cabinet -- BY FAR -- in the history of the United States presidency.

2.) Just today did the U.S. Senate confirm California judge Janice Rogers Brown (an African-American woman) for the federal/district appeals court (D.C. Region). She was first nominated for the position TWO YEARS AGO by President Bush. For two years, Democrats blocked her from getting a yes-or-no vote.

Dean said: "This is a diversion from the issues that really matter: Social Security, and adequate job opportunity, strong public schools, a strong defense."

Whether or not it's a diversion, it's Dean who created it. Republicans are not making this an issue. Howard Dean is the one who keeps saying publiclylines like this:

1.) December 2003 - "We shouldn't prejudge Osama bin Laden."

2.) May 14, 2005 - "I think Tom DeLay ought to go back to Houston, where he can serve his jail sentence down there courtesy of the Texas taxpayers."

3.) May 2005 - "I hate Republicans."

4.) June 2, 2005 - "...a lot of [Republicans] have never made an honest living in their lives."

Meanwhile, President George W. Bush has twice toured the country promoting his Social Security reform plan. In addition, he held a primetime nationally-televised press conference to discuss the issue. Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee have not made a single proposal yet other than "stop talking about personal accounts, then maybe we'll discuss Social Security."

And when has Howard Dean EVER been pro-defense?

And also, it's not the GOP who vehemently defends the corrupted welfare system in America. There's where you go first to find people not making an honest living.

So prepare your popcorn and comfy seats now. When Howard Dean resigns as DNC chair, it'll be quite an enjoyable show.

DECONSTRUCTING HOWARD DEAN

2005-05-28T15:26:00.000-04:00

The following series of ten (10) posts named "DECONSTRUCTING [Howard] DEAN" is my deconstruction of the transcript of the Democratic National Committee Chair's interview on NBC News' Meet The Press from last Sunday, May 22, 2005.

Use the "View Archives" search (above) to view the conclusion of the interview, or "DECONSTRUCTING DEAN: On Embracing Socialism and the Future."

Enjoy.

DECONSTRUCTING DEAN: On Judicial Nominees

2005-05-28T13:42:00.000-04:00

MR. RUSSERT: Let's go right to it. The Republicans say on Tuesday that if the Democrats do not stop filibustering their judicial appointments made by President Clinton--President Bush, they will change the rules for the filibuster. What will that change mean?

DR. DEAN: I think the change will be dreadful for American democracy, and I think it's going to be, frankly, very bad for the Republican Party. One of the great geniuses of American democracy, unlike most of the democracies in the world that minority rights are protected, 48 percent of us didn't vote for President Bush, but we still have some say in shaping the agenda of the country. If the filibuster is gotten rid of, the extended debate is gotten rid of in the Senate, first of all, and it means the president can put 10 judges on the bench that we believe are not qualified to serve. [No, it means they’ll have a vote on whether or not those judges will serve the federal judiciary.] We've confirmed 205 of his judges. He wants those last 10, so they're willing to change the rules to do it. [Just like you’re willing to abuse the rules to block them.]

But it has much worse implications. The president has a Social Security plan, which is kind of out there. He basically wants to turn over Social Security to the same kind of people who gave us Enron. [American taxpayers?] Privatization is something the American people don't support by a very large margin. [We’ve never yet voted on or tried it.] Without extended debate, he can march marshal his party and just ram it right through. [Debate requires two parties sharing ideas, right?] They already ram things through the House. We need more than one party in charge. [Then stop losing elections. That’s another “genius of democracy.”] And the vote on Tuesday is going to be critical to decide whether American democracy still allows those of us who didn't vote for the president to have any say in running the country whatsoever. [Those who didn’t vote for the President still could have voted for more Democrats in Congress. That was the actual critical vote here.]

MR. RUSSERT: The Republicans say the filibuster rules being changed would apply to judicial nominations not to legislation like Social Security.

DR. DEAN: That's what they say now. What possible indication is there they won't change their mind later? [Answer: That you’re the only person who’s raised the idea.] We could not have predicted when the Republicans were killing 25 of President Clinton's judges when President Clinton was in office [“killing,” AKA, voting NO during an actual up-or-down vote in Congress], we couldn't have predicted that they were going to resort to this [AKA, responding to the congressional quagmire Democrats have suffered upon these judicial vote proceedings] when they got into office. The problem with this, frankly, for the Republicans, is, first of all, Congress is at its lowest popularity rating since – actually since 1993 when we were in power. [Not according to every national election since 1998, which is the only legitimate test (not some random poll of the week).] And secondly, this is an advertisement to the American people, who suspect it--suspect something may go wrong when only one party is in charge. And one party is pretty well in charge in Washington. [Thank God for Democracy.] This is the last opportunity the Democrats have to say anything about public policy. It is a very big mistake, I think, for America. But it's a huge mistake for the Republican Party to do this. [Mr. Dean, when do you plan to explain your response to the actual point that was raised?]

MR. RUSSERT: Do the Republicans have the votes to do it?

DR. DEAN: I don't know. They say they do. I have no way of knowing what the vote counts are in the Senate. [Howard Dean (H.D.), 5/22/05: “If the filibuster is gotten rid of… it means the president can put 10 judges on the bench that we believe are not qualified to serve.”] But, again, I hope they won't. [Yet you know they’re going to try the nuclear option with Social Security?] Someday, the Democrats will be back in charge again. [Despite losing four consecutive national elections by increasingly larger numbers.] Do we want a Democratic Party that's in charge of everything? Well, you know, I suppose it's my job to say yes. But the truth is, as an American, it's better when parties share power. [So we can have even bigger stalemates?] It's better when even those people who didn't win the election have something to say. [No, Mr. Dean, you win elections to have more authority. That’s the entire point.]

MR. RUSSERT: Republicans will say that the Democrats are speaking a different tune now than they did when they were in control. Robert Byrd, when he was a majority leader in '79, said, "Now, we are at the beginning of Congress. This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past."

And the filibuster used to need 67 votes. They [Democrats] changed it to 60.

DR. DEAN: Mm-hmm. [Powerful response.]

MR. RUSSERT: Pat Leahy, your colleague from Vermont [whom Dick Cheney once told to go “F” himself], said, "I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty. If we don't like somebody the president nominates, vote him or her down. But don't hold them in this anonymous unconscionable limbo, because in doing that, the minority of Senators really shame all Senators."

DR. DEAN: Well, here's the problem. Look, I have nothing against up or down votes on people. [H.D., 5/22/05: “If the filibuster is gotten rid of, the extended debate is gotten rid of in the Senate, first of all, and it means the president can put 10 judges on the bench that we believe are not qualified to serve.”] I think that's a good thing. The problem is that--I'll give you an example. When I was governor [good example so far], I felt like everybody was my boss, whether they voted for me or against me, they paid my salary, and they would participate in the hiring process. So when I went out to town meetings and so forth and so on, I heard from everybody, all takers, whatever they wanted to lay on me. President Bush, for example, goes to these town meetings and doesn't allow Democrats or Independents who disagree with him into the town meeting. [Bold-faced lie.] He has a crew of people who keep them out. [I attended a Bush campaign speech in late October that Bush-protesters also attended. They wore non-vulgar, anti-Bush t-shirts. One had a non-vulgar anti-Bush sign.] This is a little bit like that. Don't those of us who didn't vote for the president, the 48 percent of Americans [who lost], don't we have some say? When the Republicans were in power [they’re not anymore?], they kept a much larger percentage of President Clinton's nominees to the bench. [This is another lie. Besides, this was after having a VOTE, Mr. Dean – which is the point of the question.] They didn't do it with the filibuster, they did it by bottling them up in committee and not allowing them to move forward.

MR. RUSSERT: The numbers are pretty similar actually. [HA!]

DR. DEAN: OK. They're similar. [Whoa! So you just admitted you lied. Had Mr. Russert not called you on it, you’d have been perfectly content with your bold-faced lie conjured from thin air.] Now, the Democrats are doing the same thing. [H.D., 5/22/05: “When the Republicans were in power, they kept a much larger percentage of President Clinton's nominees to the bench.”] I think of course the party in power is going to argue against it. But if you look at what's good for America, not what's good for the Republican Party, what the Republicans want to do is not good for America. [Which you just admitted Democrats used to do.] I would argue that it's not very good in the long run for the Republican Party either. You can't cut the minority, especially if the minority is a very large one like 48 percent, totally out of everything. [They’re not trying to. They’d love for the minority to vote yes or no for these judicial nominations.] It's a matter of checks and balances. [*Remember this reference for later.*] Look at the terrible things that are going on in Congress today. You have a Republican leader who has been admonished three times by the Ethics Committee, and his response is to get rid of the Ethics Committee [nice attempt to change the subject because you’re rambling] or render them inoperable. Now, those kinds of things are less likely to go on if you have....

MR. RUSSERT: But that's been changed back.

DR. DEAN: Yeah, but now he's up for a fourth reprimand and he's being investigated by the district attorney. [(1) An investigation or admonishment isn’t an indictment or conviction; and (2) Maybe if the Ethics Committee actually had valid claims, they wouldn’t be regarded as a nuisance or hindrance from actual progress.] The point is not to bring up Tom DeLay [then why did you?], which I'm sure we will, and his ethics problems [AKA, “Mr. Russert, please change the subject to Tom Delay, I studied for that question!”], but the point is, those things are less likely to happen if you have two parties that have something to say about what goes on in Washington. Right now the Republicans control everything except for this group of Democrats in the Senate who do raise issues about these particular 10 judges who we don't think are qualified to sit on the bench. Ten out of 205--it seems to me that a president on either side is not likely to be right 100 percent of the time. You do need an opposition party [AKA, obstructionist party]. That's what we're trying to build. This is going to make it harder.

[Bear in mind the general question was whether Democrats are being hypocritical, based on their past actions and statements about this issue.]

DECONSTRUCTING DEAN: On Ethics & Tom Delay

2005-05-28T13:22:00.000-04:00

MR. RUSSERT: Tom DeLay--you raised him [incidentally, of course]; he was at a dinner on May 12 being honored by Republicans and conservatives. He had this to say about you, Howard Dean. Let's watch.

(Videotape, May 12)

REP. TOM DELAY, (R-TX): Democrats around the country are growing more and more alienated every day because they see that the once-great party of Roosevelt and Kennedy has become the party of Howard Dean.

(End videotape)

DR. DEAN: Well, you know, there are so many ethics problems here that I thought I'd actually have to write them down. [Good one! I’m sure you’ll explain this well.] He has been--the majority leader has been admonished for offering campaign money to a congressman's son to get a congressman's vote, providing an energy company with a seat at the table in exchange for campaign contributions, using the Department of Homeland Security to track down the private plane of some political enemies; now, he's under investigation for taking a golf vacation in Europe, $100,000, paid for by lobbyists. He's said that judges he disagreed with ought to be impeached. [“Admonished”: 4; Indicted/Convicted: 0] This is a culture of corruption and abuse of power in Washington. [Like filibustering to block congressional votes on judicial nominees with whom you disagree politically.] This is what happens when one party is in charge of everything. We need a change here.

And it's not just Tom DeLay. Look what's going on in the rest of the administration: paying journalists to write positive articles about unpopular policies; allowing lobbyists to sell access, like Jack Abramoff in the White House; hiding scientific reports when they come out with their mercury bills, for example, that show that mercury is much more devastating, and hiding that report in order to get that out there. [Remember this mercury story because Mr. Dean apparently studied for this topic, too (despite its irrelevance).] These things are not good for America, and this is abuse of power. And, you know, Tom DeLay is welcome to say whatever he wants about me, but I don't think people like that ought to be leading Congress, no matter what party they're in. [People who are admonished for unproven, unsubstantiated allegations and other non-crimes?]

MR. RUSSERT: But, Governor, you did on May 14 say something about Tom DeLay that raised a lot of eyebrows. Let's watch Howard Dean on Tom DeLay.

(Videotape, May 14)

DR. DEAN: I think Tom DeLay ought to go back to Houston, where he can serve his jail sentence down there courtesy of the Texas taxpayers.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: "Serve his jail sentence"? He--what's he been convicted of?

DR. DEAN: He hasn't been convicted yet [which is why people serve jail sentences], but he is also, in addition to the things that I just mentioned, under investigation in Texas by a district attorney down there for violating the campaign finance laws of Texas by funneling corporate donations, which is illegal, into certain campaign activities. [Innocent until proven guilty, anyone?] This gentleman is not an ethical person [because he's repeatedly investigated by political opponents?], and he ought not to be leading Congress, period. And it is endemic of what happens in Congress when one party controls everything.

MR. RUSSERT: You said in December of 2003 that we shouldn't prejudge Osama bin Laden. How can you sit here and have a different standard for Tom DeLay and prejudge him?

DR. DEAN: To be honest with you, Tim, I don't think I'm prejudging him. [H.D., 5/14/05: “I think Tom DeLay ought to go back to Houston, where he can serve his jail sentence down there courtesy of the Texas taxpayers.”] The things that I just read off--offering the congressman's son campaign money, providing Westar, the energy company, with a seat at the table in exchange for contributions, using the Department of Homeland Security to track down the private plane of political enemies--those are things that he has already been adjudicated for [and convicted for how many?]. Now, the question is: Where is this going to end up? I think there's a reasonable chance that this may end up in jail. [A reasonable chance? That’s why he should serve a jail sentence?] And I don't think people ought to do these kinds of things in public service. I do not think they ought to do these kinds of things in public service. [What? Deny that you defended Osama Bin Ladin from American prejudgment while prejudging Tom Delay?] And I don't think Democrats should, either.

MR. RUSSERT: But shouldn't that be for a jury to decide and not you?

DR. DEAN: A jury will decide that. [Whoa! Sounds like more than just a reasonable chance now. Mr. Dean, what’s MY horoscope say?]

[That’s now the second assumption of H.D.’s that he’s tried to pass off as factual – the first being that Republicans will use the nuclear option with Social Security reform. Count along as you read!]

MR. RUSSERT: Barney Frank, a liberal Democrat [and great “Tigger” impersonator], said, "That's just wrong. I think Howard Dean was out of line talking about DeLay. The man has not been indicted. I don't like him, I disagree with some of what he does, but I don't think you, in a political speech, talk about a man as a criminal or his jail sentence."

DR. DEAN: As I said before, we're not speculating here. [H.D., 5/22/05: “[Delay] hasn't been convicted yet.”] Three of the things I've mentioned he has already done and been admonished for by the House Ethics Committee. [As criminal?] Look, Harry Truman was campaigning in 1948, and a guy went up and said, "Give 'em hell, Harry!" And HarryTruman said, "I don't give 'em hell. I just tell the truth and the Republicans think it's hell." [Well, it’s true Delay hasn’t been indicted for anything. But that’s hell to Democrats, not to Republicans.]

There's a lot of problems in Washington now. You know, for example, the administration withheld information – essentially lied to Congress – when they were passing the Medicaid prescription bill. They concealed the cost. Even the Republican conservatives were outraged, as they should have been. [Evidence?] You can't do this. You've got to be ethical in government. [So far you’ve already been caught lying or contradicting yourself at least four times on this show alone.] I think one of the things that we're going to insist on is ethics in government. [Like letting Terri Shiavo starve to death after bitching about being dragged to a special session for the debate.] I'd like some real political and campaign and electoral [because you keep losing] reform as part of the Democratic Party platform as we offer a different vision to the American people. [That Americans have turned away increasingly since 1998.] I think honesty in government is important, and it's something that's lacking in Washington right now.

[Howard Dean, 5/22/05, in the first fifteen minutes of his Meet The Press interview:

* “If the filibuster is gotten rid of, it means the president can put 10 judges on the bench that we believe are not qualified to serve."

* “I have no way of knowing what the vote counts are in the Senate."

* “Look, I have nothing against up or down votes on people."

* “When the Republicans were in power, they kept a much larger percentage of President Clinton's nominees to the bench."

* “The point is not to bring up Tom DeLay, which I'm sure we will, and his ethics problems…."

* “To be honest with you, Tim, I don't think I'm prejudging [Tom Delay]."]

DECONSTRUCTING DEAN: On Ethics & Tom Delay (cont.)

2005-05-28T13:11:00.000-04:00

MR. RUSSERT: But in order to have a civilized debate about these kinds of issues, a robust debate, can we be doing this to each other in the political process? Here's the Democratic National Committee Web site this morning. It is, in effect, a mug shot of Tom DeLay. You can see his height in the back with inches there, a serial number, 18821. Is that appropriate, a mug shot?

[Too bad Mr. Russert didn’t also ask why the Democratic National Committee never apologized for its sponsorship of a mock assassination of President Bush on Air America Radio, which the DNC funds.]

DR. DEAN: I don't think it's appropriate for Tom DeLay to be in Congress, Tim. I really don't. [And the DNC publicly insulting, mocking and condemning him for crimes for which he hasn’t been indicted – is the “ethical” solution?] Some of his own party has suggested he step aside while this ethics investigation is going on. [I bet 95% of them is from New England.] I think he ought to at least step aside while this ethics investigation is going on. [Innocent until proven guilty, remember? Why stop him from doing his job in the meantime? Talk about potential abuse of power! Have a problem? Just accuse someone you don’t like of something and demand (s)he sit down until you prove him or her guilty!] We didn't start this. [How can you say that with a straight face?] Look, we're not going to stoop to the kind of divisiveness that the Republicans are doing and we're not going to stoop to the kind of abuse of power, but we are going to be tough as nails. [You’re the one criticizing Republicans for ruling and ruining this country every other sentence. That’s being divisive. Ironically enough, your very statement about not being divisive – is divisive. (AKA, Republicans = Bad! Democrats = Good!)] This is a fight for the soul of America between the Republicans and Democrats.

[H.D., 5/22/05: “Look, we're not going to stoop to the kind of divisiveness that the Republicans are doing.”]

We have an agenda that calls for pension reform, it calls for leaving Social Security alone, except for the tweaks that may be needed to fix it. [Which are…? Still waiting to hear from your party.] It calls for real jobs. It calls for closing the deficit. The last president – the only president in the last 35 years to balance the budget [thanks to Republican control of Congress] was Bill Clinton, a Democrat. You can't trust Republicans with your money. [1) Bill Clinton did; and 2) Howard Dean, 5/22/05: “Look, we're not going to stoop to the kind of divisiveness that the Republicans are doing.”] The country is at a crossroads. Are we going to be ethical in government? [Not if you’re in charge!] Are we going to stand up for fiscal responsibility? Are we going to stand up for freedom and personal responsibility?

The president keeps talking about freedom for Iraqis. What about the freedom for Americans to decide their most personal dilemmas in that family? [What about them?] Speaking of Tom DeLay, 14 judges made decisions in the Terri Schiavo case to allow that family to work out their problems through the court system. Tom DeLay didn't like it. He talks about now impeaching judges and removing them if they disagree. We need to retain American democracy. [Which includes Checks & Balances, to which you alluded earlier.] That means everybody has to be part of that American democracy, and, yes, that even includes Democrats and Independents who may not agree with the president. [And Republicans in Congress, as elected by the citizens of this country.]

MR. RUSSERT: So you will not retract or apologize your comments about Tom DeLay?

DR. DEAN: Absolutely not.

MR. RUSSERT: This is what you told The Philadelphia Inquirer. "[Dean] said Democrats need `message discipline.' He said they should for the present forego the satisfaction of attacking House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's ethics problems ... and focus on attacking Bush's plan to create private Social Security accounts."

You're not taking your own advice.

DR. DEAN: Well, I am in this sense. That was a couple of months ago, and this has been an issue that's been in the news with the Jack Abramoff scandals [second time you’ve named-dropped to change the subject], and it's been so in the news that you can't not comment on it. Again, another scandal that's going on, the Republicans, Jack Abramoff, [OK, all Republicans or one guy?] one of the president's leading fund-raisers, now being investigated [not indicted or convicted] for essentially selling influence to get into the White House and a variety of things like that.

MR. RUSSERT: One of the president's leading fund-raisers...

DR. DEAN: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: ...or one of Congress' leading fund-raisers?

DR. DEAN: My understanding is that he was one of the pioneers for the Bush campaign, in addition to being one of Congress' leading fund-raisers.

[Let’s investigate this. So far I don’t put much stock in Mr. Dean’s understanding of facts.]

MR. RUSSERT: And close to Tom DeLay.

DR. DEAN: And close to Tom DeLay.

DECONSTRUCTING DEAN: On Social Security

2005-05-28T12:55:00.000-04:00

MR. RUSSERT: You mentioned Social Security. You were up in Ithaca at Cornell. "Dean pointed out that while he would not endorse this, if Social Security were left alone for" 10 "years, its benefits would be reduced to 80 percent of what it is now."

DR. DEAN: It's probably a slight mistake that the reporter made. It's actually about 35 years, but that's right. If we did nothing...

MR. RUSSERT: In 2042, the benefits would be about 73 percent of the schedule.

DR. DEAN: That's right.

MR. RUSSERT: So that being said, that Social Security recipients will in effect have a reduction in benefits if we do nothing...

DR. DEAN: That's right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...what are the Democrats going to do to prevent that?

DR. DEAN: Well, the first thing we're going to do is try to get the president to be serious about the issue. [Despite his personal campaigning across the nation to explain his plan for SS reform to the American people.] The president is pursuing these private [personal] accounts. I said earlier, and I'm really not kidding, this is turning Social Security over to the same folks that gave us Enron. [Again, American taxpayers gave us Enron?] We see now what happens to private accounts. [When run by corrupt CEOs or when used for Social Security benefits? Check with Chile on this one, not Enron.] The recent bankruptcy court judges is now undoing the pension funds of the people who work for United Airlines. That means likely that all the other airlines are next, because if you take a $9 billion item off the balance sheet of United Airlines, all the other airlines are going to want to do the same thing. [1) So just appeal until you win; 2) More fortune-telling! Slippery slope much, Mr. Dean?]

So we see this attack on both private and public pensions. [By the judicial branch, which you just vehemently defended in regards to Terry Schaivo.] I don't think we ought to attack the Social Security system. [Neither does President Bush. However, unlike Democrats, he’s willing to offer alternatives.] It is the last line of defense that Americans have when they lose their pensions. [Who’s calling to completely get rid of this system? Do you even know the president’s proposal?] So the Democrats--we will be happy to sit down with the president, but the president has got to stop doing what he always does, which is approaching issues from an ideological point of view. [How is it possible for one not to discuss ideas from an ideological point of view? Is that what’s preventing Democrats from having any ideas?] There's only one reason to put private accounts in Social Security.

The president has admitted they do nothing to help the problem in 2042. [Huh?] And that is they have an agenda to privatize [personalize] Social Security. It helps their campaign contributors and the businesses that support the president, and it also removes the risk from the government and puts it on the individual recipients. And it doesn't, contrary to what the president said, earn any more money once you get through the fees and so forth. [How do you know? Mr. Dean, where’s your crystal ball? Again, check with Chile, who successfully switched to optional, personal pension accounts in 1981.] When the president is willing to really sit down with us, we'll sit down with him, and we'll work with him to come up with a plan to tweak Social Security so that we can fix the problems that are going to happen to it in 35 or 40 years. [Bush is actually campaigning nationwide and holding primetime, televised press conferences to address the issue. When is his invitation good enough for Democrats?]

MR. RUSSERT: When you say tweak, you'd be willing to consider raising the eligibility age, reduction in cost of living, means testing?

DR. DEAN: Well, I don't think you...

MR. RUSSERT: There's tough choices here.

DR. DEAN: There are tough choices here, and when the president indicates that he's serious about making tough choices, we'd like to help make those tough choices. There are also some other things that people have, including Democrats, have put forward that the president has rejected out of hand. The president...

MR. RUSSERT: Such as?

DR. DEAN: Such as raising the cap. Right now the Social Security tax is only on the first, I think, about $85,000 worth of wages. I saw an economic analysis the other day [wow, good source] that said if you remove that cap entirely that Social Security will be solvent.

MR. RUSSERT: But that's raising taxes.

DR. DEAN: Well, the president has said that he only – that's why we [Democrats] don't come up with a plan, because whatever plan we come up with, thepresident is just going to say, "Oh, we're not going to do that, we're not going to do this." [(1) So you just admitted Democrats haven’t had, and don’t plan to come up with, a plan of their own; (2) You’re implying Democrats’ only ideas would require raised taxes; (3) You’re right: President Bush has said since day one that he won’t raise taxes on Americans; (4) "Oh, we're not going to do that, we're not going to do this." Isn’t that exactly what you and Congressional Democrats are saying about personal accounts?] All right, Mr. President, let's sit down and get serious. [Who’s the one campaigning and holding press conferences?] Take privatization of Social Security off the table, and I can guarantee you that Senator Reid and Representative Pelosi will sit down with the president. [*see point (4) above*] They have told me so privately. [Ahhh, so that’s why no evidence supports your claim.] They would be delighted to sit down with the president and try to work this out.

MR. RUSSERT: Congresswoman Pelosi said "We don't need a plan." Is this the Democrats doing, in effect, what the Republicans did with Hillary Clinton? She put forward her health-care plan as first lady. The Republicans didn't offer an alternative but just went at it, criticizing it,and you learned from that politically and that's exactly what you're doing to the Republicans.

DR. DEAN: The problem is that the president won't get off the dime. [H.D., 5/22/05: “Well, the first thing we're going to do is try to get the president to be serious about the issue.”] You know, there was an opportunity for the Clinton folks to compromise with Bob Dole, and we missed that opportunity. I was involved in the health care. I'll take some piece--I'll was--I'll take some responsibility for that. We missed that opportunity. We could have had something. The president can get something done on Social Security, but he has got to stop this nonsense of insisting that we privatize the last bastion of hope for retirees in this country as they see, under this administration, their private pensions get eroded. [Um, it’d be optional.]

[H.D., 5/22/05: “That's why we [Democrats] don't come up with a plan, because whatever plan we come up with, the president is just going to say, ‘Oh, we're not going to do that, we're not going to do this.’ ”]

MR. RUSSERT: And if the president takes private personal accounts off the table, then you would sit down, the Democrats would sit down and everything else would be on the table.

DR. DEAN: I won't sit down, but I'm sure--it's not my job to do that. But the senators and the congressmen have indicated that they'd be happy to sit down if privatization comes off the table.

[Apparently, sitting down is quite popular in Washington, D.C.]

MR. RUSSERT: Let me talk about some of the things you have said about the Republicans. Here's Howard Dean in January: "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for..."

Howard Dean in February: "This is a struggle between good and evil and we're the good." [Howard Dean, 5/22/05: “Look, we're not going to stoop to the kind of divisiveness that the Republicans are doing."

Do you really hate Republicans? Do you consider them evil?

DR. DEAN: I don't – well, actually that was a little out of context. [I’m sure you’ll explain how, which would be prudent.] But I don't hate Republicans as individuals. [Then why’d you say you do? Were you lying then or are you lying now?] But I hate what the Republicans are doing to this country. I really do. [H.D., 5/22/05: “Look, we're not going to stoop to the kind of divisiveness that the Republicans are doing.”] I hate deficits, as you know. When I was governor, I really was very tough on fiscal responsibility. Deficits in the long run aren't good for the country, and they do lower our standard of living. Every American family knows that you have to pay your bills. [Which Dems would apparently increase to fix social security.] I hate the dishonesty, you know, the idea that you'd put a program through Congress without telling people what it costs, I think that's wrong. [You hate dishonesty? Then please stop lying on this show, for starters.] Some of the things that the president said on our way into Iraq, they just weren't true, and I don't think that's right. [That he was misinformed by international intelligence agencies and world leaders?] So...

MR. RUSSERT: Such as?

DR. DEAN: Such as the weapons of mass destruction, which we have all known about, but the... [After the corrupt U.N. inspectors couldn’t find any (besides evil human beings).]

DECONSTRUCTING DEAN: On The War Against Terrorism

2005-05-28T12:47:00.000-04:00

MR. RUSSERT: Well, you said there were weapons of mass destruction.

DR. DEAN: I said I wasn't sure, but I said I thought there probably were. [So you were just caught lying again, right after you claimed to hate dishonesty.] But the thing that really bothered me the most, which the 9-11 Commission said also wasn't true, is the insinuation that the president continues to make to this day that Osama bin Laden had something to do with supporting terrorists that attacked the United States. [WHAT? Is that why you defended him two years ago? I think you mean Saddam Hussein, Mr. Dean.] That is false. The 9-11 Commission, chaired by a Republican [and a Democrat], said it was false. Is it wrong to send people to war without telling them the truth? And the truth was Osama bin Laden was a very bad person who was doing terrible things, but that Iraq was never a threat to the United States. That was the truth. [Because you can see the future so clearly – can you also foresee that Saddam possibly hid his WMDs somewhere else, maybe in Syria?] It was underlined by the 9-11 Commission, headed, again, by a Republican [and a Democrat], a well-respected group of people [apart from those Republicans whom you just alleged are ruining America]. I don't think you send American men and women to war, first of all, without properly equipping them [who voted for war and against safer equipment?], and secondly without telling the truth to their parents about why it is we're asking them to make that sacrifice. So those are the kinds of things that I think are very bad about the Republicans.

Then there's some smaller things that are equally important [as war?]. There was a study--the president has just put out rules for how much mercury is allowed in the air. [I told you to remember the mercury story! Though this is critical information, bear in mind its relevance as you read this: The lingering question concerned what the president said about Iraq that allegedly wasn’t true.] Now, as a physician I know that mercury is a neurotoxic chemical which now has prevented people from eating most of the fish they catch because so much of it is going into the water. The president ignored – excuse me, the – his people ignored a report that said that mercury was much more toxic than they suspected and that the rules that the president was putting out were going to allow more mercury into the air and make things worse. That report just got taken off the table and they went ahead and did it anyway because they have an agenda that's different than protecting the environment. [I repeat, the question regarded what alleged lies President Bush made about the Iraq war.]

I don't like that kind of stuff. If the president wants to do that, he should say to the American people "Look, it's true that mercury's a bad thing and this may allow a little bit more, but it may allow for more jobs." I don't know what his reason for changing his position on mercury or pollution is. [And the American people don’t know what mercury or the environment has to do with your position on Iraq.] Why not be truthful with the American people about why it is and what the trade-offs really are? [Huh?]

If you wanted to send troops into Iraq [finally on point] – you know – I supported his father when his father sent troops to Iraq. I thought his father made a reasonable case. [AKA, in hindsight, we kicked ass, so I’m all for sharing the spoils.] Kuwait is an ally of the United States. Saddam Hussein has invaded it. He's torturing people. We have an obligation as the last superpower to fix this. [(1) You just admitted that Saddam torturing people is a reasonable case for war against him; (2) You implied the Gulf War was important because Kuwait is an ally – but wouldn’t it be nice to also have Iraq as an ally? Isn’t that better for long-term peace and stability?] Instead the president said, "Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States," and that was just flat-out false. [Although the venerable 9-11 Commission acknowledged that he harbored at least two Al-Qaida operatives who previously attacked the US.] And I don't think that's the way you run a government.

MR. RUSSERT: But John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman all said Saddam was a threat to the United States. [So did Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Vladimir Putin, the C.I.A. and other heads of state.] That was the belief.

DR. DEAN: Because they were told that by the president of the United States, and there is a wide berth given to the president. [So it’s not a Senator’s responsibility to double-check facts and information alleged by the president before voting on issues – let alone to go to war? How come that method isn’t working with personal Social Security accounts or judicial nominees?] And I think it's justifiable. In a time of threat to the United States, there is a wide berth given to the president. [Mr. Dean, you’re passing the buck.] You trust the president of the United States to give you the information no matter what party they're in. [Just like you trust your elected senators to be thorough with information before they vote on issues, especially the most important one of going to war.] And I think the president was not – did not treat the Senate and the House properly either. [Because he expected them to be competent?]

MR. RUSSERT: Wasn't it the intelligence community that misled the president, as well?

DR. DEAN: Well, I believe, and I think many Americans believe, and I think this has been written about [so it must be true!], that there was pressure put on the intelligence agencies, as John Bolton [name-dropper] was clearly demonstrated to have put pressure on a variety of people in the State Department, to come up with the conclusions that the president wanted. That's what I believe, and I think there's some evidence to that. [Yes, but the question was about irrefutable facts, not Howard Dean’s personal beliefs and conspiracy theories. Mr. Dean seems to believe a lot of things that bear merely “some evidence.”]

MR. RUSSERT: When did the president ever suggest that Saddam Hussein was responsible for September 11?

DR. DEAN: He didn't. [But you just said….] His nuance – his people suggested that. [So why not blame “his people,” being that this is the second time you’ve blamed them instead of Bush. (They’re mercury-lovers, too, remember?)] He suggested that in a nuanced way in many of his speeches. [(1) So now nuance and YOUR inferences supercede facts? (2) And how do you know so many of his speeches if you weren’t allowed to hear them?] He was asked once directly about it and said, "No, I don't have that evidence." [AKA, what he actually said.] But the truth is in every speech, including the ones during the campaign where he deliberately muddled the anti-terrorism war that we're engaged in with the war in Iraq. [We’re not fighting Islamic terrorists in Iraq?] They are two separate efforts. [Two separate countries, same effort.] Unfortunately, now because of the president's actions, I would argue that we're in greater danger now because of what's going on in Iraq than we were before. [I think that’s been written about, too, so it must be true!] Now there are terrorists in Iraq. They have migrated there since our troops were there. [H.D., 5/22/05: “I supported his father when his father sent troops to Iraq. I thought his father made a reasonable case. Kuwait is an ally of the United States. Saddam Hussein has invaded it. He's torturing people. We have an obligation as the last superpower to fix this.”]

[These last remarks evidence author Ben Shapiro’s eloquent analysis that, to Democrats, “When facts and feelings clash, facts just have to be changed.”]

DECONSTRUCTING DEAN: On Professionalism & Moral Values

2005-05-28T12:38:00.000-04:00

MR. RUSSERT: Let me stay on your rhetoric. January, I mentioned that "I hate the Republicans, what they stand for, good and evil, we are the good." In March, you said, "Republicans are brain dead." You mentioned you're a physician—and this is April. "[Dean] did draw howls of laughter by mimicking a drug-snorting Rush Limbaugh. `I'm not very dignified,' Dean said."

DR. DEAN: [With a smile] Well, that's true. A lot of people have accused me of not being dignified. [Including yourself.]

MR. RUSSERT: But is it appropriate for a physician to mock somebody who has gone into therapy and the abuse for drug addiction?

DR. DEAN: [Admire the spin and hypocrisy in this answer.] Here's the point I was trying – as most of these things are taken by the Republicans, spun around Washington saying this in a one sentence, which I generally had said. [Huh?] But then they're sort of manipulated around, saying this is the kind of thing he said. [Huh?] The Rush Limbaugh comment was one that I made about Rush Limbaugh [really?], and I also said something about Bill O'Reilly [name-dropper]. The problem is not that these folks have problems. They do, and they have problems in the case of a drug addiction. [O’Reilly?] That's a medical problem. And I respect those who clearly, in my profession, who are trying to overcome their problems. [Only those in your profession? Physicians or politicians (professions to which neither Rush Limbaugh nor Bill O’Reilly belong)?]

The problem is it is galling to Democrats, 48 percent of us who did not support the president, it is galling to be lectured to about moral values by folks who have their own problems. [So you model moral values by making fun of their clinical problems?] Hypocrisy is a value that I think has been embraced by the Republican Party. [H.D., 5/22/05: “But the thing that really bothered me the most is the insinuation that the president continues to make to this day that (sic, Saddam Hussein) had something to do with supporting terrorists that attacked the United States. (Bush) was asked once directly about it and said, ‘No, I don't have that evidence.’ "] We get lectured by people all day long about moral values by people who have their own moral shortcomings. [Like class?] I don't think we ought to give a whole lot of lectures to people. [What’s a filibuster?] I think the Bible says something to the effect that be careful when you talk about the shortcomings of somebody else when you haven't removed the moat from your own eye. [Huh?] And I don't think we ought to be lectured to by Republicans who have got all these problems themselves. [Congratulations, Mr. Dean. You lost me.]

Rush Limbaugh has made a career of belittling other people and making jokes about President Clinton, about Mrs. Clinton and others. [Their policies and ideas or their physical impediments? I bet Rush made not a single joke about Clinton’s bypass surgery.] I don't think he's in any position to do that, nor do I think Bill O'Reilly is in a position to abuse families of survivors of 9/11, given his own ethical shortcomings. [Are the DNC and Air America Radio in a position to mock-assassinate the president for a laugh? Is it ethical, Mr. Dean, to still not condemn that action by the media outlet which your organization actually funds?] Everybody has ethical shortcomings. We ought not to lecture [filibuster] each other about our ethical shortcomings. [Weren’t Democrats supposed to be the party of free speech, diversity of opinion and equal opportunity? Besides, Mr. Dean, Limbaugh and O’Reilly are media personalities – not political leaders. BIG difference.]

MR. RUSSERT: But should you jump in the fray and be mocking those kind of people?

DR. DEAN: I will use whatever position I have in order to root out hypocrisy. [Apparently, except for your own.] I'm not going to be lectured [filibustered] as a Democrat – we've got some pretty strong moral values in my party [i.e., defending terrorists, U.S. military-bashing, fighting for abortion rights, changing the definition of words and statutes to achieve secular- and gay agenda objectives, etc.] and maybe we ought to do a better job standing up and fighting for them. [Before you kept wanting to sit down, now you want to stand up. Politics sounds like good exercise!]

Our moral values, in contradiction to the Republicans', is we don't think kids [unless they’re helpless victims of brain trauma] ought to go to bed hungry at night. [OK, so you just accused Republicans of valuing the starvation of children.] Our moral values say that people who work hard all their lives ought to be able to retire with dignity. [AKA, Republicans value American workers retiring undignified.] Our moral values say that we ought to have a strong, free public education system so that we can level the playing field. [AKA, Republicans, despite No-Child-Left-Behind (a merit-based education system), value poor and expensive education.] Our moral values say that what's going on in Indian country [respectful term] in this country right now in terms of health care and education is a disgrace, and for the president of the United States to cut back on health-care services all over America is wrong. [AKA, Republicans hate Indians and want all Americans to suffer bad or no health care.]

[H.D., 5/22/05: “Look, we're not going to stoop to the kind of divisiveness that the Republicans are doing.”]

Democrats have strong moral values. Frankly, my moral values are offended by some of the things I hear on programs like "Rush Limbaugh" [then why do you listen to it?], and we don't have to put up with that. [So how’s Air America doing?] Our problem in this party is we didn't stand up early enough and fight back against folks like that who thought they were going to push us around and bully us, and we're not going to do it anymore. [Sounds like you’re sacrificing reason and sincerity just to sound extra tough.]

DECONSTRUCTING DEAN: On Abortion

2005-05-28T12:34:00.000-04:00

MR. RUSSERT: One issue where the Democrats seem to be changing their thinking is abortion. Here's Howard Dean on April 17: "I think we need to talk about abortion differently... Republicans have forced us into a corner to defend abortion..." And then, April 21: "If I could strike the words `choice' and `abortion' out of the lexicon of our party, I would."

DR. DEAN: Absolutely. I'm not advocating we change our position. [H.D., 5/22/05: “Democrats have strong moral values.”] I believe that a woman has a right to make up her own mind about [whether or not to have sex?] what kind of health care she gets [including contraceptives and birth control?], and I think Democrats believe that in general. Here's the problem – and we were outmanipulated by the Republicans [so you admit you tried to manipulate people?], there's no question about it.

We have been forced into the idea of "we're going to defend abortion." I don't know anybody who thinks abortion is a good thing. I don't know anybody in either party who is pro-abortion. [H.D., 5/22/05: “I hate the dishonesty, you know. I will use whatever position I have in order to root out hypocrisy.”] The issue is not whether we think abortion is a good thing. The issue is whether a woman has a right to make up her own mind about her health care, or a family has a right to make up their own mind about how their loved ones leave this world. [So being “pro-choice” – a label created by liberal democrats – doesn’t solely concern abortion rights? If I support a woman’s right to get her chronic back pain treated at the Cleveland Clinic, I’m politically pro-choice?] I think the Republicans are intrusive and they invade people's personal privacy, and they don't have a right to do that. [Huh? Any evidence? Mr. Dean, you just throw around conspiracy theories and act as though they’re solid facts. If you’re referring to Terry Schiavo, remember that her family begged and pleaded for those who represent them to take action. Again, the doctrine of checks and balances – not the Gestapo – is what Republicans in Congress implemented.]

Let me tell you why I think we ought to--why I want to strike the words "abortion" and "choice." When I campaigned for this job, I talked to lots of Democrats. And there are significant numbers of pro-life Democrats in the South. And one lady said to me, you know, "I'm pro-life. I don't like abortion. I would never have one. I would hope my daughter would never have one. But, you know, if the lady next door got herself in a fix, I'm not sure I should be the one to tell her what to do." [Then she’s not pro-life.] Now, we call that woman pro-choice, but she [incorrectly] thinks of herself as pro-life. The minute we start with the "pro-choice, pro- choice, pro-choice," she says, "Well, that's not me." [Again, Democrats created the label to euphemize the term “pro-abortion.”]

But when you talk about framing this debate the way it ought to be framed, which is "Do you want Tom DeLay [name-dropper] and the boys [sexist remark] to make up your mind about this, or does a woman have a right to make up her own mind about what kind of health care she gets," then that pro-life woman says, "Well, now, you know, I've had people try to make up my mind for me and I don't think that's right." [H.D., 5/22/05: “Democrats have strong moral values.”] This is an issue about who gets to make up their minds: the politicians or the individual. [Actually, no it’s not. ONLY the U.S. Supreme Court can ever make abortion illegal. Not “Tom Delay and the boys.”] Democrats are for the individual. We believe in individual rights [to have an abortion]. We believe in personal freedom [to decide whether or not to have an abortion] and personal responsibility [except with the decision to have unprotected sex]. And that debate is one that we didn't win, because we kept being forced into the idea of defending the idea of abortion. [Maybe because you’re in denial that it’s what pro-choice really means – and that most Americans know it.] We'd like to make abortion rare. You know that abortions have gone up 25 percent since George Bush was president? [According to what source? Surely you at least have a source for this, right? Is this another unidentified “medical analysis” you read recently?]

[And if Democrats are such champions for individual rights and responsibilities, why are they so opposed to the option of personal/private Social Security accounts?]

MR. RUSSERT: But...

DR. DEAN: We need to reduce the number of abortions in this country. There is common ground between us and pro-life Democrats, and we ought to find that common ground. [A good start is not denying the real issue.]

MR. RUSSERT: But, Governor, the problem for Democrats has been that many request abortion on demand. When there are attempts to say that there should be parental notification for children under 18-- to be notified with a judicial bypass, if there's a spouse--a parental abuse situation. Many Democrats oppose it. Third-trimester abortion, "partial-birth" abortion, Democrats opposed it.

DR. DEAN: Tim... […rules.]

MR. RUSSERT: President Clinton vetoed it. Every time there's a vote to restrict abortion, the majority of the Democrats seem to vote against it.

DR. DEAN: Tim, first of all, President Clinton vetoed the third-term – late-term-abortion ban because the Republicans refused to make an exception for the health and the lifeof the mother. [Bush has campaigned, since day one, that’s he’s pro-life except when dealing with rape, incest or life of the mother. That is not radically different from most other Congressional Republicans.] Now, it – I don't think that there is an ethical doctor in America who will do a third-term abortion without there being a reason like the health and life of the mother. [Not an ethical doctor, but plenty of doctors who do it. That’s the point, Mr. Dean. It’s unethical, yet your party staunchly defends it.] I don't think it's ethical to do third-term abortions, unless – just to save the health and the life of the mother. I don't think that's unreasonable. [Then why does the rest of your party?] Shouldn't this be a realm where doctors and women make up their minds instead of politicians? [It’s always a woman’s decision whether or not she’s dying from birth complications?] What do politicians know about practicing medicine? Not very many of us have an MD. [Spoken like a smug elitist. The Senate majority leader (R) has one, though.]

MR. RUSSERT: Well, the – but several heads of the American Medical Association endorsed banning third-term abortions because they said life of the mother is one thing but the health is a much different issue. It can be defined in so many different ways, it was a major loophole.

DR. DEAN: You know what I'd prefer to see, frankly? I'd prefer to see medical practice boards around the country, state by state – because people do believe different things about this in different states. I'd prefer to see medical practice boards around the country set ethical guidelines for abortion. [Smooth evasion of the implicit question.] I don't have a problem with that. You know, I don't know of people who do third-term abortions without a moral reason for doing it, which is to save the health and life of the mother. So let them set some ethical guidelines. But I think this debate ought to get out of the realm of having politicians standing up and grandstanding. [Wow, Mr. Dean, did you actually just describe a policy idea? Only took 3/4 of the interview to get there.]

It is an incredibly difficult area. It is an area which is conflicted. I don't know anybody who ever had an abortion who feels, "Oh, boy, this is just great. I can't wait to have another one." [Ask Susan Estrich and Planned Parenthood, who sold and promoted t-shirts last summer that read, “I had an abortion.”] That's not what this is about. This is a very difficult, horrible choice. [Hence, pro-choice.] Does the government make that choice or does the individual make that choice? [To have unprotected sex?] There are ethical constraints around the issue of abortion. There is no question about that. I think those ought to be done state by state. And I think doctors ought to have a lot more say about it than they do now. [Dangerously close to more actual policy proposals.]

MR. RUSSERT: Both parties have tried to use it politically.

DR. DEAN: I agree with that, and I think that's unfortunate. I think it is time now for pro-life Americans and pro-choice Americans or Americans who believe in individual freedom to get together [standing up or sitting down?], and we have common ground. The common ground is we'd all like to reduce the number of abortions. But put aside the rhetoric, the difficulty and let's work to reduce the number of abortions. [Pssst! Mr. Dean! Tell your party!] That's something we can agree on. I don't think we're going to get there with abstinence-only education. I don't think we're going to get there if we condemn contraceptions or condom use [in elementary schools, you mean?] and all that kind of thing. But let's see what common ground that we have. There are a lot of very reasonable Americans who call themselves pro-life. [Are there really?] There are a lot of very reasonable Americans who believe in individual choice and personal responsibility. [They’re called pro-life.] I think we can work together. There are not many of us who want to see the abortion rate continue to go up as it has under President Bush. [Subtle attack. Again, where is your source for this? Not even a reference?]

DECONSTRUCTING DEAN: On Terri Schiavo

2005-05-28T12:26:00.000-04:00

MR. RUSSERT: I mentioned Terri Schiavo. I want to talk about a comment you made: "We're going to use Terri Schiavo later on. This is going to be an issue in 2006 and it's going to be an issue in 2008, because we're going to have an ad with a picture of Tom DeLay saying, `Do you want this guy to decide whether you die or not, or is that going to be up to your loved ones?'” [Which, again, is completely baseless. Reread about separation of powers and checks & balances, Mr. Dean.]

Why didn't one Democratic senator stand up in the U.S. Senate and stop the legislation regarding Terri Schiavo if the party feels so strongly about it?

DR. DEAN: Well, you know, I didn't say anything about it. [H.D., 5/22/05: “Our problem in this party is we didn't stand up early enough and fight back against folks like that who thought they were going to push us around and bully us, and we're not going to do it anymore … [W]e are going to be tough as nails … Democrats have strong moral values.”] Now, you talked about message discipline earlier on, and I have had people complain to us how come we didn't do anything about it at the time? That really was in the middle of the Social Security fight [so you can’t debate two issues, especially when you’ve made zero SS proposals?], and I do think in general it is true that Tom DeLay has now become a huge issue, not because we made him one; it was because the papers made him one. [As if you’re different.] There were all these other things that have now come to light that he's doing, and think it's fair to comment on it and it's certainly something that differentiates our position on good government and clean government and the other side.

[Reminder: The question was, “Why didn't one Democratic senator stand up in the U.S. Senate and stop the legislation regarding Terri Schiavo if the party feels so strongly about it?”]

On the Terri Schiavo case [AKA, the question asked], first of all we have to remember these arehuman beings. [How very Republican of you.] This is a terrible, terrible case, but it's something that almost every American can relate to. You know, a lot of Americans can't relate to abortion. They don't think they know anybody that's ever had one or ever had to take – be in that position. It turns out that's not true. A lot of people – most people don't talk about it. But in the case of living and dying, every American family – this is everybody's nightmare, and believe me, as a doctor, I can't tell you how many times I had to face this.

The reason I didn't say anything about it at the time – and leaving the senators aside, as the chairman didn't say anything about it at the time – is because we are on a roll with Social Security. [WOW. So not one Democratic senator stopped the Shiavo legislation because Democrats were “on a roll with Social Security?” This makes no sense and it makes Democratic senators look spineless, which is still better than heartless.] The Democrats, one of our biggest faults is that we want to tell you everything. [Or a whole bunch of nothing, considering you still haven’t explained your answer.] We want to tell you every last detail about everything we know. [Instead of what’s relevant, which fogs your connection with most Americans, which is largely why you lose elections, yes.] And one of the things I do admire about President Bush is his political ability. I don't admire his policy, but he's good at politics. He gets on, he says a quick message, 20 seconds, repeats it four times a day, for 100 days in a row. We've got to learn to do that. [How about just answering the question and explaining the rationale behind it?] So in the middle of a huge Social Security fight where the future of, I think, people's livelihood and seniors' security is at stake, I didn't want to get dragged into that. [Didn’t want to get dragged into a life-or-death issue that will shape future American policy? Didn’t want to address the issue while a defenseless woman starved to death for two weeks?] But – and maybe we should have. You know, maybe we should have said "No, this is outrageous," because the public obviously agreed with us. [According to what? Polls? Because judging by elected representatives, the public strongly disagreed with you.] But I didn't realize at the time what the impact of what they were trying to do was. Part of it was because 14 court decisions in a row and then the backlash was "We don't like the court decisions, the hell with them, we're going do it our way and we're going to impeach them, impeach them..."

[AKA: Dean and the current Democratic senators/future Democratic presidential nominees didn’t want to look bad politically (to moderates), so they sat on their hands until the issue was no longer a top story.]

MR. RUSSERT: But the sense was, Governor, that the Democrats thought that the election in 2004 may have turned on cultural and moral values, and they were afraid to stand up and be seen taking a stance against, quote...

DR. DEAN: Well, I wasn't afraid of that. I mean, I said at the time – people did ask me about it – I said personally at the time I thought it was terrible, because I think that's a deeply personal choice. [In hindsight, you now have a stance? Again, why didn’t you have one at the time? Because you were busy with Social Security or because no one asked you what you thought?] I can't speak for Democrats in the Senate. We didn't confer. It came up very fast. [It was brewing for weeks on a national level.] Look, I'm not making excuses for this. [Then stop making excuses for it.] In retrospect, probably at the time we should have said, "No, this is a terrible thing." But I myself, who thought it was a terrible thing [Congress doing their job? Checks and balances, which you defended earlier?], did say so but didn't have a press conference and grandstand about it in a big way is because we need to stay on message on Social Security. [Despite still having no counter-proposals.] As it turns out the Schiavo case will probably be the turning point about our ability to make our case to Americans about the incredible invasiveness of Republicans when it comes to making personal private decisions. [So while she was starving to death for two weeks, you ignored her – but come future elections, you’ll proudly “use” her for your own political gain? Stupendous ethics, Doc.]

In places like Arizona, for example, where there's a huge ethic almost – libertarianism about individualism, and this is the action of the Republicans that will undo them [despite having two Republican senators] and any claim that they prefer to allow individuals to make up their own mind. [Terri made up her own mind? What about her family’s desperate, public pleas for help? Republicans in Congress didn’t knock on their door.] This is the case that ultimately, I think, is going to galvanize Democrats into being the party of individual freedom and individual and personal responsibility. [If that’s true, why didn’t it do that when it mattered – AKA, while it was actually happening?]

DECONSTRUCTING DEAN: On Deaniacs, Religion & Fund-Raising

2005-05-28T12:22:00.000-04:00

MR. RUSSERT: It's interesting. You said that the issue is are we going to live in a theocracy where the highest powers tell us what to do? And I was reading the Pew Research Center where they went out and surveyed 11,000 of your closest advisers...

DR. DEAN: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...contributors, activists, volunteers. It was quite striking. Dean activists vs. all Democrats--attend church seldom or never, 59 percent of Dean activists seldom or never as opposed to 25 percent of all Democrats; 92 percent white, 82 percent liberal, 45 percent over $75,000 [annual income]. Is your base secular, affluent, white and liberal?

DR. DEAN: I think not quite as much as the Pew folks. That was a very fascinating study. [As fascinating as the one about mercury? Or that more abortions took place since Bush became president? Or about Social Security solvency?] The only methodological problem is they only went on the Internet, and, therefore, you could answer or could not. [Huh?] But I think it's a great piece. [So you admit it’s accurate?]

Look, I fit into some of those categories. [Some?] I don't go to church all that much. [Hallelu-HEEYAAHH!] I consider myself a deeply religious person. I consider myself a Christian. And I don't – you know, some of the other Christians would dare to say that I'm not a Christian. [Some of “the other Christians”? Is this a competition?] Frankly, it's what gets my ire up. We get back to the Rush Limbaugh stuff. I am sick of being told what I am and what I'm not by other people. [Then why are you a politician?] I'll tell you what I am. I'm a committed Christian. And the fact of whether I go to church or not, people can say whether I should or shouldn't, I worship in my own way. It came out in the campaign that I pray every night. That's my business. That's not the business of the pharisees who are going to preach to me about what I do and then do something else. [(1) Actually, that is their job, Mr. Dean. They’re literally paid to do just that. (2) Isn’t that what you’ve been doing to Republicans, especially Tom Delay, during this entire interview?]

You know, I care about values a lot. [H.D., 5/22/05: “We're (Democrats are) going to use Terri Schiavo later on.”] And one of the reasons that I care a lot is because of my upbringing. And it was a – I grew up in a Christian household. Now, because I grew up – I'm a congregationalist. People say, "Well, those are liberals." Well, since when do Christians get tagged liberal or conservative? [I don’t know, maybe since liberals demonized southern Christians and created the apocryphal (and phantom) label “The Religious Right”?] You either believe in the teachings of Jesus or you don't. I do. And I'm not ashamed to admit it. But I don't go around wearing it on my sleeve. [Even though Jesus encouraged spreading the Word of God.] And I think that's a private matter. And I'm happy to talk about it. I've been through a political campaign. There are a lot of folks to whom, you know, that's very important. I respect that. But I'm not going to be lectured to about my own private morality and my own private business by people who don't have the moat taken out of their own eye. [These last few sentences were almost eloquent until he referred to his botched proverb once again.]

MR. RUSSERT: Newt Gingrich [without whom Bill Clinton never balanced the budget], when you were elected chairman of the party, said the Democrats must have a death wish. The hotline did a survey, The Political Hotline published by National Journal, and of the 17 states that you went to, a Democratic governor or Democratic senator has not appeared with you in those states. Are people running from you?

DR. DEAN: I doubt it. When I went to Mississippi, all four former governors showed up. [And the senators?] You know, I stayed over at the governor's house in Kansas. [And the senators?] I mean, I think when you go into a state, and you're there for four or five hours, it's pretty hard for governors to change their schedule and suddenly decide they're going to have to be by your side. I've raised over $1 million for state parties, including places like Arizona and Oklahoma.

MR. RUSSERT: Republicans say January through March, they've raised $32 million, double what the Democrats have raised.

DR. DEAN: Well, that's – I think that's fine. You know, Republicans have always been better at raising money than we have. [Ha! Then why does the DNC continually refuse to release private donation records (as opposed to the RNC, which annually releases such info)?] But don't forget, I've only been in office for 100 days. We're still raising money at twice the rate we were in the first year of McCain-Feingold [which failed, thanks to 527s], which was 2003, and we're raising $1 million a week. We're also putting people, who are hired by – local people on the DNC payroll in every state in America. And that is going to be really what's going to create the opportunity for us to win. [Not ideas?]

We cannot run 18-state campaigns. [AKA, New England and the Left Coast.] We've got to be everywhere. We've got to be in Mississippi. We've got to be in Oklahoma. We have to be organized. By the end of this year, we have a goal of having a Democrat in every precinct in America, not every county, but every precinct in America, four paid political organizers in every state in America in 2005. We're not going to have seven-month campaigns for the presidency anymore. We're going to have four-year campaigns, and we're going to help governorships in '05 and '06 and '07. We're going to help congressionals in '06 and '08. But we're also going to try to get elected people running for the state legislature, people running for city council. We're involved in some mayors' races right now. [THEN WE’RE GOING TO COLORADO! TO OKLAHOMA! TO MAINE! HEE-YAHHH!] We need to do this from top to bottom just as the Republicans did. They have a 30-year plan. As I said, there's nothing I admire about what the Republicans are doing to this country politically [winning elections?], but I admire their campaign business model a great deal. [Having real ideas about real issues? Not blabbering about everything they know instead of focusing on what’s relevant?] And we're, frankly, going to adopt a lot of it that works for Democrats.

MR. RUSSERT: The USA Today on Friday had a big piece. "A Dam Sure Based GOP Goes Rating." They compare your schedule to that of Republican chairman Ken Mehlman. He's going the Hispanicroute, Catholics groups, reaching out. Your schedule is primarily with Democratic activists, labor unions, gays, the core, the base of the Democratic party.

DR. DEAN: You know, there was more petulance in that article than there was facts. [Facts taken out of context again by the media? Welcome to the world in which Republicans live.] The truth is we're reaching out all over the place. We are talking to people. I have spoken with evangelicals. I have visited with some of the Catholic hierarchy in this country. We are going to do some more of that. I've been to 18 states. It was 17 when you got your numbers, but recently I went to Oklahoma and Arizona. [19?] Of those, eight of them have been red states. We're trying to get our message out everywhere. [That Republicans are evil?] We are going to go after the Republican--what they think is the Republican base. We're going to go after red states. There are some of those states that we can win. [Been saying that for seven years.] My philosophy is actually there's no such thing as a red state and a blue state. There are purple states. Some are more purple than others. [Yeah, Massachusetts and California.] We need to be everywhere, and we will be.

DECONSTRUCTING DEAN: On Embracing Socialism and the Future

2005-05-28T12:16:00.000-04:00

MR. RUSSERT: In your home state of Vermont, there's a vacancy for the United States Senate about to occur. Bernie Sanders, the congressman from Vermont, wants to run for that seat. He is a self- described avowed socialist.

DR. DEAN: Well, that's what he says. He's really a populist. [So you’re calling him a liar?]

MR. RUSSERT: But is there room in the Democratic Party for a socialist?

DR. DEAN: Well, first of all, he's not a socialist, really. [Again, so he’s a liar? One of you is lying!]

MR. RUSSERT: He...

DR. DEAN: He hasn't said that for a while. [Which means he’s no longer a socialist? You said yourself that just because you don’t preach about something, like faith, or about Terry Shiavo – that doesn’t mean you’ve changed your ideology.]

MR. RUSSERT: Oh, he has a--he wrote in his book: "Outside or in the House, I am a Democratic socialist."

DR. DEAN: Well, a Democratic socialist – all right, we're talking about words here. [When you talk and write, it’s usually with words. As for semantics, that isn’t the issue. A politician doesn’t claim to be, let alone in writing, a socialist unless he’s a socialist.] And Bernie can call himself anything he wants. He is basicallya liberal Democrat [so liberal Democrats are basically socialists?], and he is a Democrat that – he runs as an Independent because he doesn't like the structure and the money that gets involved. [Socialists hate money.] And he actually has, I think, some good points about campaign finance reform. The bottom line is that Bernie Sanders votes with the Democrats 98 percent of the time. [The party for communists!] And that is a candidate that we think...

MR. RUSSERT: So you'd support him?

DR. DEAN: We may very well end up supporting him. We need to work some things out because it's very important for us not to split the votes in some of the other offices as well. [AKA, “We need the socialist vote! It’s too large a section of the Democratic base today.”]

MR. RUSSERT: In 1996 you said you would never have voted for Bernie Sanders. Instead, you opted in recent years to leave the ballot blank.

DR. DEAN: Bernie and I have had our difficulties over the years. We've had our strong disagreements. He's a strong personality. We're fighting for the future of America, and a Bernie Sanders in the United States Senate is going to be a whole lot better than somebody who will vote to confirm right-wing judges [because they’re not left-wing or socialist judges?], somebody who will vote to undo minority rights [though Republicans have historically championed civil rights better than Democrats], somebody who will vote to kill Social Security [or to alter it so that it doesn’t die from negligence]. This is a battle where personalities and differences have to be put aside, and we have to do what's right for America. [And not pride ourselves on starving children and stealing medical care from poor people, like Republicans do.]

MR. RUSSERT: You describe...

DR. DEAN: And Bernie Sanders will be a strong [socialist] candidate.

MR. RUSSERT: You describe yourself as being blunt, that what differentiates you from others is that you will be blunt. "I have to be blunt. It's what will differentiate me from the others. Blunt is what I do. I think there's an enormous market for somebody who says what he thinks."

DR. DEAN: Maybe not as big a one as I thought, judging by the presidential returns. [Perhaps the most sincere you’ve been all interview.]

MR. RUSSERT: You also say, "I can be overbearing to people whose ideas I don't agree with or respect." You sound like you're describing John Bolton, the president's nominee to be ambassador to the U.N.

DR. DEAN: Well, the difference between me and John Bolton is that I've never called up a subordinate and tried to influence their testimony or behavior. I've never had--tried to move somebody out of their job because they disagreed with me. I have an enormous amount of respect for people who have different opinions [except “evil” Republicans], but they have to defend their opinions. You can't just say, "I want to privatize Social Security because I want to privatize Social Security." [As opposed to, “The President’s Social Security plan is a bad idea because I think it’s a bad idea.”] You have to really show me why you want to do what you want to do. [Like ignore Terry Shiavo until another election rolls around.] And if you can defend your ideas, I'll respect those ideas. [H.D., 5/22/05: “[T]here's nothing I admire about what the Republicans are doing to this country politically….”] I think the difference between me and John Bolton – I don't know John Bolton personally, but from what I've read in the newspapers [AKA, the liberal elite media], he doesn't seem to respect anybody who disagrees with him. That's probably not a good attribute to have if you want to be an ambassador to the United Nations. [Yes, he’s not enough of a rapist or bribe-taker for UN standards.]

MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you three photographs: Fred Harris, Henry "Scoop" Jackson and James Farley. Those three men, all chairmen of the Democratic National Committee. And after they served, they all ran for president.

DR. DEAN: And not one of them won.

MR. RUSSERT: Will Howard Dean run for president?

DR. DEAN: I don't have any idea, but I certainly won't do it in 2008. I gave my word not to and I intend to keep that word.

MR. RUSSERT: But down the road?

DR. DEAN: I don't have any idea. You know, if I could push a button, I would make sure there was a Democratic president in 2008, which would preclude my running--from ever even thinking about it.

MR. RUSSERT: Is there a front-runner in your party?

DR. DEAN: If – you know, that's the one thing I don't comment on. You know, I'm proudly willing to say anything [especially if it’s not true or unsubstantiated], but I'm not willing to comment on that because I will have to be the referee. So I've really just sworn off any speculation on either side about presidential politics in 2008.

MR. RUSSERT: Governor Howard Dean, as always, we thank you for joining us and sharing your views.

DR. DEAN: Tim, thanks for having me on.

[Too bad Mr. Russert didn’t ask Mr. Dean why he’s an apparent racist. After all, no members of his Governor’s cabinet were African-American. And he did say this at a meeting with the Democratic black caucus in February: "You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here."]

[Where is the accountability? These words alone are far worse than what Trent Lott said that forced his resignation as Senate majority leader.]

Whennnnn the meeeediaaa hate a nomineeee....

2005-04-25T00:36:00.000-04:00

"If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason." -- Jack Handey

Thursday's New York Times ran a story that also made the front page of AOL's Welcome Menu regarding Colin Powell's alleged reservations about John Bolton (President Bush's nominee for U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.).

Typical of mainstream print/news media today, however, this article is completely baseless.

Times staff writer Douglas Jehl wrote that Powell "expressed reservations about Bolton in conversations with at least two wavering Republican senators" and that Powell has "made clear his concerns about Bolton on several fronts, including his harsh treatment of subordinates."

Jehl even adds his opinion that "accounts of Mr. Powell's private messages about Mr. Bolton suggested a new gulf between the former secretary of state and Mr. Bush."

But the most important -- and most interesting -- line of the entire article is this one, craftily placed in the eighth paragraph: "Mr. Powell has not spoken publicly about the Bolton nomination."

From where, then, does this story even originate? From unnamed sources regarded only as "associates," of course.

In fact, the ONLY sources actually named in the article made NO (as in zero) allegations regarding how Colin Powell feels toward John Bolton, either personally or professionally.

The article seeks to accomplish four goals:
1) To defame John Bolton in the minds of readers;
2) To imply a serious rift in the Republican party because of this situation;
3) To suggest that a serious ideological stalemate exists between the Bush administration (and "right-wing" Republicans) and Colin Powell;
4) To portray the Bush administration as cruel and incompetent.

The following is the article in its entirety, complete with my own commentary [in brackets]. I consider it the "Informed Reader's Edition."

(Italics added.)

================================

Updated: 4/21/05 - 10:53 AM EDT
Powell Expresses Concerns About Bush Nominee
By DOUGLAS JEHL
The New York Times

WASHINGTON (April 21) - President Bush on Thursday issued a strong new defense of John R. Bolton, his nominee as ambassador to the United Nations. But associates of Colin L. Powell, the former secretary of state, said he had expressed reservations about Mr. Bolton in conversations with at least two wavering Republican senators.

[So right off the bat we know this entire allegation/article/smear effort will be based off comments made by unnamed "associates" of Powell's. My neighbor's dog is just as credible.]

The associates said Mr. Powell, in private telephone conversations, had made clear his concerns about Mr. Bolton on several fronts, including his harsh treatment of subordinates.

[So not only do Powell's unnamed "associates" represent credible sources to the New York Times, but they apparently also have access to their "associate" Powell's private phone conversations.]

The associates said Mr. Powell had also praised Mr. Bolton's performance on some matters during his tenure as under secretary of state, but they said Mr. Powell had stopped well short of the endorsements offered by Mr. Bush and by Mr. Powell's own successor, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

[Jehl listed a specific complaint of Powell's (regarding Bolton) last paragraph, but apparently it'd be too balanced to also provide an example for what Powell "also praised" him. It's much easier just to say it happened and feign the appearance of balance than to actually balance the information.]

The accounts of Mr. Powell's private messages about Mr. Bolton suggested a new gulf between the former secretary of state and Mr. Bush. In a speech in Washington on Thursday, Mr. Bush portrayed Democratic opposition to Mr. Bolton as politically driven, and urged the Senate to confirm the nomination.

[Name one example of how Democratic opposition is NOT politically driven! President Bush did not merely "portray" Democratic opposition to Bolton as politically driven -- he simply called it for what it is. When congressional Democrats appear on every other political and news TV show proudly declaring that they'll filibuster Bush's judicial nominees and oppose John Bolton -- you know it's part of an agenda! In other words, this wasn't Bush being manipulative -- it IS "politically driven."]

Mr. Bush's comment and others by a White House spokesman suggested that the administration was determined to defend Mr. Bolton's nomination, despite crumbling support among Senate Republicans that has left the nomination in peril.

[Two things:

[1) Why would the Bush administration cop out of their nomination just because a small minority of liberal Republicans call for more time to vote? This extra time better ensures Bolton's induction -- while simultaneously giving Democrats their say (i.e., no one can then complain when it's done); and

[2) How is this an example of "crumbling support among Senate Republicans?" Calling for a delayed vote doesn't mean that Voinovich or other Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee won't eventually vote for Bolton. It also doesn't indicate a "wavering" trend among most conservative senators.]

In his speech on Thursday, to the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America, Mr. Bush brought up the subject quickly, saying, "I welcome you to the nation's capital, where sometimes politics gets in the way of doing the people's business."

"Take John Bolton, the good man I nominated to represent our country at the United Nations," Mr. Bush said. "John's distinguished career in service to our nation demonstrates that he is the right man at the right time for this important assignment. I urge the Senate to put politics aside and confirm John Bolton to the United Nations."

Mr. Powell has not spoken publicly about the Bolton nomination. But his associates said he had told two Republican senators, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, that he had been troubled by the way Mr. Bolton had treated an intelligence analyst and others at the State Department who had disagreed with him.

[Just now, eight paragraphs into the article, does Mr. Jehl so much as casually acknowledge that Powell himself NEVER spoke publicly about Bolton's nomination! Then Jehl mentions senators Chafeeand Hagel, two of the most liberal "Republicans" in Congress.

[Here's what Chafee said on July 9, 2004, on the Senate floor: "Nuts! To be seen as the party that's coming between two people that love each other doing what they want to do ... to me that's going to be seen as a liability, politically."

[And, John McCain aside, was there a single politician whom John Kerry glowingly referenced more during his campaign than Chuck Hagel, a Republican, of Nebraska?

[My point is that this typical liberal media tactic of taking what 2-3 "moderate" Republicans say and projecting it as a dilemma facing the entire party -- fools only those who want to believe it.]

Mr. Chafee and Mr. Hagel, both members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, have expressed concern about Mr. Bolton's temperament, credibility and treatment of intelligence analysts. The senators' concerns, with those of Senator George V. Voinovich, the Ohio Republican, were among the factors that led the committee to postpone a vote on Mr. Bolton's nomination until next month.

[Jehl reminds readers that Senator Voinovich is a Republican -- from Ohio, no less -- to give the impression that the whole party is "crumbling." I voted for Senator V. back in November. He's my former governor. And now liberals suddenly LOVE him because of this situation. I wonder if they'll still call him a man of integrity and honor after he eventually votes to confirm Bolton's nomination.]

Accounts were conflicting as to whether Mr. Powell or the senators had initiated the phone calls. A spokeswoman for Mr. Powell said he had only returned calls from others, but one person familiar with one conversation said it had been Mr. Powell who had reached out to Mr. Hagel.

[Does this even matter? Would it indicate that Powell reeeeeally didn't like Bolton if he were the one who initiated the phone conversations -- as if he called Hagel and Chafee JUST to criticize Bolton?

[(The answer to both questions is NO.)]

In testifying against Mr. Bolton's nomination, Carl W. Ford Jr., a former assistant secretary of state, told the committee that Mr. Powell had acted in 2002 to reassure intelligence analysts troubled by Mr. Bolton's harsh treatment of one of theircolleagues, Christian P. Westermann,in adispute relatedto Cuba. Mr. Powell's former chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, said in an interview this week that Mr. Bolton would be an "abysmal ambassador" to the United Nations.

[Now Jehl not only uses unnamed "associates" of Powell's to account for his information, but he substitutes the personal opinion of Powell's ex-associate Lawrence Wilkerson for Powell's own personal opinion -- which Jehl himself already admitted Powell never yet made known publicly.

[Jehl's purpose here is clearly to get readers to think, "Well, if Powell's chief of staff feels this way, then Powell must feel that way, too!" But it's not really that convenient.]

This month, five former Republican secretaries of state signed a letter to the Senate committee that endorsed Mr. Bolton's nomination, but Mr. Powell was not among them. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Chafee, the associates said, Mr. Powell said he had not joined in the endorsement in part because he did not normally sign group letters, but also because he believed such endorsements were appropriate only in cases where his point of view was clear cut.

[This paragraph feigns balance, but intentionally leaves the reader assuming that an endorsement for Bolton would not be a "clear cut" expression of Powell's "point of view." Jehl hopes the reader assumes this is the REAL reason why Powell didn't sign the former SOS endorsement. After all, five other previous Republican Secretaries of State did, you know.]

Told of the accounts provided by Mr. Powell's associates, Peggy Cifrino, a spokeswoman for Mr. Powell, said in an e-mail message: "To be precise, General Powell has returned calls from senators who wanted to discuss specific questions that have been raised. He has not reached out to senators. The general considers the discussions private."

Mr. Powell was secretary of state under Mr. Bush for nearly four years, and told associates in 2004 that he was looking forward to returning to private life. But he was described by some associates as hurt that Mr. Bush, in selecting Ms. Rice as the new secretary, did not ask Mr. Powell if he wanted to stay.

[Powell made clear his decision to resign months before Condee Rice was selected as his successor. But aside from this incompetent opinion (which is just as good as a lie), who arethese "associates" to vouch for such personal feelings of Powell's on such a private matter -- let alone one that was never publicly addressed by either Bush or Powell himself??!!

[This paragraph -- or at least the second sentence therein -- is absolutely irrelevant, aside from Jehl's clear agenda to make President Bush seem like a jerk to someone most Americans admire, or at least respect, and who many moderate voters like politically.]

Mr. Powell remains highly regarded by many moderate Republicans, but as secretary of state, his relationship with Vice President Dick Cheney was notably strained, according to many accounts, including a detailed narrative in "Plan of Attack," the latest book by Bob Woodward of The Washington Post.

[The point of this sentence is to:
(A) Imply that only moderate Republicans respect Powell;
(B) Imply that Dick Cheney is not a moderate Republican, and thus, does not respect Colin Powell;
(C) Make it seem like this is common knowledge; and
(D) Plug liberal GOP-Headhunter/journalist Bob Woodward's new book, which is titled "Plan of Attack" (for those who don't already have it and would like to read it).

[Actually, I'll add to that:
(E) And if Bob Woodward says it's true, then golly, it must be true! This paragraph is pointless but for its sole purpose to further distance Powell from Bush politically. (i.e., Powell good, Bush administration bad.)]

Mr. Cheney is now regarded as Mr. Bolton's chief patron in the administration, and some officials say he has strongly resisted the idea that the White House might withdraw the nomination in the face of Democratic complaints and Republican wavering. [Underline added.]

[Some officials say this? Do they have as much clout as the associates? Are the associates officials, or are the officials associates? Credible sources (or lack thereof) aside, this is common sense.

[The Clinton administration didn't withdraw its assertion that Mr. Clinton never lied to a Grand Jury and to the American People under oath -- just because Republicans complained. (They had to be caught before they confessed.)

[If the Bush administration withdrew its endorsement for Bolton, it would only play into Democrats' hands. Liberals would criticize the administration for not having a clue how to deal with the U.N.; how to nominate federal appointees; for creating dissension in the Republican party; for looking incompetent on the world stage; ad nauseum.

[And Republicans aren't really wavering -- three of them just decided to postpone the vote, in which Bolton will eventually win his appointment.]

Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said Thursday that the White House would try vigorously to answer any questions that Republican senators had about Mr. Bolton's nomination, and he dismissed as unsubstantiated the allegations that Mr. Bolton had behaved inappropriately with intelligence analysts and other subordinates.

In a brief interview this week, Mr. Chafee declined to discuss any conversation with Mr. Powell, saying, "I'm going to keep some things confidential." A spokesman for Mr. Hagel, Mike Buttry, said only: "Senator Hagel and Secretary Powell speak frequently about a lot of things. Senator Hagel doesn't comment on their private conversations."

A spokesman for Senator Richard G. Lugar, the Republican chairman of the committee, said Mr. Lugar, of Indiana, had not spoken with Mr. Powell about the nomination.

The associates of Mr. Powell who discussed the matter did so in response to repeated questions in recent days. They would not allow their names to be used, saying they did not want to add to tensions between Mr. Powell and the White House, but they said they wanted to provide an accurate account of Mr. Powell's views.

[This paragraph is just funny. I don't even have to say anything.]

One associate said Mr. Powell had used at least one of the conversations to say Mr. Bolton had worked "fairly well" with Mr. Powell on several issues, including Iran; an effort to intercept shipments of dangerous weapons; and the phase-out of the Antiballistic Treaty with Russia and the phase-in of an alternative known as the Moscow Treaty.

But the associate said Mr. Powell had made clear that Mr. Bolton "had problems" with Mr. Westermann and others who disagreed with him.

[And when is "having problems" with someone a crime? I'd be more concerned if Bolton always agreed with everyone, especially in the admittedly corrupt United Nations.]

"In short,he gave the senator a balanced appraisal of Bolton," Mr. Powell's associate said of one call with Mr. Chafee.

[WOAH, WAIT!! So this whole article was based on "a balanced appraisal of Bolton" by Powell? Jehl basically just admitted that this article emphasized only the negative therein, but that Powell's appraisal is actually balanced.

[This tacit admission, along with the fact that Powell has never publicly spoken on the matter -- plus that Jehl cited no credible sources for any relevant information -- further evidences the pointlessness of this article in terms of real news. It does, however, evidence a politically leftist agenda.]

On Thursday, committee staff members were working to strike an agreement between Democrats and Republicans to seek further information about a number of disputed issues related to Mr. Bolton, including his requests to the National Security Agency for information about American officials mentioned in communications intercepted by the agency.

[Perhaps what's funniest is that Jehl, along with colleague Steven R. Weisman, wrote a similar smear/scare-tactic story on April 19.]

The smog of special-interest deception

2005-03-29T20:59:00.000-05:00

Clearing the air on smoking policies
Wednesday, February 23,2005

Regina Brett
Plain Dealer Columnist

A few weeks ago I walked into an Italian restaurant to pick up a pizza.

A friend had turned me on to the East Side restaurant by sharing a pizza that was out of this world.

The restaurant looked charming, so I grabbed a menu while waiting for my order. The dining room was empty, but from the looks of the room and the menu, it looked like a great place to take the family.

Then the smell hit me.

When I asked the waitress where to pick up the pizza, she led me to the bar. I could have followed my nose. A cloud of gray stink enveloped me. My taste buds went numb after five minutes.

I waited in the dining room, but still came home reeking of smoke.

That poor waitress, stuck for hours, breathing enough carcinogens to choke a horse.

The owner of that establishment might be delighted that a bunch of drinkers were happy stinking up the air and their lungs, but I wonder if he or she realizes how many diners the smoke turned away.

What scares us away?

Those orange wristbands say it all: 53 K.

The first time I saw one, I thought the guy wearing it was in training for a long marathon.

What's 53 K?

"That's how many people die a year in this country from secondhand smoke," he told me.

That figure of 53,000 nonsmokers comes from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

If people want to commit slow suicide by smoking, I can't stop them. But I sure don't want to join them.

We shouldn't allow them to take the rest of us with them. That's why we need 100 percent Clean Indoor Air Laws that make workplaces and public indoor areas smoke-free.

Some bar and restaurant owners oppose them, fearing that business will falter. The tobacco industry fans those fears.

But Gary Richmond, president of Johnny Mango World Cafés, found that the opposite happened.

His Ohio City restaurant went smoke-free in 2004. Taxable meal receipts grew more than 9 percent.

"For us, it's been a windfall," he told me.

Didn't he lose his faithful smokers?

"Oh, sure," he said. "A certain percent never returned. They've been replaced many times over."

Before going smoke-free, he did a survey. Out of 535 responses, 75percent favored the change, 14 percent were neutral, 11 percent vowednot to return.

I would say good riddance.

Two things are at stake: public health and the rights of workers to breathe clean air.

Smokers shouldn't be allowed to pollute the air in bars and restaurants that employees must breathe.

Smokers will say that most bar and restaurant employees smoke. But even if that were true, those employees wouldn't be smoking non-filtered cigarettes for eight hours nonstop.

Richmond polled his 49 employees. He found that 31 did not smoke.

"They deserve the opportunity to live life to the fullest," he said, "and the longest."

Until we have 100 percent Clean Indoor Air Laws, we will have to vote with our feet.

To get a guide to smoke-free establishments in Cuyahoga County, go to www.ccbh.net or visit www.smokefreeohio.org.

If you need help to stop smoking, call the Ohio Tobacco Quit Line at 1-800-934-4840.

Remember, smoking is a choice. Breathing isn't.

=============================================

My response to Regina Brett's column titled "Clearing the air on smoking policies" from the Wednesday, 2/24/05, edition of The Plain Dealer:

First of all, I don't smoke.

I support smoking restrictions, perhaps even bans, in public offices and most public buildings. However, the universal mission of anti-smokers and their coalitions is to federally ban smoking from all bars and restaurants, as well. Ms. Brett shares this view, but it's an example of good intentions/bad idea.

In her column, Ms. Brett cited the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for her statistic of 53,000 American deaths caused annually by secondhand smoke (SHS). However, the EPA's official web site states only that "secondhand smoke is estimated…to cause approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths in nonsmokers each year." The site also claims that SHS may increase the risk of heart disease.

Then again, so may hamburgers.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) states approximately 1800 to 3200 SHS-induced deaths annually, which could be even less or barely more than legitimate EPA estimates. Either way, these statistics fall approximately 50,000 deaths short of Ms. Brett's estimate.

Secondary effects of alcohol are more dangerous than SHS. According to Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), in 2002, an estimated 17,419 people died in alcohol-related traffic crashes alone. These deaths constituted 41 percent of the 42,815 total traffic fatalities that year. Thus second-hand deaths caused by drunkenness total more than five times the EPA's estimated death rate from SHS. And unlike those exposed to SHS, innocent people killed in drunk driving accidents rarely have a chance to avoid the danger.

Despite the much higher risk and rate of death or injury from alcohol exposure compared to second- or even first-hand smoke, there is no major movement to ban alcohol in bars and restaurants. That's because someone else drinking is less of a nuisance to non-drinkers than smoking is to non-smokers.

Ms. Brett wrote that she did not want to join smokers in "commit[ting] slow suicide." But working at a stressful or dangerous job, eating junk food, or not exercising - are all common ways how Americans commit slow suicide. If Ms. Brett fits under none of these categories, I salute her. Most Americans do, however. And judging by statistics, SHS exposure threatens no quicker death to most adults than any of these everyday acts.

Cotinine is a metabolite that forms in one's body with exposure to nicotine. Cotinine levels in the body help doctors track one's exposure to tobacco smoke. According to the CDC's Second National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, cotinine levels in nonsmoking Americans have decreased by more than 70% since the early 1990s, including a 58% decrease in children and a 55% decrease in adolescents. These encouraging statistics contradict the doom-and-gloom numbers manipulated by anti-tobacco special interest groups and their allies.

With smoking, the deadliest chemicals stick to the lungs upon direct "mainstream" inhalation from cigarette to first-hand smoker. They are not released with carbon dioxide as that smoker exhales. Even the EPA and CDC attest to this fact, despite what chemicals are exposed through exhalation. Anti-tobacco lobbyists rely on public misconception of this truth.

Another fact one never hears from anti-smoking campaigns is that hundreds of thousands of US-based jobs, particularly in the Carolinas and Virginia, stem from the tobacco industry. Tobacco is an important crop and export for that region, and while the term "Big Tobacco" is usually pejorative - it also incorporates that many people stay employed and feed their families because of it. Many of these positions would undoubtedly suffer pay cuts or be lost due to sweeping federal smoking bans that would force limited production, sales and distribution if enacted.

According to the EPA, the CDC, the American Cancer Society (ACS) and the American Heart Association (AHA), environmental tobacco smoke most endangers children and pregnant women. The ACS reports on its web site the increased risk of asthma in children exposed to SHS. Children do not go to bars, but most children do live at home with their families. Pregnant women are encouraged to rest at home as often as possible. Most working pregnant women take maternity leave from their jobs, which keeps them at home with their baby both before and after its birth.

Federal bans on smoking in bars would dramatically increase both the concentration and frequency of SHS around the home. This natural consequence would increase the risk of one's children developing a habit or curiosity for cigarettes.

The extra SHS levels would also damage the property's resale value. If tobacco smoke is so deadly, a smoker forced to puff mostly at home would render her estate virtually uninhabitable for future homebuyers. This would be disastrous for the home-buying market nationwide. Even the CDC lists this as a serious consequence for smoking at home.

Even if people smoked outside their homes, the SHS toxins would still linger and surround the area and those living there. We shouldn't encourage the government to force a public disservice or to significantly increase the health risks for children and pregnant women at home.

Recent radio ads sponsored by anti-smoking action groups included one testimonial from a former bartender who blamed SHS for her miscarriage. While I sympathize for the loss, her story begged the question: If you were pregnant, why did you work behind a bar?

If any federal ban is imposed, it should be one that prevents pregnant women from going to - let alone working in - bars. Neither smoke, nor alcohol, nor loud noise, nor stress, nor crowded spaces contribute to healthy pregnancies. Besides, there are many smoke-free bars and restaurants nationwide, including northeast Ohio. I've worked as a waiter, and I know that if an employee requested to always work the nonsmoking section, it would easily happen.

I understand pleas to ban smoking in restaurants more than pleas to ban smoking in bars. Still, the decision should be left to the company's owners.

Ms. Brett stated that the tobacco industry "fans those fears" of bars and restaurants losing business if they ban smoking in their establishments. Conversely, anti-tobacco industry special interest groups fan the misleading optimism that if one business profits from a smoking ban, then every business would. This simply is not true.

Ms. Brett cited Cleveland's Johnny Mango Café as an example. Whole families are encouraged to eat meals together at this restaurant. Such is not the case with traditional bars/pubs, where anyone under 21 years of age is often prohibited.

Also, Johnny Mango's polled its patrons extensively before it decided to prohibit smoking. This informed owner's decision was a better approach than blindly imposing, or being forced to impose, a smoking ban. I support independent decisions by bar- and restaurant owners. It's their business, their property, and their income to lose - and if you don't like it, go someplace else.

Bars are where one can escape after a long day of work to relax, have a drink, and maybe smoke before going home or even back to work. The government should not deprive hard-working citizens the choice to smoke in a bar. Fidel Castro imposed this ban throughout Cuba in February, and he should never be a trendsetter for US policy.

Ms. Brett concluded her column by saying that smoking is a choice. But every potential customer also chooses where to eat or drink. Bar- and restaurant owners should have a choice whether or not to alienate patrons who smoke.

Government-mandated prohibition against alcohol backfired in the 1920s, and so would similar restrictions against tobacco today.

Some helpful web links:

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/healthrisks.html

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/environmental/etsfact3.htm

http://www.newsnet5.com/mondayarchive/3331890/detail.html
--> Listing of smoke-free restaurants and bars in northeast Ohio

UPDATE!!!

2005-03-08T21:21:00.000-05:00

UPDATE & AMENDMENT:

Yesterday, after I posted the previous blog, I received a response from Harvard University regarding the recent Jada Pinkett Smith/"heteronormative" controversy.

To learn about the situation that made national headlines last week, read my previous post ("Enough Gaysteria already!" from 3/8/05).

In fact, Bill O'Reilly is about to cover the story on his show after this commercial break. The story is still fresh, but I want to expose and spread this new information that I received DIRECTLY from a Harvard student chiefly involved with the issue.

Here is a copy of the reply letter from Harvard Foundation of Intercultural and Race Relations (FIRR) Student Advisory Committee Co-Chair Yannis Paulus:

Hello, Ryan!

Thanks for the email! I appreciate the thoughts! Unfortunately, this has all been one big misunderstanding. The Harvard Foundation never even thought about issuing an apology nor did BGLTSA [Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender & Supporters Alliance] "demand an apology" as some news sources claimed. BGLTSA just wanted to have a discussion with the 62 other member groups of the Student Advisory Council discussing certain implicit assumptions people often make in society.

Oftentimes, cultural and ethnic groups are also marginalized due to assumptions, so we thought this would be a general topic that would engage the cultural and racial groups that comprise the Student Advisory Council of the Foundation. However, due to terrible reporting on the part of the Crimson (including blatant lies and out of context quotes, like the apology issue) and other news sources basing more reports off this story, the entire episode has ballooned for absolutely no reason.

Our breakfast on Friday was to work to issue a joint press release between BGLTSA and the Foundation to set the record straight after the media completely misconstrued the situation. However, I thank you for the thoughts and hope that the same news sources that so quickly latched on to the story earlier let everyone know the truth behind the situation very soon.

Thanks!

Sincerely, Yannis

According to this note of clarification, it seems that the Harvard BGLTSA never sponsored a declaration for an apology, even if some of its members took offense to Pinkett Smith's remarks.

I just finished watching the head of the Harvard student BGLTSA, Ms. Margaret Barusch, on "The O'Reilly Factor." She basically echoed Yannis Paulus' remarks.

While some students were either offended or felt excluded from the motivational directions from Pinkett Smith's speech, there was apparently NO mass protest and NO apology demanded or sanctioned by any specific university group or individual.

Unlike Yannis Paulus, Ms. Barusch did not call the Crimson liars, but the sentiment seemed close to identical.

SO, does this mean I retract all I said in my previous post?

No way!

However, I formally retract the negative remarks and pejorative associations made in my post regarding the Harvard student BGLTSA as a whole entity.

That said, there are still many radical gay activist groups -- including BGLTSAs from other universities -- that perfectly fit the negative connotations and associations I connected to Harvard's chapter in my last post.

I do not retract any of the content from that post, but I take back its direct or indirect association with the BGLTSA Harvard chapter specifically.

So there you have it! I hope this can help set the record straight.

(Pun intended.)

Enough "Gaysteria" already!

2005-03-07T18:10:00.000-05:00

Gay awareness has become "Gayploitation" over the past 5-10 years. The mass media are enamored with anything homo- or bisexual and they force it upon society with every opportunity. Almost no TV show or movie anymore has all-straight, or no openly gay, personalities. Everything needs a "gay factor" in the world today.

Yet fanatic gay rights addicts -- err, activists -- are quick to point out that society is blooming with gay people who aren't repressed by cultural norms anymore, ergo, media should depict this and the world should embrace it. If only it were that tactful.

It's 2005 and gay awareness exposure has become overkill. This was demonstrated in November 2004, when thirteen (out of thirteen possible) states voted for constitutional amendments to define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. Gay-rights radicals and Hollywood were forced to realize that the vast majority of America does NOT resemble the E! channel 24/7.

Apparently, the University of Harvard Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender & Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) still needs an education. Last weekend, actress Jada Pinkett Smith was honored as "Artist of the Year" at the 20th Annual Cultural Rhythms show sponsored by the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations (FIRR). During her speech she said, "Women, you can have it all —a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career. They say you gotta choose. Nah, nah, nah. We are a new generation of women. We got to set a new standard of rules around here. You can do whatever it is you want. All you have to do is want it."

Shortly thereafter, the student BGLTSA demanded an apology. The group justified its protest by labeling Pinkett Smith's remarks "heteronormative."

Here is the article from the Harvard Crimson, the university newspaper, explaining the fallout. Conveniently, none of what Pinkett Smith actually said is quoted in the article.

Published on Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Pinkett Smith’s Remarks Debated: BGLTSA calls comments “heteronormative,” pledges to work with Foundation
By ANNA M. FRIEDMAN
Contributing Writer

After some students were offended by Jada Pinkett Smith’s comments at Saturday’s Cultural Rhythms show, the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) and the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations have begun working together to increase sensitivity toward issues of sexuality at Harvard. Students said that some of Pinkett Smith’s remarks concerning appropriate gender roles were specific to heterosexual relationships.

In a press release circulated yesterday by the BGLTSA—and developed in coordination with the Foundation—the BGLTSA called for an apology from the Foundation and encouraged future discussion of the issue.

According to the Foundation’s Student Advisory Committee (SAC) Co-Chair Yannis M. Paulus ’05, the two groups have already planned concrete ways to address the concerns that Pinkett Smith’s speech rose.

The BGLTSA release acknowledged that the Foundation was not responsible for Pinkett Smith’s comments. But the Foundation has pledged to “take responsibility to inform future speakers that they will be speaking to an audience diverse in race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender and class,” according to the release.

Pinkett Smith was honored as the Foundation’s “Artist of the Year” at its 20th annual Cultural Rhythms show, which she also hosted.

BGLTSA Co-Chair Jordan B. Woods ’06 said that, while many BGLTSA members thought Pinkett Smith’s speech was “motivational,” some were insulted because they thought she narrowly defined the roles of men and women in relationships.

“Some of the content was extremely heteronormative, and made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable,” he said.

Calling the comments heteronormative, according to Woods, means they implied that standard sexual relationships are only between males and females.

“Our position is that the comments weren’t homophobic, but the content was specific to male-female relationships,” Woods said.

Margaret C. D. Barusch ’06, the other BGLTSA co-chair, said the comments might have seemed insensitive in effect, if not in intent.

“I think the comments had a very strong focus for an extended period of time on how to effectively be in a relationship—a heterosexual relationship,” Barusch said. “I don’t think she meant to be offensive but I just don’t think she was that thoughtful.”

In order to discuss these concerns and ensure that such a misunderstanding doesn’t occur again, Paulus said the BGLTSA and the Foundation are planning a joint breakfast later this week as well as a general discussion forum for all of the SAC member groups.

Paulus added that the Foundation will issue a letter later this week apologizing for any offense the show might have caused and encouraging concerned students to attend the planned discussions.

According to Paulus, the letter will acknowledge that “Pinkett Smith was just giving the story of her life. She just told things from her perspective, and her perspective was a heterosexual perspective. She wasn’t trying to be offensive. But some felt she was taking a narrow view, and some people felt left out.”

Barusch said the dialogue with the Foundation has been “productive.”

“Both groups have really talked about issues of intercultural relationships and sexuality and the way that student groups can talk about these topics in sensitive ways,” she said.

Barusch also referred to a “minor controversy” that occurred earlier this year, in which some members of SAC questioned the BGLTSA’s role in the Foundation.

“They weren’t sure how the BGLTSA would fit into the Foundation...There was some conversation about the relevance of queer issues,” she said.

But Barusch emphasized that the Foundation has been very supportive of the BGLTSA’s efforts to address this weekend’s comments, stressing that the two incidents are unrelated.

“We’re not blaming the Foundation. It’s not about blame. It’s about how we all need to think more about what we’re saying,” she said.

Ofole U. “Fofie” Mgbako ’08, a performer in the Cultural Rhythms show who watched Pinkett Smith’s speech, said he thought the speech was “insightful.”

“You can never appeal to every single group,” he said. “You’ll always in some way be exclusive. I thought her message was clear. I thought it was sincere.”

—Liz C. Goodwin contributed to the reporting of this story.

I wrote an e-mail letter to Harvard's FIRR Student Advisory Committee Co-Chair Yannis M. Paulus early Friday morning.

Yannis Paulus,

Hello. My name is Ryan and I live in Cleveland, Ohio. I've read about the quasi-controversy regarding Jada Pinkett-Smith's comments last weekend and the Harvard BGLTSA.

Sadly, I also read that your organization planned to issue a formal apology this week. While I understand the business aspect of that decision, I truly hope that neither you nor your organization personally believes it's necessary.

I have numerous gay and lesbian friends. I will not speak for them, but I'm darn-near certain that even most of them would find the BGLTSA's reaction to Mrs. Pinkett Smith's speech absurd.

I am not homophobic, but I'm proud to be "heteronormative." And thanks to Harvard and the BGLTSA for informing me that a word exists for the state of believing heterosexuality is normal and natural.

I may send a similar letter to the BGLTSA, but I doubt it would garner much attention or be taken seriously. But I hope that someone on campus has enough gumption and common sense to tell the BGLTSA that if they truly want to be treated the same as "everybody else," then they better learn to respect those different from themselves. Isn't that the purpose of their cause anyway?

"Heteronormative?"

I'll spare you a sermon, but the majority of the world is heterosexual! While the BGLTSA may find it perfectly normal to be homosexual, it's even MORE normal to be heterosexual. I'm not criticizing its members for being gay -- I'm criticizing them for having a double standard.

And NOT YOU, nor the Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations, nor Jada Pinkett Smith, nor anyone else -- should have to apologize for the BGLTSA's narrow-minded sensitivities and obvious double standards.

In closing, a friend of mine's father is a prominent Harvard alum. Many in her extended family are Harvard alumni. The word was passed along to me that at least one of those alumni is embarrassed by this; not that it became a national news story, but that it happened at all.

And they, like so many others (myself included), would be embarrassed for you if you genuinely believe the Harvard BGLTSA deserved their formal apology.

I hope they're paying for your breakfast on Friday. It's the least they can do.

Thank you for your time.

Being openly homo- or bisexual is no longer "courageous" or "inspirational" because it's already old hat. It has become a fad. It's not only accepted, but encouraged by pop culture. Just turn on the TV -- everybody's doing it!

Even AOL is doing all it can to appease gay-rights advocacy. An entire chat room category is dedicated to gays and lesbians, who create such creative rooms ranging from (as of 9 PM ET, 3/6/05) "i did a relative" and "y f4f sex with dog" -- to the more popular "bi mom f4f" and "xtra yung f4f."

AOL even has a news service exclusively catered to gay users, which polls members weekly with such hot-button questions like "Preferred animated 'gay icon': Superman [who was married*], Spongebob Squarepants [who Democrats vehemently deny even implicitly represents gay lifestyle], or Wonder Woman?"* (Wonder Woman had the lead with 41% of the vote when I checked.)

[* = Thanks to user Unreal Fiction for initial information.]

So with modern culture bending over backwards (no double entendre intended) to appease gay rights advocacy, how can groups like the Harvard BGLTSA stillcomplain that society is insensitive and exclusive against alternative sexual lifestyles?

What are they waiting for, Gay Affirmative Action?

Organizations like the Harvard BGLTSA live in a vacuum. Most people on campus likely capitulate to their every demand. But in the real world -- outside of Harvard -- if BGLTSA members want basic respect like most people deserve, they need to realize that the world owes them nothing they don't already have. Regarding gay rights, most Americans are already civilized enough because we already tolerate that undeniable difference from the norm.

Reproduction is the foundation of life, the cornerstone of any species. Thus, reproduction is normative behavior. Homosexuals cannot reproduce naturally. Also, the vast majority of human beings are heterosexual.

Heterosexuality is normal. Homosexuality is abnormal. Most Americans have grown to openly tolerate homo- and bisexuality, but no one should be forced to ACCEPT that behavior as normal or rational. Gay people simply live alternative, unnatural lifestyles. This isn't bigotry, it's simply a FACT. And gay rights activists need to ACCEPT this fact because nature will never change.

I sympathize with homo- and bisexuals who live quietly and respect others' privacy (by not shoving their own into public spotlight). Such individuals are too often -- and undeservedly -- associated with militant, radical gay rights groups who burden non-members with their sour grapes. Gays and lesbians who don't feel that groups like the Harvard BGLTSA always speak for them have my respect. They're the ones suffering real injustice caused by groups who claim to "fight" for them.

Members of radical groups like the Harvard BGLTSA apparently feel desperate to sexualize everything. That becomes their identity. They must loudly separate themselves from others not like them; point fingers; and whine whine whine about people who think and speak as if (heaven forbid!) heterosexuality is normal -- all the while pretending to stand for social unity. Cramming one's private lifestyle in my face is no way to gain my sympathy or acceptance.

Forcing it upon unsuspecting parents and their children is also wrong. Children do NOT need to learn sexual tolerance from an early age. For example, cartoons aimed at toddlers and preschoolers should not raise sexuality issues by incorporating gay characters into their storylines. The point is not to keep children from treating gay people as well as they treat heterosexuals; the point is that parents should not be forced to teach their young kids about sexuality (let alone homosexuality) at all -- and certainly not because of children's programming.

Children deserve to maintain their innocence as long as possible. Gay rights organizations are no authority on what to teach them about society.

(And laugh now, but gay action figures and dolls cannot be too far behind.)

Joe Scarborough's bemusement on his TV show last week was appropriate. "[The Harvard BGLTSA] want[s] an apology because, apparently, in making remarks specific to male-female relationships, Mrs. Smith was using a narrow, insensitive view of the world. How dare she be so heteronormative."

On that note, how dare Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah and Ohio (including myself) for relating to Jada Pinkett Smith's heteronormative view of the world. In 2004, each of these states voted to amend their constitutions to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

I'm not ashamed of my vote, nor am I homophobic. There were numerous non-spiritual, non-sexual issues and concerns to consider, such as clogging already-stagnant courts with more divorce, custody and alimony cases. I can tolerate civil unions, but I also believe in the preservation of traditional, heterosexual marriage customs. There is nothing immoral or unethical about that position.

To some, my comments may sound like hate speech. Such critics probably preach tolerance, but have no tolerance for anyone who disagrees with their agenda. I'm tired of that double standard set by gay advocacy groups like the Harvard BGLTSA.

To such confederations, if a heterosexual is uncomfortable with in-your-face gay rights protest, that person must be hateful and ignorant. But if the BGLTSA is uncomfortable with something a heterosexual says or does -- even if it's harmless and/or positive (like Pinkett Smith's comments) -- it's because that person is hateful or insensitive.

Gay Pride parades march past elementary schools, but only intolerant, closed-minded sexists can oppose; yet if one so much as attempts a "Hetero Pride" parade anywhere, (s)he is automatically labeled a bigot.

Hypocrites!

No one is considered a bigot for preventing a brother from marrying his sister; no one is considered a bigot for preventing a human being from marrying an animal; no one is considered a bigot for preventing an adult from marrying a minor. People should not be considered bigots or "anti-gay" simply for preserving the sanctity of traditional marriage as between a man and a woman.

Change for change's sake isn't always right or brave. It's often reckless, destructive and wrong. For example, if a homophobic activist wanted to protest IN a gay pride parade -- most gay-rights supporters would refuse not only because such behavior is offensive, but also because it's untraditional. Some traditions should be preserved and marriage (as a heterosexual union) is one of them.

I generally have no personal problems with gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered persons, or their supporters. I disagree with their lifestyle, but I don't shame them for it, and I don't consider gay people "evil." What happens in their bedroom is their business.

But it should STAY in the bedroom, and their business should remain theirs alone.

Had there been as much ice-cream hysteria over the past five years as there's been with homo- and bisexuality, I'd be stomping my foot and grunting, "ENOUGH ABOUT ICE CREAM ALREADY!" I'm just tired of the formulaic, overhyped "gay factor" in society today. And so is most of America.

I am proud to be both heterosexual and heteronormative. And if you don't like it, Harvard BGLTSA, then I demand an apology.

La La Land

2005-03-01T18:16:00.000-05:00

Sunday night was Hollywood's Superbowl: The Academy Awards. There were both good and bad moments.

Chris Rock was OK. I give him a C/C- for his debut as Oscars host.

But let's be clear: Chris Rock is NOT a "genius," despite what his cronies in the industry babble. Let's stop already with saying he's daring and brave and intelligent simply b/c he's overtly racist (sometimes to ALL races, even blacks) and profane with his comedy. He is a funny comedian who has creative ideas, but he isn't intelligent or classy enough to recognize his own limitations.

For example, he recently gave advice to would-be Oscar winners: "Don't thank God, He's too busy with the Tsunami." (For the record, not one winner thanked God, which isn't surprising for Hollywood.)

Rock went too far with his opening act. His initial Bush-bashing joke -- about giving the president credit for winning the election while every other movie in America was about how much he sucked -- was hilarious! It was also relevant to the event.

Rock's next joke was neither funny nor relevant.

He then compared the Iraq War to a hypothetical war between The Gap and Banana Republic, including the visual aid of "blood all over the clothes." The point was that if anyone but the president started a war and presided over a trillion-dollar debt, that person would be fired.

About two minutes later, Rock pretended to suddenly take the subject seriously by applauding the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, in which the crowd appeasingly followed suit. But I'm not sure that message was genuine or effective considering he completely belittled their cause just minutes earlier. Wow, what a classy move.

Actually, it was classless and DUMB. So much for Rock's misleading "genius" label.

To his credit, Rock mostly recovered. He even poked fun at Michael Moore and John Kerry before the night was over. But he also RIPPED actor Jude Law for being overrated, which apparently offended actor Sean Penn, who later made a point to clarify that Jude Law was "one of our greatest actors."

Leave it to Sean Penn to think too highly of his craft and his industry. That joke didn't mock anyone who risks his or her life every day to protect America or its interests. The joke mocked Jude Law, an actor, and several other actors -- including Rock himself! Get a clue, Sean.

My favorite part of the whole ceremony was never on TV. The best part was the huge, conspicuous billboards that stood in the view of everyone on the red carpet. They were sponsored by citizensunited.org, and they thanked Hollywood for helping reelect George W. Bush.

What capped off the evening was Clint Eastwood winning both Best Director and Best Picture for his movie "Million-Dollar Baby." That put a nice bow on the event for me.

(See post "Go ahead, Mike -- make his day!" from 1/15/05)

Finally, some belated kudos to Kirk Douglas who, a few years ago, jokingly stressed that the Oscar-winning announcement should be "AND THE WINNER IS..." (which it was for over 65 years) instead of the pansy (and current) "AND THE OSCAR GOES TO...."

These actors are big boys and girls, and they use the company line that it's "just an honor to be nominated" anyway. If that's true, then who cares about the sensitivity of saying someone definitively WINS? If elementary school spelling bees can do it, so can Hollywood. Grow up, already.

And so ended the biggest night in possibly the sleaziest business in arguably the sleaziest town in America.

Yet those aforementioned billboards remain. Thank God.

What a concept! :)

2005-02-18T13:29:00.000-05:00

Here is a brave, bold and thoughtful editorial from Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown.

Kudos to you, Mr. Brown, for having the courage among your peers in your leftist-dominated industry to write this publicly.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/brown/cst-nws-brown01.html

What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?
February 1, 2005
BY MARK BROWN
Chicago Sun-Times Columnist

Maybe you're like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least letting people know where you stood.

You didn't change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead.

Despite your misgivings, you didn't demand the troops be brought home immediately afterward, believing the United States must at least try to finish what it started to avoid even greater bloodshed. And while you cheered Saddam's capture, you couldn't help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted.

By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval.

But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?

It's hard to swallow, isn't it?

Americans cross own barrier
If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you're fighting the idea, because I am, too. And if you were with the president from the start, I've already got your blood boiling.

For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility.

I won't say that it had never occurred to me previously, but it's never gone through my mind as strongly as when I watched the television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces.

Some CNN guest expert was opining Monday that the Iraqi people crossed a psychological barrier by voting and getting a taste of free choice (setting aside the argument that they only did so under orders from their religious leaders).

I think it's possible that some of the American people will have crossed a psychological barrier as well.

Deciding democracy's worth
On the other side of that barrier is a concept some of us have had a hard time swallowing:

Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something.

Would it be worth all the money we've spent? Certainly.

Would it be worth all the lives that have been lost? That's the more difficult question, and while I reserve judgment on that score until such a day arrives, it seems probable that history would answer yes to that as well.

I don't want to get carried away in the moment.

Going to war still sent so many terrible messages to the world.

Most of the obstacles to success in Iraq are all still there, the ones that have always led me to believe that we would eventually be forced to leave the country with our tail tucked between our legs. (I've maintained from the start that if you were impressed by the demonstrations in the streets of Baghdad when we arrived, wait until you see how they celebrate our departure, no matter the circumstances.)

In and of itself, the voting did nothing to end the violence. The forces trying to regain the power they have lost -- and the outside elements supporting them -- will be no less determined to disrupt our efforts and to drive us out.

Somebody still has to find a way to bring the Sunnis into the political process before the next round of elections at year's end. The Iraqi government still must develop the capacity to protect its people.

And there seems every possibility that this could yet end in civil war the day we leave or with Iraq becoming an Islamic state every bit as hostile to our national interests as was Saddam.

Penance could be required
But on Sunday, we caught a glimpse of the flip side. We could finally see signs that a majority of the Iraqi people perceive something to be gained from this brave new world we are forcing on them.

Instead of makingthe elections a further expression of "Yankee Go Home," their participation gave us hope that all those soldiers haven't died in vain.

Obviously, I'm still curious to see if Bush is willing to allow the Iraqis to install a government that is free to kick us out or to oppose our other foreign policy efforts in the region.

So is the rest of the world.

For now, though, I think we have to cut the president some slack about a timetable for his exit strategy.

If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance.

Maybe I'd have to vote Republican in 2008.

Duck you, Oregon!

2005-02-11T16:28:00.000-05:00

Liberal academia strikes again!

Not only do the Oregon Ducks have the ugliest, most pitiful uniforms in college football -- but they also implement some of the ugliest partisan leftist school policies in the country.

The University of Oregon (UO) in Eugene, OR, recently penalized one of its delivery drivers for donning a "Support Our Troops" magnet on his state-issued truck. The university forced the driver, Pete Baker, to remove the magnet, which had already been on the truck for several months.

Oregon state law prohibits personal messages on state-owned vehicles. However, that law itself was NOT the reason the magnet was removed. Apparently, another university employee was offended by the message because it promoted politics with which (s)he did not agree. In immediate response to this ANONYMOUS employee's sensitivity, the university ordered all bumper stickers and magnets removed from its state-issued vehicles.

The university itself stated that it's unclear whether or not the message "Support Our Troops" was political. UO President Dave Frohmayer said, "The excuse that some people take in events like this to question the patriotism of other Americans is frankly below the belt."

Um...no, Fro.

That a notedly liberal university like UO attaches support for our military to one political party is both comical and revealing. This incident epitomizes liberal academia's disrespect and antagonism for military pride. It also perfectly displays liberal academia's leftist double-standard of the First Amendment.

And most noticeably, it demonstrates the fallacy of liberal "We ALL support the troops" talking points. WHAT A JOKE!

Anyone who considers him- or herself a liberal, but who also TRULY supports our military men and women, should and will be offended by UO's actions. Even if one disagrees with the reasons our military fights certain battles -- that should not reflect directly on those in uniform who are placed in harm's way to protect that for which our nation stands. The narrow minds of liberal academia simply cannot understand or accept this fact.

This merely continues the path of leftist disgust with and negligence toward our military throughout the past 40 years. With this trend in mind, it is no surprise to hear prominent Democrats blame 9/11 and the War On Terror for why they lost big in the recent national elections.

Here are some excerpted transcripts of popular, nationally televised political shows from the past two weeks:

Hardball with Chris Matthews - Wed, Feb 9th, 2004:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6947799/

[Host] MATTHEWS: Why did [John Kerry] lose [the election]?

[Former Democratic National Committee Chair Terry] MCAULIFFE: National security. I think when those buildings—those planes went into those two buildings on 9/11, I think the die was cast. I think people, when they went and voted, thought that George Bush would keep them safer than John Kerry. We should have done a more effective job of delinking Iraq from the war on terror. But it came down to national security.

[Gee, and I wonder why people would find the liberal candidate to be weak on national security when liberal activists and universities, who endorse Democratic candidates, despise our military!]

NBC NEWS' MEET THE PRESS, 1-30-05
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6886726/

[Moderator TIM] RUSSERT: At the Clinton Library dedication on November 18, a few weeks after the election, you were quoted as saying, "It was the Osama bin Laden tape. It scared the voters," the tape that appeared just a day before the election here. Do you believe that tape is the reason you lost the race?

SEN. JOHN KERRY: "I believe that 9/11 was the central deciding issue in this race. And the tape--we were rising in the polls up until the last day when the tape appeared. We flat-lined the day the tape appeared and went down on Monday. I think it had an impact.

[Yeah right! That was a pre-wrapped gift placed right in your lap to show the incompetence and ineffectiveness of the Bush Doctrine in not capturing our targeted terrorists worldwide, and for losing focus on UBL to go after Saddam! Remember? John Kerry, even after the election, you're still flip-flopping!]

"But 9/11, you know, it's a very difficult hurdle when a country is at war. I applauded the president's leadership in the days immediately afterwards. I thought he did a good job in that, and he obviously connected to the American people in those immediate days.

"When a country is at war and in the wake of 9/11, it's very difficult to shift horses in midstream. I think it's remarkable we came as close as we did as a campaign. Many Republicans say we beat their models by four or five points as to what they thought we could achieve.

"I am proud of the campaign, Tim. If you take half the people at an Ohio State football game on Saturday afternoon and they were to have voted the other way, you and I would be having a discussion today about my State of the Union speech."

[FYI: Bush lost the state of Oregon by a mere 6,000 votes, which was much closer than Democrats expected, and far less than half a crowd of an Ohio State, or Oregon Ducks, football game.]

While leftist kooks infest and infect colleges and universities nationwide, their nonsense should NOT control or intimidate anyone, especially those outside their classrooms.

Exercise your First Amendment right to tell University of Oregon President Dave Frohnmayer how you feel:
E-MAIL: pres@oregon.uoregon.edu
PHONE: 541-346-3036

In closing, a patriotic message to the WOOOOSS university employee who anonymously complained:

You had enough cowardice to whine about support for those who protect your voice. Now have enough dignity to identify yourself and take responsibility for your actions.

CLICK THESE LINKS FOR MORE:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1327221/posts (succinct and on-point blog - first one on the page)

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001320.htm (excellent analysis and first-hand accounts)

Thank you and good night

2005-01-24T20:23:00.000-05:00

Johnny Carson died in his Malibu home Sunday morning.

Though Carson retired when I was only 11 years old, I remember watching his shows late at night for several years, especially during vacations from school. He made me laugh.

Two years ago, I purchased his "Best of" video collection and I still watch them regularly. They seem to get funnier with each successive viewing.

Johnny Carson was a timeless comic genius. His humor will always be funny. Children and adults hundreds of years from now will laugh at clips of his show.

I'm just a fan who admired this man and his work. Mr. Carson will be missed but never forgotten.

Thank you and good night.

"And so it has come to this. I am one of the lucky people in the world. I found something that I always wanted to do and I have enjoyed every single minute of it."

"You people watching, I can only tell you that it's been an honor and a privilege coming into your homes all these years to entertain you. And I hope when I find something I want to do and think you would like, I can come back and (you will be) as gracious in inviting me into your homes as you have been."

"I bid you a very heartfelt good night."

-- Johnny Carson, May 22, 1992

First Amendment Double Standard

2005-01-19T18:49:00.000-05:00

Infamous atheist Michael Newdow's request to ban prayer from President Bush's inauguration on Thursday was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday. Newdow is the same atheist who recently got help from the ACLU to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance at his daughter's school.

According to the Associated Press, Newdow's latest claim was that "a prayer at Thursday's ceremony would violate the Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted religious beliefs."

As evidenced by its pathetic shelf life, this case is far less valid than his previous case against the Pledge of Allegiance. This case exemplifies pure sour grapes from someone who simply hates Christianity.

Merely hearing a prayer does not force one to accept its message or the details of the associated faith. Newdow's rationale is LUDICROUS, quite frankly. This is one more example of one losing sight of the fact that the First Amendment protects the separation of Church and State -- NOT the absolute separation of Church from State.

Based on Newdow's reasoning, several other lawsuits should be expected soon. Expect Newdow to make the following claims in the near future, perhaps with the ACLU's support:

*American schools need to stop teaching Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech because it ends with, "Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

*Americans need to stop cashing paychecks and stop spending U.S. currency because every piece says, "In God We Trust."

*If Newdow sneezes in public and some good samaritan says, "God bless you," that person should be sued for trying to force her religious beliefs on another.

In fact, by Newdow's reasoning, America should just abandon the Justice System because our laws are based on Christian morals. This is especially true because for years -- and still in many court systems -- witnesses swear to testify truthfully by placing one hand over a Bible and raising the other.

Again, like the liberal argument against strict FCC regulations to radio and TV personalities, if you don't want to hear the prayer -- don't listen to it! You don't have to watch it on TV. If you're there in person and it offends you, cover your ears. The fact remains that no one will be forced to pray just because a prayer is given.

Where was Newdow's protest during previous inaugurations? Why now? Every inauguration to date contained prayer at the swearing-in ceremony -- where the president-elect still places his hand over a BIBLE while taking an oath. Bill Clinton's inaugurations even featured gospel choirs and spiritual incantations from African-American poets.

Newdow's political agenda is clear and, thankfully, no one cares to hear it. He's worn out his welcome. And where is the ACLU? Isn't a prayer free speech? The ACLU, yet again, demonstrates its anti-religious agenda with its silence on this matter.

This also exemplifies why Tort Reform is an important issue that most Americans support.

Elsewhere in the world, Rolling Stone magazine recently reneged on its prior commitment to run an ad for a new version of the Bible aimed at young people.

As pointed out last night on "Scarborough Country," Rolling Stone magazine has before, even regularly, placed ads for such items as sex parties, escorts, copies of successful term papers written by college students, and marijuana advocacy groups.

Rolling Stone issued a statement declaring that the ad went against the nature and best interest of the magazine by promoting a particular religion.

TRANSLATION: Rolling Stone sides with the anti-religion ACLU and ultra-leftists who want no part of promoting something with which Republicans are heavily associated.

Talk about lack of accountability! Who on Earth is Rolling Stone trying to fool? Suddenly the magazine's editors are pretending to be objective and fair-slanted? And they cite an "unwritten policy" as their excuse for the ad's ban?

This particular Bible ad never mentions any [G]od or religion. While I understand the editors' skepticism toward the ad claiming the Bible to provide "truth" -- this is no different from any other advertiser promoting its product as the best of its kind. While such an ad may be debatable and subjective, the Truth In Advertising Act holds that every advertisement is presumed honest, even if others disagree.

What's more embarrassing is that the ad was accepted last summer and now, at the last minute, Rolling Stone backs out. That is beyond partisan. That is just unprofessional.

Still not convinced that the magazine doesn't Republican-bash? Just take a look at last year's covers:

*Eminem, whose Bush-bashing song/video "Mosh" was released just before the November election, appeared twice.

*Dave Matthews, Ben Affleck, Quentin Tarantino, Prince, Tom Cruise, Jon Stewart, Michael Moore, Cartoonist Garry Trudeau, the bands from the failed "Vote For Change" tour, Howard Dean, Bill Clinton's name (in extra-bold lettering), and even John Kerry himself -- each made the cover once.

So 13 of 24 issues in 2004 featured cover stories on actively liberal media personalities and Bush-bashers. And now they don't want to promote a certain message? THAT is a direct hindrance, albeit legal, of free speech.

Don't misunderstand me. I read Rolling Stone occasionally. I also have no problem with the private magazine promoting its own agenda. What I find ridiculous is the facade Rolling Stone presents as a bastion of free speech -- except for when sudden unwritten policies against Bible ads are necessary. The hypocrisy and double-standard of the matter is bothersome.

Democrats will not win another election so long as their most popular supporters continue to shun or bias against Christians. Apparently the re-election/mandate for George W. Bush still has many leftists, like Rolling Stone magazine and Michael Newdow, in deep denial.

ATTENTION LEFTIST MEDIA: You have four years to accept that people can see through your BS. You have four years to better your approach.

So much for that precious First Amendment, huh?