Wednesday, November 28, 2007


Most people want to believe prisons serve to rehabilitate criminals. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the early days of our country with its religiosity, lawbreakers were imprisoned to do penance for their sins - hence the name penitentiary - but today's society is a far cry from that period in our history. Now, jails and prisons exist to punish those who chose to break our laws and to protect society from those who do.

Prisons do not rehabilitate criminals. Even though that is what we want, prisons cannot rehabilitate anyone because they are a highly structured institutional society. In the totalitarian nature of prisons, inmates are directed when to get up and go to bed, when to shit, shave and shower, when and what to eat, and when, where and how to move about. In the prison society, its members are not responsible for providing themselves with food, shelter, clothing and medical attention.

When inmates are released after several years in prison, they find it hard to adjust to an unstructured free world society. Unless they have the availability of half-way houses and close parole supervision, they are not likely to fend for themselves like the rest of us. Inmates who have been incarcerated for many years become so institutionalized that they fear being released from prison.

There have been many cases where inmates only a few days away from being released have attempted to escape knowing full-well they will be captured and sentenced to serve additonal time. There have also been cases of elderly long-term inmates refusing parole or pleading with the authorities to allow them to remain in prison upon completion of their sentences.

If prisons cannot rehabilitate criminals, then what can they do other than to warehouse inmates? They can and should provide the tools which will enable an inmate to rehabilitate himself once he has been released into the free world. Those tools should include a literacy program, a GED and higher education program, addiction treatment, psychotherapy (if deemed appropriate), tattoo removal and work skills training. Even with such programs in place, California still experiences a recidivism rate of around 50 percent.

Without gainful employment, an ex-convict will have little chance of staying out of prison. That is why tattoo removal is very important. Visible tattoos, especially those commonly obtained in prisons, are largely responsible for preventing ex-cons from obtaining the jobs they so desparately need to make it in the free world.

The work training programs in prison must be offered only for the kind of jobs which are in high demand. For example, many prisons offer inmates upholstery training. Umless the inmate is going to be released to a state which has a large furniture manufacturing industry, that program is absolutely worthless. Most upholstery businesses are small family (mom, pop and son) operations which provide few, if any, employment opportunities for an outsider.

Employers must stop making it difficult for ex-cons to rehabilitate themselves. Employers generally lobby to prevent the establishment of prison industries and training programs which could compete with the private sector. When California prison officials tried to start up new programs in which inmates could obtain a state barber or beautician liscense, private schools successfully lobbied against the establishment of these programs.

Because employment is absolutely essential to the successful rehabilitation of criminals, employers must be more willing to take chances on hiring ex-cons. Unemployment is one of the leading causes of recidivism. All the prison training programs and tattoo removals will have been in vain when ex-cons are unable to obtain gainful employment. Since those released from prison are said to have paid their debt to society, society must ensure that ex-cons are given a real chance to lead productive lives in the free world.

Friday, November 23, 2007


In the "peace conference", which will take place next week at the U.S. Naval Academy and at the White House, Israel and the Jews will once again be pressured to make suicidal concessions to the Palestinians in their quest for an independent state. The "road map to peace", as envisioned by President Bush with the support of Russia's Putin, the European Union and the United Nations, is paved with the stones of Israel's destruction.

Among "The Quartet", only President Bush has been a friend of Israel. But, with his reputation in shambles, he will try to ensure his legacy by pressuring Israel into an agreement which will establish an independent Palestinian state before he leaves office, a state whose people are determined to wipe out the Jewish nation, no matter how long it takes.

When South African gentile Olive Schreiner stated (below), "So the nations of the world decided once again to go out of 'their' way in order to find a stick to hit the Jews," she was referring to the frequent condemnations of Israel by the Europeans and the United Nations in voicing their support for the Palestinians.

Olive Schreiner's perception of the Jews, which follows, gives me good reasons to be proud of my Jewish heritage and reinforces my long-held concerns about Israel's survival in the face of passionate Palestinian and Islamic hatred.

"Indeed it is difficult for all other nations of the world to live in the presence of the Jews. It is irritating and most uncomfortable. The Jews embarrass the world as they have done things which are beyond the imaginable. They have become moral strangers since the day their forefather, Abraham, introduced the world to high ethical standards and to the fear of Heaven. They brought the world the Ten Commandments, which many nations prefer to defy. They violated the rules of history by staying alive, totally at odds with common sense and historical evidence. They outlived all their former enemies, including vast empires such as the Romans and the Greeks. They angered the world with their return to their homeland after 2000 years of exile and after the murder of six million of their brothers and sisters.

They aggravated mankind by building, in the wink of an eye, a democratic State which others were not able to create in even hundreds of years. They built living monuments such as the duty to be holy and the privilege to serve one's fellow men.

They had their hands in every human progressive endeavor, whether in science, medicine, psychology or any other discipline, while totally out of proportion to their actual numbers. They gave the world the Bible and even their 'savior.'

Jews taught the world not to accept the world as it is, but to transform it, yet only a few nations wanted to listen. Moreover, the Jews introduced the world to one God, yet only a minority wanted to draw the moral consequences. So the nations of the world realize that they would have been lost without the Jews. And while their subconscious tries to remind them of how much of Western civilization is framed in terms of concepts first articulated by the Jews, they do anything to suppress it.

They deny that Jews remind them of a higher purpose of life and the need to be honorable, and do anything to escape its consequences. It is simply too much to handle for them, too embarrassing to admit, and above all, too difficult to live by.

So the nations of the world decided once again to go out of 'their' way in order to find a stick to hit the Jews. The goal: to prove that Jews are as immoral and guilty of massacre and genocide as some of they themselves are.

All this in order to hide and justify their own failure to even protest when six million Jews were brought to the slaughterhouses of Auschwitz and Dachau; so as to wipe out the moral conscience of which the Jews remind them, and they found a stick.

Nothing could be more gratifying for them than to find the Jews in a struggle with another people (who are completely terrorized by their own leaders) against whom the Jews, against their best wishes, have to defend themselves in order to survive. With great satisfaction, the world allows and initiates the rewriting of history so as to fuel the rage of yet another people against the Jews. This in spite of the fact that the nations understand very well that peace between the parties could have come a long time ago, if only the Jews would have had a fair chance. Instead, they happily jumped on the wagon of hate so as to justify their jealousy of the Jews and their incompetence to deal with their own moral issues.

When Jews look at the bizarre play taking place in The Hague, they can only smile as this artificial game once more proves how the world paradoxically admits the Jews uniqueness. It is in their need to undermine the Jews that they actually raise them.

The study of history of Europe during the past centuries teaches us one uniform lesson: That the nations which received and in any way dealt fairly and mercifully with the Jew have prospered; and that the nations that have tortured and oppressed them have written out their own curse."

Olive Schreiner, South African novelist and social activist

Thursday, November 22, 2007


Were you about to leave for work when you discovered your car tires have been slashed? Did you go outside to pick up the Sunday paper and found your house or car have been egged? Has anyone driven down your street and spray painted the curbside parked cars? Have your house or car windows been shot out by pellet guns? Has your curbside mailbox been bashed? Have your outside Christmas or Halloween decorations been damaged or destroyed? Consider yourself lucky if you have'nt been subjected to those kinds of vandalism.

If such acts are occurring in your upper middle-class or wealthy neighborhood, are the vandals young gang members from a run-down ghetto or barrio? Most likely not. Kids from impoverished neighborhoods tend to raise hell in the familiar surroundings of their own backyards. If they're not disadvantaged kids, then who are those vandals?

Those hoodlums are kids from your neighborhood, maybe even your own sons and daughters. They are spoiled brats running around at all hours of the night, having fun by intentionally making life miserable for many of their neighbors. Since they come from good church-going families and attend good schools, they do not see themselves as lawbreakers and do not consider their idea of fun as unlawful. Their attitude: Laws are for criminals, not for us.

Parents are largely to blame for their children's delinquent behavior. There is something fundamentally wrong in the way our kids are being raised today. They are spoiled rotten by parents who want them to have a better (wealthier) life than they themselves had. Just take a look at all the cars in the student parking lot of your local high school. Kids are allowed to run around at all hours in the cars their parents gave them. Parents obviously do not teach their kids that bad behavior can have unintended consequences.

Law enforcement is not blameless either. In most jurisdiction, criminal mischief (vandalism) is not high on the list of police priorities. It should be. In 1982, criminologists James Q. Wilson and George Kelling developed the "Broken Windows" theory which held that cracking down on minor crimes, such as vandalism, created an atmosphere of law and order that discourages major crime. In New York City, all crimes, minor and major, were significantly reduced after NYPD adapted the Broken Windows concept.

The juvenile justice system is also to blame, its courts usually treating children from upper middle-class and wealthy families differently than the children of poor families. Kids from well-off families, who have been charged with criminal mischief, are too often treated with the proverbial slap on the wrist and leave the courtroom thumbing their noses at the system.

Some years ago, several kids were riding around in a rural area of Galveston County (Texas), leaning out the car windows while bashing curbside mailboxes with baseball bats. One of the youths, the son of a respected physician, was decapitated when his head struck one of the mailboxes. That put a stop to vandalism in the area, but only until the shock of his death wore off.

Police affiliated unarmed citizen patrols have been effective in reducing neighborhood crime. However, as long as kids believe they are not committing crimes but only having fun, their neighbors will continue to be vandalized. The fact that both mom and dad are working is no excuse for a lack of parental control.

What can be done to get our youths to understand that some forms of fun may be criminal? Parents must excercise full oversight of their chidrens' lives. They must teach their kids that laws are made for everyone and that there will be consequences for breaking those laws. The police and the courts must treat vandalism more seriously than as a mere youthful indiscretion.

Wednesday, November 21, 2007


Al Tucker, a close friend for around 50 years, occasionally sends me some tidbits of American Jewish history. I thought this particular bit of history was well worth sharing with the readers of my blog.

Last February marked the 62nd anniversary of the start of the battle for Iwo Jima. Since Jews are rarely ever mentioned for their participation in America's wars, it is appropriate to spotlight some news and information about the Jews who fought and died in the five-week battle between 70,000 American Marines (1,500 of which were Jewish) and 22,000 deeply entrenched Japanese defenders.

An interesting fact that many Jews may be unaware of are the historic events that surrounded a Jewish chaplain on the island. Rabbi Roland B.Gittelsohn, assigned to the Fifth Marine Division, was the first Jewish chaplain the Marine Corps ever appointed. Rabbi Gittelsohn was in the thick of the fray, ministering to Marines of all faiths in the combat zone. His tireless efforts to comfort the wounded and encourage the fearful won him three service ribbons. When the fighting was over, Rabbi Gittelsohn was asked to deliver the memorial sermon at a combined religious service dedicating the Marine Cemetery.

Unfortunately, racial and religious prejudice led to problems with the ceremony. What happened next immortalized Rabbi Gittelsohn and his sermon forever.

It was Division Chaplain Warren Cuthriell, a Protestant minister, who originally asked Rabbi Gittelsohn to deliver the memorial sermon. Cuthriell wanted all the fallen Marines (black and white, Protestant, Catholic and Jewish) honored in a single, nondenominational ceremony. However, according to Rabbi Gittelsohn's autobiography, the majority of Christian chaplains objected to having a rabbi preach over predominantly Christian graves. The Catholic chaplains, in keeping with church doctrine, opposed any form of a joint religious service.

To his credit, Cuthriell refused to alter his plans. Gittelsohn, on the other hand, wanted to save his friend Cuthriell further embarrassment and so decided it was best not to deliver his sermon. Instead, three separate religious services were held. At the Jewish service, to a congregation of 70 or so who attended, Rabbi Gittelsohn delivered the powerful eulogy he originally wrote for the combined service:

"Here lie men who loved America because their ancestors generations ago helped in her founding. And other men who loved her with equal passion because they themselves or their own fathers escaped from oppression to her blessed shores. Here lie officers and men, Negroes and Whites, rich men and poor, together. Here are Protestants, Catholics, and Jews together. Here no man prefers another because of his faith or despises him because of his color. Here there are no quotas of how many from each group are admitted or allowed.

Among these men there is no discrimination. No prejudices. No hatred. Theirs is the highest and purest democracy. Whosoever of us lifts his hand in hate against a brother, or who thinks himself superior to those who happen to be in the minority, makes of this ceremony and the bloody sacrifice it commemorates, an empty, hollow mockery. To this then, as our solemn sacred duty, do we the living now dedicate ourselves: To the right of Protestants, Catholics, and Jews, of White men and Negroes alike, to enjoy the democracy for which all of them have here paid the price. We here solemnly swear this shall not be in vain. Out of this and from the suffering and sorrow of those who mourn this, will come, we promise, the birth of a new freedom for the sons of men everywhere."

Among Gittelsohn's listeners were three Protestant chaplains so incensed by the prejudice voiced by their colleagues that they boycotted their own service to attend Gittelsohn's. One of them borrowed the manuscript and, unknown to Gittelsohn, circulated several thousand copies to his regiment. Some Marines enclosed the copies in letters to their families. An avalanche of coverage resulted. Time magazine published excerpts, which wire services spread even further. The entire sermon was inserted into the Congressional Record, the Army released the eulogy for short-wave broadcast to American troops throughout the world and radio commentator Robert St. John read it on his program and on many succeeding Memorial Days.

In 1995, in his last major public appearance before his death, Gittelsohn reread a portion of the eulogy at the 50th commemoration ceremony at the Iwo Jima flag-raising monument in Washington, D.C.. In his autobiography, Gittelsohn reflected, "I have often wondered whether anyone would ever have heard of my Iwo Jima sermon had it not been for the bigoted attempt to ban it."

Wednesday, November 14, 2007


Sharon Keller is being villified by the media, both in the United States and abroad. She has been condemned by hundreds of lawyers, some demanding that she should lose her job. A "grieving widow" has sued her for causing the death of a beloved husband.

Who is Sharon Keller? What crime did she commit? You would think that she is a cold-blooded serial killer, what with all the scorn being heaped upon her. Well, Keller is the Presiding Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, that state's highest appellate court for criminal cases. The Houston Chronicle, in an editorial, has accused her of "outrageous behavior" and called for the Commission on Judicial Conduct to take "strong action to sanciton Judge Keller for her reckless abuse of the legal system."

On September 25, 2007, Judge Keller refused to keep the court clerk's office open past the regular 5 PM closing time. That prevented the attorneys for death row inmate Michael Richard from filing a last-minute appeal to stop his execution which was scheduled for 6 PM that evening. The execution was carried out, even though three of the court's nine judges had remained in the court to accept the appeal.

Richard's appeal would have requested a stay of execution until the U.S. Supreme Court rules next summer on a Kentucky case which claims that lethal injections cause the condemned excruciating pain, thereby constituting cruel and unusual punishment. Richard's excecution was this country's last because the Supreme Court and most states have halted executions, pending next summer's ruling.

All those - the media, sanctimonious lawyers, death penalty abolitionists, and assorted do-gooders - who are calling for Keller's scalp are screaming that Richard would still be alive had she kept the court clerk's office open past 5 PM. And then there is Marsha Richard, the late Michael's widow, one of many death row groupies across the country who decide to - God only knows why - marry an inmate convicted of murder and awaiting execution. The poor widow, who met and married her husband 15 years after his arrival on death row, is soothing her "grief" by filing a wrongful death suit against Judge Keller.

Of course, I realize that Richard would still be alive if Keller had not blocked his appeal. So, please pardon me while I get a hanky to wipe off the tears streaming down my cheeks. Completely overlooked in all the hoopla is the fact that Michael Richard has been sitting on death row for over 20 years after having been convicted and sentenced to death twice, not just once, for a brutal murder and rape.

In 1986, Michael Richard raped and fatally shot Marguerite Dixon, 53, a nurse and mother of seven, inside her home in Hockley, a small community ouside of Houston. After murdering Dixon, he took off with two TV sets and her van. Oh, by the way, he raped and murdered Dixon barely eight weeks after he had been released from a second prison term. With that knowledge, we can all now join Marsha, the grieving widow, in weeping over the tragedy of poor old Michael's early demise.

In blocking Richard's appeal, Sharon Keller is guilty only of failing to use her best judgement. Considering that this scumbag had been residing on death row over 20 years for bruattly raping and murdering an innocent victim, does she really deserve the villification being heaped upon her? Does she really deserve to be removed from office? My answer to both of those questions is a resounding "no". Come on, give Judge Keller a break!

Saturday, November 10, 2007


Someone semt me the following lines which, acording to, were falsely attributed to JayLeno. But, because they are substantially true, I have placed them in this blog.

"The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true, given the source, right? The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed, and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the President. In essence, 2/3's of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change. So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, what are we so unhappy about?

Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours aday, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job? Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at anytime, and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year.

Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state. Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter. I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all, and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital?

Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes , an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss.

This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers. How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.

Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S., yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.

I know, I know, what about the President who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The President who has a measly 31 percent approval rating. Is this the same President who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The President that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession. Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks? The Commander-In-Chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me.

Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad? Think about it...are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the 'Media' told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day?

Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a 'general' discharge, an 'other than honorable' discharge or, worst case scenario, a 'dishonorable' discharge after a few days in the brig.

So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want, but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds, it leads; and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells , and when criticized, try to defend their actions by 'justifying' them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write abook about 'how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this way'...Insane!

Stop buying the negativism you are fed every day by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country.

There is exponentially more good than bad. We are among the most blessed people on Earth, and should thank God several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative. With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end toanother, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?"


The other day I read an article in the Houston Chronicle about a demonstration by members of Border Watch and a simultaneous counter-demonstration by members of various organizations at a site for day laborers in a Houston suburb. What caught my eye was the presence among the counter-demonstators of a self-professed Marxist who is a social sciences professor at College of the Mainland (COM), a small community college about 50 miles south of Houston, the institution from which I retired in 1993.

Border Watch is an anti-illegal immigration vigilante organization. Its members patrol our border with Mexico and report the sighting of illegal border crossers to the Border Patrol. Its members also demonstrate at and surveil sites believed to be gathering places for illegal immigrants. Latinos and their anglo allies accuse Border Watch members of being a bunch of racists.

The day laborer site demonstration was just one of many that the COM Marxist has led or taken a leading role in. Over the years, he and his wife, an elementary school counselor, have participated in anti-war protests and in demonstrations supporting the causes of Palestinians and illegal immigrants. At the day laborer site, his wife used a megaphone to chant, "Racists! Fascists! Hey, hey, Border Watch go away!"

Of course, the professor and his wife have every right to organize and participate in any excercises of free speech. And as they have done many times, they have the right to sponsor protests by the International Socialist Organization, a communist-front group. He and his wife also exercised their rights in founding the Progressive Workers Organizing Committee, their very own Marxist-front group. But what this Marxist and his ilk do in the classrooms of our colleges and universities is an entirely different matter.

COM, located in the union stronghold of Texas City, has long been dominated by a small, but very influential group of avowed Marxists. How did it become possible for three Marxist professors to dominate the administration of the college? For starters, they had a good number of sympathizers among the college's liberal faculty and staff. But, the clincher was their ability to get local labor leaders and black community leaders to support their choice of candidates seeking election to the COM Board of Trustees.

Marxist academics, whether at COM or at any other institution of higher learning, all aim for THE OVERTHROW OF CAPITALISM AND THE UNDERMINING OF OUR GOVERNMENT. They have wormed their way onto the faculties of almost every college and university, small and large. They have infested the History, English and Government courses required of ALL students seeking a degree, as well as Sociology, Economics, Psychology and other courses required for many degrees. Thus, they are given a highly impressionable captive audience for their anti-capitalist and anti-American drivel.

Marxist academics DO NOT EDUCATE - THEY ATTEMPT TO BRAINWASH AND INDOCTRINATE their students! They advocate replacing capitalism with socialism, a more acceptable term than communism. Their students are subjected to a constant drumbeat of anti-Americanism and the ususal Marxist claptrap - America starts wars to enrich the oil companies and other multi-national corporations; America exploits its workers and oppresses the masses.

Marxist professors will not pledge allegiance to our country. They teach that America is an imperialist and terrorist state which, in concert with Israel, has killed MILLIONS of innocent civilians in the Middle East; our government's foreign policy is to blame for the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center; suicide bombers are "freedom fighters", not terrorists; our government is controlled by the Israeli lobby; the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki AFTER Japan had already indicated it was ready to surrender; minority prison inmates are victims of our racist society; etc., etc..

Marxist professors are very clever tacticians. At the beginning of each semester, they will start out by seducing new students with oozing charm. They will cite only authorities who support their pro-Marxism and anti-Americanism to the exclusion of authorities who take opposing viewpoints. They will invite their students to debate them, but those students brave enougnh to challenge their views are put down resoundingly in front of their classmates.

In presenting only one side on controversial issues to the exclusion of opposite views, the Marxists are being intellectually dishonest and deceitful. How do they get away with that? They have the support of their seduced students. They hide behind the misunderstood and misapplied Principles of Academic Freedom, thereby obtaining the strong support of liberal colleagues. They denounce any faculty members who dare to criticize them as fascists and Nazis.

By yelling "academic freedom" they deflect any attempts to bring them to account. By invoking academic freedom they are able to hoodwink other faculty members into supporting them, thereby preventing the administration from taking any action against them since that would probably lead to a faculty revolt. So, in effect our colleges and universities are harboring a fifth column which is intent on undermining our government, replacing capitalism with communism, and destroying the pride and patriotism that students should have as Americans.

The Principles of Academic Freedom were designed to encourage scholars to search for the truth, and as such, protect a faculty member from vindictive reprisals for expressing an unpopular opinion. However, the document which established these principles specifically PROHIBITS THE FURTHERANCE OF A TEACHER'S PERSONAL AGENDA. The principles also include special obligations which require that teachers must at all times be accurate and exercise appropriate restraint.

Academic freedom does not permit professors to resort to half-truths, inaccuracies, distortions and the deliberate omission of opposing facts in their classroom presentations, techniques commonly used by Marxist academics. Academic freedom does not permit intellectual dishonesty and deceit, nor does it permit the brainwashing and indoctrination of students.

Whenever any competent professor, his personal ideology notwithstanding, abides by the dictates of the Principles of Academic Freedom, those principles should protect him from vindictive attempts to jeopardize his teaching position. What the Marxist professor from College of the Mainland and any other Marxist academic does off-campus in a non-teaching activity should be of no concern to a college administration, as long as any such activity is not unlawful. However, when any professor uses the classroom to further a Marxist agenda, he is violating the very principles which were designed to protect teachers from administrative reprisals.

Attempts by Marxist academics to brainwash and indoctrinate students should not be tolerated. Such teaching practices threaten our country's security and clearly violate the Principles of Academic Freedom, thus constituting solid grounds for termination of employment. However, school administrators have either failed to study the document estalishing the Principles of Academic Freedom or have intentionally ignored the prohibitions and obligations spelled out in that document. As a result, colleges and universities have long been sanctuaries for a fifth column bent on destroying this nation.

Saturday, November 03, 2007


My mailbox receives a lot of good jokes and every so often, I get one that is really priceless. So, for a good laugh, I am taking the liberty of blogging what to me was one of the funniest jokes I've ever received.

A wife came home early and found her husband in their bedroom making love to a very attractive young woman. Furious with him, she shouted, "You are a disrepectful pig. How dare you do this to me - - a faithful wife, the mother of your children! I'm leaving you. I want a divorce straight away!"

And the husband replied, "Hang on just a minute love, so at least I can tell you what happened." "Fine, go ahead," she sobbed, "but they'll be the last words you'll say to me!"

The husband began, "Well, I was getting into the car to drive home and this yougng lady here asked me for a lift. She looked so down and out and defenseless that I took pity on her and let her into the car. I noticed that she was very thin, not well dressed and very dirty. She told me that she hadn't eaten for three days. So, in my compassion, I brought her home and warmed up the enchiladas I made for you last night, the ones you wouldn't eat because you're afraid you'll put on weight. The poor thing devoured them in moments. Since she needed a good clean-up, I suggested a shower. And while she was doing that, I noticed her clothes were dirty and full of holes. So I threw them away. Then, as she needed clothes, I gave her the designer jeans that you have had for a few years, but don't use because you say they are too tight. I also let her have the sexy underwear I gave you as an anniversary present, which you don't use because you say they are in bad taste. I found the blouse my sister gave you for Christmas that you don't use just to annoy her, and I also gave this poor girl those boots you bought at that expensive boutique and don't use because someone at work has a pair just like them."

The husband took a quick breath and continued. "She was very grateful for my understanding and help. As I walked her to the door she turned to me with tears in her eyes and asked, 'Please . . . do you have anything else that your wife doesn't use?' "

WARNING: If you did not get a good laugh out of this, contact a shrink right away! You may be in need of some serious therapy.


Oh my God, look at what those in charge of the U.S. State Department have done! Did they piss-off Russia or China? No. Did they open direct diplomatic talks with the leaders of Iran and Syria? No. What they did was to piss-off hundreds of their own diplomats and other foreign service workers.

The State Department, which is nicknamed "foggy bottom", could not find enough volunteers among its employees to fill all the positions it needed to concuct its business in Iraq. So, it made the decision to force some of its diplomats and other foreign service officers to work at our embassy in Baghdad and on reconstruction teams in Iraq's outlying provinces.

When they heard of the decision, many of the foggy bottomers howled like stuck pigs. At a town hall meeting called to protest forced assignments, one of them alleged that the highly protected green zone in Baghdad was subjected to daily incoming fire and many agreed that assigning them to Iraq would be the equivalent of a "potential death sentence."

Having studied history in college, applicants for the foreign service had to know from the get-go that they could be assigned to work in dangerous places. During the Vietnam War, Saigon was a very dangerous place to work. In 1979, our embassy staff in Iran was seized by Islamists and held hostage for 444 days. In the early 1980s, Beirut, Lebanon was a dangerous place for Americans. All through the 1980s, Nicaragua, Honduras amd Guatemala were high risk areas for our foreign service workers.

Employers cannot afford the luxury of allowing their employees to dictate work assignments. Most teachers, if given the choice, would refuse to teach in any rough and tumble ghetto schools. Some veteran police officers may want to work only in safe high income-low crime neighborhoods and, if given the choice, would refuse to patrol dangerous low income-high crime areas.

The protesting foggy bottomers remind me of the soldiers who complained about getting sent to Iraq because they only joined the army to obtain educational benefits, not to risk their lives by fighting in a war. The bottom line is that many of our foreign service workers are scared shitless at the prospect of being assigned to work in Iraq.

It is very hard to fire any federal employee. However, refusal of an assignment would appear to constitute grounds for dismissal. State Department employees that refuse to accept an assignment in Iraq are nothing but a bunch of gutless parasites on the public payroll who should be terminated forthwith.